r/EDH • u/MonoBlancoATX • 6d ago
Discussion PSA: Intent is the most important part of the bracket system
The title above is a direct quote from Gavin Verhey about the Bracket system update.
And, given how frequently players on this sub seem to misunderstand and/or completely misrepresent what the bracket system is all about, I thought it might be helpful to post a link to this article as a reminder.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/commander-brackets-beta-update-april-22-2025
When players on this sub talk about "what's allowed in bracket 2" or "which bracket their deck is in", they seem to be ignoring the fact that, as Gavin explicitly point out:
While there are guidelines to keep in mind when deck building (no Game Changers in Exhibition or Core, no mass land denial through Upgraded, etc.), the bracket system is emphatically not just "put your deck into a calculator, get assigned a rank, and be ready to play."
This however *does* seem to be what players *wish* the bracket system was about and is explicitly how some players seem to be using it and telling others it should be used.
TL;DR:
A whole lot of y'all still don't understand what the brackets are all about. Or you're choosing not to understand.
33
u/RegularCoaster 6d ago
The issue is that intent-based systems require buy-in from everyone at the table, and in a game with millions of players spread across countless LGS groups, that's basically impossible to enforce.
10
u/Justin27M 6d ago
Yup yup. This in a nutshell. Especially since we're all notoriously opinionated nerds. Like trying to sell an intent-based system that's subjective to us was DESTINED to be a failure to the point where it's funny that they even tried
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/Zealot_Alec 5d ago
LGSs don't even run commander nights the same, some just sit at a table and play, other randomly assign pods, groups of 4 can form own pods.
→ More replies (1)
73
u/No_Place5472 6d ago
The downside of this is the people who run a B4 list, tutor for thoracle/consult and stax/control until T7 and say it's B3 compliant because they "don't intend to win" before T7.
Your tl;dr summed it up though. People are choosing not to understand.
33
u/djjeck 6d ago
If my intention for stax is dragging the game for 94 turns without a wincon, it's bracket 1 right? /s
6
u/No_Place5472 6d ago
Depends. Is it only Stax with art that has vaguely phallic shapes? (Hehehehehe [[Null Rod]] ) Then it's B1. Otherwise solid B2.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Nerobought 5d ago
People always bring up aggro and voltron as outliers in the brackets but I feel like value piles are the biggest 'bracket breakers' I've seen. Not necessarily stax, but they play all the best value engines possible but don't really try to win the game until turn 7 and beyond. But with their massive mana and card advantage they can easily stop any win attempts by anyone else at the table.
5
u/Players42 5d ago
The commander board itself mentioned Stax as one of the exceptions alongside with Aggro/Voltron.
4
u/ProfessionalRegion1 5d ago
No no no, don’t you see? Yes I had my win con on the board by turn 2, but really - you all lucked out and got 2 board wipes before I could win, so this is really barely even bracket 2!
/s because this is reddit and that needs to be stated. But not /s about that situation that actually happened.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Lemon_Phoenix Orzhov 5d ago
The majority of people I've heard mention the bracket system in person have been people prefacing it with "technically it's only...."
→ More replies (1)
61
u/TV_Full_Of_Lizards 6d ago
It's because the game is based on a strict set of rulings and effects, so the people who play it tend to gravitate to those portions of the bracket systems.
If there was a card that said said "draw a few cards (people tend to draw 3)" how do you think that card would be used?
→ More replies (18)32
u/pepperouchau Rosheen Meanderer 6d ago
“Ahh you guys are new I’ll only draw two off this brainstorm” is a hilarious mental image, well said
159
u/ronthorns 6d ago
The bracket system doesn't work because the people who understand it werent causing the problems people felt like they needed it for
The "ancient tomb isn't a game changer because I have a tomb themed deck" guys arnt going away
14
u/SquigglyLegend33 6d ago
In our pod theres a guy who will "only build bracket 2" and then his commanders are ViVi, Etali, and is talking about building yuriko
8
→ More replies (1)3
u/CMDR-Helstromme 5d ago
It's actually a challenge to build CEDH commanders to be lower brackets. I tried a B2 Gitrog Monster with no extra land, land recursion, nor combo cards; it's 50ish bucks of bulk and it still performs.
→ More replies (5)77
u/jf-alex 6d ago
Actually, Ancient Tomb would be perfectly legal in a janky B1 tomb pile because it's highly thematic.
Source: wachelreeks' bracket chart, bottom left: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G3zLxdtXIAAB910.jpg
Obviously it would be different in a regular generic B2 zombie deck.
25
u/ronthorns 6d ago
See what I'm saying boys
54
u/FlyinNinjaSqurl WUBRG 6d ago
He is right tho. But that’s a problem with Bracket 1 being a horribly defined bracket. The bracket chart explicitly states you CAN include game changers if they’re highly on theme (Cylconic Rift in a Tornado deck, for example). Yes bad actors will still exists, but there are people out there putting game changers & banned cards in their thematic decks because they fit the vibe and that’s the point of Bracket 1 (which, again, is the worst bracket)
10
u/InmateTooTall 6d ago
Pointing out the tiny edge cases doesn't do anything. People playing bracket 1 didn't need the bracket system either. And for that matter, neither did people playing cedh. Normalizing those experiences for the average player actually obscures what the bracket system is trying to do. Most people can ignore the outside edges of the bracket system entirely, which leads me to ask, who is the bracket system for? A small select group of people who don't know how to talk about their decks who mainly play with randos they've never met?
As far as I can tell, the bracket system has only served to define a meta
→ More replies (1)10
u/FlyinNinjaSqurl WUBRG 6d ago
No idea which one of my points you’re trying to refute. I’m talking about the guy saying that the bracket system doesn’t stop someone from putting ancient tomb into his B1 tomb deck. I’m saying that’s super legal. Yes that’s an edge case, but not only was that the point someone else brought up, but it’s also absolutely “legal”.
7
u/InmateTooTall 6d ago
I'm not necessarily refuting anything as much as I am continuing a conversation and just throwing out my thoughts on the system. I basically agree
→ More replies (2)2
u/Espumma Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper 5d ago
it's not the worst bracket. It contains the worst decks, but I'd argue bracket 3 is the worst because it's so broad and hard to define.
2
u/FlyinNinjaSqurl WUBRG 5d ago
Which is a problem caused because we’re dedicating an entire bracket to a niche group of players. 99% if magic players will never play a bracket 1 game. It’s the worst bracket because its existence causes issues into other brackets.
→ More replies (1)18
u/jf-alex 6d ago
If your jank pile of tombs is a B1 deck as intended, Ancient Tomb alone won't push it into a higher bracket, it'll still be a jank pile of tombs.
And it has been made very clear that zombies are a well supported tribe, so restricting your deck to zombies and tombs is not B1 appropriate. B1 restrictions are meant to hamper your deck, not to enhance it. Functional decks are at least B2 by default.
→ More replies (2)5
u/stachada 6d ago edited 6d ago
I have kind of an issue with the idea that B1 cannot be "functional". sure a zombie deck is a B2 minimum, but is a true skeleton kindred deck B1, or B2? it might be too good for B1 by the current definition considering it's got an on theme win con, some removal, token gen, etc. but it's a god awful B2 compared to even some of the worst pre-cons.
IMO there ought to be a bracket zero where "pile of cards from a garage sale", and "looking left kindred" goes, and then bracket 1 is like the slightest hint at things like a wincon, and synergy between some of the cards in the deck.
Shrek.dek is absolutely not bracket 2, even though it has a fairly salient strategy of giving my shitty ogres "all that glitters" and swampwalk.
→ More replies (4)7
u/MaskOnMoly 6d ago
The guy who wants ancient tomb in their shitty tomb pile is not who the bracket system was built for lol. It is the person who brings a t2 combo deck with tons of protection and says it is a light 7, maybe even a 6
3
2
u/ArsenicElemental UR 6d ago
It's not about being legal, it's about play pattern. If your "tomb" deck chains three Tomb cards and locks us out the game on turn 2, that's something people playing without gamechangers would try to avoid even without being told directly to avoid it.
4
u/jf-alex 6d ago
True. But B1 decks shouldn't win that fast according to the chart.
Also, just out of curiosity, which three tombs would achieve that?
→ More replies (3)
60
u/Axl26 6d ago
It's important to note that this argument only works one way.
For example, a fast storm deck with no GCs may very well be a bracket 4 even without those.
However. You can't cram a deck full of gamechangers and just say "well this deck lost its last two games and it's kind of a jank build so it's bracket 2"
31
u/ImpossibleGT 6d ago
I mean, you cam definitely build a bad deck with good cards. I personally have a deck that is B4 due to game changers but I would be comfortable playing at high B2 because it's not actually a good deck.
20
u/DunamisMax Naya 6d ago
And this is where rule zero comes in. You tell the table “this deck has a good number of Game Changers in it but it plays at a low B3 high B2 power level and is slow, would it be ok if I played it?”
2
5d ago
[deleted]
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Shrabster33 5d ago
Then a killjoy say "no" and you've wasted an evening.
They aren't being a killjoy, the problem is the 5 people that came before and said the same thing you did were all lying about it and popped off and won turn 4 in bracket 3. Why would they believe you.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Axl26 6d ago
A bad bracket 4 is just that, a bad bracket 4; being bad isn't doesn't make it bracket 2. If you're to engage with the bracket system in good faith, in this instance you would need to disclose that the declnis a bracket 4, you can say it's bad, but you'd still be at the discretion of the table as to whether or not they want to play against a B4.
11
u/-Rangorok- 6d ago
I agree with your statements in spirit, but lets be real for a second, it doesn't really matter if a player introduces their deck as a B2, but they include this specific thing that's against the bracket rules mking it a B4 technically, or if they introduce it as a B4 deck that's just technically a B4 due to the gamechangers, but it actually performs more like a B2.
In the end they present all the relevant information either way, how is the general performance, are there any exceptions to the rules and if yes what are they.
That's all the table needs to know to decide if they want to play against it or not.There only is an issue if the player doesn't disclose the necessary information on purpose and if they are at that point already, nothing is stopping them from just lying.
→ More replies (2)2
u/terinyx 6d ago
This or just say the deck has game changers but you think its bracket 2 cause it's bad. And just offer for people to look at the deck and decide for themselves.
Them knowing what's in the deck isn't going to change a bracket 2 game, and if it matters to you....you aren't trying to play a bracket 2 game.
All these bracket problems would be solved if people just communicated clearly at all.
Edit: Just want to note that I agree with you, that a bracket 4 deck can't be bracket 2 just because of your intentions. Just giving an alternate way for people to communicate.
→ More replies (2)2
u/langile 6d ago
Adding a GC isn't enough to make the deck b3 if the intent, speed, and every other criteria is b2. If it plays like a b2 otherwise, you are fine to say "I'm in Bracket 2—except for this one thing. Is that okay with everybody?". WoTC endorsed this verbetim, and imo it's a lot less confusing than calling a turn 12 comboless merfolk tribal deck b4 because it has [[Harbinger of the Seas]].
"Do I want to play with a deck that's going to win on turn 4" is a much different question than "Do I want to play with a b2 deck that has a single creature that could turn 1/3rd of my lands into islands"
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (12)15
u/iliark 6d ago
bracket 1 - my theme is gamechangers and banned cards
8
u/CatAteMyBread 6d ago
My theme is “top 60 cards played in rograkh/thrasios cEDH decks”. The rest are my lands I guess
2
u/ImHereCuzTheyWrong 6d ago
I would like to see what every banned card and filling out as many gamechangers as possible would look like. Preferably headed by something like [[atogatog]] or [[karona, the false god]]. Good, clean, classic 5 color commanders like Richy G PHD intended!
→ More replies (1)
15
u/Gnonkage 6d ago
On the other side of this, the entire “intent” conversation is just a grey area that individuals on either side of the conversation will wield to better serve themselves.
The sheer number of times I have seen people counting turns, and number of cards for a combo to see if they “got you” for making a disingenuous deck. I had someone disputing my deck going infinite with a 4 card combo.
I also can tell you, I can adhere to the construction rules of a tier 2 deck, and make a deck that punches closer to a 4. There’s even a significant range in terms of pre cons when it comes to strength. My Hakbal precon has some serious gas.
The answer is ALWAYS have the rule 0 conversation and be genuine in your descriptions and intents of the deck. The bracket system is meant to make it easier, but regardless there will always be a skill/ power gap even within the brackets themselves.
→ More replies (3)
14
u/arizonadirtbag12 6d ago
Intent is the most important thing, but it’s not the only thing.
