Odds are our mana bases haven't changed too much since... well, forever ago. The last time I remember actively searching for new lands for Commander was during Ikoria's release and I was hunting each Triome, despite not having a deck for any of them to call home.

Most recently, players would be cracking packs for the new surveil landssurveil lands, but these are just a strict upgrade over Theros's TemplesTemples, as opposed to Ikoria's five Triomes being completely new.

It seems nowadays that any deck can secure its colors reliably without mana rocks to compensate. There are enough TriomesTriomes, Evolving WildsEvolving Wilds, Fabled PassageFabled Passages, Prismatic VistaPrismatic Vistas, and other cheap fetch landsfetch lands for any and every deck to have reliable access to all five colors at any given moment.

So what does this mean? Weren't precons specifically designed with poor mana bases in mind? Should players be constrained by mana fixing in order to create a more social environment? Are the Brackets asking players to specifically cut lands to "be legal" for a given Bracket?

Mana Bases Are Bracketless

Your mana base is everything that can generate you mana reliably; rocksrocks, dorksdorks, ritualsrituals, and lands are all what form this base to build your game around. For this discussion, we'll be highlighting the lands portion of the mana base, but the points found here can be generalized for the other portions as well.

Gavin Verhey of Wizards of the Coast and the Commander Format Panel has detailed this a few different times, but ultimately the CFP's stance is this: A Bracket 5 deck's lands are perfectly OK for a Bracket 1 game.

Essentially, the lands that form the mana bases most commonly found in Bracket 5 aren't considered to belong to Bracket 5. The Brackets aren't aiming to place an arbitrary restriction on someone's lands as to artificially create a weaker deck.

There is no fundamental reason why a Bracket 2 deck couldn't run all five dual lands if able. The lands themselves are just a means for a player to play the game. How they use the mana their Volcanic IslandVolcanic Island generates is what regulates which Bracket they should play in.

Yes, Bracket 2 decks have been compared to being as powerful as Commander precons. Yes, WoTC's precons historically have had fairly lackluster lands. It makes sense that Bracket 2 decks being portrayed as precons gives players the impression "if it's not in a precon, I shouldn't play it."

But this is a very vague description of what makes something Bracket 2-friendly. Not only is it hard for players to compare their decks to any one precon, but not every precon is equal to one another. I couldn't count how many recent precons the Warhammer decks would breeze over.

Additionally, Commander precons' mana bases take into consideration the secondary market and whether or not WoTC is willing to reprint certain cards for financial purposes. Precons' poor mana bases have more to do with WoTC's business model and less to do with what a precon can handle.

It's more than okay for your Bracket 2 deck to run whatever lands you feel are necessary to secure your mana base. Issues begin to arise when your lands start doing other things - things more powerful than just producing mana (and free mana is pretty hard to beat).

That's No Mountain...

Aside from the Game Changing lands, there are plenty of ways your lands could be viewed as too much for Bracket 2. While running a Boseiju, Who EnduresBoseiju, Who Endures isn't hurting anyone, and a stray Inventors' FairInventors' Fair helps with consistency, repeating these effects excessively or otherwise further exploiting similarly powerful lands can be what breaks the Bracket barrier.

Players engaging in a Bracket 2 game come to the table assuming that their opponents are looking for a game focused more on the social aspects of Commander that often finish with flashy and dramatic ways. As long as your mana base reflects this, there's no harm in running only the most efficient lands possible.

The big distinction here is what do you intend to do. If you intend to build a Bracket 2 deck, chances are your deck is already 90% of the way to becoming a Bracket 2 deck.

Do you intend to run Cabal CoffersCabal Coffers alongside Urborg, Tomb of YawgmothUrborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth specifically to resolve some game-winning X spell early? Probably not Bracket 2 safe. Do you intend to run Cabal Coffers alongside Urborg because you're playing a mono-black Zombie kindred deck and would like your lands to be more than just 37 swamps? Probably ok.

The hard part is realizing when you've transitioned from, say, upgrading basic lands to shocklands and instead begin actively optimizing which nonbasic lands can outright lead to a game ending, such as with the Coffers + Urborg example.

Is your Urza's SagaUrza's Saga going to tutor for something valuable or something that threatens victory? Does your Valakut, the Molten PinnacleValakut, the Molten Pinnacle seek to immediately threaten lethal, if not victory, or does it simply fit into you mono-red Goblins deck?

The lands themselves are often not the problem. As long as any given land doesn't border Game Changer status, there's no unilateral reason for it to be excluded from a particular Bracket for this reason alone.

The Lands Aren't the Problem — Your Deck Is

Any given Bracket 2 Commander deck shouldn't be concerned with trying to find the amorphous Bracket barrier. If this is what your deck is doing, you've already lost the point.

The Brackets are to be a set of tools, guidelines that direct deckbuilding and game play in a desired direction. These tools can be used for better or worse, and actively stress-testing these tools at the expense of your opponents is for the worse.

For example, let's say someone seeks to build their first ever Commander deck for Bracket 2. They don't have an established play group, which is precisely what the Bracket system aims to help with.

They've reviewed all of the relevant Bracket descriptions and Game Changers and are left with what lands to play.

In theory, they would never encounter a problem with their lands being considered outside the scope of Bracket 2 since, as a new Commander player, they aren't familiar with fully optimizing their lands to act as more than just lands.

They've built the deck with the expressed intent of learning Magic through a different format and are ready to have Commander impress upon them a whole slew of perspectives.

Once they've played for long enough and have learned the faults with their first deck, they may seek to upgrade the deck to better challenge their opponents. At this point, it's possible this player has an established play group, at which point the Bracket system has completed it's function and is no longer required.

But let's say this isn't the case and this player is upgrading their lands to play against strangers. It's at this point the player begins to ask questions like "What's the difference between Bracket 2 and Bracket 3? How many upgrades are considered 'too many?'"

It's here, right here, that their deck has most likely crossed the Bracket barrier. They've started searching for a line to act as a limit they wish to approach but never cross.

A player shifting Brackets can be a definitive moment of development in their Magic experience, but it needs to be recognized as a shift. It'd be detrimental to everyone involved if this player were to start actively optimizing with Cabal or Boseiju or Urza's Saga with victory in mind and try to convince themselves that their deck isn't "that deck."

The lands you run can look as optimized or as janky as you please. Just make sure you're running them for the right reasons.

Final Thoughts

To be honest, I don't remember the last time I looked at someone's lands and thought "Man, I should've played another deck." That's what the Commander is for!

It'd be foolish of me to play against strangers, let alone my established play group, and tell them that their deck is too strong or weak because our lands look different.

While most of my decks don't run the most optimized lands for their mana bases, I think it has less to do with me actively trying to power down a deck and is instead due to outside factors such as prices and availability.

Would my Szarel, Genesis ShepherdSzarel, Genesis Shepherd Bracket 2 deck love the surveil landssurveil lands? Absolutely. Can I be bothered to drop $30-$40 just to fetch slightly better lands than my cycling landscycling lands? Nope.

In fact, running fewer nonbasics has helped cut down time spent deciding which land is the best land to fetch. The more basics I've started run... the more basic my turns have become...? It forms a pun, therefore it's good!

But what do you think? How do you feel about lands being "Bracketed"? What are your thoughts on precons going up against powerful lands? Do you think precons should start including stronger lands?

I hope that this article is helpful in discussing why lands ought to be generally unrestricted, 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!

Read More: