Trash for TreasureTrash for Treasure | Art by Lars Grant-West

Commander decks may be Eternal, but the majority of players are demonstrably eager to add a new card or two to their favorite decks with every new set that's released. It's only natural for players to want to play newer and stronger cards.

I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone recommend saving room for a Solemn SimulacrumSolemn Simulacrum, an artifact that was almost reprinted as much as Sol RingSol Ring in Commander precons. It's not even as popular as Commander's SphereCommander's Sphere, which has repeatedly been discussed as a shell of what mana rocks are expected to do today.

Clearly cards are stronger than before and will only continue to get stronger. Players are seemingly expected to upgrade their older cards for newer ones, lest they be unduly disadvantaged.

But how does this work with Brackets? Sure, players are to upgrade their decks periodically, but isn't there a point when someone upgrades their deck "too much"?

I believe there is a distinction to be made between players seeking to upgrade their decks to stay as competitive as their intended game experience demands and players seeking to optimize their decks to increase their competitive edge.

Since these are seemingly very similar terms, let's discuss each on their own and learn where the line is drawn between upgrading and optimizing any given deck.

What Upgrading Looks Like

Upgrading is something everyone is familiar with. This is where players finally take out their Theros temple landstemple lands and swap in their new Murders at Karlov Manor surveil landssurveil lands, or their outdated DivinationDivination for a Quick StudyQuick Study.

Players taking a moment to specifically improve a card slot or two is what constitutes upgrading. There's less of a focus on thinking about how a new card will dramatically improve a deck and instead improves upon what a deck already accomplishes.

Very rarely would a player simply upgrading their deck find themselves crossing the Bracket barrier. They could upgrade their lands-matter deck to include as many Evolving WildsEvolving Wilds effects as they please and never worry about how this affects their Bracket placement.

Upgrading also constitutes swapping out a larger portion of the deck in order to better focus the deck's gameplan. This is especially noticeable with players upgrading Commander precons by removing the secondary Commander and cards relating to its secondary strategy in order to add cards more cohesive with the deck's primary Commander, or vice versa.

There's not a lot upgrading doesn't touch. Whenever a player is switching out a card for something they believe is better, the player has categorically upgraded their deck. Players can upgrade as little or as much, as rarely or as frequently as they see fit.

A player that feels like their deck as been upgraded "too much", however, most likely has gone further than just upgrading. Upgrading "too much" often takes the form of a player going further than just improving a handful of cards. This is where I believe optimizing is found.

What Optimizing Looks Like

For this discussion, optimizing can be seen as a form of upgrading that seeks to dramatically improve a deck's power, consistency, influence, etc. Where upgrading is a broader term, optimizing highlights changes to a deck that take it to a new level of gameplay, perhaps requiring a noticeable shift in what the deck demands from a player.

Optimizing a deck can be demonstrated best by a player upgrading their deck so extensively that their deck seeks to play in higher Brackets. It's here that players can move from swapping individual cards for slightly better ones to swapping their deck's "vegetables" for "super foods".

"Vegetables" in Commander refers to the stuff in a deck that help it function at a base level. Specifically, ramp, draw, protection, and interaction fall into this category. Without your vegetables, all your left with are your big splashy desserts (Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth, Ancient Copper DragonAncient Copper Dragon, Rise of the Dark RealmsRise of the Dark Realms) with no reliable way of doing your deck's thing.

Going along with this metaphor, I'll argue that swapping out your HarmonizeHarmonize for stronger cards like Worldly TutorWorldly Tutor is swapping these veggies for super foods. Really, you're greatly improving your deck's ability to not only do its thing but to close out games.

Optimizing can be seen as greatly upgrading your deck with the intent of making the deck noticeably stronger. Adding Game Changers is an easy example, but optimizing doesn't have to be limited to just this.

Perhaps your initial Svella, Ice ShaperSvella, Ice Shaper decklist includes a Sword of the ParunsSword of the Paruns that was originally intended to capitalize her Icy ManalithIcy Manalith generation, but now you'd like to take things a step further and add more ways to exploit your sword's untapping abilities with mana dorks like Fanatic of RhonasFanatic of Rhonas.

What if your Jund () lands-matter deck has been really good at moving your lands from your graveyard to the battlefield, but you were missing a good way of moving large quantities of lands from your battlefield to your graveyard? Zuran OrbZuran Orb is a very classic means of tossing lands back and forth and is very easy to exploit into Bracket 3 or higher shenanigans.

Optimizing is not found in any single card being upgraded; rather, a player optimizes their deck when they alter their deck in such a way that their new deck outclasses their old deck to some extent. If your old deck cannot be found in the wild playing against its improved version, odds are it's been optimized.

Why Is This Worth Discussing?

The difference between upgrading and optimizing will most likely never be so important that you find yourself discussing about it with your opponents. I'm hoping that this concept acts as a helpful guide for how you seek to improve your Commander decks.

Whenever I'm looking to make a deck stronger or a friend asks for advice, I always ensure that the deck's intentions are made clear before new cards are added. This way, I don't have to give the generic advice of "Oh, you want a stronger deck? Just run stronger cards!"

I believe doing otherwise would devolve a lot of deckbuilding advice into simply looking at the Game Changer list and picking which ones suit the deck best.

Use this distinction between upgrading and optimizing as a way of self-checking what your deck aims to do. We would all like our decks to win to some extent, but how much does winning with a given deck mean to us? The less we seek for our deck to win, we should find ourselves focusing more on generic upgrades rather than finely tuned optimizations.

In fact, if you wish to de-power a deck the same advice can apply. Start by removing the strongest optimizations to your deck and swap them for generically strong upgrades instead. Tutors can be replaced by one-off draw spells or your strong pieces of interaction can be switched for weaker-but-equally-playable instances of interaction.

Think about taking out a Deflecting SwatDeflecting Swat for a Bolt BendBolt Bend, or switching Teferi's ProtectionTeferi's Protection for Mandate of PeaceMandate of Peace. However, just as optimizing goes further than just a single card being added, properly depowering a given deck will most likely include removing more than just a single Deflecting Swat or Teferi's Protection.

You could easily remove every Game Changer, Two-Card Infinite Combo, Mass Land Denial, Extra-Turn chain, and Tutor from a deck and still be left with something worthy of Bracket 3, if not 4. As always, intent plays a large part and should serve as a guide when deciding what to add or remove from a deck.

Conclusion

Surprise, upgrading a deck is relative to a player, their expertise, and their intent. Determining if a deck has been built too strong during a game relies on whether the deck's pilot is aware of what went wrong or is playing in bad faith. Nevertheless, I have found this self-report handy when determining what my deck's intent and thus power is.

As was said before, I cannot imagine someone looking across the table and saying "I won't play against you, you've upgraded too much." This distinction is really just meant to align your intent. If someone believes there has been a mismatch of sorts and their deck is not appropriate for the game, the issue isn't what new cards you've added from the latest set.

That's what Rule 0 intends to do! Talk about what your deck wants to do and what it expects to go up against. You don't have to explain how to beat your deck, just what you hope to see your deck do. This will prevent the vast majority of problems that come from people feeling like their deck is too strong/weak in a given game.

But what do you think? How do you feel about the difference between upgrading and optimizing? What are your thoughts on making a deck stronger? Do you think such a distinction is worthwhile?

I hope that this article is helpful in determining how to better improve a deck, but 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!