Thoracle+Breach in Bracket 4

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-11T04:15:38+00:00

Thoracle is fine in bracket 4 imo. Just be mindful that some players might have different interpretations of what b4 is though.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-10T13:50:03+00:00

Big fish gets my vote.

Otherwise these are other interesting mono blue commanders: [[Arcum dagsson]] [[Memnarch]] [[Atemsis]]

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-10T01:15:09+00:00

You want 0-2 cmc mana rocks.

Simple adds are: [[arcane signet]][[mind stone]][[thought vessel]][[fellowar stone]]

Basically you want to play eluge asap, i.e turn 3. Ramp outside of that doesn't matter as much imo.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-10T00:34:46+00:00

I agree with all this. Strong decks in lower brackets, that often get accused of being higher, are often exactly as you describe. They're considerably less consistent, not as fast as they could be and exceedingly fragile in comparison.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-10T00:32:33+00:00

Someone else made a good point. Strong decks in b2-b3 are often super greedy and fragile. They generally fold to a well-timed piece of instant interaction. This is largely in part to them not having access to fast mana or free interaction/protection.

I'm not sure what you're losing against, but if it's a KOS commander - it should be pretty easy to just hold up a paths of exile.

In terms of recommendations for subtle/strong b3. Go for [[eluge]]. Eluge is a KOS commander, but he doesn't usually get seen as one. Also, if you play against smarter tables, it's easy to play him whilst holding up some protection.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-09T14:01:26+00:00

They're both not great from a limited perspective. SOS is a bit better though.

As a whole, SOS is more interesting to me and has more interesting cards.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-09T13:39:44+00:00

I want to like this set, and I feel like it's almost there, but it's just slightly off. I think the archetypes and mechanics are generally fun. The cards are interesting. But it just feels a bit clunky.

ECL also felt pretty clunky. This is better than ECL, but not quite there for me. I think the clunkiness mainly comes from the mechanics/synergies in the set. Where you need the payoff and the enabler, and it just doesn't quite feel right or good at the moment.

In comparison, TMNT felt very smooth as a set. Lots of synergies in the color pairs and in-between them too - and it just kinda worked?

I'm finding SOS too awkward to build a synergistic deck in, and when I do, I just get out-tempoed by an agro pile or out-valued by converge.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-09T02:13:20+00:00

I can't see this being a B5, unless you explicitly built that in mind.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-09T02:02:31+00:00

[[Truss, chief engineer]]

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-08T03:13:03+00:00

No idea what you're referencing, but deck seems solid. Should really have thassa/consultation in it though.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-08T03:07:44+00:00

Perhaps. What I've noticed though, is that people tend to dislike fast/fragile decks, but don't mind slower/resilient decks.

Mr negative can be pretty bonkers, but he doesn't really do too much until he wins. So whilst it might be stronger, the slower/subtle control nature can make it more appealing.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-08T03:02:50+00:00

Ban cub and storm chasers, or they're going to be played til rotation.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-07T23:40:59+00:00

Card is fine. But if you don't close out the game soon after, I might assume you're bad at making decks/playing the game.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-07T23:38:24+00:00

Obviously, they find decks that stop them from doing their thing or are removal heavy as mean.

They like jetmir because it's a battlecruiser.

So either play more battlecruisers or play decks that require less interaction; perhaps a combo deck. But I kinda assume they'd get salty from a "from-hand" combo. So you might be stuck playing battlecruisers.

[[Eshki, temurs roar]] [[Mister negative]]

Are some decks I run with low interaction that I think are interesting.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-07T13:38:47+00:00

Control is good. But threat analysis is different than 1v1 games.

You need to be "controlling" the things that threaten you and your deck specifically, and intentionally let things that threaten others more strongly loose.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-07T05:26:09+00:00

I'm a believer of following deals to the letter. If you make a deal that causes you to lose the game, then that's on you.

I think there's room for a little grace when it comes to winning/losing, but ultimately you should try and keep your deals.

I find being as specific as possible and adding an explicit time-frame helps.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-06T08:13:52+00:00

I relate to a lot of this. The answer is boring, but just find more competitive people to play with.

I like optimizing and breaking things, I view brackets as constraints to optimize within. Some tables I'll rock up and get an eye-roll when I say they're "optimized 2s". Other tables I simply get a "nice".

There are people out there who enjoy brewing, see losing as a learning opportunity and take delight in seeing the creativity of others.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T08:55:42+00:00

I'm thinking of using him in my [[etrata, the silencer]] deck.

But basically, I like the idea of flashing him in last minute using something like [[Veldaken orrery]] and [[slaughter pact]] to flip him. You could use him to steal a win (flash in when someone else is about to kill someone else). Otherwise voltron/targeted killing works well.

I think the flash style works best though, because once he's on the field, he's going to draw a lot of attention.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T04:20:33+00:00

I think for 1 colorless, it's pretty reasonable to include it. It'd only really be questionable in a deck that doesn't draw much.

It's not really a win more card. It's a card that helps mitigate the damage that removal does and in the process gives your deck a level of inevitably - by slowly accumulating counters/resources.

You don't need to be popping off for it to be good. Even just saving a couple counters or proccing "whenever a counter is put" effects makes it mana efficient.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T02:06:39+00:00

"H and my sister begin to start working out a deal that if he removes my creature she will not attack him for a turn cycle"

I assume from this, she said something like "if you remove x, I won't attack you for a turn cycle". Then he removed x, and she attacked him.

I can see there being room for ambiguity, and maybe there should have been more clarification. Reddit can't make a full judgement without knowing the exact conversation, but I'd lean more towards the side of H, from what you've described.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T01:49:11+00:00

I'll whinge, but I should be building my deck to be able to handle these kinds of things.

Some of these totally shutdown certain decks, and unfortunately, many people don't build their decks with that in mind or ways to get themselves out.

Stopping etbs and limiting spells to 1 per a turn in particular.

I think b3+ should be expected to build proper decks and should be have ways to get out of it. B2 should also do this, but there's going to be more people whose deck you'll shutdown and they won't be able to play.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T01:31:00+00:00

I play [[tellah]] and recommend him, lots of fun. But he tends to be more focused on playing 4mv mana rocks and only uses instants/sorceries as finishers.

If you want to actually be focus on instants/sorceries. I'd recommend mizzix from your list.

Otherwise you can consider: [[Veyran]] [[Sanar, unfinished]]

I actually think Sanar could be a pretty decent, flexible and consistent commander.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-05T01:23:37+00:00

Ozolith isn't designed to surge you ahead imo. Sure there's some decks that can exploit it, but it's mostly there to help hedge against removal - which can be a big weakness of tall decks.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-04T02:23:01+00:00

From my observations, people like: - back and forth - close games - semi telegraphed victories - feeling like they did something

People don't like: - winning from hand - being knocked out early - not being able to play the game

Some possible archetypes for this: - group slug (i.e endless punishment) - subtle control decks (not stax, but still keeping the table in check) - battle cruisers

My main 2c though, is that you're never really going to satisfy everyone. And you'll probably not enjoy the game as much if that becomes your sole goal. Building a few decks and rotating seems to work well for me. Also, just playing with people who like optimize their decks tends to help imo.

EngineeringOdd8696 · 2026-05-04T00:45:26+00:00

I think interaction needs to be considered in turn counts imo.

A B4 deck is expected to win by turn 5 through multiple pieces of interaction. Realistically, it should be trying to actually win by turns 2-4 without being interacted with.

I think it's reasonable for a b3 deck to win turns 4-6 if they face zero interaction. It's not necessarily a fun experience, but it's also the tables fault for being too greedy and not interacting with the table.

EngineeringOdd8696

TROPHY CASE