The New Commander Brackets Beta
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Feb. 12, 2025, 3:18 p.m. by Mortlocke
I'm just wondering if there is a forums post already made about the new Commander Brackets Beta that was recently announced? Article and Video links are here in case anyone missed it. I'll just weigh in with my two cents - then when an Admin comes along to let me know that this is a duplicate thread i'll just post my opinion there.
I just have to get this out of my system first and foremost:
The RC hardly ever interacted with the community they supposedly represented. They didn't go to conventions to poll players on their experiences, or actively see what they could do to improve the average experience of the game. At times I viewed their opinions as reductive especially in regards to their banning of Mana Crypt:
"In games going over twelve turns, the accumulated threat of damage from Mana Crypt provides a reasonable counterbalance for its explosive effect, but when you are snowballing to a turn-six to -eight win, it's a meaningless drawback. Source
That statement alone is invalidating a whole portion of the group they supposedly represented - effectively stating that anyone who wants to play High Powered or cEDH decks just shouldn't. Not to mention the inconsistency of that logic - why not also ban Sol Ring, Dark Ritual or anything that leaves the player at a net positive for mana? Commander wouldn't be where it is today if games always had to be well beyond turn 8. At best, the RC banned a card because it was too easily abused, at worst they banned a card due to anecdotal evidence. I get that they wanted to help, but ultimately their execution left a lot to be desired.
I'm grateful for Gavin Verhey and his team starting the format down the right path. Now we as players are starting to have a common language to better understand the intent of our fellow players and craft an experience where we can all have fun. I am very optimistic for Commander's future, and will be participating in the Beta at my local venue.
Also, I think that Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus will likely see an unbanning in late April - early May.
What say you all?
RiotRunner789 says... #3
It's an interesting setup but will need some work, both from WOTC and Commander players for it to work.
A couple issues I've noticed. First, there seems to be a large gap between the 3rd and 4th brackets. Not sure how to close it but there should be less of a divide.
Also, just looking at the decks I've built, and going strictly from the rules, I have 1st bracket decks that could easily beat 4th bracket decks. Obviously he mentioned 'bad actors' but, at least at my LGS, most players are not going to alter existing decks more than a few cards to fit x or y bracket. So, this will create some misunderstandings when someone sits down with a powerful/optimized bracket 1 deck, it just doesn't have tutors/extra turns/combo's/game changers.
It's a good start but the pre-game conversation is still the best best. Just another tool I guess.
February 12, 2025 6:57 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
The bracket system, like the 1-10 "power level" scale that it is apparently intended to replace, suffers from trying to reduce an incredibly complex format into checklists of criteria. This iteration just has half the numbers, so instead of every deck being "about a 7" they are now "bracket 3".
This also isn't down to just bad actors misclassifying their decks, or people using the rubrics wrong. Someone could easily throw together a deck that is way too powerful and think that they are putting together a "bracket 2" deck. For example, my Ghave, Guru of Spores deck runs no land interaction or extra turns; intentionally doesn't combo; runs no game changers; and only has land tutors. Additionally the description in the article reads like a checklist of that deck.
-
Has the potential for big, splashy turns (check)
-
Strong engines (check)
-
Built in a way that works toward winning the game (check)
-
The game is unlikely to end out of nowhere and generally goes nine or more turns (usually 7-8 actually, without knowledge of the commander and deck it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume 9+)
-
Can expect big swings (Token swarms FTW)
-
Has some cards that aren't perfect from a gameplay perspective but are there for flavor reasons, or just because they bring a smile to your face. (literately just built because my first 60 card deck was Junk Tokens and I wanted it as a commander deck.)
There is also the fact that "bracket 3" spans the entirety of commander between "unedited precon" (bracket 2) and "cEDH without building for a meta" (bracket 4). Hell, Trouble in Pairs is on the Game Changers list, so not even all of the unedited precons actually fall into bracket 2.
I appreciate that they are trying to improve the format and people's ability to find a game they want to play. I don't think that trying to codify power levels is the correct way to go about it. The format is just too nuanced and taking the time to set expectations in a more descriptive way will always be better.
February 12, 2025 11:02 p.m.
I agree with Gidgetimer that bracket three feels way too big, but it seems like an improvement nonetheless.
February 12, 2025 11:14 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #6
The brackets are not meant to split all commander decks in 5 equally large groups, right?
Of course bracket 3 is going to be bigger than the other brackets combined. Most decks could trade blows fine. Dispersion of decks over the brackets will more likely be a bell curve, the further you stray from the middle, the fewer fair opponents you're going to find.
It's not a deckbuilding tool. You build your decks without considering the brackets, and then lay over the template in an attempt to avoid disappointment for mismatched decks that might cost you hours of your life you don't enjoy.
If you know your "technically a two" can hang with fours, then that's what you open the conversation with. If you build the "technically a two" just to stomp on real two decks, you're the problem Wizards is trying to solve with this '^^
February 12, 2025 11:53 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
I beg to differ that most decks can trade blows fine. My experience has been that any deck I like enough to do tuning beyond the initial build quickly outpace the vast majority of decks and I have to be careful not to play them against new/inexperienced players, the chill crowd, or unknowns at the LGS. I have a range of decks that I take and play, but my favorite decks are reserved for once I know the table can handle them. And this isn't the "near cEDH" decks I have. It is just the ones that I have taken the time to improve or haven't intentionally hamstrung.
Also, I see no where in the article where it says it isn't a deck building tool. It is perfectly reasonable to think "my normal fare is too strong, I will look at the official guidance on brackets to be able to build a weaker deck". My point in using my Ghave deck wasn't that I would ever trot it out against precons. It was that if someone were building a deck that they were wanting to be lower powered, they could arrive at a similar deck while actively trying to build a weak deck. Again, it isn't just bad actors and misapplied rubrics. The problem is that they are trying to keep it simple to apply and so the rubrics can not accurately reflect the complexity of the format.
February 13, 2025 12:23 a.m.
To summerise my tought verry quickly:
Gamechanger list is good but needs to be larger, a few noteable missing cards would be necropotence and burgeoning/exploration. I could also see the eldrazi titans and some more of the phyrexian preators on there as they tend to be problematic in lower power tables, which is what bracket 2, and to a lesser decree 3 are supposed to be.
As PeasentKenobi mentioned in his video, I do think the idea of a second Gamechanger list for the more severe cards could be a thing, and the integration of "number of Gamechangers per deck could be stretched between bracket 2 and 4 but this comes at increased complexety which I dont think is a goood thing considering the casual playerbase.
I DONT think they should unban crypt/lotus, at least within the year, since it would lead more destabilization again. If they realy want to bring them back wait at least 6 more months, and follow it up with a reprint if possible (sice they will likely have more insight into that now).
Given its a beta currently but i hope after a year or 2 the Gamechanger list will be "finalized" barring newly printed overperformers, so more casual people dont have to check and adjust their decks al the time.
Crow_Umbra says... #2
There was a post started yesterday asking about incorporating Bracket flagging as a feature on site, since other deck building sites already have the feature incorporated. I don't know any of the behind the scenes stuff involved in making these features possible, but you can read a bit there.
In regards to your post, I do agree that Brackets are a step in the right direction, but obviously need more refinement and input from the community. It seems like the late April time window mentioned in Gavin's article will hopefully give us a more fleshed out version of this system. As the Bracket system continues to evolve and grow (hopefully), I hope a bit more nuance will be utilized to better distinguish each category:
Although the current list of Game Changers is a helpful starting point, I think this list will continue to grow from the ~40ish cards currently on the list.
I wonder if down the road, certain Game Changers (GCs) will have more "weight" to them for Bracket level consideration compared to others? To your point, I think fast mana could carry a heavier weight, especially with how important it is to cEDH compared to Brackets 1-4.
As an extension of Fast Mana, I hope some version of future Brackets also takes mana base optimization into consideration beyond the powerful utility lands currently on the GC list.
No system will be perfect, but I think that Brackets have the potential to provide a clearer framework for deck building intentions vs the nebulous "1-10" scale that players have tried to gauge with in the past.
February 12, 2025 3:59 p.m.