Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions | Art by Sija Hong

Hello! Welcome back to another article aimed at improving your Commander deckbuilding and gameplay. I was inspired to write this article based on a situation I encountered while I was reviewing one of my personal decks, and thought to myself "Self, this would make a great article, because if I'm doing it, I'm sure other players are, too."

The fallacy I'm talking about is Best Case Scenario Mentality (BCSM) and how it relates to setup cost on cards.

BCSM is a common topic in other Magic formats. I first heard about it listening to Limited Resources, the fantastic podcast about Limited hosted by Marshall Sutcliffe and Luis Scott-Vargas. BCSM, as it relates to Magic, is a way of thinking about cards in their best possible light. The idea that they will always "do the thing" perfectly and consistently.

Typically, these cards have a high setup cost. In order for them to perform in their best case scenario, a lot of things need happen before the card is played.

Before we get into the example, I want to add a caveat. A lot of what's next is why certain cards might not be worth playing in your deck. However, it's your deck, so if you want to play a card, go for it.

Commander is about self expression and playing cards that spark joy for you, not just about optimizing and winning. But if you're feeling frustration with how your deck is performing, BCSM and setup costs might be a reason why.

Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions - A Case Study

Here's the scenario that inspired this article. I was prepping for a night at my local game store, and I had decided that I was only going to play one deck that night: my favorite deck, Ratadrabik of UrborgRatadrabik of Urborg. If you've followed my writing for a while, I've done a few articles on Ratadrabik, including the first one I ever wrote for EDHREC!

Anyways, it had been a while since I played the deck, so I was reviewing the list and making a few swaps for cards that I had picked up from the store a few weeks earlier. One of those cards was Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions.

This card has some silly potential in a Ratadrabik deck. First of all, my deck makes a lot of tokens thanks to Ratadrabik's ability, a high density of legendary creatures, and token doublers like Mondrak, Glory DominusMondrak, Glory Dominus and death trigger doublers like Teysa KarlovTeysa Karlov. These tokens could easily help pay the additional waterbending cost on Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions.

It's also an Aristocrats deck, so a lot of creatures end up in my graveyard. Not only that, Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions can also target creature cards in opposing graveyards as well. Now the best part: for each legendary creature card that I targeted, I would make a token copy which would then get sacrificed at the end of my turn, and Ratadrabik would make another token copy of it. So much value!

The above paragraph is a perfect example of BCSM. Let's now break down the paragraph to illustrate the setup cost for Foggy Swamp Visions.

• I would have a lot of tokens on the battlefield to help pay the additional waterbending cost.
• I would have a lot of creatures, specifically legendary creatures, in my graveyard.

These two points are somewhat controllable, since I've built the deck to do these things. However, I also added these points to the scenario:

• My opponents would have creatures, hopefully legends, in their graveyards.
• Ratadrabik or a doubler effect will be on the battlefield.

These two points are far less controllable.

My opponents won't necessarily be filling their graveyard as fast as me. On average, it'll probably be slower unless they're specifically playing a graveyard-based strategy. And they certainly won't have as many legendary creatures as I will.

The tokens created from Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions get sacrificed on end step, and it's not like they gain haste so they can attack. So really, the best things to target are creatures with enters or dies triggers. As the Ratadrabik deck, I've got plenty of candidates that this'll work with, but no telling what my opponents' creatures will do.

Also, Ratadrabik is my commander. It's my engine piece. The ward helps, but he still becomes a target for removal. The doubler effects are probably even higher on the threat assessment lists for opponents. Chances are, my opponents will want to get rid of these threats before they can be abused, so we shouldn't just assume we have a way to abuse the tokens available all the time.

All three opponents can bring their interaction to bear with when the threat is high enough.

All of the sudden you can see how Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions becomes a lot less attractive. Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions is powerful in my Ratadrabik deck if I have tokens on the battlefield to pay for the additional cost, if there are creatures in graveyards that have good enters and dies triggers, and if I have a way to abuse the tokens with Ratadrabik or something else.

