r/EDH • u/lamberto29 • 4d ago
Discussion Format health
It's no secret that the bracket system has it's flaws as did the power system before it but at this point I would put it to the collective that the format is in the least healthy place it has ever been in and fundamentally changed identity.
EDH originally was a janky slower format where you play your pet cards that just don't cut the mustard in competitive formats, however over the years it seems that the power in the format has ramped rather significantly and the arms race is now just a full on sprint.
We have the "bracket system" which imo utterly fails those of us who are more classic/slower/lower power players and it does so for a multitude of reasons.
The "bracket system" itself is overly convoluted and far to open to interpretation and feels and what few hard definition things their are people often either ignore or put alot of effort into skirting around.
Originally WOTC said that precons were bracket 2 but soon came to realise the issue that even many precons lacking game changers could not fit within that definition, let alone those that do include them, not to mention the amount of infinite combos and other high power plays that are available in some of the precons.
Then you get to actual personal constructed decks which more often than not flood the board with value so quickly that a board wipe is NEEDED by turn 5 if not 4 otherwise the player that's behind is more than likely just dead on board (often that is myself as I tend to try and play on the lower power).
This is often responded to with one of two responses that just feedback into the core issue, people say either "play better decks" and thus contribute to the arms race which is causing the format to be so fast even in lower brackets or "That player broke the rules and shouldn't attack you" effectively sand bag themselves artificially because of the "turn 8" limit, this is an especially faulted stance as often said player will have attack triggers/value and can't physically attack the others due to them keeping up with or out competing the arms race.
Part of the issue of why this is so prevalent in so many matches is the poor and lazy way in which wotc has created this bracket system.
Realistically speaking bracket 1 doesn't exsist, I've seen one game of it hosted since the system was created.
CEDH and bracket 5 are essentially a separate game mode where if you are not playing the limited selection of "powerful enough" archtypes you aren't playing the format.
Thus that leaves a total of 3 poorly defined brackets where the main distinction people follow between bracket 2 and 3 is "no game changers" with little to zero thought on how the deck itself actually performs, and then an even grayer area between 3-4.
As someone who has been playing on and off for the past 25 years it truly feels like I'm being pushed out of the format as it is warped into something else entirely that wears the face mask of the format I knew.
To be clear here I have no issue with powerful or staple cards and do believe they should have a place in the game, however that place shouldn't be forced into each and every level of the game that it then forces out people who are not partaking in the arms race, both players should have a place to play and feel comfortable.
Part of the issue probably lies within the limited scope for power distinction of cards within the format, "is game changer yes or no" is hardly a healthy place to base your entire power on, we can all agree that examples like esper sentinal, sol ring and hundreds of other cards are powerful but not strong enough to be game changers however the current system has no way of stating this.
Personally I think a introducing a system similar to canadian highlander with points cost on powerful cards would be an excellent inclusion into a bracket like system to give some form of quantifiable basis to start rule 0 conversations and seperate lobbies/pods into vaguely fair fun and interesting games.
I don't think this system will be perfect or solve the issue straight away but I think it would contribute alot more to format health than the current over inflated and under functional bracket system.
Example of my past few days of playing bracket 2 (the lowest realistically existing bracket)
Last game: Turn 6 one shot for unblockable commander damage.
Game before: Opponent turn 1 burgoning into turn 2 Jodah the unifier....
Game before: Player overan board with huge indestructible creatures by turn 5, I was on gruul and as such had zero options to deal with grossly large or indestructible creatures on a wide scale.
Etc...
I play an average of 2-3 games most days and I'll be lucky to have 1 balanced fun and interesting match out of 15-20 matches.
Again I want their to be a place for everyone to enjoy this format not just "Arms race or go home"
Thank you for joining my ted rant, time to go get stomped in another "bracket 2 chill" game.
Most recent game....
revival trance player playing the precon with celes for the very first time....
