Messages

1

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 12, 2025, 01:40:16 am »

I agree on humility. 
Sire of Insanity?  well they kinda ignored the whole category of discard in the GC list, so I guess discard is just fine, right?

2

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 11, 2025, 07:34:28 pm »

Im broadly combining it in this category, as it impedes game state development similar to Smokestacks.  Call it a control piece or something else if you want.

3

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 11, 2025, 02:38:19 pm »

What stax pieces would you have on there that are more offensive - that aren't mass mana denial? I am a big fan of Tabernacle and it makes me a bit sad to see it there honestly but I can see why, it makes playing creatures rather difficult and completely shuts off dorks and go-wide strategies, so it really is changing the game in a big way. Most individual stax pieces that aren't Winter Orb et al don't have quite the same impact.

Well, Smokestacks for one, which is far more accessible and affordable.  Even simple Grave Pact effects are more common and impactful.   Im not saying ToPV is not great in the right deck, the point I'm making is that relatively few people who actually own it, so its very uncommon to see in the wild.  With only 40 GC slots, it seems like a waste of a pick for a card that likely wouldnt see play outside of dedicated Bracket 4 decks anyways.

4

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 06, 2025, 09:31:39 pm »

Hmm, I haven't provided too much thought of compiling my ideas for any feedback to them.  I honestly dont think they care who i am, or how long Ive been playing this game and format (way longer than anyone would guess).

My Musings...
I guess  I'm OK with your sol ring suggestion, that's a new one Ive haven't considered before.

I think generally they would be better off reorganizing the GC list in function, rather than color.  I think they would gain more understanding if it was reorganized as "Efficient Tutors" or "Too Grindy" rather than "here are the powerful blue cards".  Reorganization might make them reconsider GCs too:

FoW and Fierce Guardship are included on the GC list as the two most egregious "Free Counterspells".  Theyre not the only free spells that are regularly played (Deflecting Swat?)  They may want them reconsider any interaction piece as GCs...  thats part of the game.

Conversely, I find it interesting Demonic Consultation & Tainted Pact elude the "Efficient Tutor" category, which may be an oversight when sorting by color...

I think there are cards on the GC list that are dated and rare, its unnecessary to include them on the list.  Tabernacle is $2500 and 30+ years old.  Why are we singly out this one virtually unplayed Stax piece, when the other modern-day offenders run free?

Final thoughts, i think there is an unfair bias against combos in the Bracket 2 and 3 philosphies.  Combo is an traditional game strategy, just as Aggro and control are.  Are we saying people just dont "like" losing to a combo?  Or they dont like the speed/regularity that a combo can be deployed?  I think the more truthful comment is that people dont like losing, and they often get salty against many archetypes (Mill, Stax, Discard, Theft, Poison, etc.)  Why is Combo being singled out?


No comments or replies for any of these ramblings are necessary.  I just braindumped some ideas without too much consideration.

5

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 06, 2025, 04:08:20 pm »

It keeps coming back to WotC wanting us to have multiple decks available at any given time for fair matchmaking, I suppose.  (Edit, at least when we%u2019re in the wild at a LGS against strangers)

6

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 06, 2025, 02:48:55 pm »

I've noticed a few of my decks only have 2 game changer, and I think to myself "I might as well add a third."

I'm going through the same thing now with one of my decks. It has 1 game changer in it, I'm sitting there looking at it thinking "man, Fierce Guardianship and Demonic Tutor would be really nice upgrades for Arcane Denial and Diabolic Intent"...or do I just replace Cyc Rift with Toxic Deluge and take the only GC out (but then I lose some versatility and instant speed interaction). 

That’s certainly within everyone’s prerogative to do what they feel is best for their own deck.   Either way.

I personally only own 1 fierce guardianship, so I’m not at liberty to be dropping it into every blue deck I can to fill an available GC quota.   I had to choose which deck was most likely to benefit from it and put it there (ie my Saruman army-fling deck, that tries to play free spells to make the army real big at instant speed for free).

I don’t think my other blue decks are hurting that much from missing that particular counterspell.  I’m bursting at seams with the 100 card limit, i welcome variety like this constraint to make my decks be a bit more different.   

7

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: March 03, 2025, 02:36:37 pm »

It seems as though they think that just including the game changers powers their decks up to where they can compete with truly optimized decks.

Has anyone else noticed any of this? Do we think this is something that will self-correct?

No I haven't, but I suppose that will correct itself in time.  If they are truly new players, its logical to believe they are learning the nuance of a casual format, and will figure out what their desired game experience is, and what table to find it at.

I listened to some positive feedback from the GP Chicago test run.   Although locally no one at my LGS is really embracing brackets yet, the initial Chicago feedback was positive where players were "on board" with the beta test.   I still think the overall organization of the Game Changer List needs to be reorganized, I dont think the Bracket System is going to be dissolved any time soon. 

Im going to be less critical of the system for the next few weeks, and apply a little sticker to the top of each of my deck boxes to ID its Bracket.  Im going to write the bracket number AND name and see what pre-game recognition happens when my deck is physically marked with its appropriate bracket.

8

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 25, 2025, 11:51:32 pm »

Not in my case.  Granted it’s limited to 12 games, but we all played what we wanted to.   We had the conversation like we always do, but bracketed match making wasnt too relevant.   

Realistically there’s really only two types of games, because a player is permitted to level up or down 1 bracket per their rules.   So you find a 2/3 pod or a 3/4 pod often since the 1s and 5s just didn’t pop up. 

Personally I play a lot of 2s and 3s, with limited time each week to actually test out what I’m tinkering with.  I come into game night we’ll aware I may face an opponent with a better deck but it doesn’t dissuade me from shuffling and doing what I wanted to try out.

9

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 25, 2025, 11:36:08 pm »

Well that’s interesting to know, thanks.  I wonder what the reaction would have been if they proposed it rather than wotc?

/deep thoughts

10

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 25, 2025, 10:39:39 pm »

OK, here's my hot take on Commander Brackets after two weeks, since I'm not a content creator, and don't have a public platform to otherwise say anything.  (Thats the only way to be heard right?)  I've attended three LGS game nights, and played both against friends and strangers.  A total of 12ish games maybe?

1.) Bracket 1 and Bracket 5 decks are rare.  So rare, I'd say they don't exist for practical discussion.
     A, The cEDH crowd doesn't need to search for me at my LGS to find a game.   They already know who their opponents are.
     B, The ultra-casual exhibition players already knows they're not being competitive before they sit down. If they only selected pods based on congruous Brackets, they would be sitting out waiting much of the time.
     So that really just leaves Brackets 2-4 to consider, which is defined basically by the amount of game changers (0, some, or 3+)

2.) To my knowledge, no one intentionally ADDED game changers to their deck to raise their bracket number and make it better.   No one told me in any pregame conversation, "Hey my casual deck just isn't getting it done, so I'm putting in an Expropriate to make it better because WotC said it would help me win more often".   Nope, that wasn't said.  Folks with existing decks played them as-is, because the deck was already designed.  Being locked into a game at Level 3/4 because of a few game changer cards just didn't seem to sway them anymore than before.

3.) To my knowledge, no one intentionally REMOVED game changers from their deck to slide into a lower tier.  Those decks were already made, with cards they already bought and owned.  I didn't hear anyone say, "hey i feel bad playing 'Trouble in Pairs' against you because it came in that  precon I bought last month".  I think people use the good cards they own because they own them, regardless of what Bracket it lands in.  Is WotC saying don't use the cards you paid money for?  Hardly.

I will acknowledge after the first week of sarcastic jocularity, week 2 had a more legitimate conversation.  But I really don't think its going to change the way matchmaking is accomplished at my LGS in any notable way.  To me, having the different bracket tiers is tedious; i really just want to play Commander, not Commander2, Commander3, or Commander4.  This format became the most popular format on its own, with out a structured bracketing system telling us mathematically how powerful our deck my be. 

Outside of the RC making a surprise ban on a few cards last year, would this have ever happened on its own?

11

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 14, 2025, 12:40:01 am »

Rats

12

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 13, 2025, 09:17:34 pm »

Here’s what I just told my playgroup prior to getting together: 

“I'm planning on coming tonight.  I'm telling you now, I'm bringing two bracket 2s, and one bracket 4.  If you don't comply you'll have to sit and wait until the next game or until you find an opponent with the appropriate power level to ensure your enjoyment this evening.”

I’m sure this newfangled bracket system is going to work great.  /roll eyes

13

Commander Discussion / Re: Commander Brackets Beta

« on: February 13, 2025, 01:16:24 am »

Will deckstats implement the brackets like moxfield already does?

This again.   I’m half torn between acknowledging the brackets for conversations sake at the LGS, or just outright ignoring it and proceeding like I always do with common sense and communication.   I saw what moxfield implemented and liked that the data could calculate it for you, and even point out the combos/MLD cards that place you in a certain criteria.  the system needs work but the initial presentation is nice.   It would be real nice if deckstats could
Replicate a similar feature.  Pretty please?

14

Commander Discussion / Re: WotC Requiring Commander Panel Advisors to Sign Lifetime Contract Preventing Com

« on: October 21, 2024, 12:40:12 am »

Ok.  Somehow I don’t think this will impact me in my daily life. 

15

General Magic / Re: Wheres Duskmourn

« on: October 03, 2024, 07:16:56 pm »

Yay thanks