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.
February 14, 2025 3:46 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #9
I do find this system to be useful, but I hope that the brackets are more akin to guidelines than they are to strict rules, since I do not like feeling constrained when I construct my decks or play with them, and I can confidently say that none of my decks shall fit into brackets 4 or 5, but, other than that, I am not certain into which brackets they would fit.
February 17, 2025 5:32 p.m.
As the OP noted, the opportunity for interaction and polling of the community will go a long way to making the evolution of the brackets more palatable and beneficial to actual game conversations going forward, with an actual focus on the player base to help guide those changes. As well intentioned as the RC was, that lack of regular communication and transparency made the sole discretion decisioning for bans and unbans an easy target for complaining and even vitriol. Those extreme reactions were appalling, but some of it, especially the lotus and crypt decisions, felt very detached based on their recent reprints as chase cards for millions of dollars of income for WotC. That leads me to the above opinion:
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).
If WotC unbanned in conjunction with a new reprint of those cards, it would be incredibly harmful to the legitimacy of the new bracket system, as it would appear as a very thinly veiled manipulation of the unacknowledged secondary market to generate yet another windfall for WotC. If the new bracket system is going to work, and the entire player base has an opportunity to feel heard and valued, then any bannings and unbannings need to be completely separate from current or future planned reprints, otherwise it's just another manipulation of the player base for bait and switch tactics to maximize Hasbro profits, intended or otherwise.
February 17, 2025 5:58 p.m.
Crow_Umbra says... #11
DemonDragonJ, I'd recommend reading Gavin's article if you haven't already. Each Bracket has a more detailed description about the deck building intention of it, when taken into consideration of the criteria for card inclusions/exclusions, gives us a fuller picture of the current starting point. I wouldn't say these are strict rules as much as they are a communication tool/guideline for communicating deck building intentions.
I'd like to think that the Bracket distributions amongst brewers is kinda like a bell curve, where most decks will likely fall in the Bracket 3 range of being upgraded, but not nearly as optimized as the stuff in B4 and B5. Bracket 5 is cEDH, and is the most no holds barred/optimized for a specific competitive tournament-focused meta. Bracket 4 is the most optimized without building for a specific tournament-focused meta.
In all likelihood, most of your decks will be in B2 & B3. B1 decks are going to be super casual theme focused decks (People sitting in chairs, everyone facing left/right, etc).
These Brackets will likely get more specific over time, especially as more cards get added to the Game Changers list.
February 17, 2025 6 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #12
Azdranax, I fully agree that I would prefer that Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus remain banned in EDH, since the rules committee banned them for a reason, although I still am hoping for Prophet of Kruphix to be unbanned, at some point, since I feel that the format has evolved sufficiently for the prophet to no longer be a major issue in it.
February 17, 2025 6:39 p.m.
I think the bracket system is fine, and I'm sure they will make it better over time, I just think that maybe the timing is really bad. We've had a couple game nights since brackets, and some people are into it, some people are very not into it, and some people have no idea what's in each bracket. This wouldn't be too bad if we didn't already have problems with, some people want to play universe beyond, some people don't want to play against universe beyond, some people want to update decks and some people don't want to read every new card, people getting actually priced out of new cards, and I don't know, it just feels like there are a lot of splits already between players and adding another conversation to the mix is not helping.
The brackets seem great for new players, and I like the idea, I just kind of wish this is a direction that happened in like 2020 when the format was more cohesive, and developed from there.
February 26, 2025 12:42 p.m.
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:
-
Bracket 2: But if you smash one helm...
-
Bracket 3: Above such mortal concerns
-
Bracket 4: Arrogant. Ruthless. Oppressive. Victorious.
April 12, 2025 6:15 p.m.
Wow, a thorough - very well written stream of consciousness indeed. So far, i've only taken a closer look at Clear Waters, and I can agree that it's a very Tier 4 leaning deck based off of it's resource denial subtheme. The inclusion of lands that may enter tapped and lack of Gamechangers and/or Usual High Powered Staples may hold the deck back, but I argue it still belongs. What's your meta like? Are decks also less heavy on the Gamechangers or optimized manabases?
April 13, 2025 4:31 p.m.
Mortlocke I don't really have a meta right now--I can count the number of matches I've played on one hand since the bracket system came out, and those were solid Bracket 2. Honestly, this site is most of my M:tG activity these days. Hoping to change that.
So the deck hasn't gotten any live play yet, I just finished it a couple weeks ago, and I'm kind of using this thread as a proxy for the rule zero conversation to get an idea of what people think. I'm definitely taking your feedback on board, and the consensus seems to be that it should be in Bracket 4.
April 13, 2025 4:52 p.m.
Well if you have a few, we can hop onto Spell table and maybe have a few rounds? I have decks ranging from bracket 2 to 4. Maybe you can better gauge what your deck is based off of a few 1v1s?
Edit. I have no bracket 1 decks.
April 13, 2025 5:46 p.m. Edited.
Mortlocke I'll see if I can carve out some time and let you know. Thanks for the offer!
April 13, 2025 6:01 p.m.
Oh, full disclosure I'm on Central European Time, but I work weird hours so I'm sure we can make it work.
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.