Jin-Gitaxias, Core AugurJin-Gitaxias, Core Augur | Art by Eric Deschamps

Good afternoon everyone! I'm here once again to tell you all about some more updates to the Commander Bracket system.

It's been a solid eight months since the Commander Bracket system was first announced, and six months since the last round of updates and unbannings.

Today, Gavin Verhey of Wizards of the Coast added another round of details into the Commander Brackets along with some changes to the Game Changers list as well.

Let's dig in!

Setting Expectations

The official Commander Bracket updates article starts off with a brief update from the Commander Format Panel meetings conducted with Wizards. The CFP is a group of longtime Magic content creators and professionals who Wizards has brought in to provide perspective and feedback to these decisions.

I'm personally glad a group like this exists for feedback on potential changes and to fill in knowledge gaps for players.

Gavin Verhey speaks about the lack of clarity around some of the brackets and what players could expect in those games:

"We have also had some rules and heuristics that were not as clear as they should have been. Things like 'no early-game combos,' or 'few' tutors. While not everything can be a hard-and-fast rule, we can certainly do better."

This has anecdotally been one of the most discussed aspects of the Commander Bracket system, so having additional detail into this is certainly appreciated. The article then goes on to reinforce the importance of the intent with decks, an often repeated piece of direction.

Having some additional clarity around the speed of the game gives players an additional layer of communication for power level discussion. Here are the brackets with some compiled notes from throughout the rest of the article:

Brackets Feedback

October 2025 Brackets Update

Bracket 1: Exhibition

Players expect:

• Decks to prioritize a goal, theme, or idea over power
• Rules around card legality or viable commanders to have some flexibility depending on the pod
• Win conditions to be highly thematic or substandard
• Gameplay to be an opportunity to show off your creations

Generally, you should expect to be able to play at least nine turns before you win or lose. Most importantly, given this bracket's emphasis on theme, players should feel like they have the time to showcase their decks.

The Exhibition Bracket is meant to showcase creativity and commitment to theme. This naturally will lead to slower games as there's little to no optimization of card choices. Game Changers typically won't exist here either.

Since players are trying to showcase and express an idea through the deck, having a slower pace of play will lend to players being able to showcase those ideas.

Later in the article Gavin mentions how the intent of the Exhibition Bracket being "theme over function," to narrate this.

You'll tend to find Un-set commanders, unique themes, or strange restrictions on deckbuilding in this bracket. You may even see special Playtest cards from Gavin Verhey's Unknown Events leading these Exhibition Bracket 1 decks.

Bracket 2: Core

Players expect:

• Decks to be unoptimized and straightforward, with some cards chosen to maximize creativity and/or entertainment
• Win conditions to be incremental, telegraphed on the board, and disruptable
• Gameplay to be low pressure with an emphasis on social interaction
• Gameplay to be proactive and considerate, letting each deck showcase its plan

Generally, you should expect to be able to play at least eight turns before you win or lose.

Here at the Core Bracket we see decks slightly sped up, with a little more functionality added in. The Commander Bracket announcement mentions how there were two key challenges with the Core Bracket: the varying power for preconstructed decks and the expectations around them.

The announcement removes the tie that had been connecting preconstructed decks ("precons") to the Core Bracket, which was a huge piece of feedback Wizards received on the previous iteration.

Preconstructed decks have come to feature a wide range of power levels, sometimes even with Game Changers included like the Faldorn, Dread Wolf HeraldFaldorn, Dread Wolf Herald precon which included Jeska's WillJeska's Will.

Shoehorning all precons into the Core Bracket 2 was at odds with the creative freedom for the card design team. Removing the connection with precons should be a net positive and allow each precon to be evaluated individually.

Bracket 3: Upgraded

Players expect:

• Decks to be powered up with strong synergy and high card quality; they can effectively disrupt opponents
• Game Changers that are likely to be value engines and game-ending spells
• Win conditions that can be deployed in one big turn from hand, usually because of steadily accrued resources
• Gameplay to feature many proactive and reactive plays

Generally, you should expect to be able to play at least six turns before you win or lose.

This is where I start to deviate from the encouragement that Wizards puts around turn expectations. I've built some very powerful Upgraded Bracket 3 decks and yet, barring a perfect opening hand and undisrupted game plan, they still won't win on turn six.

This feels a little fast and with interaction being encouraged at this level, six turns is optimistic in my mind. This might be playgroup dependent, but I do feel like this could be a little optimistic.