That's a lot of ifs.

I ended up replacing Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions with Junji, the Midnight SkyJunji, the Midnight Sky.

Junji might have less upside, but let's look at the setup cost. Junji needs to die, and it needs any non-Dragon creature in any graveyard to reanimate something. Both of those things are easily controllable for me, and there's additional synergy with the rest of the deck with Junji being a legendary creature. It even has the other option of forcing opponents to discard cards and lose life.

Junji has fewer "ifs" associated with it, leading to greater consistency each time Junji is played in a game compared to Foggy Swamp VisionsFoggy Swamp Visions.

How to Evaluate Setup Cost

So how can you apply this to your own deckbuilding? I actually think the "ifs" exercise is a good technique. Look at a card and imagine yourself casting it in the best case scenario, then break down that scenario and keep track of the individual conditions needed to reach that point. The more conditions you get, the higher the setup cost for the card.

You can also evaluate each condition and how likely it is to occur. If the condition is something you can control with your deckbuilding and gameplay, it's way more likely to happen than if it's something you need from your opponents.

Setup Cost Red Flags

To use the "ifs" technique, it's important to identify some red flags in card design that indicate a card might have a higher setup cost than others. An obvious red flag is anything with an additional casting cost.

Let's compare Tormenting VoiceTormenting Voice and Romantic RendezvousRomantic Rendezvous. In this very simple example, Voice has a higher setup cost because you need a card in hand to discard so you can pay the additional cost. With Rendezvous, you can cast it even if you're empty handed.

Another red flag is if a card needs other cards to make it effective. Undergrowth cares about the number of creature cards in your graveyard. This mechanic happens to be on a pet card of mine, Mausoleum SecretsMausoleum Secrets.

I'm a strong advocate for MausRets in heavy black decks, but I won't deny that it has a setup cost. In order for it to do literally anything, you need creatures in the graveyard. Since it doesn't self mill, self discard, or otherwise enable getting creatures into the graveyard, you'll need to use other cards in your deck to fuel it. While you can control this in deckbuilding, it does require something, compared to Demonic TutorDemonic Tutor, which explains the price difference and Game Changer status for DT.

For creatures specifically, the requirement to attack or deal combat damage for an ability to trigger can be prohibitive as well. The BCSM is that you cast your creature, and you have a way to give it haste and a form of evasion so it can connect right away. But if your creature doesn't naturally have haste or evasion, now you're relying either on other cards or your creature surviving a turn cycle and your opponents having no blockers.

If your creature is a big enough threat, say the new Fire Lord AzulaFire Lord Azula, your opponents should act accordingly and eliminate it. Maybe you'll get lucky, but if I'm staring down an Azula deck, I know what I'm saving my removal for.

Timing

It's not just the card design that can have an effect on its setup cost. Another way to fight BCSM is to remember that you won't always get to cast cards exactly when they'll perform the best.

One example I like to bring up is Rampant GrowthRampant Growth versus Edge of AutumnEdge of Autumn.

It's a simple example, but demonstrates the point well. In the best case scenario (turn two) these cards perform exactly the same. But quickly run through the "ifs" exercise for Rampant GrowthRampant Growth.

If you cast it on turn two, it's great. But what happens if it's turn ten and you're empty handed? Rampant Growth is a horrible card to draw at that point in the game. Edge of Autumn though, lets you cycle for no mana investment and might dig you to a better card that could make a difference.

Wrap Up

Like anything in Commander, all of this theory has exceptions and nuances. As I said at the top, your card choices are up to you. Your reasons to play them are your own. Though hopefully this gave you something to think about as you're brewing and evaluating your decks, especially if they aren't running the way you think they should.

Magic is a complicated game! It's hard to keep track of all of this stuff, especially if you're new to the game.

Check out our guides for other tips written by my amazing colleagues. Let me know what you think in the comments below, especially if you made some revisions to your deck with BCSM and setup costs in mind.

Until next time, happy brewing, and happy playing!