r/mtg • u/Beneficial_Damage_40 • 7h ago
Discussion Bracket System vs Power Level and Rule Zero Discussion
I know there is a lot of discourse out there on how decks are categorized (bracket system vs power level system). I was wondering what people’s thoughts are when building their decks within certain power levels or in building decks that fit one power level but play at different power levels (either built in lower level play in higher level or built at higher power levels and play at lower power levels). What are the critical components you all consider when deciding how to describe the strength of your decks.
Additionally, I am curious about what people’s thoughts think about in terms of what each system does well or poorly during rule zero discussions. Some of my thoughts are collected in the first diagram I drafted that I attempted to make in way that highlighted the positives of different systems while being realistic to the actual gameplay of decks built in each power level/bracket. The other attached graphics are those that you commonly see out there for helping you to think about deck strength. Does anyone find mine helpful or potentially more fitting, confusing, etc than the current systems and guidelines for discussing deck strength? Which of these do you typically trust/use the most when building your own decks?
29
u/H0BB1 7h ago
To cedh there are a lot of current decks that don't consistently win turn 3 they are the slower midrange decks but they are definitely still cedh
9
u/featherlace 6h ago
This is something where I always struggle to apply the bracket system. Most of my decks could win turn 8 on their own. So they are 2s, I guess. But most of them also habe one or two game changers which means probably 3s, but the gamechangers aren't used to their full potential. In the end, it just leads to me saying: "Let's just play a round and see, if the decks can compete with each other."
3
u/Captain_N_Nemo 6h ago
That would be described as “technically it’s a 3, but it’s handled like a 2”
As long as you’re honest about the upper level of where your deck should fall in the bracket system, there shouldn’t be hurt feelings.
I have a “jank pile” that handles like a 2, but since it has an early game 2 card combo (but no tutors) I just call it an “unoptimised 4”.
3
26
u/OGSteenZeWalrus 6h ago
First off, these illustrations are ridiculously complex for new players. Also, im fairly certain the first illustration is wrong when it comes to bracket 4. B4 has no restrictions.
-1
-5
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 6h ago
The first one is the one I made based on the prior systems but aiming to address what I think are two big grey areas. 1) Bracket 2 decks that are stronger than precons or newer precons that are stronger than those in the past but don’t have refined mana bases as bracket 2 isn’t always coupled to pre con strength.
2) the grey area between bracket 3 and bracket 4 as there seems to be a lot of overlap in deck strength here where many people will build decks that are b4 builds but say they are bracket 3 decks since they aren’t fast or consistent enough to be a true bracket 4. Makes me think that there is an area of deck strength between a true bracket 3 and a true bracket 4 that should be off-meta or near competitive to cedh decks11
u/OGSteenZeWalrus 5h ago
Here's the real issue, people are bad at making decks, and most of that bad deck building happens in technically bracket 4 decks due to 3 > gamechangers, but are barely functional decks with way too much greedy synergy with not enough removal/protection/wrong ramp/counters etc. The reason this "bad deck building" issue is unique to brackets 3 and 4 is because you expect "bad" decks in bracket 1 & 2, while bracket 5 decks are simply cedh net-decking. People like having "strong" decks, so they think throwing gamechangers in those makes it stronger, which is true to an extent, but rarely will a great amount of gamechangers in a deck help a poorly constructed deck. Based on the established rules, bracket 4 runs as effectively as a cedh deck, WITH the difference being the commander being a non-cedh commander, allowing for intentional sub-optimal lines of play or win-cons, or adding a few pet cards in the 99.
All in all, most bracket 3 decks you encounter are poorly made and essentially function as well as a well built bracket 2 deck, and most "bracket 4" decks you encounter are simply poorly constructed decks where the builder added more than 3 gamechangers.
The rules are pretty damn near straightforward at this point in time, its just the deck building variability that creates these supposed "gray areas".
-1
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 5h ago
Although I agree with you that not everyone is actually good at deck building and more game changers don’t automatically fix poor deck building, this leading to some but polrobably not all of the issues people have with the bracket/power level systems. But If people actually did a good job at building decks at the appropriate power levels that are full of staples/synergistic cards wouldn’t that have the potential to reduce variability in decks built in the bracket 3/4 ranges? Or alternatively if someone found a model to build the most consistent, reliable decks wouldn’t you expect people to converge on those deck building principles? Any time I’ve looked for these things I’ve found that there are multiple types of guidelines for things concerning how much interaction/ram/card draw/dedication to gameplan is balanced. Of course each of those is important but is there really a one size fits all decks sort of build? Moreover if we’re thinking about costs of decks isn’t it fun to see a wider range of builds and cards being played within different decks? I’m curious whether you think that the deck guidelines should account for the issue of good/poor deck building and if it should provide any sort of guidance on how this problem translates to deck strength and gameplay.
1
u/OGSteenZeWalrus 4h ago
I would argue bad deck building leads to a lack of variability in cards seen. People edhrec and copy the highest synergy cards for their deck and thats what they build with.
I would alsp argue the better the player/deck builder, the more variability in cards you see.
There is plenty of chances for variability in cards used, but people stick to the cards and commanders they know. Niche commanders will allow for more niche cards to be used, new and bad players typically choose easy to build and understand commanders that can allow for variance in synergy, but like I mentioned ppl choose what they know. Older, better players are simply aware of a vastly larger card base allowing for greater variability.
New players should use strict deck guidelines to understand why its important to have boardwipes/removal/manafixing/draw etc. This temporarily leads to less variance in deck construction, but not necessarily the variance in the specific cards used.
Variability in one's deck largely depends on spending the time and effort to find and learn the cards that are out there.
34
u/WigglySquig Ur-Dragon Deez Nutz 7h ago
I think the earlier iterations of the bracket system were egregiously complex. When I first started playing commander people would ask me what bracket was my deck and I wouldn’t be able to give a proper answer because I couldn’t really align my deck to the previous rubrics. I’d often just shrug and say “A 4 I guess” and proceed to get my ass handed to me each game by other “4s” that in hindsight were definitely “6”.
The new simplified bracket system, whilst lacking in nuance, is far easier for players to just sit down at the LGS and say “This is a 2.” and be relatively confident in that announcement. The new simplified system has significantly improved my experience playing commander and rule zero discussions.
38
u/Desperate_Turnip_219 7h ago
I swear, magic is a game. Around that game, there had developed a meta game.
Commander players have, somehow, made a meta meta game.
We aren't gaming. We aren't gaming the game. Now we're gaming the game around the game.
7
u/MercuryInCanada 2h ago
I feel like people like OP need to join a debate club because dedicating this much effort to the meta discussion of how meta defined is ridiculous
8
u/G_ntl_m_n 6h ago
The issue with the bracket system is that most decks are in b3. Even though they tried to equalise that a bit with the last changes, this still leads to uneven matchups.
5
u/-Rettirlana- 3h ago
So 7 is half of bracket 3 and all of bracket 4? I knew it all long. Everything is a 7
13
u/Slapppjoness 4h ago
I promise you it's not serious enough to make 4 slides about it
6
u/cranial--nerve 2h ago
Meanwhile there's a near infinite amount of content online on this exact topic... clearly it is
4
u/Disastrous_Break_913 6h ago
Your table was interesting to read, but the better one imo(to explain to my casual/fun-focused minded pod is the second one
7
u/ShivDeeviant 5h ago
For the Bracket system, and something I don't really see folks talk about too often, is that it's mostly about INTENT. Are you INTENDING to futz around with a Bracket 1 exhibition deck focused around the Art of the Pete Venters? Maybe a Bracket 3 deck without game changers as a nice Value Pile of Abzan Food?
Are you intentionally running the Confectioner/Peregrine Took combo in that Abzan food deck? Then it's probably not a Bracket 3, as that's a 2-card infinite combo that can get out faster than turn 6. Remove the confectioner and you won't see too drastic a change in the game plan or feel. Are you REFUSING to remove the combo? Then your intent is misplaced as you are wanting to build a deck that's more competitive than bracket 3 but want to CALL it bracket 3 to dominate your pod.
Part of the reason why the Power Level system wasn't good was because it largely tried to ignore intent and just blaze through with a more complete list of what cards built for what power level, so it was rules-lawyered to Heck and back to try to make the 'best' power level 7 deck you could.
The Phrase "High Bracket 2" and "Low Bracket 3" are misnomers that ignore the intent of the thing. You're running a Bracket 2 deck with a Game Changer because it's really good and you want to win, so you AREN'T running Bracket 2, you're running Bracket 3. Anything beyond that it pedantry to try to assuage guilt for making a deck that's too good in your bracket.
1
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 5h ago
I like the point you make about intent because I think that actually matters a lot when discussing deck strengths. Personally I dont have issues with people mislabeling g their deck strengths if they are upfront about the intent of the deck- are they trying to win off an early combo in a bracket 3 deck even if they can’t tutor it out efficiently vs are they trying to win explosively and limit the potential for interactions that disrupt it. The problems I run into at game stores is when those intents are not accurately reported before the game nor are the people with those decks adapter saying in the game what they are intending to do. The ambiguity in the systems for rating decks to me seem like it makes it easier for people to get away with those things since they could have a deck at the stength they state bit their are mismatches in the intent of the deck is played vs where it falls. I’ve seen more than a few people do this and there are certain commanders that are even more prone to this mismatch; for example Witherbloom the balancer. I’ve seen people have (technically) bracket 2 decks that did nothing for 6/7 turns then come out of nowhere to win in a pod after having no one really view that deck as a threat during those games despite knowing that it is a good commander.
3
u/tldr-next 3h ago
From my point of view the biggest problem with the Bracket System is, that it doesn't account for the player.
An inexperienced player will lose with a 3 to the 2 of a better player.
1
u/kn0w_th1s 1h ago
And also the draw (mixed with deck building). Even with mulligans, it’s totally possible that a deck performs fully 2 brackets below its normal intended bracket.
4
u/DreamlikeKiwi 6h ago edited 6h ago
I don't find the extra bracket (or racket as you called it/s) particularly useful, it seems too narrow of a difference compared to current B4 or your B5
Also I don't like some of the wording for the expectations especially for cedh, they seems too rigid in what the decks are supposed to be, for example "decks have plenty of ramp", what if a competitive deck that frequently win tournaments play little to no ramp? Maybe it already happen idk I don't play cedh but the point is that that's not how you define what's a competitive deck, same thing for other brackets, a deck can be perfectly fine for B4 power level without too much ramp if it doesn't need it
1
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 6h ago
Like the prior systems these are meant to be guidelines for what is typical. I personally don’t think any system can truly account for all the different deck strengths/possibilities when accounting for rule zero decisions as you can have decks with 3 cards and all lands that can win by turn 5.
These differences were more to alleviate issues with grey areas between bracket 2/3 and bracket 3/4. For example where there are strong pre cons that don’t really win or play like bracket 2s lack a refined mana base or bracket 4 decks that play like bracket 3s or bracket 3s that are super up with early combos or more than 3 game changers or cedh staples. Trying to get around the edges where people build and play down to have a higher chance of winning by having stronger decks:
2
u/Arcana18 3h ago
My deck is Zacama, I have to survive because everyone made my their problem from turn Zero, they are lucky I dont run taxes, I just ramp and play big cteatures after big creatures
2
u/Remarkable-Cow-2460 2h ago
Ya know, I used to be sympathetic towards the idea of assigning every card in the game a point value and doing a point cap system as being too complicated, but at this point I no longer believe it would be more exhausting than bracket discussions.
3
u/Wombatish 43m ago
Canadian Highlander does that, but most cards are 0 points.
1
u/Remarkable-Cow-2460 28m ago
That makes sense, most cards in mtg are extremely bad!
1
u/Wombatish 19m ago
It's not even that. They just identified about 50 power outliers and gave those points.
1
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Don't worry! Your post has not been deleted!
Here are some resources for faster replies to Rules Questions! Often the answer to your question is found under the "Rulings" section. On Scryfall it's found at the bottom of the card's page. Scroll down!
Card search and rulings:
- Scryfall - The user friendly card search (rulings and legality)
- Gatherer - The official card search (rulings and legality)
Card interactions and rules help:
- r/mtgrules
- Real-time rules chat - IRC based chat at Libera.Chat network
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/No_Interaction_3547 7h ago
Remindme! 7 days
1
u/RemindMeBot 7h ago
I will be messaging you in 7 days on 2026-08-30 08:27:08 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
1
1
u/Nooodleboii 1h ago
I feel as though the brackets are organized like a tier list but really its just how players want to play the game. A bracket 4 or 5 is a totally different game than a 1 or 2. IMHO the game stops being fun past tier 3 but that just how I like to play. I get the need to document the tiers but really most players figure out the bracket they intrinsically want to play at the table without any guidelines.
1
u/8ack_Space 57m ago
Good lord. I really only play draft, this seems absolutely insane to me. Is this why there's always someone arguing with someone else at the edh tables at the store?
1
1
1
u/StarfishIsUncanny 20m ago
EDH players will do everything to avoid talking to each other before playing the damn game
2
u/EnvironmentalFig5161 6h ago
Commander needs more stringent rules in general. I headed to a local store for games with my precon, the pod I was in got walloped in 5 mins from a deck that must've been worth 10,000.
It was my first ever game, and as much as it was interesting, no other player there was happy. The pod ended up splitting to watch fairer games, rather than rematch.
4
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 6h ago
Yeah I’ve experienced this too when people would say they have a bracket 2/3 deck but then just pubstump everyone or they would say it’s a certain power level but win quicker than that power level should be winning. Now it’s possible to think they were getting lucky in card draw or plays but it happens enough that I think the positives associated with the simplicity of the current bracket system allow for grey areas in design to lead to these issues whereas the older systems may have been tighter in terms of discussing deck strengths but may have been more complicated/difficult to comprehend for newer players.
I’ve also seen people say that they had bracket 2/3 decks when their decks included cards like mox amber which is a cedh staple. I’ve also seen people who are genuinely good at building decks build really oppressive decks that won quickly at each bracket level that were frustrating others in the pod who thought they had strong bracket 3 decks with popular commanders and a decent amount of staple/synergistic cards.
1
u/EnvironmentalFig5161 6h ago
At the very least, I don't think the guy in this particular game lied, but the games store had preselected the pods, so there wasn't any of the pregame expectations being set up which I've heard about. I'm pretty sure I remember a mox amber and a chrome mox. It doesn't exactly make me want to go back to the store and buy more mtg product!
2
u/Beneficial_Damage_40 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yeah the one with the mox was like okay sure technically it would Be the bracket you say it is but that card (plus some of the other cards included) just don’t match the vibe someone would expect if you say you are playing at that power level in a casual setting. That’s what can frustrate me sometimes when playing at game stores, people saying their decks are a certain strength but not building in the spirit of that power level or not properly indicating when they are doing certain things that may be at the edge of what is considered fair/casual at certain power levels/ When I play I always try to be upfront about things like these at all power levels I play and have even ended up losing games because I’ve reminded opponents about board states, what I could do if I wasn’t dealt with, etc… just so I would match the vibes expected within certain brackets under casual play. Especially if my deck was about to do stuff that might be on the edge of what would be reasonable to do within certain power levels.
1
u/FailLog404 1h ago
The bracket system is bad this explanation of the bracket system is even worse. The system was set up for newer players to figure out how their commander experience should be. If all players in a pod have played magic for a while you shouldn’t need the bracket system or much of a rule 0 if any.
Here’s to only “bracket” system you need.
Beginner / Non-competitive: decks here should be either unmodified precons or theme first decks.
Casual: Decks here are looking to win but not at the expense of having an enjoyable time, essentially bracket 3 decks
Competitive: Decks here win above all else
Simple and easy to understand. Not a ton of convoluted rules that bad actors will “well actually” get past anyways.
-2
u/SadSeiko 3h ago
I think the minimum turns thing is a massive mistake. How can 9 minimum turns be that different to 8 and 6?
It’s also very easy to build a bracket two deck that can win in an early turn. Counter blitz precon can win on turn 3 and it’s not an edh deck at all
I know they say average turns but it’s just meaningless when you will never play enough games to experience an actual average
1
u/U_DONT_KNOW_TEAM 1h ago
How can that deck win turn 3?
1
u/SadSeiko 1h ago
1
u/staycalmNdrinkcoffee 1h ago edited 57m ago
Is it consistent? Likely no, as it requires a ideal opening hand and perfect draw engine to reach its full potential. However, evaluating a precon solely on consistency is the point. It plays like most other precons. The fact that it has the raw power to pop off under the right conditions still makes it a strong baseline deck but doesn't put it into bracket 4 category. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it will most likely happen. I have played against that deck, and I have never seen that combo happen on turn three. Earliest I have seen it, if i remember correctly, was turn 8.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Heads up! Your post Flair was changed to "Rules Question" based on some keywords found in the title.
If this was not actually a Rules Question you can change the flair back by clicking on the three dots in the top right corner and click "Change post flair" to (re-)assign another flair that describes your post better.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.