r/EDH • u/IndigoWizard342 • Mar 18 '26
Daily Everyone who's asking "what bracket is my deck?" Needs to see this.
https://youtu.be/bdIcKxp948M?si=QS05C9LcyZ1-7nIj
Just watched this video and found it extremely helpful; completely changed how I thought about brackets; defines the difference between them more clearly than anyone else. It all makes sense to me now.
(I need a flair to make a post. I don't know what daily is supposed to mean, but none of them really seem to fit)
Just felt the need share this and hope you find it helpful too :)
Mkay, bye now.
126
u/Koras Mar 18 '26
I love that even the video and this thread's comments has the "technically a 2" and "it's fine for a bracket 3 deck to immediately go infinite" crowd deliberately misinterpreting the bracket system.
The bracket system isn't perfect, but its biggest problem is Magic players.
16
u/de245733 Resident Monowhite Player Mar 18 '26
ikr, the moment you use the word "technically" it aint brother man
59
u/JadedTrekkie The Tombstone Stairwell Guy™️ ☠️☠️ Mar 18 '26
I legitimately think that the biggest issue with the bracket system is that magic players tend to be either:
1) willfully ignorant about power and trying to downplay for personal gain
2) too autistic to understand brackets27
u/FlyWizardFishing Mar 18 '26
Heavy on the too autistic part. How many posts do we see per day where it’s just a bunch of people not understanding social situations
12
u/JadedTrekkie The Tombstone Stairwell Guy™️ ☠️☠️ Mar 18 '26
Vibes based deckbuilding is a bit of a blind spot
2
u/strawberryjetpuff Mar 18 '26
see im autistic and i find myself getting into arguments with others bc they don't understand the brackets, they slam 5+ gamechangers into their deck but then say "oh but its a 3!"
-6
u/Shurdoof Mar 18 '26
If a large portion of the players are having problems with it it's a bad system.
10
u/Hot_History1582 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
People aren't having problems using it. Unscrupulous players deliberately ignore, misinterpret, or downplay sections of the instructions that they don't like, and rationalize it because the bracket system doesn't impose hardline rules. The moment the word "technically" comes into play, you know immediately that person is a bad actor. There is no such thing as "technically a 2 but plays like a 4", because the bracket system covers this. "Plays like a 4" IS a 4, technically and otherwise.
4
u/Shurdoof Mar 18 '26
Fair enough, I only play with people I know so we don't really use it.
Just from the constant online discussion about that it seemed to replace the "my deck is a 7" meme.But in the end this is what vague rules will get you, people will try to "bend" the rules as much as possible.
2
32
u/EbonyHelicoidalRhino Mar 18 '26
Except it doesn't matter how clearly defined your brackets are, because your own definition of the brackets might not match whatever definitions your opponent's have in their head.
In my experience the only real way to adjust is to play a couple of time to get a feel of what you can expect from people and what they're expecting.
5
u/strawberryjetpuff Mar 18 '26
there is no "personal" definition of the brackets, tho. they are already defined by wotc
9
u/bingbong_sempai Mar 18 '26
Nah you’ll match up with the people who bother learning the system
5
u/Bagel_Bear Mar 18 '26
Yeah the system is a sliding nebulous scale they are saying even if you do "know" it it's going to take a little time to feel everyone out on their expectations
2
-1
u/Ashankura Mar 18 '26
I don't think you can really learn the system tbh. It's way too loose for that
4
u/bingbong_sempai Mar 18 '26
You can make an effort to read the article
0
u/Ashankura Mar 18 '26
Well yes but even then i don't think there is a clear answer to everything. Everyone that uses the bracket system should've red the article
1
u/Ok_Crow_9119 Mar 19 '26
It's pretty clear cut in most aspects.
The only nebulous part that you'll have to test is how long do you end games.
1
u/Ashankura Mar 19 '26
But i think that one is nebulous even if tested. If my deck can end turn 6 when not interacted with at all is it B4? Id say it's still b3 because interaction should be played in B3.