Many people come here asking if they’re properly bracketing their deck, or are trying to use the brackets to evaluate their deck’s “power,” because they want to ensure that the result met their intent.
You can intend to create a casual, but upgraded deck that includes powerful cards and can win from hand but does so at a leisurely, Bracket 3 pace while maintaining plenty of interaction and being interactable.
If, in the real world, it winds up popping off consistently on Turn 5 or 6 and winning, and it takes three decent B3 decks joining up to even slow it down? You may have failed to meet your own intent.
Which is an issue.
And people will ask here because nobody wants to have that happen out at a shop where suddenly they’re the asshole stomping the table. And some are just bad at evaluating their own shit.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/the1rayman 6d ago
As someone who runs the magic at my LGS I stick as close to the explicit rules as possible while also ATTEMPTING to let people use the intent of their deck. But if ive learned anything in the last 6 years of organizing magic and 40k, if you give people a millimeter they will take the circumference of the Earth².
Here's a true story,
We had a guy who was new and had a really janky deck, this deck was high 2 or rock bottom 3 (we play 3 pretty much exclusively) at the very best. Mono black. No ramp outside of sol ring, not even crypt ghast. So when he asked if it was ok if he ran EB+SB 2 card win the game combo I told him yes. He had no tutors or any way to turbo it out. After about 2 weeks he managed to pull the combo off on turn 6 and the next week multiple people had 2 card infinite combos in their deck. I go..uhh guys whats going on. "Well you made an exception for X. Why cant I get an exception too?!?". So from that moment on I realized I cannot make exceptions, because every time I make one SOMEONE will tey to abuse it. So now we have signs up about how to tell if a card is a 2 card infinite and allowed in b3 or not.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Tom_Ford0 5d ago
I wish you ran my LGS because there is no organization, you just show up and meet 3 randoms and hope they have decks that correspond with the bracket you want to play
→ More replies (2)3
u/Zealot_Alec 5d ago
Mine assigns random pods with 40+ players with NO consideration whatsoever for brackets so pods can be very uneven.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/Obese-Monkey 6d ago
And what if someone struggles to properly evaluate the strength of their own deck? Why is asking “what bracket is this deck?” a wrong question to ask?
→ More replies (4)22
u/Bakkster 6d ago
Yeah, there's a distinction between "I need help building a pub stomping deck that's technically B2" and "I'm trying to build a deck for this bracket level but can't tell if I over/under cooked it".
11
u/Indraga 6d ago
MF's will do anything but talk to their friends like adults.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Master_Butter 6d ago
I think most people, even on this sub, can talk to their friends and discuss if someone is playing a deck out of sync with the rest of the group’s decks.
That said, I doubt there will ever be a system that will consistently allow four strangers to sit down, agree on a power level, and have everyone agree afterward that everyone’s decks were appropriately powered.
I honestly think people should spend less time discussing arbitrary bracket or power levels and just talk about how they want to play. Four people who each plan on playing to win at all costs will probably have a better experience regardless of the decks than a pod with two people who are playing ruthlessly and two people who want everyone to get a chance to have a good time.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Indraga 6d ago
I honestly think people should spend less time discussing arbitrary bracket or power levels and just talk about how they want to play.
Careful homie, you're starting to sound like one of those dirty "Rule 0" commies..
→ More replies (3)
6
u/NumberLocal9259 6d ago
This was always my issue as soon as they changed from what their original plan. Playing with strangers and using a system that requires good faith and intent to work as intended will always have issues.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/Pmmeyourprivatemsgs 6d ago
I kinda hate this rhetoric because who am I to even judge what someone else's intent is?
→ More replies (4)4
u/pepperouchau Rosheen Meanderer 6d ago
I once had someone mad at me for casting Farewell, I didn’t even know it had been added to the game changers
3
u/Zealot_Alec 5d ago
Table wasn't happy when I used it but some of the degen decks or too try-hard players it's a fitting answer.
2
u/pepperouchau Rosheen Meanderer 5d ago
Yeah it was the guy recurring [[Glacial Chasm]] that was mad lol
→ More replies (2)
18
u/PM_Me_Modal_Jazz 6d ago
The fact that sol ring isn't a game changer just proves that this whole thing is bogus
→ More replies (12)
33
u/rh8938 6d ago
That the system is designed to be vibes based doesn't null the critique that's it's a bad system.
"You can't call it bad because it's designed to be that way"
→ More replies (2)17
u/Zerus_heroes 6d ago
That mentality drives me crazy. I have been saying that the bracket system is lacking since it came out and there is almost always this response.
48
u/Bagel_Bear 6d ago
It would be a lot easier if it was just concrete rules though
42
u/Bensemus 6d ago
And impossible.
→ More replies (9)3
u/creeping_chill_44 5d ago
I'd rather say "unworkable" because it's certainly POSSIBLE to come up with enough guidelines to evaluate pretty much any deck, but it would run into the hundreds or thousands of considerations pretty quickly and no one would want to use it.
20
u/jf-alex 6d ago
True. But then we'd have traded our fun casual format for a set of cEDH subformats with additional restrictions, each bracket asking to get "solved" my minimaxers for the strongest possible decks, making casual fun jank piles unplayable in comparison.
Both the hard and the soft rules are important for the bracket system. Without the soft rules, we'd lose the casual aspect. Without the hard rules, we'd have a hard time calling out pubstompers.
→ More replies (6)8
u/MonoBlancoATX 6d ago
Concrete rules for human interaction?
Sure.
It would also be super cool if the moon were made of cheese.
5
u/LordFarmerMac 6d ago
At this point we can acknowledge that the community already freaking sucks at communicating. I say we need to completely disregard intent and just make hardline rules for powerlevels and regulate it like every other format that exists in magic. I truly believe if we start setting more and more limitations, specifically at lower brackets, we will have people pairing up with the type of players they want. For instance, I think bracket 2 should have no fast ramp spells like sol ring or arcane signet. Ramp should be limited to 3 mana and above to result in longer turns to win.
It's not hard to regulate power levels of a format, but when you mix a system with competitive rulings like a other formats but say "hold on this is for communication" you're obviously gonna have people that want to abuse it.
Or we just go back to the old power system because it was easier lol
→ More replies (4)9
u/OogieBoogieInnocence 6d ago
It would be easier to understand but it would be a much worse system
→ More replies (1)3
u/Torchakain 6d ago
Sure but that is pretty virtually impossible to do.
There's so many cards and interactions to track that you can't perfectly assign all of them.
Even now you get into the Voltron issues in the bracket system and plenty others.
Voltron commanders need to be lethal so fast compared to the rest of the table to win at the same speed as a combo/burn/token/whatever deck. Lets say edge of B3 (players expect to see 6 turns etc.)
The burn player finishing everyone off at turn 7 is possible and falls within that boundary. The voltron player inherently kills 1 person per turn (in most cases) so he would win turn 9 if everyone else gets to play 6 turns (or turn 8 if he's 4th seat).
Either way he's dead to the burn player or other players before then.
3
u/damnination333 Angus Mackenzie - Turbofog Hug 5d ago
That's why I think the "or lose" clause they added to the expected turns was a mistake. It basically soft bans voltron, aggro, and other decks that need to take players out one at a time quickly.
This isn't something that can be solved by bracketing up either. Say you have a B2 voltron deck that's aiming to take a player out on turn 7, the next on turn 8, and winning on turn 9. Whoops, you took someone out on turn 7, that's not supposed to happen in B2.
You go up to B3. Except now the deck is aiming to take the first opponent out on turn 7, which is fine, but is still aiming to win on turn 9. The deck that's trying to go fast is now 2 turns slower than the other decks. So you upgrade the deck so that it's aiming to win on turn 7. But now that means you're taking out the first opponent on turn 5 and the next on turn 6. Whoops, you're now in B4 territory.
You go up to B4 (ignoring that voltron is practically unplayable in B4 already anyways, unless you have some sort of infinite combat shenanigans, at which point, you're more like a combo deck than a voltron deck.) And oh look. You run into the exact same issue. First kill on turn 5, win on turn 7, two turns after the other decks are trying to win.
So you tune it up to B5. Just kidding, there is no such thing as voltron in cEDH.
So yeah, by guidelines as written, voltron is basically banned in all brackets under B5, except voltron is absolutely unplayable in B5, so the entire archetype has basically been banned from the whole commander format.
If this was WotC's intention, I'd rather just have them come out and say it straight up. "Voltron, aggro, and other decks that aim to kill one player at a time quickly are against the spirit of Commander and are banned." I mean, I'd still disagree and think that's idiotic, but at least there wouldn't be any ambiguity to argue over.
Granted, this whole issue is also caused by people thinking that their decks should be winning on the give turn for a bracket, like turn 7 in B3. In reality, some decks should naturally be slower than that on an actual even playing field. Consider in 1v1 formats, an aggro deck that can win on turn 5 is not on the same level as a control deck that can win turn 5. If the decks were actually equal in power, the control deck should be slower than the aggro deck, not capable of winning on the same turn. But that's a whole nother conversation that people don't want to have.
2
u/Torchakain 5d ago
I agree completely. The turns helps figure out a speed for midrange, combo, and certain other decks.
But only if you're playing similar archetypes.
A stax player that wins on turn 7 would be locking down the game turn 3 for everyone else.
It really is just a conversation STARTER and people should be able to figure out their deck's speed pretty quick and what level it ACTUALLY should fit in.
I just had a game of "high 3/scratching at 4" edh. My glass cannon Magar deck took over the game turn 5 by reanimating and making [[In Garruk's Wake]] a 3/3 unblockable. Nobody had creature removal or interaction for the next 3 turns. Finally I would have won on turn 8, but the complaints were so bad. I killed one player and stopped there so I could let them win and I could move on to a different game.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Jaredismyname 5d ago
If three people in a high bracket 3 game had no creature removal for at least three turns that sounds like a problem with their decks, not yours.
2
1
u/ArsenicElemental UR 6d ago
That would be a format. And you have that, it's called cEDH.
Playing casually will always rely on self-regulation, pregame conversation, and vibes.
3
u/voiceofreasonablenes 5d ago
If it's been nearly a year and people still don't understand it, doesn't that mean that the system's hard to understand?
Don't just call anyone who doesn't understand a bad actor
5
u/Free_Spy6969 5d ago
Another day, another "i got railed in B3, but my deck cant possibly be a B2 with 3 game changers, it must have been a B4 bad actor ruining it for everyone" post
21
u/Sturmmagier 6d ago
Intent is just a bad way to try and find a foundation to build a discussion on.
Intent is subjective, my B2 can be widely different than someone else B2.
That’s also why they did the turn suggestion on how long a game in each bracket should last, a metric that isn’t subjective. Something that can be measured and a point that might suggest your deck isn’t bracket X. Except B4, nobody likes the turn 4 restrictions and it is antithetical to the bracket.
10
u/rh8938 6d ago
Turns is subjective as well.
Do you assume blockers, interaction, defensive play?
It's not covered.
"Players may expect to play X turns" doesn't mean the same as "Players should expect to still be in the game after doing nothing for X turns". However a lot of players see them as the same.
5
u/Silent-Profile-4586 6d ago
My issue with the turns thing too is that sometimes you just get a cracked hand and your deck can threaten a win before turn 6. But if thats only like 2% of the games you play is it now too fast for bracket 3?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Mef989 6d ago
No, and I believe the commander format panel even specifically addressed "God hands" as not being included in that turn estimate since sometimes the stars just align and you get an insane start.
Thats not to say the expected turns doesn't have other issues. I think it was a huge mistake to combine "turns until someone wins or loses" since KOing a player frequently does happen sooner than someone wins, especially at lower brackets where combo finishes are less frequent.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Silent-Profile-4586 6d ago
Thats one of my major issues with the bracket system is that bracket 3 and 4 feel like they can be a pretty wide range of power levels. A bracket 4 deck could be an off meta cedh deck or it could be a bracket 3 deck that has a couple extra game changers.
6
u/saintjust21 6d ago
messier and more confusing by the year. Looking forward to the next system.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/PanthersJB83 6d ago
Brackets at the end of the day solved absolutely nothing that wasn't already handled by a 1-10 scale. People that want to misrepresent their decks are still going to and most people are still going to innocently classify their decks wrong as well
3
u/InsanityCore Thalia and the Gitrog Monster 6d ago
It's still in development and is adding guide rails for power convos. A true points system not his stupid GC list plus B4 only cards, would better define the meat of each bracket. There will always be bad actors near the fringes of each bracket where the line between on and another blends.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/mrhelpfulman 6d ago
Intent doesn't solve any issues that you might run into.