Bracket 4: Optimized

Players expect:

• Decks not to adhere to the cEDH metagame reserved for Bracket 5
• Decks to be lethal, consistent, and fast, designed to take people down as fast as possible
• Game Changers that are likely to be fast mana, snowballing resource engines, free disruption, and tutors
• Win conditions to vary but be efficient and instantaneous
• Gameplay to be explosive and powerful, featuring huge threats and efficient disruption to match

Generally, you should expect to be able to play at least four turns before you win or lose.

Four turns for optimized decks however starts to feel close. Maybe still a little fast from my experience, but with Game Changers and combo decks coming into play here, this does still assume little interaction occurs.

Bracket 5: cEDH

Players expect:

• Decks that are meticulously designed to battle in the cEDH metagame, with the ability to win quickly or generate overwhelming resources; often built using existing cEDH knowledge, tools, and/or decklists
• Win conditions to be optimized for efficiency and consistency
• Gameplay to be intricate and advanced, with razor-thin margins for error; players prioritize victory over all else

These games could end on any turn.

Bracket 5 for cEDH having no turn expectation is probably the part that didn't need much clarification. My experience with cEDH is limited, but I do admire that the pregame conversations are typically pretty streamlined.

"cEDH?" is all that needs to be asked and the intent is already understood. Players are trying to win by any means necessary at the extreme high end, so no more needs to be said.

Philosophical Updates

The Bracket Updates article goes on to add some clarity around some of the more nebulous details on the brackets. "Few" tutors is something that was maybe too open to interpretation.

This was also open to some amount of "Is Expedition MapExpedition Map a tutor?" type of questions. This led the CFP and Wizards to move in a new direction. Per the article:

So, after much discussion, the avenue we'd like to take is to remove the tutor restrictions from Commander Brackets entirely and rely on Game Changers to catch the most efficient tutors. If you want to play tons of inefficient tutors, it may not make for the most replayable deck, but we don't need a safeguard for that. One of the biggest risks with tutors is enabling combos, but with no game-ending combos at the lower brackets and turn restrictions listed in each bracket's intent, it helps curb those issues.

This feels like the path of least resistance in terms of making a decision one way or another. Tutors are often used to find the best card in the deck, so they largely depend on the rest of the deck to be powerful.

Since the most efficient tutors are already assigned to the Game Changers, this is the cleanest direction. Removing the whataboutism from the conversation while keeping the most powerful tutors at higher brackets feels relatively straightforward.

Changing the Game Changers Again

There were two major points of emphasis in the Bracket announcement regarding Game Changers that will surely cause lots of discussion in the community.

First, that high mana value cards will be deprioritized in terms of Game Changer consideration.

Second, legendary creatures that are "just" powerful will also be given more leeway. Let's get into the cards that are being removed before we get into some analysis:

Removals

High Mana Value

• ExpropriateExpropriate
• Jin-Gitaxias, Core AugurJin-Gitaxias, Core Augur
• Sway of the StarsSway of the Stars
• Vorinclex, Voice of HungerVorinclex, Voice of Hunger

Legends That Are Strongest in the Command Zone

• Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer
• Yuriko, the Tiger's ShadowYuriko, the Tiger's Shadow
• Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyKinnan, Bonder Prodigy
• Winota, Joiner of ForcesWinota, Joiner of Forces

Finally, while they don't really fit into any of these categories, we would like to remove Deflecting Swat and Food Chain, noted below.

• Deflecting SwatDeflecting Swat
• Food ChainFood Chain

The legendary creatures being removed from the Game Changers may cause a stir in the community, and I get it. In theory it looks like it's allowing these commanders to run rampant. In execution though, I've found this isn't necessarily the case.

Putting these types of cards in the command zone helps players see them ahead of the current game starting. Players can opt out or handle these decks in the pre-game conversation. I have a personal vendetta against Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright and have only had to play against the deck once.

Each other time I've seen that menace I've either asked if that person had a different deck or I found a different pod. This practice has greatly decreased the amount of unsavory experiences for me, so I hope that catches on with folks skeptical of this change.

The explanation for the high mana value cards coming off comes across as generic, but important.

High mana value cards. If you're spending tons of mana on something in Commander, it's going to be strong. We want to keep the focus on cards that can change the game in the earlier turns, where it can be most frustrating to have somebody run away with the game before people have been able to develop.

Ultimately, these types of cards, like Sway of the StarsSway of the Stars, cost an incredibly high amount of mana to even put on the stack to have a proportional effect on the game. If you're spending that much mana on a single spell, you should expect them to.

A turn cycle with Jin-Gitaxias, Core AugurJin-Gitaxias, Core Augur will likewise have a huge impact on the game. But so will plenty of other cards at seven or more mana. Are these more egregious in the format than a Last March of the EntsLast March of the Ents or a kicked Rite of ReplicationRite of Replication? I don't believe they are.

Finally, three controversial cards were brought up, and why they each didn't fall under the high mana value clause introduced here. Consecrated SphinxConsecrated Sphinx, Coalition VictoryCoalition Victory, and Panoptic MirrorPanoptic Mirror all stay where they are today for various individual reasons.

If these are the next cards to fall back into the Core Bracket 2 territory, I'm sure there'll be another stir in the community.

The idea of Panoptic MirrorPanoptic Mirror and Sway of the StarsSway of the Stars both going to from banned territory to unregulated legality in a year seems like a huge swing to me. The cards themselves might be relics of a bygone age, but it also shows how far the format and card design has come since they were originally banned.

It'll be interesting to hear what the community feels about this new approach regarding high-mana cards. Definitely let us know your experiences and thoughts in the comments below.

Future Brackets Updates

The announcement wraps up by looking forward. Two cards that were heavily discussed yet received no action were Rhystic StudyRhystic Study and Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle.

Both cards have been relegated to the Upgraded Bracket 3 or above since the introduction of the Commander Brackets. On Rhystic StudyRhystic Study:

This is a very iconic Commander card. "Do you pay the one?" is baked into so many references around the format. It's one of the most snowbally card-advantage engines in all of Commander. Many casual games where it's played let the Rhystic player run away with the game as people just cast spells into it. At higher bracket play, like cEDH, it causes huge issues.

Also, regarding Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle:

This card is pervasive in the highest brackets of Commander as a way to instantaneously win the game alongside something like Demonic Consultation or Tainted Pact. From what we can tell, and from competitive Commander players, it's mixed as to if people like this or not.

I'll be curious to see if a future Commander Bracket announcement addresses either of these cards. They're among the most powerful cards in Commander, but also largely relegated to the higher levels of play.

Perhaps if another point of conversation mentioned in the announcement comes to play there could be action taken. This is the potential of another bracket, placed somewhere between Core Bracket 2 and Optimized Bracket 4.

Gavin Verhey mentions they want to take a slow and measured approach with making changes. It'll be worth us all keeping an eye on that change as it could have a huge impact.

Hybrid Mana Color Identity in Commander

They finally mention the hybrid mana discussion has been picking up more. Currently, the hybrid mana cards are treated as "this and that," meaning they are multicolored cards. Hybrid red and white mana means that the card could only go into decks that have both red and white color identity.

The conversation has been around changing the rule to being "this and/or that," and having the same card be either red or white. Per the announcement:

From a design standpoint, the way we design hybrid cards today is that it would need to be a card we'd print in another color. They must obey the rules of a white card and a green card independently, and they are often weaker than a monocolor card in either color.

The proposal would be that, strictly for the purposes of deck building, you can treat a hybrid symbol as either of its two colors. So, Rhys the Redeemed could go into a white deck, a green deck, or be the commander for a green and white deck. It still looks at the rest of the mana symbols on the card as normal, so a card like Deathrite Shaman would remain ineligible for a mono-black deck because it has a green symbol in the text box.

This would be one of the largest changes to the format since the tuck rule many years ago, and would allow for cards like Waves of AggressionWaves of Aggression to suddenly be playable in mono-white, for example.

The amount of color pie breaks would definitely be a concern for a blue and white deck being able to play Shu Yun, the Silent TempestShu Yun, the Silent Tempest.

This would be a welcome way to finish games for many, but skirts the creative restrictions that many love about the format. If this change does come to fruition, the community will have very divided thoughts on it.

The End Step

Every time we've seen a Commander Bracket announcement, it's sent waves through the format. The impact of these changes has only made resources like EDHREC and Archidekt more important as they help players keep up with each update.

Do you feel these de-Game Changer-ifications were warranted or were they necessary to keep problematic cards at bay? I'm very interested to hear whether or not another bracket is added to push the total to six or more.

Let us know in the comments which update you feel will be the most impactful. Thanks everyone and we'll see you next time!

Read More: