<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Laboratory Maniac" href="#" target="_blank">Laboratory Maniac</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://www.jasonfelix.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jason Felix</a></em></p>
<p>The <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/introducing-the-commander-format-panel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Commander Format Panel (CFP)</a> describes 2-Card Combos (TCCs) as two cards that can outright end the game, lock out opponents from playing the game, or are simply two cards that can go infinite. The intention is to bar lower Brackets from clear warping experiences like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Thassa&#039;s Oracle" href="#" target="_blank">Thassa&#039;s Oracle</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Underworld Breach" href="#" target="_blank">Underworld Breach</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>.</p>
<p>In addition to <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/edhrec-guide-to-commander-brackets" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bracket expectations</a>, <a href="https://edhrec.com/top/game-changers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Game Changers</a>, Chaining Extra Turns, and Mass Land Denial, TCCs are aimed to better quantify just how much power is feasible in the lower Brackets. This way the Game Changer list doesn't need to include hundreds of cards and can instead focus on only the most egregious of cards and exploits.</p>
<p>But what makes something a TCC? Should all TCCs be treated equally? What about non-infinite 2-card combos?</p>
<p>We can touch upon a lot of nuances found in the TCC sub category, so let's start by defining out terms before moving on.</p>
<h2>What Do TCCs Look Like?</h2>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Basalt Monolith"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Forsaken Monument"></div></div>
<p>TCCs include any two cards that can end the game, lock players out, or go infinite. These combos can range from anything where two cards can kill three opponents in the same turn, such as <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Scourge of the Skyclaves" href="#" target="_blank">Scourge of the Skyclaves</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Wound Reflection" href="#" target="_blank">Wound Reflection</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, preventing your opponents from playing the game through locks like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Lavinia, Azorius Renegade" href="#" target="_blank">Lavinia, Azorius Renegade</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Knowledge Pool" href="#" target="_blank">Knowledge Pool</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, or generating infinite instances of resources, damage, card draw, etc.</p>
<p>Generally, TCCs involve two cards that disproportionally push a game far into one player's favor while ending the game sooner than the pod anticipated. While decks ought not to be built to end a game at these designated times per se, Brackets state that players should expect Bracket 1-3 games to end at turns nine, eight, and six, respectively.</p>
<p>TCCs most often shatter player expectations by ending a game much sooner than the anticipated turn count Brackets suggest.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Chain of Smog"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Professor Onyx"></div></div>
<p>Additionally, it's not enough for players to sandbag their TCCs until the suggested turn limit and win the game unannounced. Lower Bracket games are meant to be played gradually with players telegraphing their advantages and game plans. This is to say that throwing down your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Niv-Mizzet, Parun" href="#" target="_blank">Niv-Mizzet, Parun</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Niv-Mizzet, Visionary" href="#" target="_blank">Niv-Mizzet, Visionary</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> on turn nine in your Bracket 2 <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Arjun, the Shifting Flame" href="#" target="_blank">Arjun, the Shifting Flame</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> deck isn't something your opponents should naturally expect.</p>
<p>The aforementioned TCCs are clear examples of two cards exploiting one another sufficiently to warp a game too dramatically for a lower Bracket experience. Brackets 1-3 aim to exclude interactions that end a game prematurely, out of nowhere, or are deemed too "unfun."</p>
<p>However, not all TCCs are equal. While some can wholly end a game on their own in a vacuum, what are we to do about TCCs that require additional steps, if not additional cards?</p>
<h2>Sometimes, TCCs Aren’t Just Two Cards</h2>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Exquisite Blood"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Sanguine Bond"></div></div>
<p>A good example to start with is the popular <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Exquisite Blood" href="#" target="_blank">Exquisite Blood</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sanguine Bond" href="#" target="_blank">Sanguine Bond</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> combo. With just two cards, the next instance of an opponent losing life or the combo's controller gaining life will end the game effectively immediately. And yet, despite the combo's notoriety, the two cards on their own don't actively contribute to ending a game.</p>
<p>The combo isn't complete until someone triggers either enchantment. Until then, there's still a Bracket 1-3 game to be had as long as the conditions aren't met.</p>
<p>I'll argue that this is still a TCC in spirit despite this due to the prerequisites being so simple to accomplish, as I'm sure many would also agree. The takeaway is that there seems to be the possibility of a TCC requiring sufficient prerequisites as to allow a TCC into Brackets 1-3 (specifically for non-thematic reasons in Bracket 1).</p>
<p>Take for example <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Hellkite Charger" href="#" target="_blank">Hellkite Charger</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>. Let's assume you had a source like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Bear Umbra" href="#" target="_blank">Bear Umbra</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> that could repeatedly generate the <span class="mana-container-container"><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-5" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-r" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-r" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span></span> necessary to indefinitely activate the Charger's triggered ability and gain an indefinite number of combats. In this case, your TCC requires around an additional seven lands to be considered a combo at all.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Approach of the Second Sun"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Reprieve"></div></div>
<p>The same thing happens if we replace Bear Umbra with a creature like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Old Gnawbone" href="#" target="_blank">Old Gnawbone</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, as now a minimum of seven damage <em>and</em> seven usable Treasures are required. One <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Blind Obedience" href="#" target="_blank">Blind Obedience</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Karn, the Great Creator" href="#" target="_blank">Karn, the Great Creator</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> stops this combo in its tracks.</p>
<p>An important factor to note is that this combo isn't technically an infinite combo in either case as the TCC is limited by your opponents' life totals and whether or not their battlefields - whether through stax pieces previously mentioned or a wall of blockers - can either prevent or enable infinite combats.</p>
<p><em>Technically</em> speaking, it's possible for this TCC to not be infinite and to not end the game in a single turn, thus skirting the conditions to be categorized a TCC. Despite this, I'll agree that this still should be considered a TCC and thus excluded from lower Bracket games.</p>
<p>More examples can be found, but eventually we'll discover some combo that requires an amount of prerequisites that are so demanding or so numerous that they would water the combo down to the lower Brackets' power level.</p>
<p>Take <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Scute Swarm" href="#" target="_blank">Scute Swarm</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, for example. The only thing really limiting these ecological terrorists are how many lands you can play in a single turn.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Priest of Titania"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Staff of Domination"></div></div>
<p>Theoretically, you could construct a TCC with <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Kodama of the East Tree" href="#" target="_blank">Kodama of the East Tree</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and the Swarm with the prerequisite that you play a bounce land like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Simic Growth Chamber" href="#" target="_blank">Simic Growth Chamber</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> as your land for turn with the two creatures under your control, then returning the Chamber to your hand before Kodama's triggered ability resolves from the Swarm creating a token.</p>
<p>With the additional prerequisite of being able to grant your Swarm haste, perhaps through a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Concordant Crossroads" href="#" target="_blank">Concordant Crossroads</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, you're able to end the game with what we'll consider a TCC* on turn six, a fairly reasonable expectation for Bracket 3.</p>
<h2>Prerequisites Are to TCCs as Brackets Are to Commander</h2>
<p>We've previously talked about <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">playing combos in the lower Brackets</a>, but what we didn't focus on in that discussion was whether TCCs can also fit into lower Bracket experiences. I believe that we can use a combo's prerequisites as a means to limit a combo's warping effect similar to how Brackets are used to tailor the desired Commander experience between a pod.</p>
<p>What if, in order to create a TCC* that can end the game on the spot with an infinite amount of mana, we needed <em>seventeen mana</em> to do so. Let's look at <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Cogwork Assembler" href="#" target="_blank">Cogwork Assembler</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Powerstone Shard" href="#" target="_blank">Powerstone Shard</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>. In order for the Shard to tap for seven mana and thus allow us to infinitely activate the Assembler and generate infinite copies of any artifact creature with haste + infinite <span class="mana-container-container"><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-c" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span></span>, we'll need to create six copies of the Shard to do so.</p>
<p>If we wanted to do so all at once, we'd need access to seventeen mana before copying Powerstone Shard. With seventeen mana, I believe that most players will anticipate game-ending moves to be made. Very little is unachievable with seventeen mana.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Hushwing Gryff"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Wormfang Manta"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Athreos, Shroud-Veiled"></div></div>
<p>Now, what if we had the means of gradually producing permanent copies of Powerstone Shard over multiple turns, perhaps with <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Mechanized Production" href="#" target="_blank">Mechanized Production</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, only this time we resolve Cogwork Assembler the turn we intend to win? Wouldn't this be sandbagging and go against telegraphing our plays, thus "wining out of nowhere" and going against lower Bracket intentions?</p>
<p>I'd argue that it <em>was</em> telegraphed. We've proven to be able to generate permanent copies of whatever artifact we please and have done so over multiple turns, allowing our opponents many opportunities to stop us from doing so. If they can't win against an opponent generating, say, one additional <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Metalwork Colossus" href="#" target="_blank">Metalwork Colossus</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> a turn, that's not on us.</p>
<p>They've been more than able to deal with our source of generating Powerstone Shard copies up to this point, and arguably <em>should</em> have by now. Especially if our source of copying is Mechanized Production, a <em>very</em> telegraphed victory condition.</p>
<p>This is but one example. Innumerable instances of TCCs requiring an already game-winning amount of influence can be presented and arguably justified to be allowed into the lower Brackets.</p>
<h2>Ask Not if You Can, but if You Should</h2>
<p>The one argument that stands against a TCC* in lower Brackets is the hard rule that players who don't want to engage with TCCs in any form should have the opportunity to do so. This is a foundational tenet of the Brackets that players ought to have a space safe from the saltier or grindier sides of Commander.</p>
<p>This safe space must remain. Despite the arguments we've discussed thus far, if someone remains apprehensive to playing with or against TCCs in any form, they ought to be granted such an environment that fosters this experience.</p>
<p>As is always the case, this remains a Rule Zero discussion. Does your group mind if your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord" href="#" target="_blank">Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is capable of nuking the table with an attacking <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jumbo Cactuar" href="#" target="_blank">Jumbo Cactuar</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>? Is everyone fine with expecting your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar" href="#" target="_blank">Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> partner deck to be capable of infecting everyone with instances like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Tainted Strike" href="#" target="_blank">Tainted Strike</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>?</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Maze&#039;s End"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Reshape the Earth"></div></div>
<p>We can argue that TCCs and TCCs* ought to be accessible in all Brackets to an extent, but at the end of the day this discussion must be shared with our three opponents. The CFP may govern Commander with our best interests in mind, but they only offer guidance and leave it to us to cultivate our preferred play experiences.</p>
<p>But what do <em>you</em> think? How do you feel about playing with prerequisite-heavy-TCCs in lower Brackets? What are your thoughts on TCCs expanding beyond just two cards? Do you think this interpretation of TCCs can promote more enjoyable games?</p>
<p>I hope this article is helpful in exploring what TCCs can look like and how to play them differently. Find me on BlueSky at <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/ajwicker4.bsky.social">@ajwicker4.bsky.social</a>, I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are.</p>
<p>Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more <em>Commander Philosophy!</em></p>


Commander Philosophy — 2-Card Combos in Lower Brackets

<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Vexing Shusher" href="#" target="_blank">Vexing Shusher</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://www.deviantart.com/tegehel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cyril Van Der Haegen</a></em></p>
<p>Commander is known for the biggest and splashiest plays <em>Magic</em> is capable of. Nowhere else are players able to build the ultimate glass cannon and politic everyone into watching the fireworks. However, for players who seek to focus more on the winning portion of their game night, it's not so easy to convince everyone to ignore your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Aetherflux Reservoir" href="#" target="_blank">Aetherflux Reservoir</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> until you're able to storm your way into victory.</p>
<p>You've got to play it cool, or in other words present yourself less threateningly. You've got three opponents that can either draw the table's attention away from you or direct it all back at you. It all depends on how well you can manage what noise you're making.</p>
<h2>The Cool Rockstar</h2>
<p>For this discussion, let's say that performing a game action, whether it be in-game or political, generates some amount of "noise." Some actions are louder than others, like resolving a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jodah, the Unifier" href="#" target="_blank">Jodah, the Unifier</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> with open mana (assumedly to cast another legend). Some actions are quieter, such as resolving an <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Arcane Signet" href="#" target="_blank">Arcane Signet</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> turn three.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Solemn Simulacrum"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Treasonous Ogre"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Laboratory Maniac"></div></div>
<p>The louder the action, the more attention it draws. This isn't to say that all loud actions are problematic—attempting to resolve a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Toxic Deluge" href="#" target="_blank">Toxic Deluge</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> to sweep the token player(s) can be an action you may want your opponents to remember.</p>
<p>Rather, this is another variable worth consideration when determining your next course of action. If you make too much noise that draws too much unwanted attention, your opponents are going to react and interact with your board state in undesirable ways (perhaps by resolving their own Toxic Deluge).</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you make too little noise, you'll get drowned out from all of the noise your opponents are generating and be left behind as they close the game out.</p>
<p>Maybe they'll see that you've dumped your hand all at once and are threatening to knock out at least one of them, or maybe they'll band together after they agree that all of those triggers from your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Risen Reef" href="#" target="_blank">Risen Reef</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> have generated too much value and start dedicating the whole round of turns to slowing you down.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Risen Reef"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Ruinous Ultimatum"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Champion of Lambholt"></div></div>
<p>Whether you're trying to resolve a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Ruinous Ultimatum" href="#" target="_blank">Ruinous Ultimatum</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or draw half your deck searching for your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Champion of Lambholt" href="#" target="_blank">Champion of Lambholt</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, each action adds to your turns cumulative noise level. It's up to you to recognize when is the most opportune moment to turn up the volume and reveal that you were the threat all along.</p>
<p>There are numerous ways of determining your noise level and your opponents', so let's explore which ways can work best for you.</p>
<h2>The Listening Step</h2>
<p>The easiest way to determine whether you're generating too much noise is first recognizing how your opponents view your deck. What are they saying about it? Do they focus their attention towards you regardless of your standing in-game?</p>
<p>When playing with established groups, it's pretty clear how your opponents view your deck. Their playstyles are known quantities to you and as such make it obvious when they're aiming for a particular goal, if they don't just tell you outright ("That Commander deck is scary, I never allow it to do X").</p>
<p>For playing outside of established groups, it's a bit harder to read your opponents on the fly, but it's still fairly easy to recognize when a loud noise has caught their attention. Everyone will most likely be wary of anyone's <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Urza, Lord High Artificer" href="#" target="_blank">Urza, Lord High Artificer</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> deck regardless of how much its pilot claims it's not "that deck."</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Jodah, Archmage Eternal"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Kaalia of the Vast"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Magda, Brazen Outlaw"></div></div>
<p>This concept of noise generation is a pretty subjective scale, dependent on what both you and your opponents consider noisy. If your opponents view your Urza deck to be worth paying close attention to regardless of the deck's actual power level, then it's going to be a noisy deck for that game. In another pod that fully believes it's not "that kind of Urza deck," it'll be a much quieter deck for that game.</p>
<p>How loud do you feel when piloting your deck? Do you feel like everyone is watching your every move, listening for the right opportunity to strike? If you feel like you need to convince your opponents to allow you to perform just about every game action, there's a good chance you're being pretty noisy even if that's not your intention. Again, that's not inherently bad, just something to consider.</p>
<h2>The Sound of Silence</h2>
<p>Ok, so being noisy is something that can change from game to game and is dependent on who you're playing with and what deck you're running. How could this be useful?</p>
<p>Ultimately, if you feel like you're the center of attention in a game too often, this is where the analogy of "playing it cool" resides. Instead of "doing the thing" too soon or being too noisy at the wrong time, let your opponents make these mistakes first.</p>
<p>They'll inevitably try to end the game on their own and cause you and your two other opponents to try and stop them. One way or another, one of your opponents will seek to be the splashy Commander player at some point. <em>This</em> is the noise limit you should seek to approach.</p>
<p>As long as you're not as loud as this particular opponent, the attention drawn towards your board state will be secondary to the collective effort to stop the leading opponent from winning. This is a balance, something that needs to be actively maintained turn after turn.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Altar of the Brood"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Impact Tremors"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx"></div></div>
<p>If you don't match the leading opponent's noise generation (i.e., becoming a threat) appropriately, then one of your other opponents will be able to capitalize off of the "recovery phase" once the leading opponent is dealt with. This is where your balancing act is found. You mustn't be as noisy as the leading opponent, but at the same time be ahead of your other opponents so that you can close out the game with limited resistance.</p>
<p>Similarly, you can politic your opponents into generating excessive noise with amnesty for when you generate your noise, thus putting a larger target on their back while minimizing the risk you assume when closing out the game.</p>
<p>You could let your opponent swing their buffed <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Angel of Destiny" href="#" target="_blank">Angel of Destiny</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> at you so that you both gain a good chunk of life, but in return they're going to allow your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Walk-In Closet // Forgotten Cellar" href="#" target="_blank">Walk-In Closet</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> to stick around. Once your other opponents are fed up with the Angel player threatening lethal and deal with them, you have a prime opportunity to capitalize off of your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Walk-In Closet // Forgotten Cellar" href="#" target="_blank">Forgotten Cellar</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> that sees a graveyard full of end-game goodies to exploit.</p>
<p>Again, being too noisy is largely dependent on the game at hand. It may be better to let two or even all of your opponents attempt to do their thing and have a slugfest that expends their interaction before you swoop in at the end and claim victory.</p>
<h2>Hearing Is Believing</h2>
<p>What I'm hoping this discussion has revealed are a few handy ways of determining who's the threat, who's everyone's pointing their interaction at, and when's the most opportune time to try to win.</p>
<p>I believe that this noise analogy works best the more competitive games get. The more social the setting, the less players are likely to try and win the game. The less inclined players are to win a game, the less important threat detection is. But these ideas can be practiced in any setting.</p>
<p>Interestingly, <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">as I mentioned in a previous article</a>, this analogy can be paired with the idea that the more casual an experience you'd like to play, the more removal you ought to be running. Just as more competitive decks should run more ways to win as opposed to literally anything else, more casual decks should seek to make as much noise as possible. Do the thing!</p>
<p>Go and see how many lands you can naturally play in a single turn, or try and see how many times your zombies can die and be resurrected. This is casual Commander after all; where else will you be able to be as splashy as can be?</p>
<p>Try building the noisiest deck you can think of and see what happens. Maybe you get hated out of the game too early, or maybe you learn that a single turn takes way too much time and/or effort to calculate, but those are experiences still worth learning from.</p>
<p>But what do <em>you</em> think? How do you feel about playing it cool? What are your thoughts on the idea of being too noisy? Do you think this analogy is helpful for threat assessment?</p>
<p>I hope this article is helpful in exploring threat assessment in multiplayer formats, and I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more <em>Commander Philosophy!</em></p>


The Art of Playing It Cool in Commander

<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Time Walk" href="#" target="_blank">Time Walk</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://www.rahnart.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chris Rahn</a></em></p>
<p>The <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-commander-brackets-update-for-october-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent update to the Commander Brackets</a> has everyone once again reevaluating the Brackets' qualities and what areas work best and which need the most attention. I mentioned in <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-the-brackets-have-updated-do-these-changes-help" target="_blank" rel="noopener">my last article</a> that I would continue discussing the most recent updates to the <a href="https://edhrec.com/top/game-changers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Game Changers list</a> and how its philosophy has been clarified/redefined, but that's a bigger discussion I'd like to let stew for a moment.</p>
<p>Today, we'll be exploring the sub-category of Chaining Extra Turns and what it aims to achieve. Most importantly, we'll look at what chaining extra turns can look like and how/where doing so is most appropriate.</p>
<h2>Why Chaining Extra Turns Isn't Desired</h2>
<p>Chaining extra turns isn't allowed in Brackets 1-3, as doing so is deemed exceptionally warping. It's additionally cumbersome when a player must play out each extra turn if their win isn't already guaranteed.</p>
<p>This traditionally includes decks that seek to play extra turn spells like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Expropriate" href="#" target="_blank">Expropriate</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Time Stretch" href="#" target="_blank">Time Stretch</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, often times copying these spells or recurring them in some fashion with <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Archaeomancer" href="#" target="_blank">Archaeomancer</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> effects.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Expropriate"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Time Stretch"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Archaeomancer"></div></div>
<p>These effects and playstyles are what's being restricted to the higher Brackets. It's considered unreasonable for a Bracket 2 playgroup to be expected to sit through the mono-blue deck playing solitaire for ~30 minutes of extra turns. Sometimes they may not even win, ending their extensive turn with "I discard to hand size and pass."</p>
<p>Players' experiences are especially valued in lower Bracket games, and so allowing one player to spend a large portion of a game night taking excessive game actions or "spinning their wheels" is something the Brackets wish to avoid.</p>
<p>This is somewhat similar to <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Yorion, Sky Nomad" href="#" target="_blank">Yorion, Sky Nomad</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/october-10-2022-banned-and-restricted-announcement" target="_blank" rel="noopener">being banned in Modern</a> for creating too many game actions while "factoring in the physical dexterity requirements" Yorion demanded. In both instances, the players' experience was valued over a card's/playstyle's representation in a format.</p>
<p>However, as is often the case with the Brackets and <em>Magic</em> as a whole, chaining extra turns isn't so cut and dry. While there are obvious examples of players exploiting cards like <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Ugin&#039;s Nexus" href="#" target="_blank">Ugin&#039;s Nexus</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> to gain literal extra turns, there's already precedent from the Commander Format Panel that not all extra turns are so obvious.</p>
<h2>Extra Turns, Proper and Functional</h2>
<p><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Seedborn Muse" href="#" target="_blank">Seedborn Muse</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> was one of the first cards to be <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/commander-brackets-beta-update-april-22-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">added to the Game Changers list</a> after the CFP's original 40 Game Changers. They cited that "This card causes you to take what is essentially, when built properly, three additional turns worth of effects each turn cycle. It also causes one player to take a disproportionate amount of time in the game."</p>
<p>Technically speaking, you're not chaining extra turns together, but you're functionally taking a turn during each of your opponents' turns, much like how <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Lighthouse Chronologist" href="#" target="_blank">Lighthouse Chronologist</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> gives you an actual extra turn in-between each of your opponents' turns.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Seedborn Muse"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Unwinding Clock"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Magistrate&#039;s Scepter"></div></div>
<p>Both cards allow your opponents the opportunity to play their turns relatively unimpeded, unlike a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Time Sieve" href="#" target="_blank">Time Sieve</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> loop that limits your opponents to instant-speed resources. They take their turn and then you take an extra turn.</p>
<p><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Unwinding Clock" href="#" target="_blank">Unwinding Clock</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is very similar as anyone who is able to untap all of their mana rocks and utility artifacts every untap step is likely to gain a significant advantage over players who simply cannot keep up with such an enormous acquisition of value.</p>
<p>Despite not literally taking extra turns, these examples are clearly something that the Extra Turns category is intending to describe. The CFP has made it clear that, after the Brackets have had enough time to affect WoTC development, effects like Seedborn wouldn't be promoted in Commander precons as precons were then universally considered Bracket 2.</p>
<p>Bracket 2 actively seeks to limit players to one turn per round amidst the occasional <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Gonti&#039;s Aether Heart" href="#" target="_blank">Gonti&#039;s Aether Heart</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Dramatic Reversal" href="#" target="_blank">Dramatic Reversal</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> moments. You can certainly run your <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Magistrate&#039;s Scepter" href="#" target="_blank">Magistrate&#039;s Scepter</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> and engage with some charge counter shenanigans, just don't actively try to make its utility any more comparable to Seedborn or Clock.</p>
<h2>How Commander Engages With Extra Turns</h2>
<p>Surprisingly, despite the CFP disavowing Seedborn Muse and similar cards from Standard Commander precon sets, one effect WoTC seemingly can't stop promoting is extra combats.</p>
<p>Just as Seedborn can act as an extra three turns in the right setting, there are plenty of extra combat effects that accomplish the exact same goal and take about as much time to resolve as mainstream extra turn chains. Such effects are common inclusions in combat oriented Commander precons.</p>
<p>Let's look at <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Moraug, Fury of Akoum" href="#" target="_blank">Moraug, Fury of Akoum</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>. As if Landfall decks needed another bomb, Moraug effectively reads "<em>L</em><em>andfall</em> - Take an extra turn after this one" with how influential extra combats are, especially nowadays. It's very easy to drop two, sometimes three fetch lands in a single phase, granting you an additional <em>six combats,</em> requiring you to track which creatures have which scaled buff.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Moraug, Fury of Akoum"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Aggravated Assault"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Breath of Fury"></div></div>
<p>Or perhaps you're taking a more traditional approach to extra combats and are sufficiently exploiting an <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Aggravated Assault" href="#" target="_blank">Aggravated Assault</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Breath of Fury" href="#" target="_blank">Breath of Fury</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> to the same effect as Moraug. In each case, each combat is an additional series of game actions that drastically furthers the divide between you and your opponents.</p>
<p>Now, functionally, is it likely the player gaining multiple combats as previously described simply tells their opponents "I'm going to take X additional combats" just to be told "I concede"? Probably. It's very likely players will shortcut the overwhelming value extra combats generate and start a new game quickly.</p>
<p>But isn't this the same as someone proclaiming "I will now take an arbitrary amount of extra turns" and their opponents scooping instead of sitting patiently for an arbitrary amount of time resolving each turn? Isn't this the exact thing the Chaining Extra Turns sub-category seeks to restrict in lower Brackets?</p>
<p>Why is it that Chaining Extra Turns seems to harshly limit the literal act of taking an extra turn again and again while having to bend over backwards in order to include Seedborn Muse and similar effects when extra turns are demonstrably similar to extra steps and phases?</p>
<p>The sub-category ought to lay out its intentions plainly; players engaging in lower Bracket experiences should limit their ability to gain extra steps and phases, not just extra turns. Such a change wouldn't be as vague as the previous "few tutors" stipulation and is much clearer than arbitrarily barring literal extra turn chains but not extra combats, upkeeps, end steps, etc.</p>
<h2>Updating Commander Where It Matters</h2>
<p>The last Brackets update touched a lot of bases and dealt with a lot of different criticisms. So far, it seems that the most controversial takeaways from this update have been the theoretical color identity change regarding hybrid mana symbols and, to a lesser extent, <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Rhystic Study" href="#" target="_blank">Rhystic Study</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> possibly being banned.</p>
<p>While worthy discussions to have, I believe that the current Brackets system must first be better suited for today's Commander climate before we can begin considering what would ultimately be fundamental changes to the format.</p>
<p>Before we can discuss whether every deck ought to be able to run <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Beseech the Queen" href="#" target="_blank">Beseech the Queen</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or if the format can ban/unban cards beyond whether they're "fun/unfun," we must set the foundation on which such decisions can be appropriately made. We can't start changing the format unless we know how healthy the format operates, as intended.</p>
<p>Is chaining extra turns currently an endemic issue permeating each Bracket? I'd say no, and I'd go as far as to say it won't become a massive problem as long as new cards don't push the bar too far regarding granting players additional steps, phases, or turns. But more clarity is required if we're to expect players to continue healthily engaging with extra steps/phases/turns.</p>
<p>There are currently ~40 cards that allow players in some capacity additional combats, with tens more granting additional upkeeps, untap steps, pre/post-combat main phases, and end steps. I believe that such a large volume needs to be appropriately accounted for within the Bracket system, and the Chaining Extra Turns sub-category is the prime candidate for doing so.</p>
<p>But what do <em>you</em> think? How do you feel about chaining extra turns? What are your thoughts on additional steps and phases being included? Do you think accounting for chaining extra steps and phases is worthwhile?</p>
<p>I hope that this article is helpful in exploring what chaining extra turns can look like, and I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more <em>Commander Philosophy</em>!</p>
<h3>Read More:</h3>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="vYPGbJUmce"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-the-brackets-have-updated-do-these-changes-help/">The Commander Brackets Have Updated! Do These Changes Help?</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;The Commander Brackets Have Updated! Do These Changes Help?&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-the-brackets-have-updated-do-these-changes-help/embed/#?secret=Xd0xc6dvEg#?secret=vYPGbJUmce" data-secret="vYPGbJUmce" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="APskdOOBLQ"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo/">Commander Philosophy - To Combo or Not to Combo</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;Commander Philosophy - To Combo or Not to Combo&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo/embed/#?secret=uAwVBfBnz5#?secret=APskdOOBLQ" data-secret="APskdOOBLQ" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="Up4lKLl9c5"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-when-does-upgrading-go-too-far/">Commander Philosophy - When Does Upgrading Go Too Far?</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;Commander Philosophy - When Does Upgrading Go Too Far?&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-when-does-upgrading-go-too-far/embed/#?secret=OGWAVhYMAa#?secret=Up4lKLl9c5" data-secret="Up4lKLl9c5" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>


What Does It Look Like To Chain Extra Turns in Commander?

<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Full Throttle" href="#" target="_blank">Full Throttle</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://theboyofcheese.artstation.com/">Benjamin Ee</a></em></p>
<p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-commander-brackets-update-for-october-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Commander Brackets have officially received their 2nd update</a>! Once again, Brackets are at the top of many Commander players' minds.</p>
<p>Last week, Gavin Verhey of the <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/introducing-the-commander-format-panel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Commander Format Panel</a> (CFP) <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/commander-brackets-beta-update-october-21-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released an article</a> talking about the new updates and explains that these changes are made to better reflect the original intent behind the Panel creating the Brackets, as well as accounting for players' voices since the Beta's release.</p>
<p><em>Commander Philosophy</em> was conceived explicitly with the Brackets in mind, so let's quickly review what all happened and discuss what's changed — for better or worse.</p>
<h2>The TLDR of the Update</h2>
<p><a href="https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-167736" src="https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25.png" alt="October 2025 Brackets Update" width="1367" height="908" srcset="https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25.png 1367w, https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25-300x199.png 300w, https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25-1024x680.png 1024w, https://edhrecstatic.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Brackets-10.21.25-768x510.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1367px) 100vw, 1367px" /></a></p>
<p>The first talking point Gavin brings up is that of a deck's intentions. He states that the addition of "expectations" for each Bracket is meant to better communicate a player's intentions for playing in a given Bracket.</p>
<p>For example, players seeking to engage in a Bracket 2 experience should expect to play at least eight turns before someone wins, whereas Bracket 5 players should expect the game to end at any point.</p>
<p>Lower Bracket victories are still expected to be telegraphed and gradual. It's not appropriate for a player to sandbag their winning hand up until turn nine.</p>
<p>However, these aren't hard rules a deck cannot violate. Luck is an important factor in <em>Magic</em>, and so it's possible every now and then for games to end sooner or later than expected. What we're interested in is that these expectations help to shed an important light on how the Commander Format Panel views the gradient between more casual and competitive experiences.</p>
<p>This is further reflected with the CFP removing multiple <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/formats/commander#gamechangers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Game Changers</a> and the "few tutors" stipulation entirely.</p>
<p>Gavin explains that the CFP believes, in part due to player feedback, "few tutors" was too vague about both what "few" and "tutor" qualify as. Additionally, comparing Bracket 2 to precons was also too open-ended, and so Bracket 2 decks are no longer officially comparable to Commander precon power levels.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Expropriate"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Deflecting Swat"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Food Chain"></div></div>
<p>These cards are no longer Game Changers due to the CFP honing the definition of what a Game Changer looks like:</p>
<ul>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Expropriate" href="#" target="_blank">Expropriate</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur" href="#" target="_blank">Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sway of the Stars" href="#" target="_blank">Sway of the Stars</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger" href="#" target="_blank">Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy" href="#" target="_blank">Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Urza, Lord High Artificer" href="#" target="_blank">Urza, Lord High Artificer</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Winota, Joiner of Forces" href="#" target="_blank">Winota, Joiner of Forces</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Yuriko, the Tiger&#039;s Shadow" href="#" target="_blank">Yuriko, the Tiger&#039;s Shadow</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Deflecting Swat" href="#" target="_blank">Deflecting Swat</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
<li><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Food Chain" href="#" target="_blank">Food Chain</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span></li>
</ul>
<p>Gavin continues by discussing what cards weren't removed and why, some other topics the CFP considered, and the future plan after last week's update.</p>
<p>There's a <em>lot</em> we could talk about, but let's focus on some of the more impactful changes and what their consequences may be.</p>
<h2>It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature</h2>
<p>I'm confident in saying that players expected future updates to clarify the more ambiguous aspects of the Brackets. Tutors being softly banned from lower Brackets and Bracket 2's initial comparison to precons were worthy avenues to alter, and it's safe to say these are changes for the better.</p>
<p>If someone intends to tutor efficiently and reliably, odds are they aren't expecting lower Bracket experiences.</p>
<p>What <em>wasn't</em> expected were 10 Game Changers being removed. Gavin explains that:</p>
<blockquote><p>"Game Changers should generally be cards that easily and dramatically warp Commander games, allowing players to run away with resources, shift games in ways that many players find unpleasant, block people from playing, efficiently search for any of their strongest cards without downside, or have commanders that are highly unfun in casual games."</p></blockquote>
<p>High mana-value cards and legends that are just powerful commanders are two stipulations Gavin gives for why cards shouldn't be considered Game Changers. Due to these clarifications, the aforementioned 10 cards were removed and can be played in every Bracket.</p>
<p>I plan on going into further detail about individual cards in later articles, so for now I'll just generally say that I agree for the most part in that Commander games often should end when a player has enough mana to do so. Big spells should do big things.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Cyclonic Rift"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Ruinous Ultimatum"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Zacama, Primal Calamity"></div></div>
<p>However, "highly unfun" is just as vague as "few tutors" was, if not more so. Let's assume that the majority of Commander players got together and agreed that a given number of cards were unfun, perhaps by listing how "<a href="https://edhrec.com/top/salt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">salty</a>" players can feel about certain cards.</p>
<p>So what? Should all "unfun" cards be considered Game Changing, if not ban-worthy, just because a number of Commander players don't enjoy them? Wouldn't this logic lead to the Game Changer list growing <em>vastly</em> beyond 50 cards?</p>
<p>On another note, the concept of "expectations" is handy, but should we really be creating an arbitrary clock for each Bracket? It's one thing to hypothetically look at all Commander games ever played and see that statistically most Bracket 3 games end around turn seven, but it's different to then tell players that they <em>ought</em> to end the games around turn seven.</p>
<p>Before the update, players seeking to push the boundaries of a Bracket often found themselves moving up a Bracket because they intended to play a more competitive game than the Bracket they were testing intended to facilitate, thus protecting players seeking more social experiences.</p>
<p>But now with expectations being added, such players can argue that their victory on turn seven <em>ought</em> to be the de facto experience and that their opponents shouldn't be upset their Bracket 3 <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Urza, Lord High Artificer" href="#" target="_blank">Urza</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> combo deck locked everyone down with <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur" href="#" target="_blank">Jin-Gitaxias</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> on turn five.</p>
<p>Does this mean that casual games ought to be defined by turn count, specifically whether a game ends by turn seven? I appreciate the intent of clarifying the CFP's intentions of each of the Brackets, but this feels like a step in the wrong direction. Casual Commander games don't necessitate players taking into consideration when a game should naturally conclude, rather when it's the most socially satisfying.</p>
<p>By suggesting casual experiences be handheld by a turn clock, the Brackets are effectively trying to tell players to quantify how much fun they intend to experience through measuring turn counts and how well opponents react to "unfun" cards. I fear doing such will only hinder how players engage with Brackets going forward.</p>
<h2>What Could've Been</h2>
<p>Towards the end, Gavin discusses some topics that the CFP considered and either didn't approve of or left for a future decision. One of those unapproved decisions was banning <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Rhystic Study" href="#" target="_blank">Rhystic Study</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>.</p>
<p>Rhystic Study being banned isn't an impossibility, but Gavin claims that it's not considered to be banned presently due to it being "loved by many. It's not quite as iconic to the format as <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sol Ring" href="#" target="_blank">Sol Ring</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, but it's not that far off either."</p>
<p>I've mentioned before <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-sol-ring-isnt-good-for-commander" target="_blank" rel="noopener">why Sol Ring is a problem for Commander</a>, so to see the CFP double down on classifying Sol Ring and other cards uniquely special is worrying.</p>
<p>Just as cards can be considered "unfun" and therefore judged to be unsuitable for lower Brackets, ought we consider "especially fun" cards to be untouchable and free from official intervention?</p>
<p>While the CFP's logic remains consistent in deeming fun cards fair for all and unfun cards limited to more competitive experiences, this logic remains constantly flawed.</p>
<p>This is yet another example of the CFP trying to quantify how much fun is allowed in a given Bracket. Sol Ring and Rhystic study are objectively some of the most powerful spells in Commander, but due to them being considered "fun" and "loved by many," it seems that whatever problems they cause in-game are irrelevant.</p>
<p>The same logic is used for <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Thassa&#039;s Oracle" href="#" target="_blank">Thassa&#039;s Oracle</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>. While they cite a lack of data on casual tables viewing Thassa's Oracle as a problem, they appeal to competitive players' enjoyment of the card rather than its merits, stating, "From what we can tell, and from competitive Commander players, it's mixed as to if people like this or not."</p>
<p>It's much harder for the CFP to gather physical data on what cards are provably problematic, unlike other formats like Standard, which is able to know exactly which cards are winning more often than others. But this lack of data acquisition cannot be used to justify rulings made based off of the "vibes" of players. They can be helpful signposts, but there's more data analysis that ought to be considered.</p>
<p>Perhaps Rhystic Study will be banned to the shock of many, but I firmly believe that the CFP's rationale will cite how "enjoyable" it's experience is rather than its quantifiable merits, such as what decks play it and how warping it is.</p>
<p>Gavin also mentions the CFP considered adding another Bracket. They claim they've made enough changes presently and would like to see how these updates affect things before another Bracket is considered worthwhile. I don't see a need for another Bracket, but feel free to comment on why there should be another, if not multiple, new Brackets.</p>
<p>Similarly, the CFP toyed with changing how hybrid-mana would work when deckbuilding. I honestly think this would only cause problems, but please let me know what you think.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Rhys the Redeemed"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Deathrite Shaman"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Beseech the Queen"></div></div>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>While I'm really against judging cards and decks based off of "vibes" and quantifying what is or isn't "fun", I have full faith that the CFP is working in our best interest. As hard as my criticism may read, it's only with the best constructive intent at heart. I truly believe the CFP is the best official authority figure Commander has ever had.</p>
<p>I agree that tutors are most often played by players seeking more competitive experiences and as such are most appropriately barred by the Game Changers list without the need for a Sub Category like Mass Land Denial. I also agree that the majority of cards that were removed from the Game Changer list are for the better.</p>
<p>There's still plenty to talk about, but for now I'll leave things here. I eagerly anticipate the next Bracket Beta update and reviewing the CFP's logic behind leading the Commander format.</p>
<p>But what do <em>you</em> think? How do you feel about the update? What are your thoughts on "expectations" and turn limits? Do you think updating hybrid mana deck-building restrictions is worthwhile?</p>
<p>I hope that this article is helpful in reviewing the latest Brackets update, and I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more <em>Commander Philosophy</em>!</p>
<h3>Read More:</h3>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="a7etouh7Ej"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo/">Commander Philosophy - To Combo or Not to Combo</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;Commander Philosophy - To Combo or Not to Combo&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-to-combo-or-not-to-combo/embed/#?secret=ulheCGDvuH#?secret=a7etouh7Ej" data-secret="a7etouh7Ej" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="C9o8bpnWiY"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-when-does-upgrading-go-too-far/">Commander Philosophy - When Does Upgrading Go Too Far?</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;Commander Philosophy - When Does Upgrading Go Too Far?&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/commander-philosophy-when-does-upgrading-go-too-far/embed/#?secret=qI7UZXWcgw#?secret=C9o8bpnWiY" data-secret="C9o8bpnWiY" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="uB3XINRMGV"><p><a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/when-do-lands-become-more-than-a-mana-base/">When Do Lands Become More Than a Mana Base?</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="&#8220;When Do Lands Become More Than a Mana Base?&#8221; &#8212; EDHREC" src="https://edhrec.com/articles/when-do-lands-become-more-than-a-mana-base/embed/#?secret=qhCWbJhlqQ#?secret=uB3XINRMGV" data-secret="uB3XINRMGV" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>


win conditions

Commander Philosophy — 2-Card Combos in Lower Brackets

The Art of Playing It Cool in Commander

What Does It Look Like To Chain Extra Turns in Commander?

The Commander Brackets Have Updated! Do These Changes Help?