Commander bracket recommendation
TappedOut forum
Posted on April 4, 2025, 6:41 p.m. by legendofa
I'm putting this in the TappedOut forum instead of Commander/EDH because it's about how T/O evaluates decks and brackets.
How does the site determine what counts as "few" or "many" tutors for bracket recommendations? What does it count as a tutor? How does it distinguish between brackets 1 and 2, or between 4 and 5? I don't have any complaints or suggestions for now, but I'd like to know a little more about how it works.
One of the things that caught my eye is that Plea for Guidance isn't a tutor. When I tuned down one of my decks slightly by switching out the deck's only game changer Enlightened Tutor, the recommended bracket dropped from 3 to 1.
April 5, 2025 1:55 p.m.
Huh. Yeah, Plea for Guidance isn't listed as a tutor for me either. Maybe it was just missed in the tagging process.
"Many tutors" seems to mean 4 or more judging by the bracket recommendation reasons on my own decks.
Something to keep in mind with the bracket classification system is that there is the technical aspects of the brackets (what cards are and aren't allowed) but there is also a less formal gameplay personality aspect to the bracket system as well. Each bracket has its own expectations for how the decks and games in that bracket will generally play out. TappedOut's bracket recommendation system can only judge your deck based on the types of cards that the bracket system restricts. It isn't able to judge how strong your deck's card choices and synergies are.
Just because TappedOut's system says that a deck could technically count as a bracket 1 deck doesn't actually mean that's what the deck should be classified as. Bracket 1 is meant for intentionally goofy decks that want to do some sort silly gimmick that might take 10+ turns to pull off. Any deck that is reasonably built and has a solid game plan for winning would probably qualify as bracket 2 at the lowest in most instances.
It is also possible to have a deck that should be classified as a bracket 3 deck even if it doesn't run any Game Changer cards. Bracket 2 is meant for decks around the power level of a pre-constructed deck, so a well-tuned and upgraded deck would probably be too strong for that bracket and is better classified as a Bracket 3 regardless of if it has Game Changer cards or not. If your deck has any 2-card infinite combos, or can often threaten to win a game around turns 7 or 8 by some other means, then it should likely be considered a bracket 3 deck.
The bracket system is still a work in progress so at this point in time it is still relying on people to use their own judgement to honestly assess their decks. What the system does for now is give people a basis that they can use to talk about their decks with each other and make sure that everyone at the table is on the same page regarding their expectations for the sort of game that they will be playing.
April 5, 2025 5:52 p.m.
SaberTech 100% agree. The bracket system still has some amount of subjectivity and personal evaluation, and synergy is notoriously hard to measure. Deck power level will always be a continuous spectrum, no matter how much people try to break it into discrete chunks. I have a few lists I would call "high bracket 2" or "low bracket 3" or similar shading.
I'm just wondering what specific criteria TappedOut uses, and maybe offer some feedback as it continues. I've defied the recommendations a couple of times already.
April 5, 2025 6:03 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that TappedOut sets its recommendations based on card limitations. Bracket 1 has the most limitations on what you can run while Brackets 4 and 5 have none aside from the ban list. The more your deck matches the bracket limitations the closer to Bracket 1 the recommendations will assign your deck, although it does seem like some cards haven't been tagged properly like the Plea for Guidance you mentioned. It's basically an adaptation of the system where your deck gets labelled "Not Commander Legal" if you have a banned card in it.
And I apologize if you already know this but I'm just adding this for clarity's sake, the bracket system was introduced by WotC so TappedOut is just following their guidelines for what card limitations the brackets have.
Rachel Weeks posted a nicely organized infographic on the brackets on her WachelReeks twitter account. It's better than the one that WotC put out. If you search "WachelReeks Commander Brackets beta chart" you should be able to find it. It's the one with the yellow background. You'll have to look up WotC's list of Game Changer cards separately though.
I think that WotC is also expected to release any commander ban list changes around the middle of this month, which could also change what cards are on the Game Changer list. There's an expectation that some cards may leave the banned list and get added to the Game Changer list instead.
April 5, 2025 6:49 p.m.
When I say that Rachel Week's infographic is "better" what I mean is that hers presents the info on the brackets better because it includes both the card limitations and the personality of the brackets together. WotC posted those separately.
April 5, 2025 6:56 p.m.
For some direct feedback, Tergrid, God of Fright Flip should be listed as being a game changer.
April 6, 2025 9:33 p.m.
Another point is, does Blood Moon count as mass land denial? It feels like it should be more denial-y in higher brackets, and TappedOut doesn't have it listed. It's in the same deck as my Plea for Guidance switch, which I have marked as Bracket 2 right now. No game changers, a couple of tutors, no extra turns, Blood Moon as possible land denial (?), and high synergy.
April 7, 2025 3:19 a.m.
Yep, Blood Moon is an example of what WotC considers to be mass land denial. From the original article:
For a little bit of additional definition around "mass land denial," this is a category of card that most Commander players find frustrating. So, to emphasize it up front, you should not expect to see these cards anywhere in Brackets 1–3.
These cards regularly destroy, exile, and bounce other lands, keep lands tapped, or change what mana is produced by four or more lands per player without replacing them. Examples in this category are Armageddon, Ruination, Sunder, Winter Orb, and Blood Moon. Basically, any cards and common game plans that mess with several of people's lands or the mana they produce should not be in your deck if you're seeking to play in Brackets 1–3.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/introducing-commander-brackets-beta
April 7, 2025 7:20 p.m.
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.
April 7, 2025 8:45 p.m.
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 Fittest 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.
April 7, 2025 10:26 p.m.
SaberTech Yeah, that deck isn't Stax. It's definitely group slightly/pillowfort. And I could have been clearer with that last paragraph--it was meant to lead into a question about how to build control-combo in bracket 2, but I got distracted and rushed it. The Stax reference was for the upper end of combo-control, what I would expect to see in bracket 4+.
Blood Moon is also weird in that it's probably at its strongest in brackets 3 and low-4--below that, and it's mostly basic lands; above that, and people should expect land denial and plan to play around it.
In my less-than-humble opinion, the bracket system is a supplement and aid to, not a replacement for, the Rule 0 conversation. A few of my decks feel like they're sliding around the brackets, and I'm trying to decide if it's worth modifying them, or if people will accept them as-is.
April 7, 2025 10:58 p.m.
I think that a goad deck is a decent approach to control for the spirit of bracket 2. You aren't really denying people from playing the game and you aren't really slowing down the game but you are still limiting some of their choices to influence the flow of the game. A handful of counterspells to have more say over when an opponent can wrath the board, but not too many. If the deck does have infinite combos they should probably be janky 3 or 4 card combos that maybe you will be able to put together in the late game, but winning with them probably shouldn't be the primary win condition for the deck because the lack of good tutor spells makes that approach kind of unreliable. Better to focus on setting up card draw engines instead.
If it is an option for you, maybe build a bracket 2 deck and a bracket 3 deck that stick closely to the rules and spirit of those brackets so that you know you have something that should be fine to play regardless of the group of people that you happen to be playing with. They can be your backup options just in case the rule 0 talks for your other decks don't pan out. That way you don't need to worry as much about your current decks until you've tried out the rule 0 talk with people a bit more to see how it goes with the new bracket system.
Of course, if you already have a regular group that you play with, just build for what your group is comfortable with and you can worry about accommodating other people later. Maybe it just means that you carry a small selection of alternative cards for each of your decks that you can use to better adjust them for the preferences of a new group that you might end up playing with.
April 7, 2025 11:46 p.m.
Good advice. I don't have a consistent group or schedule at the moment, mostly pickup games at my LGS with whoever's there, and I can count the number of matches I've played since the bracket system dropped on one hand. (This site is most of my day-to-day M:tG life, and I'd like to get a group going again.) So I think I'm still new to the system, and I've been sticking with a deck that's solidly Bracket 2. I'll ask around next time I get a match set up.
April 8, 2025 12:01 a.m.
How about Blood Sun + Citadel of Pain + Manabarbs? Is this too land-denial-ish for Bracket 2, or would people be okay with this?
April 10, 2025 2:05 p.m.
Id say that's a rule zero conversation... imo its fun janky synergy but better minds may think different.
April 10, 2025 2:23 p.m.
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.
April 10, 2025 7:35 p.m.
SaberTech Thank you, that's the kind of feedback I was looking for.
I think I'm going to keep Blood Moon and Manabarbs in the mail deck for now, and have a sideboard of Blood Sun and something like Form of the Dragon if people would prefer no land manipulation.
April 10, 2025 9:41 p.m.
Icbrgr Sorry, I meant to thank you in that last comment, too. Thanks for the feedback!
April 10, 2025 10:27 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #21
Completely forgot to respond to this. I marked the Tergrids as game changer.
Bracket requirements were made by comparing and contrasting the rules text box with a criteria.
Tutor is "Search your library for a (non basic land) card". And Demonic Consultation.
Mass land denial is "Destroy/Exile all lands/(basic land type)." and "Return all lands to hand".
In looking over this I can see some issues. Tutor can be "Search your library for ..." with an exclusion of "basic land" and "(basic land type)".
Mass land denial is missing sacrifice.
Blood Moon being regarded as being mass land denial by wotc is interesting because from what I hear it's more regarded as a tool players without a whole lot of money can use against moneybags mcgee and their $10,000 mana base.
There's obviously the numbers thing too with regards to mass land denial with the aforementioned Wildfire. Let me know any other cards that are not matching that you think should and I'll create some better rules text comparisons.
April 12, 2025 10:07 p.m. Edited.
Femme_Fatale Thanks for the response and for taking action!
I have the same experience with Blood Moon. I'm not sure there's a good way to print a card that shuts down Tundra, Gaea's Cradle, and Tolarian Academy but not Bloodfell Caves and Rupture Spire, so it's kind of all or nothing for non basic land hate.
Is this a good thread to post further feedback on?
April 12, 2025 10:22 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #23
Yeah this thread's a good place for further feedback like you've already been doing so far.
April 13, 2025 1:24 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #24
Also Damping Sphere is the closest card to what you are thinking of legendofa.
April 13, 2025 1:53 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #26
Anything anyone thinks is missing with this?
Tutor:
"Search your library for ... card"
Exception: Tutors that, within the above string, have the words basic, Plains, Forest, Island, Mountain or Swamp.
This should catch instances of multiple cards being tutored.
Individual cards: Demonic Consultation, Divining Witch, Tunnel Vision
Mass Land Denial:
"Destroy/Exile ... lands"
"Each player/opponent sacrifices ... lands"
"Return ... lands to their owner's hand"
Exception: If the above ... is "two" or "three" for any of them.
Note the requirement for the word land to be plural.
"Each player/opponent ... chooses ... land(s) ... sacrifices/destroys/exiles the rest."
"Return all lands/permanents to their owners' hands."
"Whenever a player .... that player returns a land they control to its owner's hand."
"lands don't untap"
"Players can't play lands"
Exception: If the card is instant or sorcery.
All instances of the word land dictated as a requirement in these strings can be swapped with "nonbasic land", "Plains", "Forest", "Island", "Mountain" or "Swamp".
All instances of the word land/lands must not be nonland.
Individual cards: Blood Moon, Desolation, Equipoise, Hall of Gemstone, Mana Vortex, Mist of Stagnation, Parallax Tide, Sands of Time, Storm Cauldron, Tangle Wire, Temporal Distortion, Thoughts of Ruin
edit: quietly adds "Hall of Gemstones" as a synonym to Hall of Gemstone
April 13, 2025 3:54 p.m. Edited.
Femme_Fatale How about Harbinger of the Seas for mass land denial, and your call on Quicksilver Fountain.
April 13, 2025 4:14 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #28
Ah right I forgot there were three blood moon effects, I can syntax that one then. And yes I I'll add Quicksilver Fountain as an individual card.
April 13, 2025 5:02 p.m.
Thoughts on Smokestack potentially counting as mass land destruction? It doesn't specifically target lands, but generally the end goal is to leave opponents with no permanents on board while keeping some of your own.
April 13, 2025 7:07 p.m.
I don't know if you can program the system to detect certain combinations of cards in deck lists but Living Plane, Nature's Revolt, Natural Affinity, and Kamahl, Fist of Krosa are often played in conjunction with cards like Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite with the intent to destroy and deny opponents lands.
Mycosynth Lattice + Sydri, Galvanic Genius, Karn, Silver Golem *oversized*, or Karn, the Great Creator are some other notable mana destruction/denial combos.
