Commander Philosophy - When Does Tutoring Go Too Far?

Diabolic Tutor | Art by Greg Staples

Does your artifact deck infinitely loop with Scrap Trawler somehow? Do you plan on locking your opponents out of the game with a Knowledge Pool combo? Are you running multiple effects like Merchant Scroll or Finale of Devastation? Chances are, your deck is not meant for Brackets 1-2.

These effects and playstyles are viewed as promoting too competitive or too unsocial of an environment for players who just want to run decks like their Shadowfax, Lord of Horses Horse typal deck. Unlike Game Changers, these effects and playstyles are more open ended and require players to openly discuss what their deck intends on doing and determining if their deck is appropriately matched.

The Bracket system currently lists two-card infinite combos, extra turns, mass land denial, and tutors (for things other than lands) as additional categories that should be primarily restricted for Brackets 3-5. Brackets 1-2 are more socially focused and should not be home to decks that support cards like Blood Moon or Lighthouse Chronologist.

A deck's intentions are the key concept here, and players must make an earnest attempt to understand and clearly announce what it is their decks intend to do. But Brackets are still meant to be a tool used by all players, new and old. There's plenty to discuss dealing with the Brackets themselves and how players should build decks first and then consider the deck's power, but for now a more poignant topic surrounds the Brackets categories.

How should a new player be expected to know that their Aesi, Tyrant of Gyre Strait and all of its land-tutoring effects are too much for Bracket 2, despite the tutor category not including searching for lands... despite Crop Rotation being a Game Changer? Admittedly, Aesi may be a Game Changer on its own, but the same problem remains for similar commanders like Azusa, Lost but Seeking and Tatyova, Benthic Druid.

What is considered a tutor, or a two-card infinite combo, or mass land denial, or chaining extra turns? What separates these categories from Game Changers? There's plenty to discuss, so let's begin with what I believe to be the most disconcerting of these problems: tutors.

When Fetching Is More Than Just Fetching

Searching for lands through effects like Evolving Wilds or Prismatic Vista are the clear reason why the tutor category excludes searching for lands. A player that resolves Cultivate is colloquially tutoring, yes, but Verhey explicitly states that the tutor category does not include searching your library for lands.

If the category were to include searching for lands, then every precon running Cultivate, Nature's Lore, and Burnished Hart would categorically be shifted to Bracket 3. Even cards like Deathsprout and Knight of the White Orchid would be caught under this very vague interpretation.

A distinction between Fabled Passage and Demonic Tutor clearly needs to exist. Fetching is undeniably tutoring, but categories are not as rigid as Magic rules. Players can distinguish a Windswept Heath fetching a Godless Shrine at any point in a game and a turn one Vampiric Tutor tutoring for, say, a Sol Ring or Dark Ritual.

So... how do players do this? At the moment, the concept of fetching lands needs to be separated from what are traditionally powerful tutors (pick any of the Game Changing tutors) and from effects like Scapeshift. A player may construct a Bracket 2 deck that "contains few tutors," but should Bracket 2 decks be allowed unrestricted access when tutoring for lands?

Evidently not. Crop Rotation is listed as a Game Changer at the moment for being a strong one-mana tutor, as strong one-mana tutors are categorically listed as Game Changers. Despite the vague rationale for Crop Rotation's status change, it's reasonable to conclude that tutoring for lands is considered incongruent with Bracket 2 when doing so is particularly influential.

Crop Rotation is stronger than a Cultivate or Harrow as a player may tutor at instant speed for any land that they desire, immediately placing it onto the battlefield. Players running Crop Rotation do so with the intent of running utility lands such as Talon Gates of Madara, Dark Depths, or Ugin's Labyrinth, if not running additional Game Changers like Glacial Chasm or Field of the Dead.

Similar to Thassa's Oracle being a Game Changer due to how it's played, Crop Rotation is fine when on its own, searching for lands like Command Tower and the occasional Maze's End. The problems arise when players run Crop Rotation intending to play it as an extremely versatile piece of interaction. Green is already capable of doing so much all at once, arguably surpassing some other colors' primary effects such as card draw or life gain.

Crop Rotation's Game Changer status is evidence that not all land fetches are equal - the tutor category should allow "precon safe" fetches like Kodama's Reach while deterring more powerful effects like Scapeshift. The category must either determine what is the maximum power a land tutor can possess or it must limit the number of tutors a deck can contain, regardless of what's being tutored for.

Bracket 2 Defines What Tutoring for Lands Looks Like

Determining what is "precon safe" for Bracket 2 is a fine starting point for answering some questions. Yes, it's not enough to set Commander precons as the only comparison for Bracket 2's power level, but that's not what's we're doing here. Bracket 2 should not be comfortable with decks that seek to exploit circumstances that fall under the four categories.

However, it seems that land-based strategies can work around these categories with few reservations. Take, for example, Aesi, Tyrant of Gyre Strait's precon. In addition to running traditionally powerful landfall hallmarks like Avenger of Zendikar and Rampaging Baloths, Aesi also runs engine pieces like Kodama of the East Tree, which notably goes infinite with Meloku the Clouded Mirror and [e]Simic Growth Chamber[/el] straight out of the box.

Despite being a precon, I would happily argue that this is not appropriate for Bracket 2. Aesi's and equally powerful commanders' problems start with the deck's inherent power and continue to multiply the moment a player decides to take out the precon's chaff like Verdant Sun's Avatar and Fact or Fiction to put in exploited bombs like Lotus Cobra and Roil Elemental.

