Full ThrottleFull Throttle | Art by Benjamin Ee

The Commander Brackets have officially received their 2nd update! Once again, Brackets are at the top of many Commander players' minds.

Last week, Gavin Verhey of the Commander Format Panel (CFP) released an article talking about the new updates and explains that these changes are made to better reflect the original intent behind the Panel creating the Brackets, as well as accounting for players' voices since the Beta's release.

Commander Philosophy was conceived explicitly with the Brackets in mind, so let's quickly review what all happened and discuss what's changed — for better or worse.

The TLDR of the Update

The first talking point Gavin brings up is that of a deck's intentions. He states that the addition of "expectations" for each Bracket is meant to better communicate a player's intentions for playing in a given Bracket.

For example, players seeking to engage in a Bracket 2 experience should expect to play at least eight turns before someone wins, whereas Bracket 5 players should expect the game to end at any point.

Lower Bracket victories are still expected to be telegraphed and gradual. It's not appropriate for a player to sandbag their winning hand up until turn nine.

However, these aren't hard rules a deck cannot violate. Luck is an important factor in Magic, and so it's possible every now and then for games to end sooner or later than expected. What we're interested in is that these expectations help to shed an important light on how the Commander Format Panel views the gradient between more casual and competitive experiences.

This is further reflected with the CFP removing multiple Game Changers and the "few tutors" stipulation entirely.

Gavin explains that the CFP believes, in part due to player feedback, "few tutors" was too vague about both what "few" and "tutor" qualify as. Additionally, comparing Bracket 2 to precons was also too open-ended, and so Bracket 2 decks are no longer officially comparable to Commander precon power levels.

These cards are no longer Game Changers due to the CFP honing the definition of what a Game Changer looks like:

• ExpropriateExpropriate
• Jin-Gitaxias, Core AugurJin-Gitaxias, Core Augur
• Sway of the StarsSway of the Stars
• Vorinclex, Voice of HungerVorinclex, Voice of Hunger
• Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyKinnan, Bonder Prodigy
• Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer
• Winota, Joiner of ForcesWinota, Joiner of Forces
• Yuriko, the Tiger's ShadowYuriko, the Tiger's Shadow
• Deflecting SwatDeflecting Swat
• Food ChainFood Chain

Gavin continues by discussing what cards weren't removed and why, some other topics the CFP considered, and the future plan after last week's update.

There's a lot we could talk about, but let's focus on some of the more impactful changes and what their consequences may be.

It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature

I'm confident in saying that players expected future updates to clarify the more ambiguous aspects of the Brackets. Tutors being softly banned from lower Brackets and Bracket 2's initial comparison to precons were worthy avenues to alter, and it's safe to say these are changes for the better.

If someone intends to tutor efficiently and reliably, odds are they aren't expecting lower Bracket experiences.

What wasn't expected were 10 Game Changers being removed. Gavin explains that:

"Game Changers should generally be cards that easily and dramatically warp Commander games, allowing players to run away with resources, shift games in ways that many players find unpleasant, block people from playing, efficiently search for any of their strongest cards without downside, or have commanders that are highly unfun in casual games."

High mana-value cards and legends that are just powerful commanders are two stipulations Gavin gives for why cards shouldn't be considered Game Changers. Due to these clarifications, the aforementioned 10 cards were removed and can be played in every Bracket.

I plan on going into further detail about individual cards in later articles, so for now I'll just generally say that I agree for the most part in that Commander games often should end when a player has enough mana to do so. Big spells should do big things.

However, "highly unfun" is just as vague as "few tutors" was, if not more so. Let's assume that the majority of Commander players got together and agreed that a given number of cards were unfun, perhaps by listing how "salty" players can feel about certain cards.

So what? Should all "unfun" cards be considered Game Changing, if not ban-worthy, just because a number of Commander players don't enjoy them? Wouldn't this logic lead to the Game Changer list growing vastly beyond 50 cards?

On another note, the concept of "expectations" is handy, but should we really be creating an arbitrary clock for each Bracket? It's one thing to hypothetically look at all Commander games ever played and see that statistically most Bracket 3 games end around turn seven, but it's different to then tell players that they ought to end the games around turn seven.