April 13, 2025 7:24 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #31
Combos are not really to be included in mass land destruction. This is for individual cards.
If you want to know why combos specifically can not be referenced, look to the combase and the 20 years it'll take a team of some large number of people to clean up and no one can agree on where the line of "combo" is drawn.
I can include Smokestack.
April 13, 2025 8:46 p.m. Edited.
I'm sorry but what if my decks don't identify as "bracket"? Maybe we could make this thing optional for the many of us who think this system is very stupid?
April 13, 2025 10:17 p.m.
capwner You should be able to just not choose a bracket. It's a button on the deck editing page, so it's more opt-in than opt-out. I'm not sure if there's a way to de-bracket once you've selected a bracket, though.
April 13, 2025 10:28 p.m.
legendofa Well, it seemed like my most recent EDH deck was automatically bracketed as a "4" and now I have no way of removing it. It's not the end of the world or anything but it is annoying for somebody who personally really dislikes the system (more guidelines = more loopholes).
April 13, 2025 10:33 p.m.
Huh. I was working on a bunch of decks yesterday and manually bracketed them.
April 13, 2025 11:14 p.m. Edited.
This was last month, maybe something was changed or I could have clicked on it by accident. Either way it appears to be impossible to "un-bracket" currently.
April 14, 2025 12:07 a.m.
Regarding Tapped Out outright suggesting Brackets, I feel like Bracket 2 should be the automatic floor. Rather like cEDH is a user opt-in off Bracket 4, Bracket 1 is an opt-in off Bracket 2. If you have to ask if your deck is cEDH or Bracket 1, then it is not. You don't build the Ladies Looking Left deck by accident. This just being my thought on decks where no Bracket has yet been specified.
April 14, 2025 7:04 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #38
We also have the update to the bracket system happening in May so not too interested in doing anything regarding large revisions.
April 14, 2025 8:57 p.m.
Femme_Fatale I don't know if this would be part of the May bracket update, but Cataclysm and Balance* effects don't seem to be captured in the "choose some, sac the rest" section, along with Razia's Purification. Pox might also have a slightly different syntax. This deck is getting a Bracket 3 recommendation, with "You have no mass land denial cards".
*Balance itself is banned, but Balancing Act and Magus of the Balance are still options.
April 15, 2025 2:25 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #40
note that the list hasn't been implemented yet. That specific part does hit Magus, Balance and Cataclysm but doesn't hit Razia's Purification, Balancing Act nor Pox. I can add in an additional option for permanents, Pox has unique wording so will have to be manually added.
This is what I have so far.
Mass Land Denial:
"sacrifice ... lands"
"each player sacrifices ... lands"
"return ... lands to their owner's hand"
Exception: If the above ... has "two" or "three" in it for any of them.
Note the requirement for the word land to be plural.
"lands don't untap"
"Players can't play lands"
Exception: If the card is instant or sorcery.
"each player ... chooses ... land(s) ... sacrifices the rest."
"return all lands to their owners' hands"
All instances of the word "land" dictated as a requirement in the strings above can be swapped for "permanent".
"Whenever a player .... that player returns a land they control to its owner's hand."
"lands are (land subtype)."
All instances of the word land dictated as a requirement in all the strings above can be swapped with "nonbasic land", "Plains", "Forest", "Island", "Mountain" or "Swamp".
All instances of the word "sacrifice" can be swapped for "destroy" or "exile".
All instaces of the word "player" can be swapped for "opponent".
A global expection for all Mass Land Denial is made if "nonland" is ever in the textbox.
Individual cards bypass exceptions.
Individual cards: Desolation, Equipoise, Hall of Gemstone, Mana Vortex, Mist of Stagnation, Parallax Tide, Pox, Quicksilver Fountain, Sands of Time, Smokestack, Storm Cauldron, Tangle Wire, Temporal Distortion, Thoughts of Ruin, Words of Wind, World Queller
Icbrgr says... #2
I'm also curious... Boom / Bust counts towards mass land denial but Wildfire does not... I know that's a big difference between sacrificing 4 lands vs destroying ALL LANDS but still if I was having a rule zero discussion and we agreed that there wasn't mass land denial I think I'd raise an eyebrow.
April 5, 2025 12:11 p.m.