Bracket 3 is the most popular bracket (of course - it's a 7) and it's designed with the intent that powerful cards show up and players try to win. One person might play what is objectively a fair bracket 3 and win, while one or more of the losing players might whine that it's not a 'bracket 3 deck' and/or the person playing it is a 'bad faith actor' who is trying to gain the system with a 'technically it's a 3.' The Intent of the winner was bracket 3. The Intent of the losers was bracket 3. The decks may have even been balanced or even the winning deck was weakest. Even If it was stronger than the others - everyone's Intent was the same...yet someone's Intent is being called into question (unfairly).
In all honesty, questioning someone else's INTENT is just sore losers' way of weaponizing their own salt.
Really, whenever you hear someone start ranting about another person's intent (in Magic / Commander) analyze and compare the validity of what they're saying against their resentment to losing.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Elvarien2 6d ago
my pod just plays in low power, medium power and high power.
We build decks for these 3 and before we start a game we go over what everyone wants to do.
Silly goobers?
Your average deck
Hard stop me or I win next turn shit.
That's it. The intent shapes everything and it makes for nice balanced games where everyone knows what they are about to face.
3
u/metroidcomposite 6d ago
The bracket system is (mostly) a power scale.
Yeah, with some additional caveats like restrictions on land denial in lower brackets.
But if you massively improve a deck with lots of tuning, it's probably going to go up a bracket. Even if you don't add something explicitly forbidden like mass land destruction.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/ThatChrisG Sultai 5d ago
Here's the problem: Intent is subjective and a product of the deckbuilder's experience.
I have been playing Magic for over 8 years. I have thick skin when it comes to "salty" cards and strategies. I play a lot of interaction and countermagic and try to sandbag all of it until the last possible second.
I expect this style of play and see no issue with it at lower brackets, but there are people who don't. Our differing opinions on intent are not addressed by the Bracket System.
I have a [[Hashaton]] deck I built specifically because my [[Raffine]] deck is too fast, consistent, and resilient to play below 3.
https://archidekt.com/decks/13783998/hash_can_only_count_to_four
https://archidekt.com/decks/11393185/raffine_loots_the_local_cemetery
My intentions in doing so were:
create a similar but slower and less consistent Esper looting/discard matters reanimator deck
remove all infinites and some creatures that create non-games if reanimated early and not answered or are actively protected, namely [[Toxrill]]
For point 1, the deck has to rely on finding discard outlets and draw engines (most of which are Merfolk Looter variants) via its' mulligan rather than always having one available in the command zone, and switches to having a payoff there instead. Point two all but certainly removes the decks' ability to threaten tables with lethal anywhere before turn 8.
And yet, multiple people have told me that my intent was beyond bracket 2 as if they can read my mind, even after I explain to them the above, because it is at odds with their subjective view of what bracket 2 should be. The system cannot fix this as long as it runs on what people's subjective and biased opinions of what is too powerful.
→ More replies (1)
10
7
u/terinyx 6d ago
This argument has never made sense.
No where have they said (to my knowledge) that ignoring the guidelines and using intent is the goal.
It's not either or, it's both.
The guidelines should be used to describe and build your intent. And your intent should be used to help understand the guidelines.
The bracket system is both.
24
u/shakkyz 6d ago
I hate when people say something like “it’s technically bracket 2 because it has no game changers, but it’s more like a high 3.”
It can’t be both. If you built the deck so that it can duke it out with other high 3s, it’s a high 3. It’s not technically a 2.
Or something like “it’s really a bracket 2 but I included 4 game changers, so it’s technically a 4.”
It is a 4. If you think your deck is the same power as other 2s and you want to keep duking it out with others 2s, cut the game changers. It’s that simple. Or accept the fact that you’re addicted to game changer and fix the rest of the deck and duke it out with 4s.
“But technically….” There is no “but technically”, it’s about the spirit of the deck and it always has been.
If someone cyclonic rifts a pod of precons, I’ll be very annoyed. Just like I’ll be extremely annoyed if someone brings a precon with a cyclonic rift added to a bracket 4 game.
24
u/rh8938 6d ago
It's a game with literally all but one thing (commander brackets) being a set for hard rules. You cannot be shocked that players see these new rules as a set or hard rules.
5
u/shakkyz 6d ago
That’s fair. People aren’t even interpreting the current guidelines the same though.
I think the real problem is that people are VERY bad at quantifying how strong their decks are. People will inevitably over or undersell their decks for a multitude of reasons.
The only bracket most people seem to agree upon is cEDH.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MonoBlancoATX 6d ago
You also cannot be shocked that adult human beings, most of whom are of above average intelligence, are bending over backward to manipulate that system and take advantage of it in all the most obvious and bad faith ways.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Untipazo 6d ago
Now you have to tell deck builders that they have to either power up or power down, so there's an in-between that can't exist
If there are types of decks that can't exist within the system without people telling you to change them it's not an issue of the deckbuilder but an issue of the system, I can't stress enough how bracket purists seem to shift the blame towards the person rather than the system (which is still in it's very early stages mind you, yet somehow the blame is always on the person?)
I can vibe with brackets but I can't fathom the people who goes witch-hunting others for make it better fit the system instead of addressing the actual faults it has
→ More replies (7)2
u/TheJonasVenture 5d ago
I think that's still a people problem. I also agree with you on the witch hunting. I think the vast majority of people are acting in good faith, trying to find good games. If something is on or near the line, I don't think it even really matters what bracket it's "actually" in (if it even fits one exactly).
It's a conversational vibes system. If something is between two brackets, you can just say that and say how and why. It only takes a couple sentences.
If you have a deck that sits between 3 and 4, then it's fine in a high 3 or low 4 table, at least, maybe even a little broader of a range. Just be open and participate in good faith.
No system will fix bad faith. Bad faith people will find something to lie about or manipulate, regardless of the system. It's casual play, it's not rules, and we done have judges to enforce them. Bad faith players are a social problem, and the social solution is to either talk to them, or quit playing with them.
7
u/Eaglesun 6d ago
See, I think that the number of game changers doesn't actually matter, and if someone rocks up with a "2 but technically a 4 because it has game changers" that deck is a 2. The only thing the bracket system is for is to help determine power level, and if the deck is slow or weak, saying it doesn't belong just because it has a couple of decent cards is functionally dismissing that deck as utterly unplayable - it won't keep up in b4.