Before the update, players seeking to push the boundaries of a Bracket often found themselves moving up a Bracket because they intended to play a more competitive game than the Bracket they were testing intended to facilitate, thus protecting players seeking more social experiences.

But now with expectations being added, such players can argue that their victory on turn seven ought to be the de facto experience and that their opponents shouldn't be upset their Bracket 3 UrzaUrza combo deck locked everyone down with Jin-GitaxiasJin-Gitaxias on turn five.

Does this mean that casual games ought to be defined by turn count, specifically whether a game ends by turn seven? I appreciate the intent of clarifying the CFP's intentions of each of the Brackets, but this feels like a step in the wrong direction. Casual Commander games don't necessitate players taking into consideration when a game should naturally conclude, rather when it's the most socially satisfying.

By suggesting casual experiences be handheld by a turn clock, the Brackets are effectively trying to tell players to quantify how much fun they intend to experience through measuring turn counts and how well opponents react to "unfun" cards. I fear doing such will only hinder how players engage with Brackets going forward.

What Could've Been

Towards the end, Gavin discusses some topics that the CFP considered and either didn't approve of or left for a future decision. One of those unapproved decisions was banning Rhystic StudyRhystic Study.

Rhystic Study being banned isn't an impossibility, but Gavin claims that it's not considered to be banned presently due to it being "loved by many. It's not quite as iconic to the format as Sol RingSol Ring, but it's not that far off either."

I've mentioned before why Sol Ring is a problem for Commander, so to see the CFP double down on classifying Sol Ring and other cards uniquely special is worrying.

Just as cards can be considered "unfun" and therefore judged to be unsuitable for lower Brackets, ought we consider "especially fun" cards to be untouchable and free from official intervention?

While the CFP's logic remains consistent in deeming fun cards fair for all and unfun cards limited to more competitive experiences, this logic remains constantly flawed.

This is yet another example of the CFP trying to quantify how much fun is allowed in a given Bracket. Sol Ring and Rhystic study are objectively some of the most powerful spells in Commander, but due to them being considered "fun" and "loved by many," it seems that whatever problems they cause in-game are irrelevant.

The same logic is used for Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle. While they cite a lack of data on casual tables viewing Thassa's Oracle as a problem, they appeal to competitive players' enjoyment of the card rather than its merits, stating, "From what we can tell, and from competitive Commander players, it's mixed as to if people like this or not."

It's much harder for the CFP to gather physical data on what cards are provably problematic, unlike other formats like Standard, which is able to know exactly which cards are winning more often than others. But this lack of data acquisition cannot be used to justify rulings made based off of the "vibes" of players. They can be helpful signposts, but there's more data analysis that ought to be considered.

Perhaps Rhystic Study will be banned to the shock of many, but I firmly believe that the CFP's rationale will cite how "enjoyable" it's experience is rather than its quantifiable merits, such as what decks play it and how warping it is.

Gavin also mentions the CFP considered adding another Bracket. They claim they've made enough changes presently and would like to see how these updates affect things before another Bracket is considered worthwhile. I don't see a need for another Bracket, but feel free to comment on why there should be another, if not multiple, new Brackets.

Similarly, the CFP toyed with changing how hybrid-mana would work when deckbuilding. I honestly think this would only cause problems, but please let me know what you think.

Conclusion

While I'm really against judging cards and decks based off of "vibes" and quantifying what is or isn't "fun", I have full faith that the CFP is working in our best interest. As hard as my criticism may read, it's only with the best constructive intent at heart. I truly believe the CFP is the best official authority figure Commander has ever had.

I agree that tutors are most often played by players seeking more competitive experiences and as such are most appropriately barred by the Game Changers list without the need for a Sub Category like Mass Land Denial. I also agree that the majority of cards that were removed from the Game Changer list are for the better.

There's still plenty to talk about, but for now I'll leave things here. I eagerly anticipate the next Bracket Beta update and reviewing the CFP's logic behind leading the Commander format.

But what do you think? How do you feel about the update? What are your thoughts on "expectations" and turn limits? Do you think updating hybrid mana deck-building restrictions is worthwhile?

I hope that this article is helpful in reviewing the latest Brackets update, and I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!

Read More: