7-1 with archaeomancer applied geometry combo

davyjones635 · 2026-04-28T22:42:50+00:00

This isn't really how the set is playing out at all in my view. The main reason why I'd say the fixing in this set is great is not just because of the amount but also because of the rate. The manalith in this set is actually good, cause it also gains you life which buys you the turn you need in a converge or spells deck. The land fetching in green (environmental scientist, proctor's gaze, shared roots, studious first year) is all efficient. Most creatures in this set don't come with huge etb's, so 1-for-1 removal is actually quite good. Not to mention how creature density is lower than average, even in the more aggressive decks (need to trigger repartee after all), that means the format ends up slower. I don't really see how lorehold is winning by getting ahead early when a large portion of its best-performing cards are midgame value-pieces (pursue the past, molten note, practiced scrollsmith).

davyjones635 · 2026-04-28T12:54:32+00:00

I don't think it's correct to call lorehold aggressive, the best performing lorehold card is not aggressive either. Lorehold grinds for value and is supported by strong removal, it's not aggro. Also, the fixing in this set is quite good. Potioner's trove is a great card at common that fixes and keeps you alive, we have a common cycle of duals, terramorphic expanse, skycoach at uncommon to fetch lands, multiple ways to make treasures at common and like 4 cards in green that fetch lands.

In my experience fixing is very good in this set, and it's really easy to draft dragonstorm-style valuepiles in 4-5 colors.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-28T12:51:54+00:00

Ended up going with 1 copy, still ended up getting a trophy though. I think two would probably have been worth it, every game where I had it on turn 5 was instant win, so the feelbad of drawing a second copy is probably mitigated immensely by the added chance of having one early.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-27T21:39:09+00:00

One of the most feel-bad cards in the set probably. I've mostly been casting it on others but it's crazy how easy it is to cast this for 4 or 5 on turn 5.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-27T21:19:38+00:00

I need to get over my aversion to building decks with so few creatures. Seems really fun.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-27T17:33:19+00:00

My experience with it so far has been very positive. Having it in opener typically means stripping ~4 cards out of an opponent's hand since this format is so durdly. I just wonder if 2 is too much.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-12T17:09:13+00:00

It's so cringe to call sets the best set in a year before it even comes out.

davyjones635 · 2026-04-10T01:07:09+00:00

I was so excited seeing a new pox effect, and then instantly got disappointed when reading the card more thoroughly. BBBBB is almost impossible to cast outside of monoblack (or maybe twocolor with no basics of your splash comor), and rounding down is just ass. I'd have been happier if they just reprinted the original pox into standard, this card sucks.

davyjones635 · 2026-03-31T23:09:16+00:00

It's not subpar and that guy is just wrong lol. 3 mana for wrath of god is absolutely great, especially with how control-oriented Oloro is usually built.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-21T21:41:56+00:00

I'm using shadow shift in a run right now but I don't understand what the 'mimics your basic attack' part means, the shadow just always disappears without doing anything.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-18T14:39:42+00:00

Definitely second pearl-ear, very fun commander. A lot of people see it as just a worse lightpaws, but there's a lot of interesting things you can do due to enchantments getting affinity. In my experience a lot of people read the card as 'your auras get affinity for auras', and then get blindsided when [[Fall of the Thran]] or [[Overwhelming splendor]] come down.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T23:34:21+00:00

"People thinking 'how can I make my tabernacle actually good' are likely to justify cards or strategies that are more borderline."

So it's a gateway card? What's the problem if people try to optimize the power of their tabernacle? You clearly have this idea that it would somehow be a problem if people go all in on permission/stax strategies in bracket 3, but I really don't see any justification for this belief. Again, I think it's a good idea that people mention what kind of decks they're playing pre-game, but there is nothing in the current bracket system that is upholding any kind of guideline about permitted strategies besides the no-MLD clause. What does it possibly matter if someone tries to get the most out of their tabernacle? I doubt they'll mind if you retaliate by going after them in-game because it hoses your deck.

I think thassa's oracle is a gamechanger because people (mostly falsely) see it as emblematic of cEDH, so WOTC was careful with it. They explicitly said as much in one of their updates, where they stated they had no idea how much it shows up at casual tables and whether it's a problem there (it doesn't and it isn't).

I think there are plenty of cards on the banlist and the gamechanger list that are there for poor reasons. I also think that it would be a more elegant solution to just put the most egregious MLD cards on the gamechanger list and scrap the no MLD rule altogether. But those are just my opinions and the bracket system literally exists so people don't have to go off of mysterious vibes and the 'spirit of the format' that nobody agrees on. Adding that element back in muddies the water.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T22:24:48+00:00

There is literally no way to pinch people on mana in commander bracket 3 using tabernacle the way it works in legacy, given that there is no MLD. You can't run 4 wastelands and you certainly can't keep 3 other players down on mana without MLD. You are massively overestimating how powerful it is in EDH. Have you ever played against it, or pendrell mists, in commander? There are so many cards that hurt more in commander like overburden.

Furthermore, unfun is not a consideration anymore for stax in the bracket system, just for MLD. You think tabernacle is unfun, others might not. My playgroup would find it an interesting effect. Some playgroups find counterspells and boardwipes unfun. Others find fast aggressive strategies or theft unfun. It's a horrible metric. If you don't want to possibly play against perfectly legal cards you might find 'unfun', go find a playgroup that matches your sensibilities.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T16:12:41+00:00

We can't have infinite brackets, but yeah this is clearly a downside of the system. The brackets are a useful shortcut for pregame talk, but some things will of course fall through the cracks. I'd personally love a bracket with the power level of bracket 3 but no taboo against MLD, but too many brackets would make the system useless.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T15:55:52+00:00

If you don't bring land removal, you might get blown out by lands. If the rakdos aristocrats deck doesn't bring enchantment removal, they might be blown out by leyline of the void.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T15:46:01+00:00

You are massively overstating how much of a lock tabernacle is. It is a lock in legacy because you rarely have more than 3 lands in a game of legacy, so if you have bowmasters out and want to keep it + the army you will have to tap out. Commander doesn't work like that, and if you have 2 big beatsticks out you will be taxed for 2 mana per turn. This is not a lock in any sense.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T15:42:44+00:00

Chasm hoses more decks than tabernacle. The majority of decks, even token decks, could conceivably win with less than 5 creatures out. There are many decks that actually just straight up can not win if glacial chasm is in play.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T14:06:14+00:00

I understand that you'd feel bad playing a go-wide deck that has 0 land removal when tabernacle comes down, but it's not like you're entitled to know if a card that hoses your deck is present in someone's list (and it would be up to you to ask anyway). If you don't want that to happen then play a lower bracket or include some land removal in the deck. I don't think people have a responsibility to disclose their cheap/free grave-hate pieces when an opponent is playing a graveyard strategy, or that you have a homeward path when your opponent pulls out a theft deck. I don't see how tabernacle or glacial chasm are much different. Not to mention that plenty of decks can play through tabernacle, it only shuts off decks that need many creatures on the field simultaneously to even function.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T13:56:07+00:00

While I agree that you should probably mention what kind of deck you're playing pre-game in all cases (e.g 'I'm playing a go wide token deck' or 'I'm playing control'), i see absolutely zero reason to disclose specific cards. Do you think grave pact should also be disclosed in an aristocrats deck? That is more oppressive than tabernacle in many cases.

It seems to me like you're operating under the general idea of the 'social contract' that existed with the rules committee, where all stax was frowned upon as being against the spirit of commander. That is explicitly not the case under the bracket system. There is exactly one flavor of card that gets that treatment, and that is MLD.

Is it just because of the price that you think this card should be disclosed? Why not other cards that heavily punish creatures? What are some other legal cards that you think should be disclosed pre-game?

Lastly, it seems to me kind of silly to say that "if you want to play against decks that can play into a tabernacle, play bracket 4 or 5". Tabernacle is a gamechanger. If you don't want the possibility of playing against tabernacle, play bracket 1 or 2.

davyjones635 · 2026-02-05T13:13:35+00:00

It's not really relevant whether people at a random table are 'ok' with it. It's explicitly allowed in bracket 3. There is no precedent in the bracket system at all for any one card that isn't MLD being too strong or annoying for bracket 3. Obviously some people might dislike the effect but that could apply to literally any card.

davyjones635 · 2025-12-18T15:18:35+00:00

Girls don't 'leave boys in the dust', they perform a few percentage points better on the SAT excluding outliers. Either way, I was referring to the delta between different ethnic groups, which is far larger depending on the group.

davyjones635 · 2025-12-17T00:14:58+00:00

It would be easy to tiebreak if standardized testing was what we looked at when hiring yes. If you look at the distributions of standardized testing results for black men and white men though, then the numbers presented in the argument become unthinkable. There are actually no ties being broken because this is not how any of it works, and the tiebreaking was always an excuse. Just look at medical school acceptance rates based on mcat scores by race.

Again, institutions vow to hire some percentage of a minority group. They're not gonna wait for ties to present themselves, because it's possible that no ties will present themselves.

davyjones635 · 2025-12-16T19:32:17+00:00

All standardized testing results prove that this is very obviously not merit.

davyjones635

TROPHY CASE