Citadel of Pain

• Edit
• Fix Card
• Fix Card

legendofa on The New Commander Brackets Beta

1 week ago

I've been struggling with this for a couple of my decklists recently, and I'm trying to summarize my thoughts here without starting a new thread. So this is semi-stream-of-thought, and I apologize if it gets a little rambly.

There are several criteria being tracked by the current bracket system, including resource generation, speed, reliability, and oppression, and possibly others.

Game changers: A combo like Demonic Consultation/Tainted Pact + Thassa's OracleGC gets a key card on the game changers list, because it's fast and reliable, ending a match on turn 3-4. These are speed game changers. Other game changers generate resources just by playing the game, like Rhystic StudyGC or Smothering TitheGC. This group often also includes oppression, since a lot of them tax the opponent. Another group is cheap (1-2 mana) tutors, like Vampiric TutorGC, Enlightened TutorGC, or Survival of the FittestGC, that increase a deck's reliability for very little opportunity cost. Most game changers can be sorted into one of these four categories. Ancient TombGC and Gaea's CradleGC are speed and resource generation, Drannith MagistrateGC and Force of WillGC are oppression, and so on.

Bracket Guidelines: From Gavin Verhey's announcement article, here's what each of the brackets mean and expect. Important to note that the system is still in beta testing, so this is probably going to be different in the future.

• Bracket 1: Decks with more focus on a gimmick than on winning. "Winning is not the primary goal here, as it's more about showing off something unusual you've made. Villains yelling in the art? Everything has the number four? Oops, all Horses? Those are all fair game!" This bracket doesn't allow extra turns, two-card infinite combos, mass land denial, or game changers, and restricts tutors.

• Bracket 2: Decks that can win, but are not tightly focused, or slow to develop. "While Bracket 2 decks may not have every perfect card, they have the potential for big, splashy turns, strong engines, and are built in a way that works toward winning the game. While the game is unlikely to end out of nowhere and generally goes nine or more turns, you can expect big swings." This bracket doesn't allow any game changers, mass land denial, two-card infinite combos, or multiple extra turns in a row, and restricts tutors.

• Bracket 3: Decks that are focused on winning efficiently, but are not optimized. "They are full of carefully selected cards, with work having gone into figuring out the best card for each slot. The games tend to be a little faster as well, ending a turn or two sooner than your Core (Bracket 2) decks." This bracket does not allow mass land denial or multiple extra turns in a row, and restricts game changers and two-card infinite combos, and allows tutors freely.

• Bracket 4: Decks that are optimized for their strategy. "Bring out your strongest decks and cards... This is high-powered Commander, and games have the potential to end quickly. The focus here is on bringing the best version of the deck you want to play, but not one built around a tournament metagame." This bracket has no restrictions.

• Bracket 5: Decks that expect to win at the most competitive levels. "There is care paid into following and paying attention to a metagame and tournament structure, and no sacrifices are made in deck building as you try to be the one to win the pod." This brackets has no restrictions.

Deck Analysis 1: The deck I've been struggling most with is Clear Waters. As I listed in another thread, it has an infinite turns combo (Wanderwine Prophets + Deeproot Pilgrimage + Merfolk Sovereign) and mass land denial (Opposition + Seedborn Muse, Quicksilver Fountain), and a selection of tutors to pull these together (Forerunner of the Heralds, Idyllic Tutor, Merrow Harbinger, Seahunter, and Sterling Grove). This should put it squarely into Bracket 4.

My concern is that it's neither high powered nor optimized. On the axes of speed, resource generation, reliability, and oppression, I would score it high on oppression, pretty good on reliability, and low on speed and resources generation. Looking at examples of other Bracket 4 decks around the internet, all four of those criteria need to be high in this bracket. The infinite turns combo is slow and easily removed, and the land denial is optional (Opposition can have other targets) or temporary (Quicksilver Fountain can remove its own effect).

It would be easy to simply add a big pile of game changers to improve all of these facets. Right now, it has one game changer in Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGC, and that one's not essential to the deck. That's not the direction I want to go with the deck, though--I want to keep it reasonably budget, and even adding the three least expensive of the game changers I'm considering would basically double the deck's cost.

I know that people in brackets under 4 want to be able to play their deck, and the infinite turns and land denial shut that down. These are clearly stated in the announcement article -"A single extra-turn spell can be fun and splashy. However, extra-turn spells take a ton of time away from other players and their ability to play the game and tend to be unfun when repeated."- that's why they're forced into brackets 4 and 5. But if a deck isn't able to compete against high power, optimized Bracket 4 decks, can it be considered Bracket 4?

Deck Analysis 2: Another deck that I've been struggling with is an enchantment deck, Do Not Mistake Peace For Passivity. The point of concern for this deck is land denial. Blood Moon is classic mass land denial, and the deck is designed to play around it with Abundant Growth, Fertile Ground, Prismatic Omen, and similar cards. It also has a combo that doesn't directly deny lands, but punishes their play and use: Manabarbs + Citadel of Pain. Otherwise, the deck fits all the criteria of a Bracket 2 deck--no game changers, no infinite combos, few tutors, and no extra turns.

This deck can be converted into a pure Bracket 2 deck without much effort by replacing Blood Moon and Manabarbs. But as it stands, a single card pushes the deck up two brackets, according to the guidelines. Again, I don't feel the deck is high powered or optimized, and would not be able to compete in a Bracket 4 match. It could probably survive in Bracket 3, since it's highly synergistic, but nothing any higher.

In this case, adding a bunch of game changers and power cards would somewhat dilute how the deck functions. A few, like Smothering TitheGC or Trouble in PairsGC, could slot in, but most others would be more gratuitous.

Conclusion: To quote the article again, "There's some wiggle room, and while playing against decks that are all inside your bracket is ideal, you can usually wiggle within one bracket away from you safely." "You should play where you think you belong based on the descriptions." All of this can be discussed in a Rule 0 talk. I strongly believe the brackets are intended to help this conversation, not replace it. As an example, for the Clear Waters deck, I would say that the deck is not optimized to Bracket 4, and I think it fits best into Bracket 3, but it's controlling and has a potential three-card infinite turns combo. I'm willing to announce when the combo is assembled and ready to start, to give everyone a turn cycle to react, and reduce the use of Opposition to creatures and artifacts.

I feel like the current setup is a little too restrictive of the kind of combo-control decks I like. I can have fun smashing big creatures into each other and outmaneuvering everyone else, but I will enjoy locking down the board and establishing my inevitability, and I'm having a harder time trying to find ways to do that in lower brackets. Some people have already offered me excellent feedback and suggestions that I'm taking into consideration, but I'd also like to see how people are responding to the bracket system so far.

For comparison, here's a few more of my decklists:

• Bracket 2: But if you smash one helm...

• Bracket 3: Above such mortal concerns

• Bracket 4: Arrogant. Ruthless. Oppressive. Victorious.

SaberTech on Commander bracket recommendation

1 week ago

Blood Sun on its own doesn't deny or punish a player's use of mana, so I'd say that it's fine.

Citadel of Pain actually encourages a player to use their mana or face consequences. It might be annoying for players that want to hold mana up for instants and abilities on opponents' turns but they can just choose to take a bit of damage if they want to or play their instants on their turn instead. I wouldn't consider this card to be mana denial.

Manabarbs could potentially be considered mana denial when life totals get low and taking damage to use lands could potentially kill players. For most of the game though, it's mostly just annoying instead of being mana denial. It's a card that pushes the game to end faster. The high usage of mana dorks and mana rocks in the format also offsets some of the damage that the card could do but that is something up to chance and deck build. Some players in a game might feel unequally hit by the card. If you rule 0 and ask others about the card they may opt to consider it mana denial simply because they don't want to deal with it in a game. If people are looking for more of a laid back game of casting their fun spells then Manabarbs may be out of sync with that sort of play experience. It's the only card of the three that I think is worth asking a group about before playing.

Citadel of Pain + Manabarbs as a combo forces players to not be able to play around either card. It puts players on a clock and rushes them to either win the game or find an answer to remove on of the cards. My personal expectation is that the combo will get disrupted before forcing people into the position of "either don't cast spells or you will die" most of the time. I don't consider the combo to be much of an issue but I guess it comes down to just how laid back of a game the group wants to play.

legendofa on Commander bracket recommendation

1 week ago

How about Blood Sun + Citadel of Pain + Manabarbs? Is this too land-denial-ish for Bracket 2, or would people be okay with this?

SaberTech on Commander bracket recommendation

2 weeks ago

I think that Citadel of Pain and Manabarbs are fine. I don't think that those are the sorts of things that WotC was thinking of when they say "mana denial". They don't really deny an opponent access to mana unless they have very little life, and unless one player has been picked on in particular all of your opponents should be seeing their life drop at roughly the same rate. People are still able to play the game, they just have to do so with more consideration regarding how they utilize their mana and life resources.

Blood Moon is a bit different in that some decks with a lot of nonbasic lands could find themselves unable to cast anything despite technically having access to mana, it's just not the right colour of mana that they need.

I'm not sure that I would classify your deck as a Stax deck. You don't have many effects that straight up deny particular actions or force opponents to pay more mana. I would consider it more of a "group slug" style of deck.

As for whether the bracket system has an implied budget restriction to it; Kind of I guess? What gives me pause is that there are plenty of good cards that are $5 or less, and it's possible to play a really expensive card in a deck that doesn't support it well so it only performs moderately at best (Survival of the FittestGC is one such card that comes to mind). The bracket system is looking to organize decks and games by how they are expected to play out, so you could have a really expensive deck that has a ton of money put into its mana base but the spell selection is really unfocused and without a solid game plan so it could easily lose to a pre-con deck.