What's necessary to realize is that a Bracket 2 deck should not be so loose with the four categories. In fact, as though Crop Rotation isn't enough evidence, tutoring for lands has already been proven as problematic a decade before the Brackets’ conception; Primeval Titan was banned in 2012 specifically for this reason.

Prime Time’s banning was in part due to it being extremely prevalent and meta warping, but what's important for this discussion is the card itself. Imagine if you were playing a precon/Bracket 2 deck, a really good one even, say Ulalek, Fused Atrocity, but your opponent was playing a lands matter deck and just resolved Primeval Titan ahead of curve (it’s a green deck; it will ramp well ahead of its curve, especially in a lands matters setting).

At face value, a Primeval Titan on turn four or five is superior to your Hedron Archive and Thran Dynamo, as it brings three meaningful permanents directly into play, increasing the distance between its controller and their opponents. Not to mention Primeval Titan being allowed to survive and attack, further driving the game in its controller's favor.

And that’s only if the controller searches for two basics which, let’s be real; someone running Primeval Titan is searching for lands much more impactful than just basics. Game Changers aside, players would be promoted to run lands like Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, Cabal Coffers, and Dark Depths.

These lands aren't meant to be accessible and exploited in Brackets 1-2 so quickly, but are allowed when the Brackets and their categories are so loosely restrictive with players' access to tutors. The problem with these cards in Brackets 1-2 arises when strong cards are able to be exploited prematurely, which is the case when the tutors category doesn't adequately account for tutoring for lands.

To Be a Bracket 2 Is to Be a Tourist

I currently pilot an Aesi landfall deck that is "legally" a Bracket 3, but is more comfortable in Bracket 4. If, however, I had the desire to "legally" play Aesi in Bracket 2, all I need to do in order to lower its “objective” power would be to remove its Game Changers like Cyclonic Rift, Rhystic Study, and Glacial Chasm.

For the sake of this argument, I would also not replace them with lands like Nykthos, despite having ample reason to do so. I would further exclude cards like Scute Swarm or Kodama of the East Tree due to the high chance of these individual cards running away with the game (perhaps because they Changed the Game…).

After removing all of these Game Changers and “Game Changers,” I'm still left with a deck I'd be uncomfortable playing in Brackets 1-2. The deck would still remain leagues ahead of the competition through its sheer dominance over mana production and its quick access to high curve spells like Nezahal, Primal Tide and Avenger of Zendikar.

I could in theory replace the largest spells by further restricting the deck's power, perhaps running mostly commons and uncommons to limit my raw power and reduce the deck's synergy, but it would still prove to be too much.

This "watered down" Aesi (get it? cause Aesi is a Serpent? I'll "sea" myself out now) would always be faster and therefore more threatening than any of the opposition in Brackets 2. The deck can't prevent itself from immediately popping off and racing to the destination instead of enjoying the journey that Bracket 2 emphasizes.

Common Sense Isn't Always Common

I'm very confident in saying that I would never find myself in this fail state. Aesi will never be given the chance to dominate a new player’s Bracket 2 deck. But that's because I have years of experience playing Commander to guide my decision. Can this expectation be applied to newer players? How can they know that running Burgeoning in a deck containing very potent landfall affects and ~50 lands is pushing the limits of Bracket 2?

After about a decade of playing Magic, I've learned that the best Magic games are when my opponents play their best against me. Are you trying to find what is the biggest threat? I'll direct you towards my commander as a valuable target. Trying to Counterspell something scary? I should inform you that you should not counter my Recruiter of the Guard, but rather the Grand Abolisher that I plan on tutoring.

But such experience isn't a common commodity and can't be expected to be available or used by the majority of players. Hell, this lack of self-regulation is why a power-scaling system is required in the first place. The previous system lived and died at the hands of players preaching "it's just a 7" and proceeding to slam Slivers or stax or mass land denial against... well, an actual level 7 deck.

I can't provide a definitive answer as to how best to guide the Bracket subcategories, but I recognize the problem to be severe enough to call for the categories, especially tutors, to be amended to reflect this concern.

New players using the Brackets in best faith should be taught that the tutors category can include lands. Even weaker examples of potent land-tutoring like Kamahl's Druidic Vow should warrant closer scrutiny when exploited in land-centric decks. Not all land tutors are equal and shouldn't be categorized as such.

It should be clear that this concept can be expanded to the other categories. Do two-card infinite combos include win conditions within the two cards? Does chaining extra turns include effects like Unwinding Clock? Should mass land denial include effects like Manabarbs?

Ultimately, these questions should be shared with whoever you're playing against. There's no cut and dry response that acts as a “one size fits all.” But these questions should be accounted for in the Bracket system.

A group of strangers, especially when a new player is present, should not be expected to defer to the rigid text of “Tutors do not include searching for lands” or “Two-Card Infinite Combos do not include three-card infinite combos.” Intent is a cornerstone to the Bracket system, but this foundation needs to balance an experienced player's knowledge of exploiting cards and a newer player's naivete towards the raw strength of their deck.

But what do you think? Do you think that the Bracket system’s categories are fine on their own? Do you believe that something is missing? There's plenty left on the table and I have every intention of discussing Brackets further. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!