The biggest mistake on that bracket sample photo is using "high power" and "low power." it's supposed to be called something else and the tell is Swords to plowshares, its basically the most efficient creature removal of all time but it's b1 card since it's everywhere just like sol ring is a power lvl max card but it's so common in the format that everyone is ok with seeing a solring in their games
@@Xoderfla Yeah, I can see them changing the names of things around. They whipped up that concept after only just 2 days after the whole thing happened, so I can see a lot changing between now and when they officially show this system off.
This is a fantastic point. Maybe it would be better to overall exclude such universal staples like that from the bracket system and reserve it for cards you don't see as often in genuinely casual games like vampiric tutor and ancient tomb.
@ThisIsACommanderChannel I can't blame them for the name mistake since it was Intended as something very basic to show what they were thinking about, but it's clear once you listen to the podcast they did trying to talk about the whole RC transition. Aside from that, I do believe they need to put a general idea of what combos are in what brackets, same for interaction and tutors, I have thought about it alot the pass few days and you just can't write every single combo for each bracket but you can say bracket 3 is all combos 3 cards or more // 2 cards but it costs more than X amount of mana or something like that just as a reference to see how fast //easy to assemble is your combo/s
@@Xoderfla For sure, there are too many combos but more importantly too many variations of those combos. So many interchangable cards that can still make the combo function as it can. So they will have to draw the line somewhere, at what is practical to show up in a game.
All the groups I'm in agree, begrudgingly or willingly, that the system is going to be great to easily avoid pubstomping. I wonder where on the bracket will heavy stax piecesc (like Winter Or or Static Orb) be.
@@lugh.i Oh, I don't think there is any real chance that those 2 wouldn't be in Bracket 4. I do hope that they place the 1-sided stax stuff higher than the symmetrical ones.
where are you "pubstomping" in EDH? out side of cockatrice are there any platforms where thousands of players meet with hundreds of different decks that require power level rules?
@@MrPandarilla I encounter pub stompers quite often. I have two LGSs I go to, one smaller that's closer to me and one larger that I drive around 45-50 mins to go to. At the larger one, we get a lot of people from out of town, people traveling a lot (it's close to our airport and lots of hotels). So we do get a lot of pubstompers, people that come in and say their deck is a 6 or 7, but then uses a ton of tutors, Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Jeska's Will, and just about every other staple you can think of that are just "good stuff" cards that don't care what your theme is they're just good and helpful you to win faster in any deck. And that is fine to have that deck, that's not a problem, but if you communicate that as a 6 or 7 or say it's just an okay, goofy deck that durdles, making all your opponents then grab their goofy, lower power decks, that's a bummer.
@@lugh.i Im decades out of the game, I played back during the MWS/apprentice days. Im just saying within playgroups like dedicated discords or the old magic-league mirc servers these rules dont matter. and when dealing with randoms in a global unranked match making pool you get what you get, most people WILL be using teched out decks when they can proxy everything (at least I did)
@@Derpingmuffin Very much. I don't see this succeeding or catching on unless they make it as easy as possible to find out what your brackets are. It needs to be integrated into every major deck building site, EDH REC, Gatherer, and Scryfall. The tools and resources that WotC have access to (basically money and funding) are the best perks they have over the RC.
We play at work and this system would really help. We play a lot so we already have a pretty good idea of each others decks for the ones we've had for a long time, but when we build whole new decks and want to playtest then we can have a better idea of what to pit them against initially.
For sure, even experienced players can use this with their new decks. When you and a coworker sit down with your upgraded precons, you say your deck is an upgraded precon and you've swapped out some cards with okay cards, but maybe when I say mine is also upgraded but I've swapped out cards for things like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Cyclonic Rift, Worldly Tutor, Seedborn Muse, and three extra turn spells, these are very different. So it can help that talk make more sense.
I completely agree! I may disagree with which cards are placed where in the system, but at least you can categorically identify a deck! (e.g. "Your deck has Rhystic. It's a 3."). It's not arbitrary, because of how specific it's supposed to be! And therefore, you can go anywhere and find a game you can enjoy, AND it carves out a space to integrate CEDH! Which has felt like a different format for years! I really do think it'll be a headache for the rules committee--depending on how far they go. But because everyone I know builds their decks online first, it probably won't even change how people build decks. Just select the power level you're aiming for and away you go! I'm happy to see some optimism on this for once! 😂
You didnt mention one of the biggest benefits: unbannings. Now cards like Primeval Titan or Sylvan Primordial can come off the list and maybe be restricted to Tier 3/4. We've gotta remember, to some players Consecrated Sphinx is a "cEDH" card even though there isn't a single cEDH deck that actually plays it. Pulling cards off the banned list and restricting them in this way allows people who actually like these cards to be able to play them in environments where these cards are powerful but not oppressive to lower power brackets. There are players who do like playing with powerful cards but dont want to rock the boat too hard against cards that "destroy the format." Now powerful cards can simply be treated as "not for low bracket play" instead of screechings about bannings or ruining everything.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I believe this is definitely part of the reason to break it up into 4 brackets at least. It is my unfounded belief that Wizards don't really want to ban anything, and then want to keep making powerful cards to sell boosters. i also think a great number of people like playing with those cards but don't like the social stigma surrounding them when playing at LGS or unknown playgroups. This way those players and Wizards can insulate themselves from some criticism aimed at them from the other players who insist that "Commander is a casual format" without explaining why someone should be discouraged from playing powerful cards. Either you have nothing banned and Rule 0 or you have banned cards. The current state of "we have a banned list, but also Rule 0 and a second super secret banned list that makes you a "pubstomper" if you have those cards, but we're also not going to say what those cards are"
@@digitalworldsvr7881 I actually did still plan to make Ep 150 of TR&CI as it is part 2 of the last episode, but this episode too too long to make and I just didn't have the time yesterday to even start it. I hope this was just as good to watch.
Great opinions vid. Brackets, salt scores, power level pregame discussion and rule 0... all useful tools, all in constant evolution. I am all in if the help navigate the social aspect of commander gameplay. If they are used to shame mistakes or pointout dishonest players not so sure of their usefulness. The crux of commander is the same of any social endeavour, without care and love it never blooms nor frees people. Empathy and caring cannot be taught by any of the aforementioned tools.
@@corvidcognition Ain't that the truth. We can have access to all these tools but at the end of the day we have to be some empathetic players. If you don't care at all about your opponents, the fun they're having, then this multiplayer format just won't succeed. Thankfully, most of the players I encounter do feel that way, they want their opponents to enjoy the game, win or lose.
If everyone uses it responsibly, I can see it being a fine tool. Now whether it'll pan out like that... I think it'll be more messy but we'll have to see how much more messy. Now, what I do think is a more likely point of gripe is the idea that precons are tier 1. This can get tricky when concerning the propensity for cards to be placed in them that are meant to get people to buy the product, the higher tier cards or soon to be banned ones. At what point of modification does it cease to be a tier 1 deck? Keep in mind that these cards, whatever they are, are likely also the cards that are carrying the player to victory when they do win. While still present in the old system, I think the brackets make this conversation significantly messier. My other concern is that the brackets may well push things in the direction of pushing certain types of gameplay in certain brackets and the result will be certain bracket decks simply ignoring their predators that are supposedly in a higher bracket. Also, I think the bracket system is a lot easier to game than the ban list because it allows things that simply evade the bracket system to present themselves as something weaker. At that point, what do you say? Hey, that guy built too well within the rules! I don't think the bracket system is all bad but I do think we should take a peek at what new issues it will create and those it will exacerbate.
@@NevarKanzaki Some legit concerns, I'm of course when it first launches it will have some growing pains. To your point about them placing things into brackets to help a project sell, as long as they don't tier things until around 6 months after a product launch, then I feel like that would fix that. Sure, some things still sell after six months, but those are the sorts of sales on the retail side, not at the source of WotC selling their product.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I was not saying they would put things into brackets to help a product sell. That'd be a separate issue that's also not good. I'm saying that they put cards in that are obviously higher than tier 1 and often times significantly higher. As a precon, the deck is untuned so calling it tier 1 is something for the most part everyone agrees to. The issue comes at the transition. If I switch out 1 card, does a precon lose its tier 1 status? How about 5 cards? 10? 20? To take an extreme example, if your precon has skullclamp or reanimate, when do we start factoring that into the power level of the deck? Note that this is probably the deck's most important card to the new player, probably something that has been responsible for their wins. And now you want them having it to count against them? What happens when the thing in question is the commander? Table issues to me are much more important than WOTC selling their product. If WOTC wants to make a quick buck, they'll power creep or reprint stuff. If they want to make money long term, they'll care about the health of the game. I expect there to be some miscommunications and issues at the start when any new system is adopted. I just noted these because I think they're more likely to be enduring issues without clear solutions.
I'd prefer a system, where every card gets a power rating on it's own. Add all points together - the sum is your deck's estimated power. As simple as possible. Regarding rating the cards: I'd like a vote-based rating (like the salt score on cards on edhrec). You avoid discussions like, if Smothering Tithe is level 2 or level 3 oh you have a synergizing commander then it's a 4... come on. The harder you try to pin that down inside the bracket system, the more you will fail. 20.000 users voted so far: Smothering TIthe has a current power rating of 2,7 - Cool. This way the power level of a card might slowly change - and that would be great, too. Imagine they established a four bracket system 10 years ago, how do you think would look these bracket ratings today? Regarding the handling of combos: Any card that has the potential of an out of the blue instant game win (we have the cEDH meta to spot those) should get a really high power rating, regardless. Assumptions like "But what if a player has Thoracle WITHOUT Consultion in his deck, then it's not nearly as powerful..." are misleading. In the rare cases this happens, then, yes the system will fail to represent that correctly. But the system is always an estimation, so a few points off, because one combo piece is missing is really no big deal.
@@TheJohRetter A vote would be interesting, I would hope they have a diverse group/s they pull from. Someone on Reddit did a poll, on my phone and can't find it, but I think it was maybe around 1,500 responses and it was interesting to see those results. And yes, a fluid system will be crucial, as new cards come out and strategies evolve, the previous rankings of certain cards should evolve with them.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel Right, voting would solve so much problems: - wizards would only need to maintenance the infastructure but they'd need no ressources for the rating itself, re-evaluating, backlash handling... - people will probably accept the opinions of the majority of players more than the ones from an RC - nobody could say, that wizards does not treat commander as a community format, meanwhile they can keep on printing expensive chasecards and keep a light banlist
@@TheJohRetter I think voting would for sure be beneficial to assist them, but not the sole factor. People who would vote, the ones that would take the time to spend hours going through hundreds and thousands of Magic cards and voting on them, those will be very particular kinds of players. They will be players who have a very deep understanding of Magic, knowledge of the cards and the game at a level that new players wouldn't, and this bracket system is in a large part for new players rather than the very enfranchised players. When I sit down at a table and see certain Commanders and certain cards, even just the way a player talks, I can tell the level of that player's cards and I know what to expect from that game. The brackets won't really help me out in my games, but for a newer player that just bought their first precon, this can really help them.
The threshold should be 3 at most. Why? Because I want every player to declare what 'exceptions' they have in their 'tier 2' deck before we start playing for two reasons: - It makes it easier to judge if it really is a tier 2 deck (if the 2 exceptions are thassa's oracle and demonic consultation, then I won't play with you) - The moment you play a tier 4 card that you did not name beforehand I will know you are cheating. Otherwise, pubstompers will just feign ignorance and say there's only three tier 4 cards in their deck while secretly they have 5 or more, and you won't know unless they draw and play 4 of them.
From a designer perspective, imagine having to categorize every card you ever print from now until the end of time into a 4 tier power category. The delineation between power 2 and 3 cards is, I expect, going to be so incredibly arbitrary, which maybe is the point, but I can't imagine including a 2 and 3 bracket for any reason other than making it a functional banlist. Staring at a synergy piece that's conditionally good with some commanders and evaluating whether that falls in 2 or 3 is going to be entirely speculative. Honestly should be a 3 tier system, but then it's going to be even less informative than it already won't be. I'm doomer on this.
But then can't you just ignore these brackets, just like how people ignore the 1-10 scale now? As he said in the video, there is no reason you can't just take your tier 2 deck against a tier 3 deck.
@@Aerese1 Again, I don't think they should concern themselves during game design with the bracket they think the cards belong to until 6+ months after they've been in players' hands. They as game designers of course will already be thinking about designing balanced cards, like trying not to make more Nadus. Also, I imagine a very small percentage of cards will be bracketed to tiers 2, 3, and 4. It will probably be like 90% of all cards will be tier 1. Hopefully no doom, since it is happening, I want to be hopeful.
@@truegamerking You mean their placement in the brackets is more on how they synergize with other cards, rather than their individual power in a vacuum?
I am not so worried about where most cards end up, pretty sure most of my decks contain 1, 2, and barely any 3 level cards, but I am worried about the commanders. Right now, people already have an idea of which commanders are more powerful than others, like Urza High Artificer, but with this tier system I feel like if a commander is labeled as a 4 then people might target you more even if your deck is fully packed with only level 1 and 2 cards.
@@TheAlcoholic83 That is a good question. I do have concern about that as well. I love to take very busted Commanders but make weird versions of them. I have a Korvold deck but it's a lands deck with no treasure or aristocrats stuff. I have a Karametra deck but it's a reanimator deck based around Emeria, the Sky Ruin. I have a Jodah the Unifier deck but it is all about Shrines and my goal is to attack with my Shrine creatures. But that's why there will still be a Rule 0 talk that I can explain the meme aspect of the powerful Commanders
If they are at all intelligent about this system then a deck of 99 tier 1 cards with a tier 4 commander is a tier 4 deck, period. Just like a deck with 59 Standard-legal cards and a One Ring is a Modern deck.That's the only way it means anything, otherwise it's no different from the 1-10 scale.
@@martinskullerud2195 So you don't think the Threshold would be applicable? Or only with the Commanders, that the Commander's tier is a singular deciding thing? In either case, that's just part of the pre-game discussion. "My deck is all 1s and 2s but my Commander is BLANK which is a tier 3 guy." And then the other players can decide where to go from there.
My opinion is that a card is given a point value based on its bracket. Assuming basic lands are 0 points, having a point range for each bracket would make it more accessible. Less than 75 points? Definitely bracket 1. 100 points? Probably bracket 2. 150 points? Verging on tier 4.
@@vanatrix1942 I've never played Canadian Highlander, but I know they do have a point system, most cards are 0 points and you can only have a total of 10 points, so if a card is worth 8 points then you're pretty much just using that one powerful card. I'm betting they looked at something like that.
He did pretty much say that people would do that, that people would be going around with max minus one for how many they could use of the higher rank tier. Neither our current system nor this new one would stop tryhards, but I don't think he expects it to.
Oh yeah, for sure. Being a staple can only go so far, just like how budget decks can be built that can still take on high power decks. I can build a Winota, Joiner of Forces deck that demolishes others, similarly Magda, Brazen Outlaw, Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain, Brago, King Eternal, Sythis, Harvest's Hand, Narset, Enlightened Master, Hinata, Dawn-Crowned, and many others that I could build for $50-100 and take on decks that cost $3-5k. There will always be those people that try to trick people into thinking their playing a fair deck within the constraints of their format or budget or bracket and they just want to win.
this is mostly just meant to be a way to get people to talk about there decks. you could say "my deck is a 4 because i have a demonic tutor in it but otherwise is a 2. is that ok?". its better then saying every deck is about a 7.
@@play_hd3 Exactly! It's a system that everyone must be governed by and follow exactly, it's just a tool with a bit more objectivity to it to help us have a more meaningful pre-game talk.
I mean I hate hasbro but I really agree with this. For years I have been saying the biggest issue with EDH is that the bannlist is balanced around cEDH and not LGS play and this fixes that. I have stopped playing mtg for years because LGS play wasnt fun anymore with all the netdeckers and "like a 4 decks" and hasbro being idiots but this might draw me in. I think a key factor will be what tier tutors are placed in, if there are no tutors for non lands CMC
@@23bcx I think it is safe to say they will have a lot of variance in the tiers of tutors since their concept image shows a tutor in bracket 2, 3, & 4 based on how good each of those tutors is. And if you do come back to the game, welcome back! I hope you still have a lot of your collection.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I gave most of it that didnt have sentimental value away to a buddy who is getting into being an online retailer. I probably dont want to give hasbro money still even indirectly but blue core proxies are like $0.15 a pop. We will have to see but when the new rules come out I might make one or two of the lowest supported tier decks
@@23bcx Oh snap! Where do you get your proxies from for $0.15? I have a buddy in my close playgroup and he gets in bulk orders for himself and some others and his are around $0.30 so that would be nice to cut his costs in half in the future.
If your goal is to match power levels, assessing a deck by its highest bracket card is the best way to do it. Any game where you draw the best card in your deck in your opening hand is the same as if you tutored for it. This is why a vampiric tutor is automatically at least 3. It's a second copy of the best card in your deck. If your deck is truly jank and can't hang without VT, then you're unlikely to draw it anyway, and removing the tutor won't make any meaningful change anyway. If your deck truly is just a 1 or 2 except for a vampiric tutor, take out the tutor and be a 1 or 2. Instead, put a card draw spell in the deck.
I would be *extremely* surprised if they do virtually anything proposed in this video, for the simple reason that they've stated they're trying to keep it as simple as possible. Thresholds for brackets or trying to list out combos as well as individual cards both increase complexity of the system, and there are many casual players who don't use online tools (or frequent online MtG discussion spaces at all) that will never go through the effort to make these assessments.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel The threshold component. The bracket system is something WotC proposed, so I assume it's within the realm of possibility, but having thresholds where different numbers of different sets of cards determine the bracket of a deck seems unlikely to me as a solution WotC would land on, even if it makes sense and is arguably a better measure of deck power.
@@Welknair Yeah, that's totally an outcome that I could see happening. They may go the route of just being an ultimatum. If you have just a single B3 card then your whole deck is considered and should be advertised as a B3 deck. And that's fine, my close pod, the guys I play with regularly, we will most certainly mix our decks around in power just as we do now.
I don't think trying to put individual combo cards into the brackets is a good system; even as a pair or set. That will be very confusing; either trying to list the combos but place the individual cards in a different bracket on their own, or trying to explain why pestermite is considered high power to someone not playing the combo. There should be brackets for the power level of individual cards AND a list of categories that move your deck up a bracket. Basically, figure out your decks bracket based on the cards, then move up one bracket for each of the following: Running multiple non-land tutors Running instant win combos Fast mana Etc And obviously more (I don't have time to think it all through, and I wouldn't think of everything anyway). I also don't think things like mass land destruction should be included in the same brackets as powerful cards. Those are the kind of thing that need a different label. Maybe create a salt scale as well? Or just ban those cards.
Is this specifically aimed at the power level for ramp cards? There are more than just ramp cards that will be placed into the bracket 3 & 4 tiers. Some cards are just better at card draw, some are better at tutoring, some are better at stax, some are better at removal, counterspells, and general win cons. Or are you referring to something else?
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel it's aimed at the game in general. the mana system is supposed to be the barometer of power level of any given card and of cards relative to one another. if the game necessitates tacking on additional control factors to make it fair/fun, that means the mana system isn't doing its job. I understand that some cards are poorly designed and are broken. but, a few outliers shouldn't necessitate this type of additional system if the game had been designed well in the first place.
@@danacoleman4007 Magic was originally designed as a smaller game. There wasn't much strict structure to it initially, but it very quickly morphed into a structured 40-60 card deck in a match against a single opponent that has 20 life. The cards were not at all designed with a multiplayer format like Commander or EDH in mind. So, we do have to take that into account when making a statement like "Magic as a whole's mana system isn't doing its job." But then when dealing with Commander, it is a casual format, something traditional Magic isn't known for, so we get into the issue of "not all players have the same expectations from this game" because some people do want the highest competitive aspect from Commander (cEDH) but then there is a rather large spectrum of everything else, and that's what's hard to balance. Some players want meme decks that have no care in the world to win, other players are causal but still want high power cards in which the goal is to win, some players want short games, some players want long games, etc... This doesn't mean that the mana system in Commander is broken, it just means that we need to have a clear and concise agreement as to what we all want. And then once we have that, we need to know exactly what all parts of the game will allow for that agreement to play out in a way that we all have fun.
maybe if you have a bracket 2 deck with 5-9/10 bracket 3 cards youre required to list those cards on request? would discourage trolls while allowing creativity, and put the onus on the player bringing the higher power cards to be proactive in having that rule zero conversation
but even just what little was revealed if implemented as is would give some objectivity to what is currently an entirely subjective conversation (that noobs like me are entirely unprepared for) which imo is sorely needed
Here's a simpler bracket system, totally in line with WotC's pay-to-win approach: Bracket 1: All cards < $10 Bracket 2: Cards up to $10 - $25 Bracket 3: Cards up to $25 - $100 Bracket 4: All cards > $100
I don't think cost should ever be factored into this. There are some insanely powerful cards at under $10 but even more important is that prices swing far more rapidly from reprints as well as new synergies. Toxic Deluge would have been a B3 card in in 2022 but now would be B1, same with Three Visits, Noble Hierarch, Reanimate, Mystical Tutor, Phyrexian Arena, Mirari's Wake, Worldly Tutor, Sylvan Library, Force of Will, Abrupt Decay, Deadly Rollick, Black Market Connections, Flawless Maneuver, Akroma's Will, Diabolic Intent, Grand Abolisher, Doubling Season, Exploration, and Damnation are all cards that have had their prices shift enough in the last 2 years that their bracket would have shifted 1 or even 2 tiers lower. I didn't look at cards that have spiked due to newer cards being printed.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel All of this is under WotC's direct control, and in fact has devolved exactly as they have manipulated the scarcity of chase cards they have concocted over the years. It is the pay-to-win side of Commander that has always been their overriding priority.
@@QuicksilverSG I'm not saying they don't have control over what they reprint and when, that's obvious that they do. I'm saying that if price were the sole factor as to the bracket level of a card, that would be a bad basis for it due to how the prices of cards fluctuate so often and that also price is not a factor in the power of a card. The practical impact on the game is the factor that should be what is used on assigning a bracket.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel What card price reflects is not only rarity, but accessibility. Many of the key pay-to-win cards would lose their stategic advantage were they to become commonly available. This is one of the dominant factors in the de facto brackets that have evolved thus far in Commander gameplay. The exception to this rule is cEDH, where proxies are taken for granted, leveling the playing field into a no-holds-barred cutthroat competition. That is obviously not in WotC's direct interest, though cEDH notoriety does drive demand among pay-to-win players for particularly OP cards.
@@QuicksilverSG But by that logic, cards like Guardian Beast, Candelabra of Tawnos, Argivian Archaeologist, City of Shadows, Elephant Graveyard, Chains of Mephistopheles, Diamond Valley, All Hallow's Eve, Ali from Cairo, Angus Mackenzie, Island of Wak-Wak, and even Singing Tree are all "more powerful" than something like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Doubling Season, Cyclonic Rift, Farewell, Sheoldred, the Apocalypse, The One Ring, and so many other cards that are legit powerhouse staples that are just good in any deck no matter their theme. Yet all those far more expensive and less available cards are just bad in most decks even if on theme.
I think most of the points you bring to support the Bracket system, are points against that system and are more points to had a system like Canadian Highlander points. But nice video.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I think specifically the talk about rule 0, making it easier, thats not for cassual commander, not when you are working with a deck and changing cards and keeping all the respective bracket cards in check and make it more difficult that it need, thats more a point for highlander point system more than for brackets. we have 6 players, 2 that are total cassual and still learning to optimize their precons... so, maybe for season players its not complex, but if you want to keep at bay new players... i wish i could explain myself, and if you disagree please tell me, i am curious too
@@Wiwocs Nah, that's actually a solid point. New players that are playing really casual 1 and 2 tier stuff will have no clue that they even are playing that stuff, they will still be unaware of the brackets. But experienced players that know of the brackets and the cards in each category, they will probably be playing slightly higher power, tier 2 and 3s and possibly 4s if you're more of a cEDH player. And in that case, because of the higher power, there will be a higher expectation to follow the brackets more, which can add more work to the players that already have an idea of things.
I disagree that you should be able to have a few cards of a higher bracket in your deck. Ask yourself, are those few Bracket 3 cards integral to how your deck functions? Are they there specifically to enable a special combo or synergy? If not, taking them out shouldn’t be a big problem. If yes, you are playing a Bracket 3 deck. The system is there for a reason. If you were specifically allowed to have four B3 cards in your B2 deck, then the B2 meta would become warped around which B3 cards/combos are most effective in B2 decks. Moreover, you could be considered to be shooting yourself in the foot if you are NOT running four B3 cards. As both an avid commander and limited player, I love deck restrictions. I love the puzzle of trying to build the strongest deck I can for $150. And so too would I love building decks of different brackets, and trying to make them as strong as possible. I should not be allowed to build my entire B2 deck around a two card B3 combo. That goes against the whole spirit of the bracket system. But if I’m not allowed to do that (and I shouldn’t be), then little Timmy also shouldn’t be able to run four B3 cards in his deck just because… he wants to? He’s too fussy to take them out? He likes the artwork? You’ve got to draw a line somewhere. The whole point of putting brackets on cards is to draw that line. You’ve got to follow it.
@@jackhuckelberry8405 I didn't express it in the video, but I feel like the threshold allows for you to just get access to those cards if they are on theme for your deck. This was, if there is a card that is powerful enough to warrant being in B3, but it is also just perfect for matching the theme of your deck, you're not excluded from using it to still be in a fair range of power for B2 decks. The deck doesn't require it, it doesn't fall apart if you never draw into the card, but when you do get it then it is a lot of fun to be able to use it. It sort of makes me think of Dockside Extortionist when people would play it in their Pirate themed deck. The rest of the deck wasn't all that great, it didn't abuse treasures to go infinite, it didn't endlessly flicker or loop a reanimating Infiniti with Dockside, he was just another pirate for the deck. Anytime I saw that in a game and I was using one of my lower tier decks based on our pre-game talk, I didn't feel lied to. So that is sort of my reasoning for the threshold.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I understand that, and I’m not against that concept. I just think that should be kept as a rule 0 conversation. I don’t think it should be built into the rules themselves. I think doing so would do more harm than good, especially to those more casual players. People playing dockside in their pirate deck because it’s a pirate will get stomped by people who put vampiric tutor, demonic tutor, thassa’s oracle and demonic consultation in their lower bracket deck because the rules state that they can.
@@jackhuckelberry8405 Yup, exactly, there is still a Rule 0 talk to be made, this system is just to help give more context to what is said when that talk happens. We can all sit down and say "let's all use our exactly a 2 decks, not the decks that are 2s with a little bit of 3s and 4s trickled on top" and now everyone is playing exactly with 1 & 2 cards, nothing, not even 1 card over.
@@JeffCarpenter-c1i Indeed! I would hope that it does make things easier for players. If it makes things worse then we can always just ignore it until they fix it or replace it.
THE RIGHT WAY: - Each card= .10 - 1.00 value - Add total to 100 cards - Gives you a percentage, structure it in quarters (10%-25% and so on) or fifths (10%-25% and so on) This is the simplest way to do it, if indeed they are giving every card a value
@@jun1orbaitor44 I don't think the points should get too exacting and specific on a card by card basis for 2 reasons. It would make upgrading your deck a bit more of a hassle, as you add new cards you would make finding the exact matching value complicated, but also over time if the cards change in value as they adapt them to newly released cards then it becomes more difficult for people to keep their decks up to date. The 2nd point is that it is harder to keep track of people pub stomping and trying to cheat with more cards of a type they claim to have. With just 4 tiers and really just 2 tiers that matter for higher power, I can tell pretty quick when you played your 6th bracket 3 card, but if it is on a larger variance scale of point values, I know have to just what what your whole unseen decks makeup is to know if you're running too many higher tier things. But there could be a way to make that work.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel The only reason i thought it should be based on percentages, is to make it the least confusing ironically, lol (especially since commander is a percentage already). 1-4 and trying to keep track of how many an opponent has while playing, might bring on unnecessary frustrations, ie "isn't that a 2 and not a 3, isn't that your 7th 2 and that was your 5th 3?! Sounds way too complicated, especially for newer players. I think if you're really playing with a group that cheats, that's a bigger issue than deciding which point system works better. I thought of the point system as not so much of an anti-cheat, but more of a way to match deck styles between honest groups of people who want to play an honest game of commander, that isn't rule zero. Take all this with a grain of salt (and i probably should've put a disclaimer in my post), I've literally never played one game of mtg. I bought a revised deck when i was a kid, then some ice age packs, then a couple unglued, then waited until 2020 to start my real collection and have since spent $50,000 plus creating 4 decks so far, but im 39 with no friends to play with, as all 5 of my core group died before i was 30 and now i just have work acquaintances. Im definitely not any authority and the wrong person to really comment (despite doing it boldly by saying, "THE RIGHT WAY" for some reason! )
@@jun1orbaitor44 Dang man, I'm so sorry to hear about you losing so many of your friends especially at such a young age. That's rough, but I'm glad you've got people that you work with that you can bond with over Magic. You've been playing Magic around as long as I have and it blows my mind I'm still playing it all those years later. Kid version of me would think that was crazy that I'd still be playing it, and even more so, 30+ years later. And yeah, I don't think there is any way to not make any sort of balancing system for this game that isn't complex and convoluted. There are now over 27,000 cards and that number is growing at a crazy rate now. 2021, 2022, and 2023 saw 1,799, 2,004, and 1,939 unique cards printed to the game. So no system will be close, but that's why it's not THE system to define what deck can play against what deck, just a bit of objective numbers to give you an idea of what decks contain, with that information we still make the call for what we end up using.
I am starting a new format, it's the same format but any card designed for or referencing commander specifically is banned. Also the old commander ban list is banned. I'm calling it uh Lt? Yeah that'll work. Every time WotC looks at commander it gets worse.
@@Neohampster I would actually be down to play a variation of the format that does have no cards from Commander sets and precons. I would build like one deck for it and play from time to time. That would be pretty interesting.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I've been making a MLD deck that runs them as finishers after setting up to break parity (As how they should be used) and i run ruination in all mono red decks because it's a great tech piece that only punches up.
@@Cynidecia So the MLD is actually a finisher? Or it just clears out their mana production to cast spells to stop you from the board state you've already amassed? I assume you're not building up much of a boardstate after you wipe the lands (outside of what mana you floated), but the other players are also keeping their non-land permanents, so you're only casting it when you're ahead? If so, that's the big reason why I think most players dislike MLD, when someone uses it and isn't in a commanding boardstate but they use it to 'reset' the board like with creature wipes. Often wipes are used by the non-ahead players to set the ahead players back to even, but if non-ahead players use a land wipe, now them and the other 2 players just look at them like "dude, WTF?!? Now the guy that was ahead is still ahead and will likely rebuild the fastest!" Just my thoughts on it for how I see it play out on average.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel MLD should be used as a finisher, in the same way you would use insurrection, rise of the dark realms or craterhoof behemoth. Casting an obliterate or jokulhaups when you have 3-4 planeswalkers out, or casting destructive force or wildfire when you have zurgo helmsmasher as your general. That is how MLD should be utilised. Most people have never played against it, yet alone properly, i think it garners too much hate because its far more telegraphed in what it is doing compared to someone setting up an infinite combo or a gamewinning board to go wide with, its not as obvious that you're going to lose and you think there is still a chance. Also, when someone obliterates after they have set up stuff to break parity with it, at that point its fine for everyone to concede and start the next game, youre not obligated to stay there with no board while i tick up and eventually win the game by ulting my planeswalkers.
The bracked system does not add anything usefull to edh. The only argument in favor of it are pubstomper which i have not seen; heard of or played against anywhere near the locations i play at. And it allso rates many decks wrong. I have a deck that is filled with cards you would consider T3 and t4. But that deck is barely strong enogh to face precons. All the bracked system does is to ad more complexity to the rule 0 talk. Why waste time to say: "my deck has 3 bracked 4 cards which are all tutors and 5 bracked 3 cards which are blablabla" instead of saying: "my deck has some tutors and blablabla"? It seems like a huge amount of wasted time. Every rule 0 talk contains: -~powerlevel -any infinites? -which turn can the decks win without interaction? (no landdestruction and no staxx is allways asumed but if included has to be allways mentioned) So if someone says: "Its a control deck; about power level 7.8 with much interaction but few wincons and no staxx" then everyone at the table knows exactly what to expect from playing against it and no bracked crap is needed for that.
@@Darkling665 I've never really gotten the "what turn can it win on if un-interacted" thing. That question is very dependant on what I draw. Is it based on you getting the perfect 7 card hand and then the perfect draw? For me, some of my decks contain a lot of protection spells so when I goldfish against no opponents, they're just dead spells that don't further the game.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel of course it is "what turn can the deck USEALLY win if uninteracted?". I just have forgotten to write it down. :D It is one of the best question you can ask and after it was answered, everyone has a basic unterstanding on what page everyone is.
@@Darkling665 Hmm, I guess I just don't build my decks in a way that there is a "best possible opening hand and next 3-5 turn draws". I don't have any combo decks, none of my decks win with a combo or a card like Twenty-Toed Toad that has a "you win if..." effect. I also don't run tutors, so my decks don't consistently see the same cards show up every game. My deck are consistently powerful if left unchecked, but they're not consistent on what turn they win on.
no one cares because its not a tourney format. literally every rule around EDH is house rules, and when you try to bring your casual non competitive format into a competitive space you will always be disappointed by how others min max your concepts
@@MrPandarilla For sure, I don't believe that WotC will try to make Commander a competitive and regulated format like their other formats. They will not get onto LGSs for allowing players to mix brackets decks, this is purely a system to give directly to the players as a way to gauge their own decks for fair gameplay that is fun for all four players.
The biggest mistake on that bracket sample photo is using "high power" and "low power." it's supposed to be called something else and the tell is Swords to plowshares, its basically the most efficient creature removal of all time but it's b1 card since it's everywhere just like sol ring is a power lvl max card but it's so common in the format that everyone is ok with seeing a solring in their games
@@Xoderfla Yeah, I can see them changing the names of things around. They whipped up that concept after only just 2 days after the whole thing happened, so I can see a lot changing between now and when they officially show this system off.
This is a fantastic point. Maybe it would be better to overall exclude such universal staples like that from the bracket system and reserve it for cards you don't see as often in genuinely casual games like vampiric tutor and ancient tomb.
@DeiselsFaded i don't think they will list every card for each bracket, but probably only for 2 through 4 and b1 is just everything else.
@ThisIsACommanderChannel I can't blame them for the name mistake since it was Intended as something very basic to show what they were thinking about, but it's clear once you listen to the podcast they did trying to talk about the whole RC transition.
Aside from that, I do believe they need to put a general idea of what combos are in what brackets, same for interaction and tutors, I have thought about it alot the pass few days and you just can't write every single combo for each bracket but you can say bracket 3 is all combos 3 cards or more // 2 cards but it costs more than X amount of mana or something like that just as a reference to see how fast //easy to assemble is your combo/s
@@Xoderfla For sure, there are too many combos but more importantly too many variations of those combos. So many interchangable cards that can still make the combo function as it can. So they will have to draw the line somewhere, at what is practical to show up in a game.
