Thassa's Oracle
Set Price Alerts

Combos Browse all Suggest

Legality

Format Legality
1v1 Commander Legal
Archenemy Legal
Arena Legal
Block Constructed Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal
Commander: Rule 0 Legal
Custom Legal
Gladiator Legal
Highlander Legal
Historic Brawl Legal
Legacy Legal
Leviathan Legal
Limited Legal
Modern Legal
Modern Beyond Horizons Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Pioneer Legal
Planar Constructed Legal
Planechase Legal
Quest Magic Legal
Tiny Leaders Legal
Vanguard Legal
Vintage Legal

Thassa's Oracle

Creature — Merfolk Wizard

When this enters, look at the top X cards of your library, where X is your devotion to blue. Put up to one of them on top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order. If X is greater than or equal to the number of cards in your library, you win the game. (Each in the mana costs of permanents you control counts toward your devotion to blue.)

Bookrook on How Good is Pathbreaker Ibex?

5 days ago

100% agree with wallisface. Imagine if you took Thassa's Oracle, and made it an attack trigger. It would be way worse, worse than even lab man. On top of all that, even if you manage to give the ibex haste, your opponents can kill it before you go to combat.

wallisface on Syr Elenora + infinite draw …

1 month ago

Not to be overly negative, but this card has a lot of hurdles to overcome. Whatever deck you brew will need to address these:

  • 5 mana is excessively high for modern. Unless you have some way to mitigate or account for this massive cost, it’s never going to be playable.

  • The card reads as being extremely underpowered. It’s 5 mana to draw a card on a Ward-2 body. That’s very, very weak. Unless you have some way to exploit its potentially high power, it’s doing nothing.

  • carrying on from the point above, high power doesn’t equate to anything unless you can make it stick. Presumably you’re planning to Fling it?

  • there are already lots if decks that excel at drawing their entire deck and winning on the spot with less pain. Notably, if you’re able to draw your whole deck, then you’re competing against Thassa's Oracle, which will always just read as the better option

legendofa on The New Commander Brackets Beta

1 month 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 Oracle 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 Study or Smothering Tithe. This group often also includes oppression, since a lot of them tax the opponent. Another group is cheap (1-2 mana) tutors, like Vampiric Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, or Survival of the Fittest, that increase a deck's reliability for very little opportunity cost. Most game changers can be sorted into one of these four categories. Ancient Tomb and Gaea's Cradle are speed and resource generation, Drannith Magistrate and Force of Will 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 IV, 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 Tithe or Trouble in Pairs, 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:

jsnrice on Atraxa, Grand Unifier

1 month ago

Deck Title: Ascension Through Unity – Atraxa cEDH Food Chain

Commander

Atraxa, Grand Unifier
Color Identity:

Introduction

Welcome to Ascension Through Unity, a competitive EDH build centered around Atraxa, Grand Unifier, the ultimate value engine and a uniquely powerful commander that bridges midrange resilience with combo potential. This list leverages the raw card advantage of Atraxa’s ETB trigger to dig for win conditions, interaction, and fast mana — all while supporting a Food Chain combo core.

This deck is tuned for high-level pods and aims to win fast, interact precisely, and grind smart when necessary.

Win Conditions

Primary Wincon:
- Food Chain + Eternal Scourge / Misthollow Griffin / Flesh Duplicate
Infinite creature mana via Food Chain and one of the exile-recurring creatures.
→ Cast Atraxa, Grand Unifier, dig for Thassa's Oracle or Tainted Pact / Demonic Consultation combo.

Backup Wincons:
- Thassa's Oracle + Tainted Pact / Demonic Consultation
- Finale of Devastation for lethal with infinite mana
- Displacer Kitten combos with The One Ring, Teferi, Time Raveler, or mana rocks for infinite value/actions

Notable Synergies

Staples and Interaction

This deck plays nearly every blue interaction spell you’d expect: - Free Countermagic: Force of Will, Force of Negation, Pact of Negation, Mindbreak Trap, Flusterstormfoil
- Removal: Swords to Plowshares, Abrupt Decay, Chain of Vapor, Toxic Deluge, Culling Ritual
- Tutors: Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Worldly Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Imperial Seal

And it runs every relevant fast mana: - Mana Crypt, Lotus Petal, Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond, Mox Opal, Mana Vault, Ancient Tomb

Why Atraxa?

While many commanders offer value, Atraxa’s Grand Unifier trigger is uniquely broken in a deck like this. With a proper build, she can hit: - A creature (e.g. Eternal Scourge, Deathrite Shaman)
- A non-creature spell (e.g. Demonic Consultation)
- An instant (e.g. Swan Song, An Offer You Can't Refuse)
- A sorcery (e.g. Finale of Devastation)
- An artifact (e.g. Sol Ring)
- An enchantment (e.g. Rhystic Study)
- A planeswalker (e.g. Teferi, Time Raveler)

This makes Atraxa a one-card value engine that refills your hand and pivots you into a win turn with proper sequencing.

Power Level & Goals

This deck is firmly cEDH (power level 9.5–10). It’s built for pods where interaction is heavy, turns are fast, and wins are clean.

You’ll thrive if: - You can protect Atraxa, Grand Unifier for at least one trigger
- You pilot your combo lines efficiently
- You mulligan aggressively for interaction or ramp

Mulligan Strategy

Look for: - Turn 1–2 dorks/rocks + tutor
- Food Chain + exile creature opener
- Strong card draw pieces + interaction
- Always mull away clunky high-CMC hands

Weaknesses

  • Susceptible to Drannith Magistrate (unless we remove it)
  • Hate for graveyard/exile recursion (Rest in Peace, etc.)
  • Heavy counterspell matchups if we stumble on mana

Closing Thoughts

Atraxa, Grand Unifier doesn’t just unify card types — she unifies power, control, and combo under one elegantly devastating package. Whether you’re tutoring with efficiency or slamming a turn 4 Food Chain win, this deck rewards mastery and punishes hesitation. Perfect for cEDH players who love versatility and inevitability.

Thanks for reading! Let me know if you want a sideboard package or metagame tweaks.

burferking on Turn 0 win vs Chancellor of dross (100%)

2 months ago

Well, if you can play conspiracies, I would use Emissary's Ploy in the sideboard as "A conspiracy doesn't count as a card in your deck for purposes of meeting minimum deck size requirements."
3 Pact of Negation, because in a deck of 60 FoW, each Force of Will needs to exile another one. In a starting hand of 7, three could be played.

Main list 53x Contract from Below 2x Elvish Spirit Guide 1x Flash 3x Pact of Negation 1x Thassa's Oracle

Sideboard 1x Emissary's Ploy

Nicklaffy2302 on White/Blue and Rude All Over

2 months ago

capwner I appreciate the help! I suppose I was on the fence whether to have more Solitude or Subtlety because of the potential for massive lifegain for my opponents. With your perspective and support of Solitude, I think I will make that change. I admit Thassa's Oracle was a weird idea for sure lol. My idea behind it was incase I came across a mill deck, but that's fairly unlikely, so I would love to exchange it for some of those awesome sideboards you mentioned!

x0100011010x on All players win?

2 months ago

I think that trying to get to a draw through Divine Intervention (clearly how the card is intended to work) is not nearly as interesting as actually trying to make every player win (which would require obviously doing something unintended)

Za above figured out a way to make every player lose the game, which is very related but different imo.

I am sure that "legally" there is some resolution order to this combo I describe below. However, I think it is much more interesting and would be much more surprised than someone just playing Divine Intervention

Most "you win" card (in this article https://draftsim.com/you-win-the-game-mtg/ ) triggers on upkeep or end step, so you couldn't share that victory.

Halo Fountain, Helix Pinnacle, and Maze's Endfoil all let a player win through an ability. But abilities go on the stack and I am not aware (I also didn't even look it up though) of anything that lets you copy abilities for other players.

Curse of Echoes on yourself, then Coalition Victory or Thassa's Oracle would work. Approach of the Second Sun has an annoying clause which prevents copies of it from working for other players. Unfortunately, Coalition Victory would require you giving the other player control of 3-4 creatures and 3-4 lands, so is infeasible. Thassa's Oracle might work if you get their deck down to zero cards (a way is described below), or a few if they have blue.

Twenty-Toed Toad notably lets you win in your attack step. I'm unsure how you would have multiple players attacking in one step. However, I was reviewing all the cards in the link above, and if you cast Ramses, Assassin Lord; enchant Twenty-Toed Toad to be an Assassin; have your opponent gain control of Twenty-Toed Toad (like with Custody Battle and then destroying it, give them 20 +1/+1 counters, and your opponent attacks you: They would win, so you would lose, and you had previously controlled the Assassin Toad, who attacked you this turn, so Ramses makes you win.

Giving everyone Jace, Wielder of Mysteries; or Laboratory Maniac, or copies of them; then casting Leveler and giving copies of them; and then casting something like Burning Inquiry should also work I think. You could have two of Jace/Maniac and cast two Fractured Identity to get that to happen. This route allows even more than 2 players to win.

I mean, if you declare that your objective is to make the game end in a draw... and you do that... then you won, right? Sorta?

If I pulled off either above combo, I would not feel sorta? good, I would feel like I just shattered a fundamental assumption all planeswalkers have made since before the Eldrazi were found, and rejoice

Poly_raptor on The Scarab's Fist (Bracket 4)

2 months ago

capwner thank you for the feedback. I will tweak the deck today. I think you are right, just because I don’t know the meta doesn’t mean this deck isn’t competitive.

The issue with the brackets at the moment is that each pod will have slight differences, I’ve played games where I’ve had many a spell forced trying to disrupt a win con. So I don’t class that type of interaction as CEDH. On the other hand, I have been playtesting this deck to tutor up creatures for Hashaton, but on reflection you could just tutor the combo and win.

I think I will cut Thassa's Oracle for Laboratory Maniac, that way the deck HAS to deck itself first. Demonic Consultation can be swapped for another draw/ discard outlet. Tortured Existence looks quite good for the same CMC.

I’ll update the primer and add a section to upgrade to CEDH if people want to build the list differently.

Load more
Created with Highcharts 9.3.3DatePricePrice historyTHBSLDMB2Sep - 2021Jan - 2022May - 2022Sep - 2022Jan - 2023May - 2023Sep - 2023Jan - 2024May - 2024Sep - 2024Jan - 2025May - 2025$0$25$50$75$100$125
Have (3) Azdranax , PrismMTG , BillyBalverine
Want (1) TechNoble