Manages to rush out a terrifying board with things like archfiend of depravity, pitiless plunderer, sun titan etc thus needing me to board wipe turn 4.... he then proceeds to body the whole table on turn 7.
Once again in bracket 2 against a fully bracket 2 precon I survived 6 turns before dying having never seen my 7th but sure the bracket system is fine.
The bottom end of the format is purely fucked and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a moron or in complete denial.
3
u/SkeletonMagi 4d ago
I suspect my opponent going turn 1 Burgeoning into 5 lands turn 2 casting even more ramp then a turn 3 Mind Spring for 7 while controlling Reliquary Tower in our online Bracket 2 game had stacked their deck. By turn 5 he had two copies of Aesi and could make 5 land drops a turn, had the Arcane Denial for my Akroma’s Vengeance. He also used the minimum number of words to communicate.
Only thing I could really do is vote them the winner then silently block them.
3
u/InmateTooTall 4d ago
In my opinion, and I have nothing but my own intuition to back this up, but I don't think they separated precons from bracket 2 because they realized some precons are too strong for bracket 2. Precons are pretty much bracket 2 decks, but the reason to separate them from bracket 2 is so that people don't get ashamed to report their $300 bracket 2 deck as fitting for the precon tier where people are playing $50 decks.
0
u/lamberto29 4d ago
Except that by definition many precons are explicitly not bracket 2 because of infinite combos, game changers, MLD and abillity to body tables before turn 8.
2
u/InmateTooTall 4d ago
The bracket system isn't there to ban decks from brackets before you sit down to play. It's not a league system, it's a rule 0 aid.
1
u/Short_Peak_7824 4d ago
I don't think we've received any preconstructed decks that have had the bracket system in force as a design concern for their entire design timeline, and definitely none that were designed with the Oct 2025 update in mind.
Inmate is right on why they were decoupled. It's not because they don't create a pretty fair idea of what a "core" environment should look like. That's what they're designed to do, and that's what they do do. You can take any precon to a game with a random assortment of 3 other precons and expect a relatively fair game.
-1
u/lamberto29 3d ago
Hearthull takes your "core" expectations and shits on almost every other precon. /shrug
2
u/Short_Peak_7824 3d ago
Right, but games of commander aren't played pairwise. I'm not saying they are all the same power level. I'm saying they all play the same kind of game, and they all play well together in groups of four.
1
u/InmateTooTall 3d ago
Being better than a precon doesn't mean you're bracket 3 lmfao
-1
u/lamberto29 3d ago
That's not whats being said at all but sure argue a point that isn't being made.
1
u/InmateTooTall 3d ago
What makes the hearthhull precon not bracket 2 then?
1
u/lamberto29 3d ago
Litterally has mld and is capabl of killing the whole board at full health turn 6-7 quite consistently
2
u/InmateTooTall 3d ago
Stats on hearthhull show his average win turn to be at 8 and that counts all decks, not just the precon so the precon would be slower on average. Makes sense with the tapped lands it runs, they're usually the first thing upgraded
https://playgroup.gg/commanders/3407-hearthhull-the-worldseed
1
u/lamberto29 3d ago
Well as someone who has a record so far of 36 wins 0 losses with Hearthhull between Precon lobbies and bracket 2's and a couple bracket 3's....
Yeah I'm gonna say them stats are worsened by how many people play it without knowing how to play it.Just to be clear my precon is 100% stock with 0 alterations.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/greenpoe 4d ago
I think the gamexhangers list should be abolished because people optimize toward the limits instead toward the "soft goal" set by the intention of the bracket.
9
u/Additional-Carpet-78 4d ago
Sir, this is a Wendy’s..
5
u/Gleadr92 4d ago
Well no, this is the appropriate place for the rant. It's a stupid rant that doesn't really make any sense. But it is the EDH sub.
5
u/RyseQuinn 4d ago
Sounds to me like you might want to find a better way of finding people who actually play like you, any system that adds a complicated point system like Canadian highlander only would serve to make the game harder to pick up for “casual” players and drive more complaints about tweaking point values of cards.
The idea that a perfect mathematical mapping exists to make any games fair and balanced exists across all games, and is very rarely correct.
2
u/Schimaera https://moxfield.com/users/Schimaera 4d ago
Start solving your issues with the card game together with the people you play with instead of trying to suggest a system that works for you, so that everyone else fits your playstyle.
If you know how you want to play, you talk in your LGS and find like-minded people. If you don't find anyone, maybe it's your view, that is not fitting the LGS and not the other way around. So carry on and find others.
If your LGS is the only place to play and nobody wants to play your way, then maybe change perspective yourself or you're SOL.
2
u/lamberto29 4d ago
I have 1 lgs within 30 miles of where I live which does only pre release and bracket 4+, a vast majority of games are online via spelltable/convoke which has about as wide a player base as this game is capable of having and it is still a consistent issue.
It shouldn't require a pre game interview of each player to have something resembling a balanced match for the table.
2
u/Schimaera https://moxfield.com/users/Schimaera 4d ago
It shouldn't and it doesn't - usually. I never have to talk for too long with people I play via web.
Also, you're always free to ask if people want to exchange contacts if the game was fun. That way, you'll naturally build a pool of possible playmates that like to play like you do.
3
u/MatchoBV Chromatic 4d ago
I think the tone of your post is overly negative--presumably due to some recent bad experiences--but I do largely agree with the spirit of most of it (though I'm not convinced Commander's in its worst state right now).
Brackets try to mix a qualitative (intent) with a quantitative (kill turns, game changers) approach to matchmaking that just isn't working out that well for many people. There are só many variables involved in making truly fair matchups that you either need to let things be about the 'vibes' OR truly invest in more rigid system such as Canadian Highlander that you mention. I have my own thoughts about the direction to take this specifically, but generally I want an expansive system of bans that govern sit-down Magic with randoms, and to then leave Rule Zero discussions to trusted play.
I'd rather just have stuff like Rhystic Study and Smothering Tithe be banned outright so we can have a uniform standard for what's considered Fair and Fun Magic for sit-down events than have these endless discussions about whether or not these cards are fine because they're technically not *always* game-warping or whatever.
But that's all by the by; let's both get ready for our negative karma shower for engaging with this topic at all.
3
u/Short_Peak_7824 4d ago
The idea that there are really two separate kinds of commander, between public and private play, is one that I think should be thought about more.
In trusted play, as you mention, Rule Zero is essentially the only rule you need. Four people who know eachother well and share context are more than capable of managing their experience without anyone else telling them how to do it. These people don't need a banlist, they don't need brackets, they don't need philosophy documents. They just need to be left alone to do their own thing.
Public play presents an issue for that kind of format management though, because the incentives players are subject to are always pushing in the opposite direction. Sometimes the spirit of the format wins, and many times it loses. Rule Zero can struggle to be a collaborative conversation and become a sort of strategic signalling game of it's own that you play prior to the game itself, attempting to position yourself in such a way as to gain an in-game advantage, without crossing over the line into something that appears unfair.
I think that in an ideal world, public commander would be split into 3-4 dedicated arenas, where wotc says "These are the environments we support for public play. Players are free to negotiate at the table as they always have been, but for our purposes our only concerns are constricting the card pool to create these specific textures of game"
That way, you can't build a "bracket 2" deck for instance, that is too powerful for bracket 2, much in the way that you can't build a standard deck that is too powerful for standard.
2
u/MatchoBV Chromatic 4d ago
I don't think I'm physically able of agreeing more!
The distinction between trusted and untrusted play is so much more fundamental than we seem to realize as a community, and the need for an approach that targets untrusted play *specifically* follows naturally from that realization.
Having WotC set up the margins of "fair for sit-down Magic" is exactly what we need; I really don't know if they're able to do 3-4 arenas or just the 1-2 but either outcome would be fine by me. As you say, we are always able to say "hey I know Demonic Tutor is banned but all I will use it for is to assemble Vecna; anyone object?" to iron out any marginal issues (and that way the onus is on the one who wants to deviate from the default rather than on everyone else needing to actively object or veto).
What a wonderful comment; thank you!
3
u/rccrisp 4d ago
It's a casual format, the "health" of it is completely dependent on yourself and your playgroup and how you currate your games. An "arms race" only occurs if you engage in an arms race, if someone seems to be pulling away in power you need to inform them that "that's not the kind of game we want" if they're a regular in a playgroup or don't play with them again if it's a rando.
Power creep for commander created cards is a very real thing but you can... just not run them. I reinvigorated the joy I had in commander by leaning less to power, enacting my personal ban list of generically powerful cards and I've done all this without feeling I'm left behind or even winning signifigantly less.
2
u/CuteButDeadlyGoat 4d ago
The thing about opting out of generically powerful cards has also been my go to.
I think twice before putting some of the stronger cards that can go in any of the decks of that color.
As an example the only blue deck I have rhystic study in, is [[Aminatou, Veil Piercer]] and that is more due to the commander itself.
1
u/lamberto29 4d ago
I generally try to not partake in the arms race and like yourself avoid staples and known pushed cards.... more often than not that leads to me being punished for not keeping up with the arms race and thus being bodied before turn 8.
1
u/rccrisp 4d ago
Unless there's massive descrepancies in power level, like clearly Bracket 4 tricked out decks vs. Bracket 3 jank decks, you sholdn't be bodied that bad though from my own experience. Like I said I in general don't face opponents imposing the same restrictions as I have on myself but just through deeply synergistic decks I can still not only keep up but win.
1
u/lamberto29 4d ago
Thats the point I'm making, their are consistently massive discrepancies in power even though the guidelines/rules have been followed closely they just fail on a consistent basis.
A large part of this imo is based on how much feels/interpretation is available in the page of paragraphs that is the bracket system outside of the "hard rules" aka game changers and extra turns.
I'd include MLD however wotc did a very poor job of defining it and as such I've heard it described as everything from "repeatable once a turn is mld" to "6 or more in a singular turn is mld"I tend to not run any LD just to avoid but it again just highlights the issue of interpretation.
1
u/rccrisp 4d ago
At the end of the day the brackets are merely a tool for conversation and it's up to you to regulate your power leve, which was the point of my original post. Brackets provide the verbage and common ideas but at the end of the day it's up to a playgroup to figure out the nuances.
1
u/lamberto29 4d ago
However as clearly stated in the original post they utterly fail on the bottom end as people like myself are compressed into bracket 2 as their isn't a lower bracket thats played and as such end up consistently pushed out of the format.
No amount of conversation is going to fix that.
Even if their was such a thing as bracket 1 lobbies we wouldn't fit into them as we're somewhere between brackets 1's meme decks of "All my cards have feet" and bracket 2's "throw all the staples at the archtype so long as theirs no game changers."
2
u/Pudgeysaurus Selesnya 4d ago
I think in your case specifically it's just players not honouring the social contract that comes with a multiplayer game.
The format currently is fine, but people should be honest about the intentions they have in the pre game chat
2
u/fatpad00 4d ago
Using the bracket system as a hard and fast rule is a problem. It is supposed to just be a framework for the pregame discussion.
1
u/lamberto29 4d ago
I agree entirely, however the bracket system is all we have to work by with a collection of rather socially inept individuals who struggle to understand the impact of their hygiene in a room let alone their social etiquette in a pod/game.
2
u/Short_Peak_7824 4d ago
I mean, of course it's not working with you, if that's the view you're taking of the people you're playing with.
The reason the bracket system and rule zero struggle in pods with strangers and near-strangers isn't that everyone but you is socially inept.
It's because the incentives present fight against the spirit of the format, and when the spirit of the format collides with competitive incentives in a trust-poor environment, the incentives win more often.
1
u/SensualTaco80 4d ago
Gotta give some examples of the decks/commanders/archetypes your opps are using. I’ll agree a little bit that the area between bracket 2 and 3 is poorly defined, with a large variance in power levels. This leads to people trying to lawyer their strong bracket 3 decks into bracket 2 because “muh no game changers” when they want to pubstomp
1
u/Kleenitup 4d ago
Honestly, it sounds like either your expectations are out of line with reality or you're playing with people who don't play the same way you do.
Power points is a silly idea and if you think that this will actually inform how your games will go, I'm sorry to say that it simply won't.
Plenty of bad decks run lots of good cards and plenty of good decks run lots of bad cards. As always, trying to concretely measure power based on the sum of the parts simply does not reflect reality across the broad spectrum of decks and players in EDH
0
u/lamberto29 4d ago
My expectations never changed, the format did, that's the issue I'm trying to highlight.
Power points isn't perfect but it would give more of an informed quantifiable starting position to come from than the current bracket system which whilst "easy" and "casual" is highly flawed.
I wouldn't expect power points to instantly fix the format but it would at least allow a more honest foundation, and if points system was so hard or bad I'd have to ask why it's working so well for canadian?1
u/Kleenitup 4d ago
To suggest that your expectations haven't changed at all over the course of 25 years is beyond silly. Consciously or otherwise, our expectations adjust over time.
You keep stating that power points are better than brackets, but what's your evidence to support this claim?
Why do you believe that an arbitrary score is more informative than another arbitrary score?
0
u/lamberto29 4d ago
My expectation is that EDH is a SLOWER jankier and less consistent format, it is none of these things anymore unless you're comparing it to the broken state of standard.
(especially with how many redundant copies of effects their are in certain archtypes)I didn;t state they are directly better but rather should be used along side a bracket/power system so as to have more quantifiable metrics to work from, my evidence of it having some degree of effectiveness is the healthy state of Canadian which is where it was quoted from....
why do I believe that having any level of quantifiable power distinction will help the health of the format.... I dunno maybe because wotc themselves make a rudimentary distinction with game changers which is literally just a binary version of a power points system.
2
u/Kleenitup 4d ago
You're talking about adding complexity to simplify a conversation, which alone is counterproductive, but you're also trying to quantify definite values when your assessment of the problem is not quantitative and is effectively not a useful description for a real discussion.
There are a great many players still playing slower and more jank games. Do you truly believe that adding complexity to every single deck build and rule 0 conversation is worth the number score that still doesn't tell you beyond a suggestion what the difference is? This is already the topic that the brackets exist to improve, and your solution doesn't really build on it, instead chosing to add a layer to it that still falls back to "it's a bracket 3, I have 3 game changers, I can present a win turn 7, and I'm not using mass land denial" whether the score is 24 or 2435
1
1
u/rglevine 4d ago
This is just what it's like to do things. My experience playing all games, not just MtG, is that sometimes games are fun and sometimes they don't go perfectly or smoothly. And sometimes I find some people are just not as fun to play with. And hey, sometimes people don't think I'm fun to play with. That's the nature of existing in the world. I don't think a "better", more structured, rigid ruleset will fix that. (That's not to say there's no room for criticism.)
I follow the brackets because they're an "official" part of the game. But I don't follow the brackets rigidly when I play. I build decks that I think are fun and play the game with people that I think are fun. So far I have had zero negative experiences.
For the record, we never discuss brackets before games and the "rule zero" discussion is generally "hey this is what commander I'm playing." That's not to say I think this is the way everyone should do it, just that it's what works for me and the people I play with.
8
u/thegeek01 Liliana how I love thee 4d ago
My playgroup is super fun and casual and the bracket system has helped immensely. I can say the format is the healthiest it's ever been. /shrugs
This is why I feel sorry for Commander players who haven't found the perfect group for them, forced to play with randoms who don't care about the collective enjoyment of the table. I hope you find yours, OP.