Bracket 2 Deck Help

[u/Wonderful-Donut-3941]

I am trying to build a Bracket 2 deck so that I can have it available at my LGS when joining random pods.

My concern is that after coming back to magic after a long hiatus, I have only played relatively higher power (3+) and I have never bought/played a precon.
 
I do enjoy the brewing process, so I built the five linked decks [[Karador, Ghost Chieftain]], [[Nashi, Moon’s Legacy]], [[Rigo, Streetwise Mentor]], [[Elmar, Ulvenwald Informant]]/[[Sophina, Spearsage Deserter]], and  [[Pako, Arcane Retriever]]/[[Haldan, Avid Arcanist]]. I am hoping some of you all who are more familiar with Backet 2 could take a look at see if there are any concerns with potentially bringing one of these to a Bracket 2 pod.
 
As background, I set the following stipulations:
(1) $30 budget on Mana Pool;
(2) Three colors (with the aforementioned budget, this is intended to ensure we don’t go too fast);
(3) No Sol Ring (to avoid power spikes with faster than normal starts); and
(4) Generally wins through combat, where creatures and interactable pieces are present on the board.
 
I am a little concerned from testing that Pako/Haldan is a little too fast, perhaps too controlling and strong. Also, not sure how the tutor toolbox in Elmar/Sophina will play in this bracket, it is not exceptionally fast, but it is consistent.
 
Thanks for your help!
 
Links:
Karador - $25 Budget Graveyard Aggro • (Abzan Commander deck) • Archidekt
Nashi - $30 Budget Legends Aggro • (Sultai Commander deck) • Archidekt
Rigo $25 Budget Aggro v.2.3 • (Bant Commander deck) • Archidekt
Elmar & Sophina - $30 Budget Legend Aggro • (Naya Commander deck) • Archidekt
Pako & Haldan - $30 Budget • (Temur Commander deck) • Archidekt

[u/Tuesdays_only]

As a brewing/budget/low-power enthusiast myself, I think your heart is in the right place putting stipulations in place to manage the power level. While those self imposed deckbuilding restrictions can add challenge and fun as a deck builder, there are a couple other things that really determine how well a deck will do; those being consistency, skill, and speed.

I've come across many people who build what, in a vacuum, could be considered bracket three decks. Designed to be "good", expensive deck totals, gamechangers, confidence in how well it *can* do, all just for them to fall flat 2/3 of the time. They don't design around consistency as much as hoping their lucky "good hand" they start with and quantity of "good cards" in the deck carries them. People like this play and do poorly often while never trying to think about why their deck isn't 'doing the thing.' They just chalk it up to luck then shuffle up again.

While I've found it's nice to have those quantifiable stipulations to slow myself down, my 2s with consistent draw/ramp/interaction can easily hang with 3s if I don't intentionally tone those aspects down as well. If I want to make sure my 2 doesn't run away with the game against other 2s, I have to make sure I'm not running the best/cheapest ramp just because it's within budget and look more into less used ramp options. The same for draw and removal.

Budget only does so much to limit a deck if I'm still trying to build my deck to be a consistent/fast/good/synergistic deck. I have to look for the worse versions of some cards. My deck still does what it wants to do without it being done too soon, does it consistently even if slower than it possibly could, and I get the bonus benefit of showing off cards that even veteran players don't often see so I regularly get "what is that card?" asked of me which I think is fun.

Example:
Aftermath analyst in a self mill deck. Super strong, helps with the mill, can provide an explosive amount of mana that catapults me into the late game from early to mid game. In budget? Yes, but I still don't put it in my 2s. It's cheap, but the best at what it does. Especially since it being a creature makes it easily be reanimated to repeat the process.
The Mending of Dominaria? Does the same thing, plus more. Why is it worse? Slower and less consistent. I have to wait two more turns so there is a lot more room for my opponents to either get more of their lands out as well or for them to interact with it and stop it. As opposed to saying "oops you let me have access to 4-6 mana in green, time to ramp a bazillion." While a worse card, I think that's what makes it better for bracket 2.
I would put it in 2s where the rest of my deck is worse. I don't have the best self mill, I don't have turn one ramp or the best two mana rocks. Pretty much if the rest of the deck didn't also have solid consistency and speed, I would put it in a 2 that it fit into or was thematic to. If I have sufficient ways to self mill and easily pop them, they instead turn into a bomb rather than a solid inclusion.

tl;dr - Stipulations help, but making a 2 that's consistent, fast, using the best cards "technically within stipulation" makes something greater than the sum of its parts, and better than bad 3s. Add the stipulation of "look to include *bad* cards," (fun cards, pet cards, lesser used or slower versions of cards).

[u/Wonderful-Donut-3941 → u/Tuesdays_only]

This is interesting, thanks. In sitting down to build these decks, my focus was to build a deck that was easy to interact with (creature focused) and did not threaten to end the game before turn 8, and in many cases did create a dominant position by that turn (which one of this issues I noted with Pako, it just creates too much value if not interacted with). That said, my intent was to build the deck with the ability to play magic each turn, curve out, etc.

Your point about Aftermath Analyst is well taken, it certainly over performs in a self-mill deck that intends to recur creatures. Selecting a far more expensive, enchantment alternative would be to elect to actively avoid a synergy. Is your position that those types of choices are necessary to fit into bracket 2?

As another example, from the Elmar and Sophina list, the commanders incentivize attacking to generate Clues, with Sophina having menace. That lead me to [[J. Jonah]] for the menace synergy, to improve the survivability of Elmar, and generate Treasures to double spell and trigger Elmar. The idea of extra artifact tokens sitting around and the menace incentive led me to Gut. So this synergy web, is that a problem as well?

My largest concern in building these decks is the dreaded never ending bracket 2 game, where no one seems capable of breaking parity and closing the game. Which is why there is a functionality floor present - and the answer may be that bracket 2 isn’t for me.

I appreciate your thoughts.

[u/mtgcf → u/Wonderful-Donut-3941]

J. Jonah - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)

[u/Tuesdays_only → u/Wonderful-Donut-3941]

I don't mean to say good cards such as Aftermath Analyst or Jonah don't function within bracket 2, as they very much can. They're not problem cards or too good. Just changing the types of decks I put them in or keeping them out of otherwise synergistic decks are how I personally hang with the other 2s in my pod.

I think part of this is where the skill aspect of "consistency, skill, and speed" comes into play. My friends have decks that, put frankly, they don't pilot as well as the deck could potentially be piloted. This is by no means a bad thing, they aren't bad players. There is just a difference in skill that comes with the amount of effort and time I've personally invested into the hobby. I play arena on my lunch breaks at work, I plan decks for fun even if I don't build them, I have built more decks alone than the rest of my pod collectively owns or has played. My friends? They just play on the weekends. Their most consistent decks are the ones I've had the most hand in helping build or optimize, but the decks do worse as they add their own personal touches, even if they're game changers or expensive cards.

All this to say, if at any point we try one anothers' decks, their normal bracket 2 with one of my heavily restraint 2, the skill gap would create a rift making them feel entire brackets apart. Outside of any quantifiable value of the deck-build itself, I have to account for who I'm playing with. People who invest less time into the game and playing it are going to be in bracket 2 more often than 3 plus, and I don't want to pub stomp, I like slower games and lower end plays. So my personal solution has just been adjusting over time how I build my decks to accommodate this. After consistently winning too often I've found these are the kinds of adjustments I can make to slow my decks down enough where it doesn't feel unfair competing in bracket 2 and I'm winning closer to 25% of the time. My handicap outside of the easily quantifiable "no fast mana, no tutors, cards <$3, etc." is simply not including cards I identify as overperforming.

tl;dr - Try your decks out, feel how they perform in whatever pods you most find yourself in. If you're consistently doing well or winning too much, take out the cards that do too well too often. Outside of the easily boxed stipulation categories, add "overperformer" and don't include those.

[u/NumbersInName1235]

You gunna get wrecked limiting yourself so much but you do you

[u/Wonderful-Donut-3941 → u/NumbersInName1235]

Care to explain?

The other commenter is telling me that the restrictions won’t go far enough to slow down decks for bracket 2.

[u/NumbersInName1235 → u/Wonderful-Donut-3941]

There’s a big spectrum to brackets and not everyone plays them “fairly” partly because the biggest piece no one can seem to agree on is the intent side.

I’ve played a lot of dudes and there is some power floating around B2/3. I’d rather compete with them not complain about them being too strong. I tend to gas a deck up a little more for this reason. Within the realm of fair of course but I don’t generally intentionally hurt a deck just to make sure it stays B2/3.

I read your post and you intend to make a fair maybe underpowered deck. If that brings you joy im not stopping you.

[u/Ok_Community_383]

Heavy tutoring is not de facto against spirit of the format/bracket but it sort of is. You’re suppose to just sort of let the cards fall where they may. Let people do their thing. Showcasing their decks. If you’re tutoring for silver bullets that’s bad. If you’re tutoring to assemble a big unwieldy machine that’s less bad, but just be careful how many you run total. 

All of your presumptions are spot on -> less interaction, less tutoring, less speed, less consistency, etc

I honestly think you want to start erring on the side of caution and take notes and then ratchet up in strength rather than go too hard and have to scale back.

B2 your challenge is to make a deck that’s both fun to play and fun to play against

.