All the groups I'm in agree, begrudgingly or willingly, that the system is going to be great to easily avoid pubstomping.
I wonder where on the bracket will heavy stax piecesc (like Winter Or or Static Orb) be.
@@lugh.i Oh, I don't think there is any real chance that those 2 wouldn't be in Bracket 4. I do hope that they place the 1-sided stax stuff higher than the symmetrical ones.
where are you "pubstomping" in EDH?
out side of cockatrice are there any platforms where thousands of players meet with hundreds of different decks that require power level rules?
@@MrPandarilla Spelltable, the literal official online playing page where you play with complete strangers all over the world via cam/mic 🤨
@@MrPandarilla I encounter pub stompers quite often. I have two LGSs I go to, one smaller that's closer to me and one larger that I drive around 45-50 mins to go to. At the larger one, we get a lot of people from out of town, people traveling a lot (it's close to our airport and lots of hotels). So we do get a lot of pubstompers, people that come in and say their deck is a 6 or 7, but then uses a ton of tutors, Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Jeska's Will, and just about every other staple you can think of that are just "good stuff" cards that don't care what your theme is they're just good and helpful you to win faster in any deck. And that is fine to have that deck, that's not a problem, but if you communicate that as a 6 or 7 or say it's just an okay, goofy deck that durdles, making all your opponents then grab their goofy, lower power decks, that's a bummer.
@@lugh.i Im decades out of the game, I played back during the MWS/apprentice days.
Im just saying within playgroups like dedicated discords or the old magic-league mirc servers these rules dont matter.
and when dealing with randoms in a global unranked match making pool you get what you get, most people WILL be using teched out decks when they can proxy everything (at least I did)
An online tool for this sort of thing would be pretty amazing to see on Moxfield
@@Derpingmuffin Very much. I don't see this succeeding or catching on unless they make it as easy as possible to find out what your brackets are. It needs to be integrated into every major deck building site, EDH REC, Gatherer, and Scryfall. The tools and resources that WotC have access to (basically money and funding) are the best perks they have over the RC.
We play at work and this system would really help. We play a lot so we already have a pretty good idea of each others decks for the ones we've had for a long time, but when we build whole new decks and want to playtest then we can have a better idea of what to pit them against initially.
For sure, even experienced players can use this with their new decks. When you and a coworker sit down with your upgraded precons, you say your deck is an upgraded precon and you've swapped out some cards with okay cards, but maybe when I say mine is also upgraded but I've swapped out cards for things like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Cyclonic Rift, Worldly Tutor, Seedborn Muse, and three extra turn spells, these are very different. So it can help that talk make more sense.
I completely agree! I may disagree with which cards are placed where in the system, but at least you can categorically identify a deck! (e.g. "Your deck has Rhystic. It's a 3."). It's not arbitrary, because of how specific it's supposed to be! And therefore, you can go anywhere and find a game you can enjoy, AND it carves out a space to integrate CEDH! Which has felt like a different format for years!
I really do think it'll be a headache for the rules committee--depending on how far they go. But because everyone I know builds their decks online first, it probably won't even change how people build decks. Just select the power level you're aiming for and away you go!
I'm happy to see some optimism on this for once! 😂
@@thomaspetrucka9173 I'll for sure disagree with a lot of them, but luckily the cards will surely change over time. I hope they do.
Didn't expect a jump scare at 5:13, but it is Oct.
@@lindacarpenter2830 Ha! I love that creepy art.
You didnt mention one of the biggest benefits: unbannings. Now cards like Primeval Titan or Sylvan Primordial can come off the list and maybe be restricted to Tier 3/4. We've gotta remember, to some players Consecrated Sphinx is a "cEDH" card even though there isn't a single cEDH deck that actually plays it.
Pulling cards off the banned list and restricting them in this way allows people who actually like these cards to be able to play them in environments where these cards are powerful but not oppressive to lower power brackets.
There are players who do like playing with powerful cards but dont want to rock the boat too hard against cards that "destroy the format." Now powerful cards can simply be treated as "not for low bracket play" instead of screechings about bannings or ruining everything.
@@hatertime Ah, for sure. They could easily unban most of the list and shift them into the bracket 4 section.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I believe this is definitely part of the reason to break it up into 4 brackets at least. It is my unfounded belief that Wizards don't really want to ban anything, and then want to keep making powerful cards to sell boosters. i also think a great number of people like playing with those cards but don't like the social stigma surrounding them when playing at LGS or unknown playgroups.
This way those players and Wizards can insulate themselves from some criticism aimed at them from the other players who insist that "Commander is a casual format" without explaining why someone should be discouraged from playing powerful cards. Either you have nothing banned and Rule 0 or you have banned cards. The current state of "we have a banned list, but also Rule 0 and a second super secret banned list that makes you a "pubstomper" if you have those cards, but we're also not going to say what those cards are"
@@hatertime Exactly!
Was expecting episode 150 but got this as a surprise.
@@digitalworldsvr7881 I actually did still plan to make Ep 150 of TR&CI as it is part 2 of the last episode, but this episode too too long to make and I just didn't have the time yesterday to even start it. I hope this was just as good to watch.
And 150 is out!
@@digitalworldsvr7881 Indeed it is.
Great opinions vid.
Brackets, salt scores, power level pregame discussion and rule 0... all useful tools, all in constant evolution. I am all in if the help navigate the social aspect of commander gameplay. If they are used to shame mistakes or pointout dishonest players not so sure of their usefulness. The crux of commander is the same of any social endeavour, without care and love it never blooms nor frees people. Empathy and caring cannot be taught by any of the aforementioned tools.
@@corvidcognition Ain't that the truth. We can have access to all these tools but at the end of the day we have to be some empathetic players. If you don't care at all about your opponents, the fun they're having, then this multiplayer format just won't succeed. Thankfully, most of the players I encounter do feel that way, they want their opponents to enjoy the game, win or lose.
If everyone uses it responsibly, I can see it being a fine tool. Now whether it'll pan out like that... I think it'll be more messy but we'll have to see how much more messy. Now, what I do think is a more likely point of gripe is the idea that precons are tier 1. This can get tricky when concerning the propensity for cards to be placed in them that are meant to get people to buy the product, the higher tier cards or soon to be banned ones. At what point of modification does it cease to be a tier 1 deck? Keep in mind that these cards, whatever they are, are likely also the cards that are carrying the player to victory when they do win. While still present in the old system, I think the brackets make this conversation significantly messier.
My other concern is that the brackets may well push things in the direction of pushing certain types of gameplay in certain brackets and the result will be certain bracket decks simply ignoring their predators that are supposedly in a higher bracket. Also, I think the bracket system is a lot easier to game than the ban list because it allows things that simply evade the bracket system to present themselves as something weaker. At that point, what do you say? Hey, that guy built too well within the rules! I don't think the bracket system is all bad but I do think we should take a peek at what new issues it will create and those it will exacerbate.
@@NevarKanzaki Some legit concerns, I'm of course when it first launches it will have some growing pains. To your point about them placing things into brackets to help a project sell, as long as they don't tier things until around 6 months after a product launch, then I feel like that would fix that. Sure, some things still sell after six months, but those are the sorts of sales on the retail side, not at the source of WotC selling their product.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I was not saying they would put things into brackets to help a product sell. That'd be a separate issue that's also not good. I'm saying that they put cards in that are obviously higher than tier 1 and often times significantly higher. As a precon, the deck is untuned so calling it tier 1 is something for the most part everyone agrees to. The issue comes at the transition. If I switch out 1 card, does a precon lose its tier 1 status? How about 5 cards? 10? 20? To take an extreme example, if your precon has skullclamp or reanimate, when do we start factoring that into the power level of the deck? Note that this is probably the deck's most important card to the new player, probably something that has been responsible for their wins. And now you want them having it to count against them? What happens when the thing in question is the commander? Table issues to me are much more important than WOTC selling their product. If WOTC wants to make a quick buck, they'll power creep or reprint stuff. If they want to make money long term, they'll care about the health of the game. I expect there to be some miscommunications and issues at the start when any new system is adopted. I just noted these because I think they're more likely to be enduring issues without clear solutions.
I'd prefer a system, where every card gets a power rating on it's own. Add all points together - the sum is your deck's estimated power. As simple as possible.
Regarding rating the cards:
I'd like a vote-based rating (like the salt score on cards on edhrec). You avoid discussions like, if Smothering Tithe is level 2 or level 3 oh you have a synergizing commander then it's a 4... come on. The harder you try to pin that down inside the bracket system, the more you will fail.
20.000 users voted so far: Smothering TIthe has a current power rating of 2,7 - Cool.
This way the power level of a card might slowly change - and that would be great, too.
Imagine they established a four bracket system 10 years ago, how do you think would look these bracket ratings today?
Regarding the handling of combos:
Any card that has the potential of an out of the blue instant game win (we have the cEDH meta to spot those) should get a really high power rating, regardless.
Assumptions like "But what if a player has Thoracle WITHOUT Consultion in his deck, then it's not nearly as powerful..." are misleading.