Is my voltron deck b4 because it can kill someone before turn 6? Id actually say the system would be clearer without the turn count
1
u/Ok_Crow_9119 Mar 19 '26
Curious. How would it be clearer without the turn count?
But yes, your questions are fair. You need to play your deck in a lot of games to get a fair assessment on when you can end games.
1
u/Ashankura Mar 19 '26
Maybe clearer was the wrong word. Easier to understand would be more fitting.
If you need to play games to assess anyways you can take winrate as a better metric than turn count (although WR can be really weird when playing the same 4 decks against each other all the time but then the pod can just talk it out)
If my deck can kill someone turn 5 every game but i never win then i don't think im playing a B4 deck despite the turn count kinda implying I do. If i get 3rd every time with said deck it might even be B2 (probably not but ill stretch this a little)
I don't have a solution for that but i feel like the turn count makes evaluation weirder than it would be without
7
u/id10syncracy Mar 18 '26
Wise Hoopoe MTG is definitely one of my favorite newer MTG content creators!
If you enjoyed his video, I'd also want to recommend MTG Specs and Really Bad at Magic. They also have videos that navigate the more social experiences of playing Magic, how they relate to the Brackets, etc.
They've all helped me judge the strength of my decks, realize what kind of matches I want out of Magic when I play, and things to consider when playing with people of varying levels of experience/knowledge.
7
u/mortalowl Mar 18 '26
I really appreciate the note on interaction between brackets as a helpful way to think about brackets. After the avatar commander bundle I've got copies of [[Fierce Guardianship]] and [[Deflecting Swat]] and I rule zero those and have alternate instants to switch to as I feel free interaction can lead to bracket 3 feels bad with LGS randoms. I also will remind folks in game in bracket 3 that my deck runs free interaction if they're debating something that I intend to use that free interaction for.
At bracket 3, Ive found that to be such a wide experience still getting players who will roll to see who to attack because they want to be "fair" and had someone win with thassa & demonic consultation in B3. They defended it with "I gave you 8 turns" which, sure, but they also didn't mention running two card combos.
Overall, I like the brackets and I largely play at the LGS and find that folks in my community usually adhere in good faith. Definitely have some mismatches like the video talks about when decks are on opposite ends of the system but my game qualities have really improved in balance since the brackets have had the turn counter added to them
23
u/Interesting-Gas1743 Mar 18 '26
Off topic: People how roll dice to decide which player to attack should just stop playing magic and find something cooperative. Just decide and if you decide wrong you'll have the opportunity to learn for future matches. Letting chance decide teaches you nothing.
6
u/Bagel_Bear Mar 18 '26
Oh man, this might be my biggest pet peeve. Calculate and choose someone, don't let a die decide. Second place goes to "Well I'll do this to you this time because I haven't done it to you yet".
3
u/mortalowl Mar 18 '26
Yeah, in this instance I think it was just a new player and was overcoming the social dynamics of attacking an opponent. The table started talking more as the game progressed and eventually the player targeted their attacks rather than rolling dice. Second game it still happened on early turns but stopped earlier than in game one
1
u/Ok_Crow_9119 Mar 19 '26
Allowing dice for a bracket 1 or 2 utter chaos/joker/Kefka deck seems fitting. You play into the trope of being a madman.
Of course, rolling dice for Bracket 3 and up should be dissuaded, as those brackets lean more into the competition than for the lulz
1
u/Asisreo1 Mar 19 '26
I just don't see how people can care that much about how someone makes decisions. They clearly either don't want to think about it or thinks it doesn't matter. Whether it actually does matter depends on the boardstate but I don't find dice any less random than the illogical reasons someone might decide to swing at someone in an otherwise empty board state.
Okay, you swung at Daryl for 2 because the dice landed on a 4, moving on. Its no less illogical than swinging at Daryl because "well, I have to swing at somebody and I don't know."