The jump from Bracket 2 to Bracket 3 is an awkward one though, I'll admit that. If another bracket was added to the chart, I would want one between those two. The power level of pre-con decks can vary pretty wildly but are generally not that great. Dump $50 worth of upgrades into a pre-con and it can feel like you are playing on a whole different level, but at the same time it probably won't feel up to par with what you could potentially face in Bracket 3.

legendofa on Commander bracket recommendation

2 weeks ago

SaberTech Yep, straight from the original announcement.

I'm starting to feel like there's an expectation of budget along with competitiveness. Like, this deck keeps wanting to be in higher brackets than its budget warrants. On top of the Blood Moon, there's a Citadel of Pain + Manabarbs combos that I would count as land denial. But, and I'm going to quote myself from another thread here, it simply can't compete with decks whose individual cards are worth more than this whole thing, or decks with six game changers and "I win" combos that land on turn 3. It just isn't up to that level. For reference, the deck is Do Not Mistake Peace For Passivity. Please, if anyone wants to offer thoughts or suggestions, I will happily accept them.

I promise I'm not trying to complain or prove a point. I'm feeling out how rigid the bracket restrictions should be, and what other people would accept. I want to avoid putting in $700+ worth of game changers and power cards into a $400 deck just because it also has a Blood Moon, and while I could switch out the Moon and the Citadel + Barbs combo, I honestly have no idea what I would put in.

I know Stax is the ultimate in "frustrating" and "not fun", but I like combo-control, and I don't want all my janky $200-400 decklists to be automatically lumped in with decks that are worth three times as much and three times as competitive. Erayo's Essence  ^Flip and Leovold, Emissary of Trest have been sitting on the banlist for forever.

RiotRunner789 on How Can I Put Sunhome …

4 months ago

Looking at Gisela,

Combustible Gearhulk and Tectonic Giant both give you card advantage and damage to an opponent. Gearhulk being more of a burst and Tectonic being consistent. Both are less mana intense in the long run.

AEther Flash: Older card that only kills one of your creature cards (and even that creature still gets its ETB) and keeps your opponents from only having creatures with at least 5 toughness with your commander out.

Descent into Avernus, Citadel of Pain, and Burning Earth play well and are on theme with mana barbs. They are also all similarly priced and the only expensive-ish cards I'll recommend.

Having at least one Sulfuric Vortex effect that stops life gain is good in a deck like this.

Rem Karolus, Stalwart Slayer could be put in and even work as a backup commander. Plus side, it costs the same.

My point is, there are a ton of better options and the plus side is there are cheap and nonoppressive options as well.

Edit: Typo correction

SqueezeThePustule on Kamahl's Crathurs

9 months ago

I've used Seton before, but I mostly strayed away from tap-for-mana druids in this deck. Seton would definitely fit in with the other green Kamahl and Mobilize if I were to build a druid deck and take it in a different direction.

Realm Razer is a lot of fun, I liked pairing it with Citadel of Pain to keep opponents from holding mana for a response.

DreadKhan on Obosh doubling damage

11 months ago

Any reason you don't use Brash Taunter? It's great with damage based wipes, suddenly your Blasphemous Act family spells also dome an opponent, if you can double that you'll probably eliminate someone.

In a list that has a decent number of creatures that can deal damage you might look into Basilisk Collar, it's good with many of your creatures, similarly Scavenged Brawler can turn a mediocre creature into a real problem. I'll never forget putting those counters onto a Brash Taunter!

It's probably not the best thing you can be doing, but Crypt Rats and similar effects are endless fun. There is also Exocrine, this weird guy can generate a lot of damage if you've got the mana, yet it also will draw you a card and leave a huge creature. Also, what the heck, Thrashing Wumpus exists too, and can Pestilence twice every turn without croaking, which could add up/cripple your opponents' boards. Very good if you've got Whip out obviously!

Do people run a lot of Blue in your meta? I liked Citadel of Pain a bit in a deck like this, normally this is symmetrical, but with your synergy it might play a lot better. I like Citadel in decks that feature a fairly high MV, where you don't want people to be able to bluff by holding up mana.

Since you don't run a ton of lands, maybe Acidic Soil? That could be 3 mana to win on the spot in some games.

Would Descent into Avernus work in here? It'll speed up games, not sure if your deck is usually one of the faster ones in your pod, if so it should help, if you're normally a slower deck then it's probably going to get you killed.

Fires of Mount Doom is a dual purpose card, offering you a way to slow down a Voltron deck, yet also a way to draw cards. I normally wouldn't bother with Impulse draw, but if your deck isn't really into combos then it plays well enough. Another nifty way to get cards in hand that opponents probably can't take advantage of with Obosh out is Wheel of Misfortune, a card I normally don't like. If you can double that damage (or better), then opponents will be very wary of trying to wheel.