In the rare cases this happens, then, yes the system will fail to represent that correctly. But the system is always an estimation, so a few points off, because one combo piece is missing is really no big deal.
@@TheJohRetter A vote would be interesting, I would hope they have a diverse group/s they pull from. Someone on Reddit did a poll, on my phone and can't find it, but I think it was maybe around 1,500 responses and it was interesting to see those results. And yes, a fluid system will be crucial, as new cards come out and strategies evolve, the previous rankings of certain cards should evolve with them.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel
Right, voting would solve so much problems:
- wizards would only need to maintenance the infastructure but they'd need no ressources for the rating itself, re-evaluating, backlash handling...
- people will probably accept the opinions of the majority of players more than the ones from an RC
- nobody could say, that wizards does not treat commander as a community format, meanwhile they can keep on printing expensive chasecards and keep a light banlist
@@TheJohRetter I think voting would for sure be beneficial to assist them, but not the sole factor. People who would vote, the ones that would take the time to spend hours going through hundreds and thousands of Magic cards and voting on them, those will be very particular kinds of players. They will be players who have a very deep understanding of Magic, knowledge of the cards and the game at a level that new players wouldn't, and this bracket system is in a large part for new players rather than the very enfranchised players. When I sit down at a table and see certain Commanders and certain cards, even just the way a player talks, I can tell the level of that player's cards and I know what to expect from that game. The brackets won't really help me out in my games, but for a newer player that just bought their first precon, this can really help them.
it would be the most direct way.. however, it would let out synergies or commanders
The threshold should be 3 at most. Why? Because I want every player to declare what 'exceptions' they have in their 'tier 2' deck before we start playing for two reasons:
- It makes it easier to judge if it really is a tier 2 deck (if the 2 exceptions are thassa's oracle and demonic consultation, then I won't play with you)
- The moment you play a tier 4 card that you did not name beforehand I will know you are cheating. Otherwise, pubstompers will just feign ignorance and say there's only three tier 4 cards in their deck while secretly they have 5 or more, and you won't know unless they draw and play 4 of them.
@@Ramschat Yeah, I would be down if it were 3 cards. As you say, it would make things quick.
From a designer perspective, imagine having to categorize every card you ever print from now until the end of time into a 4 tier power category. The delineation between power 2 and 3 cards is, I expect, going to be so incredibly arbitrary, which maybe is the point, but I can't imagine including a 2 and 3 bracket for any reason other than making it a functional banlist. Staring at a synergy piece that's conditionally good with some commanders and evaluating whether that falls in 2 or 3 is going to be entirely speculative. Honestly should be a 3 tier system, but then it's going to be even less informative than it already won't be. I'm doomer on this.
But then can't you just ignore these brackets, just like how people ignore the 1-10 scale now? As he said in the video, there is no reason you can't just take your tier 2 deck against a tier 3 deck.
@@TheAlcoholic83 that's true we should always strive to make inherently flawed systems we just ignore
@@Aerese1 Again, I don't think they should concern themselves during game design with the bracket they think the cards belong to until 6+ months after they've been in players' hands. They as game designers of course will already be thinking about designing balanced cards, like trying not to make more Nadus. Also, I imagine a very small percentage of cards will be bracketed to tiers 2, 3, and 4. It will probably be like 90% of all cards will be tier 1. Hopefully no doom, since it is happening, I want to be hopeful.
My thoughts are more along the lines of cards being level 1 or 3/4 depending on how they interact with other cards.
@@truegamerking You mean their placement in the brackets is more on how they synergize with other cards, rather than their individual power in a vacuum?
I am not so worried about where most cards end up, pretty sure most of my decks contain 1, 2, and barely any 3 level cards, but I am worried about the commanders. Right now, people already have an idea of which commanders are more powerful than others, like Urza High Artificer, but with this tier system I feel like if a commander is labeled as a 4 then people might target you more even if your deck is fully packed with only level 1 and 2 cards.
@@TheAlcoholic83 That is a good question. I do have concern about that as well. I love to take very busted Commanders but make weird versions of them. I have a Korvold deck but it's a lands deck with no treasure or aristocrats stuff. I have a Karametra deck but it's a reanimator deck based around Emeria, the Sky Ruin. I have a Jodah the Unifier deck but it is all about Shrines and my goal is to attack with my Shrine creatures. But that's why there will still be a Rule 0 talk that I can explain the meme aspect of the powerful Commanders
If they are at all intelligent about this system then a deck of 99 tier 1 cards with a tier 4 commander is a tier 4 deck, period. Just like a deck with 59 Standard-legal cards and a One Ring is a Modern deck.That's the only way it means anything, otherwise it's no different from the 1-10 scale.
@@martinskullerud2195 So you don't think the Threshold would be applicable? Or only with the Commanders, that the Commander's tier is a singular deciding thing?
In either case, that's just part of the pre-game discussion. "My deck is all 1s and 2s but my Commander is BLANK which is a tier 3 guy." And then the other players can decide where to go from there.
My opinion is that a card is given a point value based on its bracket. Assuming basic lands are 0 points, having a point range for each bracket would make it more accessible. Less than 75 points? Definitely bracket 1. 100 points? Probably bracket 2. 150 points? Verging on tier 4.
@@vanatrix1942 I've never played Canadian Highlander, but I know they do have a point system, most cards are 0 points and you can only have a total of 10 points, so if a card is worth 8 points then you're pretty much just using that one powerful card. I'm betting they looked at something like that.
There will be Bracket 1 decks built specifically to be more powerful than some Bracket 3 decks :D
The idea seems cool for now though
He did pretty much say that people would do that, that people would be going around with max minus one for how many they could use of the higher rank tier. Neither our current system nor this new one would stop tryhards, but I don't think he expects it to.
Oh yeah, for sure. Being a staple can only go so far, just like how budget decks can be built that can still take on high power decks. I can build a Winota, Joiner of Forces deck that demolishes others, similarly Magda, Brazen Outlaw, Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain, Brago, King Eternal, Sythis, Harvest's Hand, Narset, Enlightened Master, Hinata, Dawn-Crowned, and many others that I could build for $50-100 and take on decks that cost $3-5k. There will always be those people that try to trick people into thinking their playing a fair deck within the constraints of their format or budget or bracket and they just want to win.
this is mostly just meant to be a way to get people to talk about there decks. you could say "my deck is a 4 because i have a demonic tutor in it but otherwise is a 2. is that ok?". its better then saying every deck is about a 7.
@@play_hd3 Exactly! It's a system that everyone must be governed by and follow exactly, it's just a tool with a bit more objectivity to it to help us have a more meaningful pre-game talk.
I mean I hate hasbro but I really agree with this. For years I have been saying the biggest issue with EDH is that the bannlist is balanced around cEDH and not LGS play and this fixes that. I have stopped playing mtg for years because LGS play wasnt fun anymore with all the netdeckers and "like a 4 decks" and hasbro being idiots but this might draw me in. I think a key factor will be what tier tutors are placed in, if there are no tutors for non lands CMC
@@23bcx I think it is safe to say they will have a lot of variance in the tiers of tutors since their concept image shows a tutor in bracket 2, 3, & 4 based on how good each of those tutors is. And if you do come back to the game, welcome back! I hope you still have a lot of your collection.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I gave most of it that didnt have sentimental value away to a buddy who is getting into being an online retailer. I probably dont want to give hasbro money still even indirectly but blue core proxies are like $0.15 a pop. We will have to see but when the new rules come out I might make one or two of the lowest supported tier decks
@@23bcx Oh snap! Where do you get your proxies from for $0.15? I have a buddy in my close playgroup and he gets in bulk orders for himself and some others and his are around $0.30 so that would be nice to cut his costs in half in the future.
If your goal is to match power levels, assessing a deck by its highest bracket card is the best way to do it.
Any game where you draw the best card in your deck in your opening hand is the same as if you tutored for it. This is why a vampiric tutor is automatically at least 3. It's a second copy of the best card in your deck. If your deck is truly jank and can't hang without VT, then you're unlikely to draw it anyway, and removing the tutor won't make any meaningful change anyway. If your deck truly is just a 1 or 2 except for a vampiric tutor, take out the tutor and be a 1 or 2. Instead, put a card draw spell in the deck.
@@T_Peazy And that's a valid point. I do feel that there should be a threshold, but I can understand that perspective.
I would be *extremely* surprised if they do virtually anything proposed in this video, for the simple reason that they've stated they're trying to keep it as simple as possible. Thresholds for brackets or trying to list out combos as well as individual cards both increase complexity of the system, and there are many casual players who don't use online tools (or frequent online MtG discussion spaces at all) that will never go through the effort to make these assessments.
@@Welknair So are you saying that the Bracket System itself is something they would never do, or just the threshold aspect to it?
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel The threshold component. The bracket system is something WotC proposed, so I assume it's within the realm of possibility, but having thresholds where different numbers of different sets of cards determine the bracket of a deck seems unlikely to me as a solution WotC would land on, even if it makes sense and is arguably a better measure of deck power.
@@Welknair Yeah, that's totally an outcome that I could see happening. They may go the route of just being an ultimatum. If you have just a single B3 card then your whole deck is considered and should be advertised as a B3 deck. And that's fine, my close pod, the guys I play with regularly, we will most certainly mix our decks around in power just as we do now.
I don't think trying to put individual combo cards into the brackets is a good system; even as a pair or set.
That will be very confusing; either trying to list the combos but place the individual cards in a different bracket on their own, or trying to explain why pestermite is considered high power to someone not playing the combo.
There should be brackets for the power level of individual cards AND a list of categories that move your deck up a bracket. Basically, figure out your decks bracket based on the cards, then move up one bracket for each of the following:
Running multiple non-land tutors
Running instant win combos
Fast mana
Etc
And obviously more (I don't have time to think it all through, and I wouldn't think of everything anyway).
I also don't think things like mass land destruction should be included in the same brackets as powerful cards. Those are the kind of thing that need a different label. Maybe create a salt scale as well? Or just ban those cards.
@@kurtreznor On the stream, they did mention having a possible 5th tier specifically for cEDH stuff, so maybe one day they propose a "salt tier".
if this kind of thing is necessary, it means the mana system doesn't work.
Is this specifically aimed at the power level for ramp cards? There are more than just ramp cards that will be placed into the bracket 3 & 4 tiers. Some cards are just better at card draw, some are better at tutoring, some are better at stax, some are better at removal, counterspells, and general win cons. Or are you referring to something else?
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel it's aimed at the game in general. the mana system is supposed to be the barometer of power level of any given card and of cards relative to one another. if the game necessitates tacking on additional control factors to make it fair/fun, that means the mana system isn't doing its job. I understand that some cards are poorly designed and are broken. but, a few outliers shouldn't necessitate this type of additional system if the game had been designed well in the first place.
@@danacoleman4007 Magic was originally designed as a smaller game. There wasn't much strict structure to it initially, but it very quickly morphed into a structured 40-60 card deck in a match against a single opponent that has 20 life. The cards were not at all designed with a multiplayer format like Commander or EDH in mind. So, we do have to take that into account when making a statement like "Magic as a whole's mana system isn't doing its job."
But then when dealing with Commander, it is a casual format, something traditional Magic isn't known for, so we get into the issue of "not all players have the same expectations from this game" because some people do want the highest competitive aspect from Commander (cEDH) but then there is a rather large spectrum of everything else, and that's what's hard to balance. Some players want meme decks that have no care in the world to win, other players are causal but still want high power cards in which the goal is to win, some players want short games, some players want long games, etc... This doesn't mean that the mana system in Commander is broken, it just means that we need to have a clear and concise agreement as to what we all want. And then once we have that, we need to know exactly what all parts of the game will allow for that agreement to play out in a way that we all have fun.
maybe if you have a bracket 2 deck with 5-9/10 bracket 3 cards youre required to list those cards on request? would discourage trolls while allowing creativity, and put the onus on the player bringing the higher power cards to be proactive in having that rule zero conversation
but even just what little was revealed if implemented as is would give some objectivity to what is currently an entirely subjective conversation (that noobs like me are entirely unprepared for) which imo is sorely needed
@@rachelf6745 Anything to encourage more creativity in this casual format.
Here's a simpler bracket system, totally in line with WotC's pay-to-win approach:
Bracket 1: All cards < $10
Bracket 2: Cards up to $10 - $25
Bracket 3: Cards up to $25 - $100
Bracket 4: All cards > $100
I don't think cost should ever be factored into this. There are some insanely powerful cards at under $10 but even more important is that prices swing far more rapidly from reprints as well as new synergies. Toxic Deluge would have been a B3 card in in 2022 but now would be B1, same with Three Visits, Noble Hierarch, Reanimate, Mystical Tutor, Phyrexian Arena, Mirari's Wake, Worldly Tutor, Sylvan Library, Force of Will, Abrupt Decay, Deadly Rollick, Black Market Connections, Flawless Maneuver, Akroma's Will, Diabolic Intent, Grand Abolisher, Doubling Season, Exploration, and Damnation are all cards that have had their prices shift enough in the last 2 years that their bracket would have shifted 1 or even 2 tiers lower. I didn't look at cards that have spiked due to newer cards being printed.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel All of this is under WotC's direct control, and in fact has devolved exactly as they have manipulated the scarcity of chase cards they have concocted over the years. It is the pay-to-win side of Commander that has always been their overriding priority.
@@QuicksilverSG I'm not saying they don't have control over what they reprint and when, that's obvious that they do. I'm saying that if price were the sole factor as to the bracket level of a card, that would be a bad basis for it due to how the prices of cards fluctuate so often and that also price is not a factor in the power of a card. The practical impact on the game is the factor that should be what is used on assigning a bracket.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel What card price reflects is not only rarity, but accessibility. Many of the key pay-to-win cards would lose their stategic advantage were they to become commonly available. This is one of the dominant factors in the de facto brackets that have evolved thus far in Commander gameplay. The exception to this rule is cEDH, where proxies are taken for granted, leveling the playing field into a no-holds-barred cutthroat competition. That is obviously not in WotC's direct interest, though cEDH notoriety does drive demand among pay-to-win players for particularly OP cards.
@@QuicksilverSG But by that logic, cards like Guardian Beast, Candelabra of Tawnos, Argivian Archaeologist, City of Shadows, Elephant Graveyard, Chains of Mephistopheles, Diamond Valley, All Hallow's Eve, Ali from Cairo, Angus Mackenzie, Island of Wak-Wak, and even Singing Tree are all "more powerful" than something like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Doubling Season, Cyclonic Rift, Farewell, Sheoldred, the Apocalypse, The One Ring, and so many other cards that are legit powerhouse staples that are just good in any deck no matter their theme. Yet all those far more expensive and less available cards are just bad in most decks even if on theme.
I think most of the points you bring to support the Bracket system, are points against that system and are more points to had a system like Canadian Highlander points. But nice video.
@@Wiwocs Is there a specific point that you think reflects that the most? I'm curious.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I think specifically the talk about rule 0, making it easier, thats not for cassual commander, not when you are working with a deck and changing cards and keeping all the respective bracket cards in check and make it more difficult that it need, thats more a point for highlander point system more than for brackets. we have 6 players, 2 that are total cassual and still learning to optimize their precons... so, maybe for season players its not complex, but if you want to keep at bay new players...
i wish i could explain myself, and if you disagree please tell me, i am curious too
@@Wiwocs Nah, that's actually a solid point. New players that are playing really casual 1 and 2 tier stuff will have no clue that they even are playing that stuff, they will still be unaware of the brackets. But experienced players that know of the brackets and the cards in each category, they will probably be playing slightly higher power, tier 2 and 3s and possibly 4s if you're more of a cEDH player. And in that case, because of the higher power, there will be a higher expectation to follow the brackets more, which can add more work to the players that already have an idea of things.
I disagree that you should be able to have a few cards of a higher bracket in your deck. Ask yourself, are those few Bracket 3 cards integral to how your deck functions? Are they there specifically to enable a special combo or synergy? If not, taking them out shouldn’t be a big problem. If yes, you are playing a Bracket 3 deck. The system is there for a reason.
If you were specifically allowed to have four B3 cards in your B2 deck, then the B2 meta would become warped around which B3 cards/combos are most effective in B2 decks. Moreover, you could be considered to be shooting yourself in the foot if you are NOT running four B3 cards. As both an avid commander and limited player, I love deck restrictions. I love the puzzle of trying to build the strongest deck I can for $150. And so too would I love building decks of different brackets, and trying to make them as strong as possible. I should not be allowed to build my entire B2 deck around a two card B3 combo. That goes against the whole spirit of the bracket system. But if I’m not allowed to do that (and I shouldn’t be), then little Timmy also shouldn’t be able to run four B3 cards in his deck just because… he wants to? He’s too fussy to take them out? He likes the artwork?
You’ve got to draw a line somewhere. The whole point of putting brackets on cards is to draw that line. You’ve got to follow it.
@@jackhuckelberry8405 I didn't express it in the video, but I feel like the threshold allows for you to just get access to those cards if they are on theme for your deck. This was, if there is a card that is powerful enough to warrant being in B3, but it is also just perfect for matching the theme of your deck, you're not excluded from using it to still be in a fair range of power for B2 decks. The deck doesn't require it, it doesn't fall apart if you never draw into the card, but when you do get it then it is a lot of fun to be able to use it. It sort of makes me think of Dockside Extortionist when people would play it in their Pirate themed deck. The rest of the deck wasn't all that great, it didn't abuse treasures to go infinite, it didn't endlessly flicker or loop a reanimating Infiniti with Dockside, he was just another pirate for the deck. Anytime I saw that in a game and I was using one of my lower tier decks based on our pre-game talk, I didn't feel lied to. So that is sort of my reasoning for the threshold.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I understand that, and I’m not against that concept. I just think that should be kept as a rule 0 conversation. I don’t think it should be built into the rules themselves. I think doing so would do more harm than good, especially to those more casual players. People playing dockside in their pirate deck because it’s a pirate will get stomped by people who put vampiric tutor, demonic tutor, thassa’s oracle and demonic consultation in their lower bracket deck because the rules state that they can.
@@jackhuckelberry8405 Yup, exactly, there is still a Rule 0 talk to be made, this system is just to help give more context to what is said when that talk happens. We can all sit down and say "let's all use our exactly a 2 decks, not the decks that are 2s with a little bit of 3s and 4s trickled on top" and now everyone is playing exactly with 1 & 2 cards, nothing, not even 1 card over.
The things you've said here, if they pull it off, I would love. Describing you deck would ve so quick and wasy.
@@JeffCarpenter-c1i Indeed! I would hope that it does make things easier for players. If it makes things worse then we can always just ignore it until they fix it or replace it.
THE RIGHT WAY:
- Each card= .10 - 1.00 value
- Add total to 100 cards
- Gives you a percentage, structure it in quarters (10%-25% and so on) or fifths (10%-25% and so on)
This is the simplest way to do it, if indeed they are giving every card a value
@@jun1orbaitor44 I don't think the points should get too exacting and specific on a card by card basis for 2 reasons. It would make upgrading your deck a bit more of a hassle, as you add new cards you would make finding the exact matching value complicated, but also over time if the cards change in value as they adapt them to newly released cards then it becomes more difficult for people to keep their decks up to date. The 2nd point is that it is harder to keep track of people pub stomping and trying to cheat with more cards of a type they claim to have. With just 4 tiers and really just 2 tiers that matter for higher power, I can tell pretty quick when you played your 6th bracket 3 card, but if it is on a larger variance scale of point values, I know have to just what what your whole unseen decks makeup is to know if you're running too many higher tier things.
But there could be a way to make that work.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel The only reason i thought it should be based on percentages, is to make it the least confusing ironically, lol (especially since commander is a percentage already). 1-4 and trying to keep track of how many an opponent has while playing, might bring on unnecessary frustrations, ie "isn't that a 2 and not a 3, isn't that your 7th 2 and that was your 5th 3?! Sounds way too complicated, especially for newer players.
I think if you're really playing with a group that cheats, that's a bigger issue than deciding which point system works better. I thought of the point system as not so much of an anti-cheat, but more of a way to match deck styles between honest groups of people who want to play an honest game of commander, that isn't rule zero.
Take all this with a grain of salt (and i probably should've put a disclaimer in my post), I've literally never played one game of mtg. I bought a revised deck when i was a kid, then some ice age packs, then a couple unglued, then waited until 2020 to start my real collection and have since spent $50,000 plus creating 4 decks so far, but im 39 with no friends to play with, as all 5 of my core group died before i was 30 and now i just have work acquaintances. Im definitely not any authority and the wrong person to really comment (despite doing it boldly by saying, "THE RIGHT WAY" for some reason! )
@@jun1orbaitor44 Dang man, I'm so sorry to hear about you losing so many of your friends especially at such a young age. That's rough, but I'm glad you've got people that you work with that you can bond with over Magic. You've been playing Magic around as long as I have and it blows my mind I'm still playing it all those years later. Kid version of me would think that was crazy that I'd still be playing it, and even more so, 30+ years later.
And yeah, I don't think there is any way to not make any sort of balancing system for this game that isn't complex and convoluted. There are now over 27,000 cards and that number is growing at a crazy rate now. 2021, 2022, and 2023 saw 1,799, 2,004, and 1,939 unique cards printed to the game. So no system will be close, but that's why it's not THE system to define what deck can play against what deck, just a bit of objective numbers to give you an idea of what decks contain, with that information we still make the call for what we end up using.
I am starting a new format, it's the same format but any card designed for or referencing commander specifically is banned. Also the old commander ban list is banned. I'm calling it uh Lt? Yeah that'll work. Every time WotC looks at commander it gets worse.
@@Neohampster I would actually be down to play a variation of the format that does have no cards from Commander sets and precons. I would build like one deck for it and play from time to time. That would be pretty interesting.
Blue cards should be in bracket 5
HA! I think if any color would be assigned a whole bracket, blue would surely be it.
I ain’t got any Mountain Dew but I got you a doctor pepper
Keep em comin!
@@kyleedmunds5329 I'll share them with ya.
@@michaelwinans595 Dr. Pepper is always a great consolation prize.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel Thanks!
MLD being softbanned by being in T4 with Cedh makes me angry.
Do you currently run MLD cards in your decks?
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel I've been making a MLD deck that runs them as finishers after setting up to break parity (As how they should be used) and i run ruination in all mono red decks because it's a great tech piece that only punches up.
@@Cynidecia So the MLD is actually a finisher? Or it just clears out their mana production to cast spells to stop you from the board state you've already amassed? I assume you're not building up much of a boardstate after you wipe the lands (outside of what mana you floated), but the other players are also keeping their non-land permanents, so you're only casting it when you're ahead? If so, that's the big reason why I think most players dislike MLD, when someone uses it and isn't in a commanding boardstate but they use it to 'reset' the board like with creature wipes. Often wipes are used by the non-ahead players to set the ahead players back to even, but if non-ahead players use a land wipe, now them and the other 2 players just look at them like "dude, WTF?!? Now the guy that was ahead is still ahead and will likely rebuild the fastest!" Just my thoughts on it for how I see it play out on average.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel MLD should be used as a finisher, in the same way you would use insurrection, rise of the dark realms or craterhoof behemoth. Casting an obliterate or jokulhaups when you have 3-4 planeswalkers out, or casting destructive force or wildfire when you have zurgo helmsmasher as your general. That is how MLD should be utilised. Most people have never played against it, yet alone properly, i think it garners too much hate because its far more telegraphed in what it is doing compared to someone setting up an infinite combo or a gamewinning board to go wide with, its not as obvious that you're going to lose and you think there is still a chance.
Also, when someone obliterates after they have set up stuff to break parity with it, at that point its fine for everyone to concede and start the next game, youre not obligated to stay there with no board while i tick up and eventually win the game by ulting my planeswalkers.
@@Cynidecia Oh, if we're talking a Superfriends deck, then yeah, wipes of all kinds that are not PWer wipes are super common.
Oh, another non rules specific video. Please keep expanding into new types of content.
@@ccarpenter1128 I've a few others coming up soon perhaps. Might upload them on a non-Wed. Make the algorithm really hate me more.
The bracked system does not add anything usefull to edh.
The only argument in favor of it are pubstomper which i have not seen; heard of or played against anywhere near the locations i play at.
And it allso rates many decks wrong.
I have a deck that is filled with cards you would consider T3 and t4. But that deck is barely strong enogh to face precons.
All the bracked system does is to ad more complexity to the rule 0 talk.
Why waste time to say: "my deck has 3 bracked 4 cards which are all tutors and 5 bracked 3 cards which are blablabla" instead of saying: "my deck has some tutors and blablabla"?
It seems like a huge amount of wasted time.
Every rule 0 talk contains:
-~powerlevel
-any infinites?
-which turn can the decks win without interaction?
(no landdestruction and no staxx is allways asumed but if included has to be allways mentioned)
So if someone says: "Its a control deck; about power level 7.8 with much interaction but few wincons and no staxx" then everyone at the table knows exactly what to expect from playing against it and no bracked crap is needed for that.
@@Darkling665 I've never really gotten the "what turn can it win on if un-interacted" thing. That question is very dependant on what I draw. Is it based on you getting the perfect 7 card hand and then the perfect draw? For me, some of my decks contain a lot of protection spells so when I goldfish against no opponents, they're just dead spells that don't further the game.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel of course it is "what turn can the deck USEALLY win if uninteracted?".
I just have forgotten to write it down. :D
It is one of the best question you can ask and after it was answered, everyone has a basic unterstanding on what page everyone is.
@@Darkling665 Hmm, I guess I just don't build my decks in a way that there is a "best possible opening hand and next 3-5 turn draws". I don't have any combo decks, none of my decks win with a combo or a card like Twenty-Toed Toad that has a "you win if..." effect. I also don't run tutors, so my decks don't consistently see the same cards show up every game. My deck are consistently powerful if left unchecked, but they're not consistent on what turn they win on.
no one cares because its not a tourney format.
literally every rule around EDH is house rules, and when you try to bring your casual non competitive format into a competitive space you will always be disappointed by how others min max your concepts
@@MrPandarilla For sure, I don't believe that WotC will try to make Commander a competitive and regulated format like their other formats. They will not get onto LGSs for allowing players to mix brackets decks, this is purely a system to give directly to the players as a way to gauge their own decks for fair gameplay that is fun for all four players.
don't defend anything wizards did dude.
@@polocatfan That is quite an exaggerated and hyperbolic thing to say, right?
I'm just going to claim my decks are 4s each game, I won't look up this bracket crap. Wev don't need this and I play budget casual.
@@MB-ub1qi Yup, that's always an option.