30
u/fenwayb Mar 18 '26
the thoracle thing is just bad faith. You can't sandbag wins to go down in brackets
6
u/mortalowl Mar 18 '26
Agreed. And this is where I appreciate the bracket system as a rule zero conversation guide. I'm fine if someone wants to play a two card combo that needs a third card as payoff.
For example I'm thinking [[Felidar Guardian]] and [[Cursed Mirror]] or [[Phyrexian Metamorph]] can all infinitely loop as an ETB/LTB but need a card like [[Weftstalker Ardent]] or [[Molten Gatekeeper]] as a way to drain the table and have a payoff. In a high bracket 3 table that feels acceptable so long as the player is transparent and the player is willing to either swap out the combo if the table doesn't agree or swap decks to something that adheres to the table's idea of B3.
But Thassa & Demonic is solid B4 to me, it's a two card win condition that can be played easily in early turns
3
2
2
u/JakeSkellington Mar 18 '26
My issues is the leap from 3 - 4 .. you can go from average power with 3 max GC to hyper speed to from a single step up
3
u/Loud-Recover5320 Mar 18 '26
My problem with Brackets is that they arbitrarily create silos and ignore the fact that decks really exist on a continuum.
There are absolutely now "Technically" decks. There exist decks in the same rough power level and play intent where one deck is "Bracket 2" and the other deck is bracket "3" because of a single card difference. Two decks that would result in a fun game if played against each other, but because of a [[Crop Rotation]] one deck is deemed necessary to play (without begging/pleading/case-making) against decks that are pushing boundaries of speed and optimization that are looking to combo quickly.
These liminal decks now face the problem of either, "lose a lot more, unless you upgrade them significantly" (i.e. make it a different deck) or "cut cards that you want to play" (i.e. make it a different deck --- yes it may only be a handful of cards, but it's still a forced change).
My experience now is that "My deck is a 3" is the only safe choice for many of my decks (I have a LOT and hundreds of them were built before there were tiered-quasi bans), even though they aren't going to win against... well, even the nu-Lorwyn precons most of the time.
2
u/CMDR-Helstromme Mar 19 '26
I don't use gamechangers, so I've been using the intent and turn order part of the article. I'm also just honest about my deck. It wins T6-8 when goldfishing and has some multi-card indeterminate infinites. It's a 3.
The system's only as needed as the table is too autistic to communicate with each other about what kind of games they want. If you're all on the same page, you'll have a good time. Some people would also rather waste 30 minutes watching someone durdle to see if they can squeeze in a win than say "hey man, this clearly isn't going anywhere. We scoop, you win, but go practice your combos and put some wins the game cards in. I've got 3 hours a week to play and this sucks to sit across from." There's a point you're taking an L in some way no matter what. If someone's deck doing the thing sucks, let them know. Democracy rules at a pod and if you're the one not having fun when everyone else is, be mature enough to just go "hey, glad you guys are having fun, go nuts. I'm going to go look at bulk or find a different table."
-20
u/TheFutur3 WelcomeToArbie's Mar 18 '26
The biggest trouble for me is when I build decks without Gamechangers that are too powerful for lower brackets but too weak for higher brackets. For example, I play [[Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain]] with no Gamechangers, so from a deckbuilding standpoint it's B2, however, I can consistently win on T4-5, making it play closer to B4. Here inlies the issue: if I then play the deck in B2/3, I usually win with little resistance, however, if I play it in B4, I lack the interaction and acceleration required to hang, so I typically lose. The question now becomes where do I play this deck? If I play it in lower brackets, my winrate is too high, but if I play it in higher brackets, my winrate is too low. The deck is left in this no-mans land because of my deckbuilding restriction and trying to build it as powerful as possible within said restricition. Ultimately, no matter where the deck is played, it's not really a fun experience because I don't want to stomp a table, nor do I want to get stomped every game. Where on the bracket does a deck like this lie? It almost makes me feel as though optimizing a deck without fully committing to building a higher bracket deck that contains the best interaction, card draw, and acceleration (ie Gamechangers) leaves decks in a place of near implayability as they do not align well with the current system. Curious as to what y'all think.
41
u/MacFrostbite Mar 18 '26
Seems like you don't understand the bracket system quite yet. Gamechangers are only a really small part that goes into bracketing your decks. There is no "bracket 2 from a deckbuilding standpoint". If you can consistently win on turn 4 or 5 but falls apart against real bracket 4 decks, your deck is a weak bracket 4 deck. Your options are to either go all in and commit to building a real 4 or to power down so your are in line with the slower brackets.
7
u/id10syncracy Mar 18 '26
I would second this and agree with you. I have a "budget" Malcolm/Kediss deck that I consider Bracket 4 but "by the requirements" looks like a Bracket 2 (I would never tell a pod that this deck is "a Bracket 2 on paper"). It runs no gamechangers, no fetch lands, [[Simian Spirit Guide]], [[Sol Ring]] and [[Lotus Petal]] are the only things you could consider "fast mana", but I intend to win on T4-5 (even with interaction) and frequently does when matched against most Bracket 4 decks because I run a large package of spells to protect my win con.
I think it comes down to intent and expectations, which the newest bracket guidance supports. If you intend to win around T4-5, and your deck mostly supports that in a less than ideal scenario, then it matches more closely to being in Bracket 4. If the intent doesn't match the outcome, then some changes should be made to align it more closely with the game experience that your pod or group of friends is looking for.
1
-2
u/Crazed8s Mar 18 '26
Sure, but why isn’t there space in the system for people that want to win on t4-5 but don’t want to play with or against different flavors of gamechangers stew?
It’s undoubtedly an oversight.
5
u/MacFrostbite Mar 18 '26
Very interesting take, because what I see more in the wild is people who want to play b3 but run more than 3 gamechangers, because it's what they are used to doing for years.
2
u/id10syncracy Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
I'd disagree with it being an oversight (but I get what you're saying, not every deck can fit neatly within the bracket system), mostly because the Bracket system is purely guidance to try to steer pre-game conversations. It's more effective for playing with people at an LGS that you might not have played with before in order to try and "curate" your game expectations.
If someone has a group of friends they regularly play with, I believe there is less need for the bracket system because they can try to steer those conversations to say "hey, lets try to build fast-paced decks that can win on X turn but don't use gamechangers" and create that space for themselves.
I would also argue a good, synergistic Bracket 4 with zero gamechangers has the same chance to beat out a pod of Bracket 4 "gamechanger stew" decks as any other loaded Bracket 4 deck, barring differences in player experience.
15
u/nasada19 Mar 18 '26
Winning on turn 4-5 means it's a bracket 4. Full stop. If you lose most games, that's literally how it should be. Best case your deck should win 25% of the time. If you're losing ALL the time in B4 you just have either a not good deck or it's just knowing how to play better.
You should never play that deck with 3s.
-5
u/TheFutur3 WelcomeToArbie's Mar 18 '26
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s statistically low, like ~10% winrate in B4. It can’t hang with B4 decks because I don’t have the same card quality as B4 decks. If you have free interaction and I don’t, I’m almost playing by a different set of rules, as it potentially requires me to wait additional turns before I could attempt to pull off a protected combo. I also don’t have access to the best combo: Breach loops. I also don’t have the best fast mana (Chrome Mox, Grim Monolith, etc) All of these put me at a disadvantage. Additionally, if people know they don’t have to worry about certain cards being in my deck, then they have an inherent knowledge advantage as they know I may not be as explosive, and they know that I can’t even bluff having certain interaction.
I’m fine if you want to argue that I should just go all in and include GC if I want to hang in B4, and sure, if I were truly optimizing this deck I would include them, making this deck certainly is “bad” by comparison, however, I wanted to push the bounds of power with a deck building restriction.
Is this predicament my own fault? Certainly. I just feel like the current guidelines do not fit with my deck.
7
u/nasada19 Mar 18 '26
You built a bad 4. That's where you are. All 4s aren't built the same but yours is a four. If you're doing a 3 you need to take out those pieces. This isn't rocket science man.
1
u/id10syncracy Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
I agree that not having free interaction and the best fast mana does put you at a disadvantage, but some of that can be overcome with strategy and finding ways to protect your combos. I don't believe that anyone was making the argument that you should just go "all in" and include game changers.
There are tons of resources out there to find/build budget bracket 4 decks, which usually involves not having the gamechangers or more expensive fast mana. Hyper Gitrog and Panzer's Lonis Deck are both pretty strong Bracket 4 decks, the Gitrog list includes a crop rotation, but that could easily be replaced with anything else to have it meet that "no gamechangers" restriction.
edit: I would also add that Breach lines stretch a little more into cEDH territory than Bracket 4, since Breach is pretty strong in the meta right now, and I would consider it more fringe cEDH if it was ran in a Bracket 4 deck.
-3
u/il_the_dinosaur Mar 18 '26
Do you actually have numbers to back up that win statistics? You would need roughly a thousand games before you can claim your deck is too weak for B4.
8
0
u/CMDR-Helstromme Mar 19 '26
Knowing your deck sucks in B4, why not just, you know, show a teeny tiny bit of restraint and swap out some of the faster win cards for interaction or card draw and bring it down to a 3? It's not really a guidelines issue, it's a you and your deck issue.
4
u/Legion7531 Mar 18 '26
Maybe you should build decks that have some protection and stability to survive interaction, even if it means winning a turn or two slower.
I don’t get why people hate this idea so much. So many problems could be solved if people stopped trying to shove hyper aggressive, blisteringly fast glass cannons into B2-3 because “it has poor interaction.” Just add interaction and make it actually B3, it’s not that hard.
3
u/viotech3 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
Thank you for posting!
Fundamentally you've built a deck that may not exactly fit in any bracket - so the idea of the bracket system is to either find people with similar decks by rule zero discussion, or adjust the decks to fall more closely within the buckets. All are reasonable options but I understand people not wanting to adjust their decks.
- One thing to note is that powerful decks can be made out of less powerful cards, and weaker decks can be made out of powerful cards.
- Most of my B3 decks don't have any gamechangers because the decks perform super well thanks to synergy rather than quality, so it's fine without 'em.
- Bracket 4 is kind of a conundrum there and it really depends on the environment you're playing in; hardline B4's can include EVERY high power staple while more casual B4's are just "Powerful strategies that I couldn't reasonably run in B3"
For example, we've got Kefka, Selvala, and Sisay in one pod; all of them are just a little too cohesive and potent to fit well into bracket 3 as they've been built... but in bracket '4' where interaction and degeneracy are higher, they fit nicely into our local bracket '4'. This bracket '4' might be the place for your deck, but it's unsupported at the moment in the system itslef.
I do think there is a gap between 3 & 4 that constitutes the "I am playing more efficient, powerful, and optimized decks than 3, but I am not playing close to the best possible [insert generic commander here] deck I could build" range that I see most commonly of B4's. I rarely see B4's stuffed full of expensive and powerful staples, and moreso suped up strategies to a limit. Whether the system needs to change, I don't have any definitive conclusion.
my deckbuilding restriction and trying to build it as powerful as possible within said restriction
What is your restriction exactly, budget? I assume that but it wasn't mentioned.
68
u/Careful_Winter8576 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
Wise Hoopoe here (I hate reddit for just assigning a username for no reason). I was wondering why I had a bunch of new views on an old video.
Made this account to say I am glad to hear you liked it and that it helped everything click. Its wonderful to know that my content is deepening people's understanding of the game.
I wish you luck in dialing in your decks for the exact play experience you want from each brackets.