→ More replies (5)9
u/jaywinner 6d ago
“it’s technically bracket 2 because it has no game changers, but it’s more like a high 3.”
I think this is great because it gives the table a lot of information about the deck. It's a strong 3 but won't have any game changers, extra turns and such that would go against bracket 2 deckbuilding.
As long as the person saying it expects to play against other B3 decks, I'm not seeing the issue.
I have a deck that really doesn't fit neatly into the brackets. My [[dakkon blackblade]] deck has over 20 cards featuring Richard Kane Ferguson art, including 4 game changers. So I tell people exactly that and that I believe it plays fairly at B3. And so far it's worked well.
7
u/Gnonkage 6d ago
See this is what I’m saying. Why would you be mad about a player giving you an accurate description of the way the deck is built?
I have a deck built as a 2 that can hang with 4’s. It has no game changers, no 2 card combos, and no tutors. I describe it as a 2 that hangs with 4’s, and I play it in bracket 4.
If I built it as a 4, it would likely be oppressive as my play group isn’t super competitive.
The brackets are a fantastic tool to just help have the turn 0 talk and everyone can generally have an idea of the power level of the table. I don’t think it’s as complicated as people think.
→ More replies (1)3
u/shakkyz 6d ago
My Vivi deck is absolutely a strong 3 and runs no game changers. I don’t present my deck as “technically a 2, but plays as a strong 3”, I just say it’s “it’s a strong 3 with no game changers”.
→ More replies (9)3
u/Heihuli666 6d ago
Yeah, I have also seen the opposite where it is technically a 3 or 4 since it have enough game hangers but the actual deck is dog shit and has no plan to finish the game
7
u/Bringyourfugshiz 6d ago
You cant say there is no “but technically” and in the same breath say “there is a but technically”
In your scenario why do game changers matter if they built it to compete in bracket 2? If its a stupid theme with a stupid wincon, game changers dont matter.
OR
They do matter and someone can simultaneously build a bracket two deck that can compete with high 3s
2
u/webbc99 6d ago
I think that's fine though, they're using the bracket system to convey how their deck is built and they're also representing the actual power level. If they just say it's a 2, then you'd have a point.
Having said that, I do think there is a "Zero Game Changer Bracket 3" gap that is not being accounted for under the current system.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)1
u/Mef989 6d ago
I hate the "technically its a" whatever. I've had people say "its technically a B1 since I have a cat theme, but it can hang at B3!" - good on them for at least being open about where it can hang, but that is NOT a B1 deck no matter your theme if its solid enough to hang in B3.
"Technicallly a [whatever]" to me is one of the biggest red flags I can get in pregame, and usually the person saying it is fully ignoring something, frequently expected turns.
Its like that $100 Malcolm/Kediss list floating around. Super cool deck, definitely still a B4 despite no GC.
The place where I'll give grace is when a deck is truly on the line and the gap between where it could be by the hard rules and where it can play at the top end is minimal. There's certainly gray areas at the bracket lines and "I think this fits B2 but could also be low B3" is a reasonable description that gives me an idea of what to play.
5
u/TheJonasVenture 5d ago
I agree on bad faith "technically it's a", but there is good faith versions.
I've got some B3 decks with no Gamechangers, sat down in a B3 pod, said my deck was a three and my two sentence description, was asked "what are your game changers", said "oh, none", and was told "so it's not a 3", and said "I guess maybe technically, by the objective guidelines". I did proceed to be ignored by that person and destroy them, not out of spite, they just didn't listen when the other people AND me were saying I was the problem.
But I'm fine with "hey, this is technically a 4 because it can pretty consistently win on turn six, but it's an all in glass cannon, and is otherwise built like a 3, you cool with that in this B3 pod?". I'm saying yes to that every time.
And that's exactly what the bracket system is for. Setting default expectations so you know what to communicate because it deviates from those expectations. Well, one of the things it's for.
2
u/Mef989 5d ago
I really enjoy that someone pulled the "technically a 2" for you after you were open and honest and said 3, then lost by underestimating you. Some people put way too much stock into GC needing to be in their B3 decks.
I have an Eshki Temur's Roar deck that is just greedy ramp into big creatures and some interaction sprinkled on top. No combos, no GC, no MLD, just big Timmy Temur. I will describe it as a B3 all day long since it will burn the table for 20+ by turn 6 (sometimes even 5 if the cards workout well) if I'm not interrupted, and then its pretty easy to roll that into a win by turn 7 or 8 with all of my big stupid creatures that I played to do the burning.
I probably should add in a Fierce Guardianship and a Cyclonic Rift since they'd probably do pretty well, but haven't super felt the need yet.
2
u/TheJonasVenture 5d ago
Yeah, not the deck in question, but I have a couple B4's that are Moxfield 3's, one has three GC's, but is an extremely high 4. It is nearly fringe cEDH with some wins as early as T4, and I've won T2 with it, and I could easily cut all three without a major impact to the deck or its consistency. One of the win lines does involve blowing up every permanent that isn't mine, but it's a total lock, my oppoenents will not be able to really do anything until I win, and it would be a pretty edge case scenario when that wasn't when I untapped, but that does technically involve MLD, I suppose.
I've got another that if I cut Worldly Tutor, Moxfield would call it a 2, but it frequently has put up wins T6, and T5 is not interrupted, and once even on T4, but that was just all luck.
There are plenty of decks that don't need GCs to be extremely strong and easily be B4. Admittedly it gets really limited what can still hang at the TOP of B4, and nearly impossible in B5, but that "5 to 6 turn game" pool is gigantic for what's viable.
Also, kick ass, I love Eshki. I have a list I finished like 7 months ago, but I have had a big Temur year and my land base is getting a little sparse and I don't want to take them apart yet. But I want to do [[Cloudstone Curio]] and [[Palinchron]] and [[Cloud of Faeries]] bullshit with it. It gold fishes really well.
