Commander Brackets Beta

[crimsonking]

The main problem (already pointed out by many) is that these brackets are a prescription, not a recommendation. I.e. there will eventually be tournaments in bracket 3 (or even bracket 1) and, as soon as that will happen, competitive decks will pop up there as well. They're not solving anything, they're just scattering the player base.
Trying to be as constructive as possible, I see many other minor issues, like no reference to stax (apart from some cards listed as game changers). I mean: Armageddon is a no, but what about Smokestack?
Also, it's weird that they've listed the game changers but not the land denial section. That would have been much easier. Ex: what about Static Orb or Thoughts of Ruin? What about Crucible of Worlds + Strip Mine etc?
Also, the 2-cards combo concept is too vague. I didn't read the whole article (because I'm going to ignore the whole thing anyway), so correct me if I'm wrong, but did they mention stuff like Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal? Not even among the game changers, I believe. That's because technically it isn't a 2-cards combo: you need some mana rocks and an outlet to win the game. So am I allowed to play it in bracket 1?
Also, any 3-cards combo where one is your commander is virtually 2 cards, combos that require a lot of mana (like Exquisite Blood + Sanguine Bond) aren't really an issue etc. etc.
And what about non-determinisric combos like storm, The Gitrog Monster and Krark, the Thumbless? Are they allowed?
Another thing that really bugs me is the absence of Tooth and Nail. OK, you might say Kiki Jiki, Mirror Breaker + Pestermite already counts as a 2-cards combo, but what if I fetch Avenger of Zendikar + Craterhoof Behemoth instead? What does it change from casting Expropriate? Yet Expropriate is a game changer and Tooth and Nail is not.
To me, they're just trying to "get well" with as many people as possible, without any real interest in solving anything.

[WWolfe]

So I updated my Varina decklist on Moxfield today and it lists it as a Bracket 1 deck. That would not be a fun matchup for anyone at a bracket 1 table.

[Grimjack]

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

[Morganator 2.0]

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

How do you know that you won't be the person who has to sit and wait until the next game?

[Grimjack]

Rats

[anjinsan]

OK, here's a hot take.

A good power level system needs to have two features:

• It's well-defined. If you just say "oh, cEDH decks are here" people will say "how do I know if my deck is cEDH?" and so on. This is the problem with the "power level 1-10" system - nobody can tell what is or isn't a 70% strength deck.
• It actually represents power level - that is, decks in lower brackets aren't in general stronger than decks in higher brackets (a weaker deck might still beat a stronger one in a favourable matchup, mind you).

The problem is, it's provably impossible for any given system to be perfect at both. It's pretty hard in fact even to be good at either of them, except in uselessly trivial cases.

The brackets system, unfortunately, doesn't do a good job at either. It's at least better-defined than most systems, but there is no well-articulated difference between 4 and 5 (ironic, given Gavin's article stated that the reason for a separate bracket 5 is that people wanted a well-articulated difference between them) and the only defined difference between 1 and 2 is almost irrelevant, meaning we're left again with pure feelings. The actual restrictions are mostly pretty sensible, though many questions can be asked about the "Game-Changers" list.

To be fair, it's not entirely clear to me that this is meant to be a power level system, or that a power level system is actually what you want. Look at things like the mass land denial for example. That's not necessarily strong, it's just a very oppressive strategy and one that's generally considered not to be fun. It's probably more important for the average casual player that they don't see oodles of Winter Orbs and Armageddons than that their decks are perfectly balanced.

[TheInstructor]

Maybe when each card would have a power scale attached to its name (in the database, not on the card literally) you can determine the correct power level. Like this everybody could say: my deck is a 6.9 for example and then you could say that it would be recommended that groups play around one powerlevel like 7 and would only be allowed to enter with min 6. and max 8. to keep it balanced. The 'game changers' would have a higher scale of course and the other cards. Good brewers good shine with interesting decks in lower power levels with their skills and Cedh naturally would come with powerful staples in the highest tiers. EDHrec has the slat score right? It does reflect the love/hate/power of the cards to some degree... 

[WWolfe]

Each card being assigned an overall power level could be a nightmare. You're talking 30k+ cards in all of MTG. How many do you assign a level or do you assign them all one? That's what this initially started out to be and this is what it morphed into.

[bigbear]

Each card being assigned a power number wouldn't really work.  There are plenty of cards that are generally kind of bad that in the right deck or combo are near broken.  Granted, with the overall average of the deck lower it would be more difficult to find the specific card or cards regularly but still...I think plenty of people would be able to build a deck that is a "5.3" that can combo kill in less than 8 turns fairly consistently with a system like that.

I agree with Anjinsan in that it is pretty much impossible to come up with a good power level system.  It really is just up to each individual to be responsible about how they fit into a playgroup.  And for each playgroup to be clear about what they do and don't feel is acceptable.

[EMaxxi]

A reprint for Edgar Markov hardly matters, after what we saw with Mana Crypt reprint in Caves of Ixalan correct?

They delayed the ban for 1 year, specifically because of the LCI reprint.
So, yeah, it matters.

I quickly went through my decks, too. Most of them are already bracket 1, or can be made bracket 1 by cutting the 1-2 game changers in them.

I was thinking about the definition of "2-card combo". There are quite a few combinations of 2 cards that let you do something an infinite amount of times, but don't progress the game (i.e. think Gravecrawler + Phyrexian Altar). You need a 3rd card to turn it into a game-winning combo, but said 3rd card is very flexible. Would it still count as a 3-card combo for the sake of these brackets?
I am asking for two concrete reasons:

• I have a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero deck that can win by looping Gerrard and Hellkite Courser with a sac outlet. Gerrard is always available due to being my commander and I have several sac outlets and "eggs" that can looped alongside Gerrard and Hellkite, so the combo technically requires 3 cards minimum to execute, but if feels like 2-card combo a lot of the times.
  
• My Muldrotha deck is a Primal Surge deck. I often joke that Primal Surge is a 1-card combo, since it gets everything you need from the deck, but it also puts a deckbuilding limitation on myself. Would you consider Primal Surge too strong for brackets 1-2? (Keep in mind it's a 10-mana sorcery and I can't protect it with cheap counterspells or Veil of Summer.)
  

[Firestone]

This is not going to affect my life. That’s fine. I’ll disregard this initiative and go about my day.

Pn the other hand, I’m quite happy with the nomination ‘game changers’.
This will serve as a more objective source stating “you’re not being clever by putting Cyclonic Rift and/or Rhystic Study and/or [slot in any card that combo’s with a mana colour] in your 99; you’re merely taking the road of least resistance to building a more oppressive deck”, rather than just my own 2 cents.
Especially when your fate is being assigned random lgs-opponents, I can imagine you would be happy with this development.

[Firestone]

This is not going to affect my life. That’s fine. I’ll disregard this initiative and go about my day.

Pn the other hand, I’m quite happy with the nomination ‘game changers’.
This will serve as a more objective source stating “you’re not being clever by putting Cyclonic Rift and/or Rhystic Study and/or [slot in any card that combo’s with a mana colour] in your 99; you’re merely taking the road of least resistance to building a more oppressive deck”, rather than just my own 2 cents.
Especially when your fate is being assigned random lgs-opponents, I can imagine you would be happy with this development.

Casually quoting myself here  :
I just read the actual article, and I see my point is made before paragraph 3.
Nice. Well done, mtg-nerds!

[robort]

While watching YouTube someone brought this up and I was like that's a pretty good point. Was the game changer multi-color area is basically commanders along with Urza and Tegrid. They lose some value of game changer if they are in the 99. I know this is going to sound like the banned as commander when they used to have it. However there could be a list of game changer commanders. Ones that most everyone knows are game changer as the commander. Just some commander of becoming in the 99 just makes them way less of game changers.

[robort]

Here's another idea. Granted I know it wouldn't really be implemented. But have some sort of area you could click on with an asterisk *. This could be for new players and players in general. The asterisk would be cards that are played make you targeted and disliked. I've ran across a new player coming into my lgs with a commander or plays a certain card without hardly any knowledge of the card itself. Granted most of us regulars explain to said person that the commander or cards are going to make you a target or disliked. I would say the asterisk is like a warning label or it could be a small paragraph explaining why certain cards are that way. Even with an added explanation that you may run into certain cards. I'll use winter orb as 1 example because I am sure there are others. I have yet to see many people who are happy when this is played onto the table besides the person playing it.

[ShofuAdam]

Gotta say I'm not a huge fan. I feel that the brackets are very broad, and in particular there is a very large space within high level bracket 3 and low-level bracket 4 that I feel could have done with it's own bracket, something with like 5-7 game changers, mid-late game infinites, and high power.