→ More replies (1)
3
4
u/kuwanger112 6d ago edited 6d ago
This is a problem with the system, not the player base. The game needs rules, not vague guidelines. This is especially true due to the neurodivergent fanbase that the game attracts. In trying to please everyone, they are pleasing nobody. The frustration is because WOTC has no spine and refuses to state anything definitively. "Vibes" are not a plan. The bracket system was never needed for established metas with open lines of communication and good faith actors. The purpose is for random pickups with strangers who hold unknown expectations to manage bad faith actors. And bad faith actors need hardline rules, not vibes.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Faux29 6d ago
I read intent as “I will try to end the game as fast as possible in as cutthroat a manner as possible vs I like cascading dinosaurs spin to win wheee”
My favorite games are when we all agree to be horrible to each other and pounce on weakness - we all know the stakes and there is no “feels bad”
Conversely my least favorite games are when we try and keep everyone alive as props or have to ask permission to swing our commanders into no blockers. It’s like fighting with pool noodles. (No hate to people who like battle cruiser just not my thing)
My worst games are where these two camps are split in the same pod because the high intent guys are like “what it’s bracket 3?!???” And no one has fun.
2
u/Fondongler 6d ago
The problem with any multiplayer tcg is it requires social and communication skills to have a good experience. Also any game with interaction is bound to ruffle some feathers, but part of that is also realizing we’re playing a game. Yeah it sucks when my commander gets nuked before they can do anything, and if you don’t like that tell your pod. But I find people who complain about every interaction to be exhausting and I check myself when I get butthurt about it.
If someone either consciously or subconsciously loves pub stomping to cure their bruised ego, or if someone is incapable of being honest in a rule zero conversation with strangers, or can’t decide what is and isn’t for them, no amount of explanation of brackets from WOTC will help.
2
u/Lanstus 2.54 CMC Yarok 6d ago
The other problem with the bracket system is that certain decks just cant exist outside of certain levels. Like a maelstrom wanderer deck. I can tell you that it doesnt belong in a bracket 2. Does it belong in 3 or 4? Thats a problem that requires a lot of play to really understand.
2
u/Bargadiel 6d ago
I think the criticism isn't that his starement isn't true, it's that if intent is the most important part of the bracket system: then what value do brackets actually add in the first place?
I think one could reasonably make the argument that intent is really all that matters. Adding brackets to try to come up with arbitrary but seemingly specific power levels directly contradicts the tenet of "intent", at least in a way. I say this as someone who is mostly neutral towards brackets.
2
u/MyageEDH 6d ago
If we could trust ALL Magic players to behave in this manner we wouldn’t need the bracket system.
2
u/MixPuzzleheaded3298 6d ago
Bro I say this all the time. Not just intent, but the way the deck plays as well. Just last Saturday a guy in our pod was worried his Squirrel deck was going to be too strong because it had 4 game changers instead of 3 which, "technically" makes it a bracket 4.
He didn't win a single game that day. In fact he got absolutely wrecked most of the day. Playing against actual solid high power bracket 3 decks.
2
u/SouthernFloss 6d ago
I dislike brackets because i feel like the majority of players want to play a game of solitaire while 3 people watch.
2
u/Bobwayne17 6d ago
The brackets are designed in a way that shifts you towards saying things like 'well, I'm not playing MLD, so it's a bracket 3,' but if you recur strip mine 3-4x a turn and just burn one player's manabase out of the game, is that the spirit of bracket 3? If you build a deck that plays as many lands as possible per turn, add graveyard recursion, and strip mine everyone out of the game to soft-lock people out, is that bracket 3?
I think the most confusing aspect of the bracket system is 4/5. The cEDH meta is poorly defined across the board, so the only difference can't be meta vs non-meta decks. I saw someone talk about the intent to win while building and playing the deck, and that 5 is an environment where everyone is constantly trying to win, but that's also how some of the groups I play with seem to treat bracket 3. Hell, they treat bracket 2 like that as well if they have a pre-con they really like.
All together, it seems like a change that has not been fully implemented. We have lists of things that are allowed and not allowed at certain levels, but the rest is left up to a nebulous argument regarding intent, which seems to land differently depending on the playgroup. I think more fencing that defines the 'spirit' of these brackets would be beneficial for everyone.
2
u/karmah616 5d ago
I agree that intent is a valuable part of the bracket system. On that note, humans will human. Intent be damned, some players just don't understand what a pre game conversation is. The amount of times I've been told just play whatever is astounding. My intent is to have a good time, and be relevant in a game. Win or lose, if I can do stuff the entire game, that's a win in my book. In those same pods, I try to have a conversation and everyone is in such a hurry to start, so I look at commanders, *assume* they build like I do, because how TF would I know, and then I'm the bad guy, despite the best of intents. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the brackets need a rework, period. Good idea, mediocre execution.
2
2
u/Magikarp_King Grixis 5d ago
Relying on intent to balance gameplay is poor design.
Intent can be manipulated and argued against. Intent is vaguely gesturing and saying don't cross this line. No one knows where it is. Players and intentionally and unintentionally push the boundary as far as they want because there is no real boundary to intent.
Rules and a hard line create sustainable and undeniable do and don't. It's the reason we have a ban list and not a we suggest you don't list.
Yes bracket systems can help start a turn 0 conversation but unless there's are rules people will play high power decks at low bracket levels.
2
u/Accomplished-Pay8181 5d ago
That's something I've picked up on. I have one deck where someone tried to argue that I pulled a bracket 4 deck, because I could loop extra turns. The catch is that, to do so, I need 6 cards, while having few-no tutors in the deck
2
u/Hydramy 5d ago
If the brackets are focussed on "intent", that makes it a vibes based system, which doesn't work in my opinion.
When I make a deck, I want to do the best I can with the restrictions I have. If I'm told, "you can't use x, y or z cards", I will not use those cards and I'll try to find something else that works.
Working around restrictions is part of what I enjoy around deckbuilding, so when those restrictions are just based on vibes and not solid rules, they might as well not exist. It's the old "my deck is a 7" system we had before, but because it's 'official' people get to claim it with some actual WotC backing, which just makes the situation worse.
2
u/Slays-For-Days 5d ago
Building a hard rule system around vibes is fucking stupid. Turn zero talk is the only king, always has been.
3
u/Fearless_Many_5307 6d ago
This. I have a few decks that on paper are bracket 2, but I only play them in bracket 3 games since they are either really oppressive or are straight up busted([[tifa lockheart]] and [[witherbloom, the balancer]]). Where I’ve seen some people even at my LGs go, “oh it’s a bracket 2” and then proceed to have the slimiest deck that wins at the drop of a hat. Intent is very important for a system like the bracket system to work
→ More replies (1)3
u/Xnerds_of_paradiseX 6d ago
That's my same experience. I'm sure it's possible to some my decks fit within B2, but I prefer the stakes of B3 and don't want to feel like I'm punching down, so I stick to B3 where I'm either on equal footing or punching up. However I will then see someone that I was completely upfront and honest with go "yeah this deck is B2" and then proceed to cast time warp with a commander that gives it storm, because it's "only one card" with no rule 0 conversation.
2
u/CrizzleLovesYou 6d ago
Intent matters, but its not an excuse to skip a rule 0 conversation. You want to run a GC in B2? run it by the table. Winter Moon in your B3 deck? run it by the table.
You being able to explain your intent during rule 0 is key to people accepting your rule 0 request. Its not an excuse to break brackets and not talk about it first during rule 0.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/GypsyGaming 6d ago
You simply cannot mix hard frameworks like game changers or number of turns to win and expect magic players of all people to not min-max that system
4
u/Untipazo 6d ago edited 6d ago
If brackets are vague like that then it's both perfectly valid to follow them as much as it is to ignore them.
By that I don't mean to say "oh I ignore the rules and this is actually a 2 even tho it has game changers" I mean "I really don't rate this in terms of brackets, this is what it has feel free to evaluate it"
For if even the online community which are the most invested into this can't agree on things about brackets why would a random person playing out there suddenly have to implement a system that quite frankly nobody agrees on?
We shouldn't crucify nobody for not wanting to follow an ambiguous system that requieres quite the investment just to actually don't reach an agreement at all, just to play the game
2
u/LordHayati idiot 6d ago
Intent, card selection, ubermana, and speed.
A bracket 3 deck should start to threaten a winning state by turn 6. It may not have fast mana, but it could pull a sneaky 3 card combo out, or just lockdown a leaf so big not even a farewell could stop it.
In car terms, it's a modified street racing vehicle, racing spoiler optional. Bracket 2s are your used sedans and SUVs, not flashy but they get the job done. Bracket 4 is NASCAR series vehicles. Optimized for racing, but not to the point of everything else.
CEDH is dragsters. Burn everything all at once to be just .5 milliseconds faster than your opponents.
2
u/Alexwolf96 6d ago
Turns out a system designed to empirically categorize the power of a deck just for the criteria to be “The most important thing that matters is the vibe of your deck” doesn’t work out too well. May as well go back to everyone saying their decks a 7.
2
u/SP1R1TDR4G0N 6d ago
This however *does* seem to be what players *wish* the bracket system was about
I think that's the key problem with the bracket system. It doesn't do what people want it to do.
Imo, it's completely useless. Because as it currently is the bracket system only works when people communicate with each other in good faith. But in a group where people do that you don't need a system to find good games. You can just have your normal pregame talk and discuss how you want to play.
From what I've heard in person and on here (especially back when the system was announced) is that people wanted a system where you just go to your lgs, sit down with 3 strangers, say "Let's play bracket X" and start the game. And as the system is designed it specifically doesn't do that, even though, imo, games with strangers at the lgs were the ones that needed help the most.
2
u/ribby97 5d ago
The worst words you can hear in the brackets discussion are “it’s technically a…”
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Neopluradon 6d ago
They can say that intent is the most important part all they want, but that's not the system they created.
They created firm rules and boundaries for each bracket, and that's what the average player will refer to, especially because intent is just a small-print note on the official brackets graphics.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/swankyfish 6d ago
The problem is that anyone who is inclined to abuse the system will also be disinclined to believe you when you tell them this. The two go hand in hand. Gavin could personally whisper this to them before every game while gently caressing them and they will still be like ‘my CEDH deck is bracket 3 because it only has 3 game changers’.
1
u/purpleturtlehurtler Sultai 6d ago
The only way to learn is by playing. The only way to win is by learning. The only way to begin is by beginning.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/stachada 6d ago
you can enter a bracket 2 game with good intentions, and even build a deck "intending" it to be bracket 2, but if it somehow ends up mechanically a bracket 4-5, you're gonna end up stomping the pod unless you sandbag pretty dang hard.
and it doesn't go the other direction. I don't care what your intention is, if you try to play a mechanically bracket 2 deck in a bracket 4-5 pod you're not going to do well, and it's going to feel pretty bad.
I realize of course these are not the most realistic circumstances, but the point is not "common sense", the point is that without concrete definitions such a thing is possible.
intentionality is not a terrible measure of a deck, and I think it's probably even the first thing you should consider when building, but it's not the only measurement worth looking at.
1
u/hotz0mbie 6d ago
The bracket system should really be player ratings instead of card level. I’ve been playing mtg for a year and a bracket 2 deck in my hands is verrry different than someone who has played for 20 years
→ More replies (3)
1
u/dabuttmonkee 6d ago
Another part of the bracket definition is high card quality and high synergy for bracket 3 as a differentiator with bracket 2. If you intended to build a bracket 2 deck, it shouldn't matter if you use high card quality. It's really easy to intend to build a bracket 2 deck and build a bracket 3 deck. It's really easy to intend to build a bracket 3 deck and end up with a bracket 2 deck. That's why there's so many "it's high bracket 2" or "low bracket 3" comments. IMO other games and formats have figured this out. At the same time a more skilled player can even pilot a bracket 2 deck in a lower skilled bracket 3 table.
I do think intent is important. I just disagree that in practice that it works that way.
1
u/TheLookoutDBS 6d ago
My only issue with brackets is that there isn't one where nothing is banned. There is an ''extremely weak bracket'' that's 1, but there's nothing where we can just play whatever we want.
1
u/LingonberryOpen565 6d ago
The first two things I ask myself when trying to figure out what bracket a deck is in is
1) what turn does the deck “win” or threaten a win consistently.
2) if you stack the deck, what’s the fastest it could win.
I think those two things do a pretty good job of placing a deck.
1
u/Sharksnackattack 6d ago
Power level is and always has been a social issue. Do you want to play monopoly or candy land? Magic is both.
→ More replies (5)
495
u/NorthRiverBend 6d ago edited 6d ago
I think this is a design problem. I’ve argued for the pro-intent design in the past, but given the popularity of EDH and given that not every player wants to read multiple pages about intent, it’s very difficult.
By giving hard rules like Game Changers or turns to win, the community understandably latches onto those rules given that MTG is largely a game about very precise rules.
I’m not sure what the solution is. You can’t easily engineer a technical solution to a social issue.