I think this is a good start, and probably more manageable than tying certain cards to certain brackets which I think was the original goal. That said, I wish the game changers list cast a little...
I think this is a good start, and probably more manageable than tying certain cards to certain brackets which I think was the original goal.
That said, I wish the game changers list cast a little bit wider of a net. Also, I think they should have just left cedh out of the bracket system as it doesn't really need one and had high power at five and a slightly more powerful bracket at four instead of a wide open one.
I agree that this is much better than having specific cards in specific brackets. I also think that the article has a pretty good breakdown of why each of these cards are on the list, which I...
I agree that this is much better than having specific cards in specific brackets. I also think that the article has a pretty good breakdown of why each of these cards are on the list, which I thought was important to include. I hope that they keep some kind of central repository for the reasoning for each of these, which kind of shows the sorts of cards that are going to be going onto this list.
I thought the integration with Moxfield was pretty good right out of the gate; it seems like they did a lot of work with deckbuilding sites to ensure that some of the deck tagging and understanding tools were available.
Yea I was presently surprised that Moxfield already had brackets up. I was also surprised how I had no decks above a three but I tend to play synergy over good stuff in general. Do you know if...
Yea I was presently surprised that Moxfield already had brackets up. I was also surprised how I had no decks above a three but I tend to play synergy over good stuff in general. Do you know if it's just looking at game changers or is it also evaluating the "few tutors" and "no 2 card infinites" criteria?
I do worry people will lean too hard on what their deck says on a deck building site though. I'm especially worried about the 2 bracket -- it's where new players will live and it's not very hard to build a deck that vastly out powers a precon while avoiding any game changers. Hopefully more experienced players understand that just because it says it's a 2 it has no business at a 2 table. For example this list could probably win every game at a precon table.
There's actually a fair bit of analysis going on. If you hover over the tag, Moxfield gives a rundown on why they have put it at that level. I think one of the things that has gotten lost in a lot...
There's actually a fair bit of analysis going on. If you hover over the tag, Moxfield gives a rundown on why they have put it at that level.
I think one of the things that has gotten lost in a lot of the print materials, but which was very much a focus of the announcement on stream, was that a deck like the one you have shown is really a 3 or 4, not a 2. Computers won't be able to fully assess and judge decks.
Edit: I think that your Sunforger deck is a good example of how the analysis is good up to a point, but that human interaction is needed. If I recall correctly, the idea is to use Sunforger to recur Chance for Glory, or at least that's one of the paths to victory you can present. The analysis of the deck shows it as a 3 (and if you hover, it highlights all the cards for a variety of rules, not just the game changers), but I think it's very clearly a 4; it's quite optimized to do the thing, and I think it will do what it's supposed to in a lot of games because of how the deck is optimized.
And just to look at things the other way, here's Eternal Dominion which gets classified as a 4, but plays like a 2, because the game plan is stupid.
I think both of these decks highlight flaws in the system, but if people work together they can probably figure out how to shore up gaps.
Yea I fully agree, there is no system that will perfectly group people, it's just too complex and expectations can differ wildly. Which is why I hope we continue to beat people over the head with...
Computers won't be able to fully assess and judge decks.
Yea I fully agree, there is no system that will perfectly group people, it's just too complex and expectations can differ wildly. Which is why I hope we continue to beat people over the head with this -- one of the only strengths of the old system was it was so subjective there were no tools to assist -- everyone had to self evaluate. Of course, results were not great but at least people had to look at their list and think for one second. I worry that players will rely too heavily on the label now that it exists, especially as we move on from the announcement date and people aren't familiar with the disclaimers. Maybe that's something the deck building websites can adopt, changing the nomenclature to suggested bracket with a disclaimer or something.
I think that your Sunforger deck is a good example of how the analysis is good up to a point, but that human interaction is needed. If I recall correctly, the idea is to use Sunforger to recur Chance for Glory, or at least that's one of the paths to victory you can present. The analysis of the deck shows it as a 3 (and if you hover, it highlights all the cards for a variety of rules, not just the game changers), but I think it's very clearly a 4; it's quite optimized to do the thing, and I think it will do what it's supposed to in a lot of games because of how the deck is optimized.
That's actually an interesting example, and yes, your memory is correct. It can currently win on turn 6 or 7 somewhat reliably, which is probably a turn or two too fast for a bracket 3 infinite combo. However, the combo itself has a lot of pieces and can be pretty telegraphed -- I don't think it would survive in a no holds high power bracket where I'm guessing you'd see a lot of really strong commanders paired with really strong cards. I'll probably look at toning it down a bit to keep it in bracket 3, but I wish there was another bracket in between what is currently 3 and 4.
I think both of these decks highlight flaws in the system, but if people work together they can probably figure out how to shore up gaps.
I hope this is the case as well. Overall, I do think this is an improvement.
I have seen a lot of people talk about "the old system" but I think it's important to note that I'm pretty sure this is the first and only system that has actually been applied from the rules...
I have seen a lot of people talk about "the old system" but I think it's important to note that I'm pretty sure this is the first and only system that has actually been applied from the rules committee. I think there are better methods of analyzing decks available out there; generally if anyone has spent time at a game store that encourages "rule 0" conversations, then that is a better system than this, and this should be used only as a part of those other conversations.
The strength of this system is that it is "official" in that it's something that WotC / the actual rules committee are putting out as a way to discuss deck levels.
My guess is within like 6 months there will be more. I think generally there's been a generally mild positive reception because it's conservative to start; it should make the important, major...
That said, I wish the game changers list cast a little bit wider of a net.
My guess is within like 6 months there will be more. I think generally there's been a generally mild positive reception because it's conservative to start; it should make the important, major adjustments fairly quick and obvious as frequent complaints bubble to the top.
Also, I think they should have just left cedh out of the bracket system as it doesn't really need one and had high power at five and a slightly more powerful bracket at four instead of a wide open one.
I'm sorry if I'm parsing that wrong, but if the differences between 1/2 and 4/5 are pretty vibes based I'd say it's important to delineate rules-free casual and full-crunchy tryhard to help people moderate themselves over whether a play pattern / card / combo is appropriate for a friendly table. It also leaves space to make changes to the two environments separately down the line.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here, so I'll try and explain my point better. I think keeping the casual side and the optimized side separate is a good idea, but right now the gap between...
I'm sorry if I'm parsing that wrong, but if the differences between 1/2 and 4/5 are pretty vibes based I'd say it's important to delineate rules-free casual and full-crunchy tryhard to help people moderate themselves over whether a play pattern / card / combo is appropriate for a friendly table. It also leaves space to make changes to the two environments separately down the line.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here, so I'll try and explain my point better. I think keeping the casual side and the optimized side separate is a good idea, but right now the gap between 3 and 4 is quite large. I would have preferred them just to demarcate CEDH as outside of the bracket system and use bracket 4 and 5 to have something in between 'upgraded' and 'optimized'. I like to play optimized decks but I also don't want to really high powered (non-CEDH) commanders all the time either.
I 100% agree with this. A lot of my decks are in bracket 4, but can't actually hang out against tightly optimized high power EDH decks. I'm left with either depowering them by taking decks that...
I 100% agree with this. A lot of my decks are in bracket 4, but can't actually hang out against tightly optimized high power EDH decks. I'm left with either depowering them by taking decks that already aren't good enough and making them worse, playing them only against friends, or actually trying to power them up, despite the fact that that's not really what I want to do.
I think cEDH should just exist outside of this scale, and there should be another bracket.
Ugh, I am so annoyed that they published an infographic about the levels and left out the > super important < info from the text about when decks usually aim to win - something like turn 9+ for...
Ugh, I am so annoyed that they published an infographic about the levels and left out the > super important < info from the text about when decks usually aim to win - something like turn 9+ for bracket 2, turn 7+ for bracket 3, faster than that for bracket 4, never-ish for bracket 1.
Now the entire Internet is full of idiots talking about how their Magda cEDH list with a few swaps is a "bracket 1" because they clearly have not read the descriptions beyond the image and haven't actually engaged with the system in the slightest... No, your instant speed turn 3 win is not bracket 1 just because it's a dwarves in cars theme with no game changers, ugh.
Overall though, I like it. With the info on turns included, I think it's a good starting point for rule 0 conversations; and while we could argue that it doesn't need brackets 1 and 5, I can understand why they are included. The only thing I would like is for them to specify if the two card infinites include the commander (is niv/curiosity included? Feels like a one card combo to me, way more of a problem than for example sanguine bond / exquisite blood ) and to specify if it includes things that aren't infinite, but win the game using two cards (thoracle consult, actually niv/curiosity, Malcolm Glinthorn, etc). I think they should be, but I'd like that to be reflected in the graphic because that's apparently all anyone looks at. Also maybe include what an early two card combo is... Is that based on total mana values?
My decks seem to be one 2, three 3s and one 4, and that sounds about right to me.
Other than the list of game changers, I'm not sure how this is significantly different than the previous system of "my deck is a 7". It's slightly more formalized, but probably 90% of decks are a...
Other than the list of game changers, I'm not sure how this is significantly different than the previous system of "my deck is a 7". It's slightly more formalized, but probably 90% of decks are a 3 or a 4, and this still doesn't solve the problem of comparing power (or salt) levels.
I'm sure over time this will get better, and maybe they'll include a new tier between 3 and 4, but so far, it doesn't seem like it's going to simplify any pregame conversations.
I think the main thing is that there was no official "my deck is a 7" - everyone was using non standardized ways to rank decks. This is an actual standard, put out from the actual rules committee....
I think the main thing is that there was no official "my deck is a 7" - everyone was using non standardized ways to rank decks. This is an actual standard, put out from the actual rules committee. It gives some legitimacy to actually doing pre-game chats, which are still frowned upon in some spots, where people will refuse. Now at least there's an official ranking system where you can say "no 4s or 5s in this group" and if people don't abide by that, there's some smattering of officialness to it, with some concrete things you can reference.
I think there are wild limitations and there are a number of things that bother me about the system, but I think it's actually a good starter as far as official tools go.
Yea one thing people don't realize is that the old 1-10 scale was not something from the rules committee and it had several competing interpretations on what each rank actually meant. At least now...
Yea one thing people don't realize is that the old 1-10 scale was not something from the rules committee and it had several competing interpretations on what each rank actually meant. At least now we can all use the same scale.
I think with some tweaks it will be an improvement on what came before. It's actually quite similar to the brackets PlayEDH uses, which I have found to be pretty enjoyable although mid power games there fire way more often than anything else so some additional granularity would be nice.
If I had to venture a guess as to why one and not the other, it's that a 1/1 creature has a lot more vulnerabilities than an enchantment. It also triggers a lot less frequently: a max of once per...
If I had to venture a guess as to why one and not the other, it's that a 1/1 creature has a lot more vulnerabilities than an enchantment. It also triggers a lot less frequently: a max of once per turn per player, and only on non-creature spells, whereas Rhystic study is just happening constantly.
Distraction Makers did a critical examination of the bracket system from a game designer perspective that I think people here would be interested in checking out. I think they make some fair and...
Distraction Makers did a critical examination of the bracket system from a game designer perspective that I think people here would be interested in checking out. I think they make some fair and reasonable points. I do agree that in combination with what seems like total buy-in from deck building websites that maybe a point system would have been worth exploring?
I think this is a good start, and probably more manageable than tying certain cards to certain brackets which I think was the original goal.
That said, I wish the game changers list cast a little bit wider of a net. Also, I think they should have just left cedh out of the bracket system as it doesn't really need one and had high power at five and a slightly more powerful bracket at four instead of a wide open one.
I agree that this is much better than having specific cards in specific brackets. I also think that the article has a pretty good breakdown of why each of these cards are on the list, which I thought was important to include. I hope that they keep some kind of central repository for the reasoning for each of these, which kind of shows the sorts of cards that are going to be going onto this list.
I thought the integration with Moxfield was pretty good right out of the gate; it seems like they did a lot of work with deckbuilding sites to ensure that some of the deck tagging and understanding tools were available.
Yea I was presently surprised that Moxfield already had brackets up. I was also surprised how I had no decks above a three but I tend to play synergy over good stuff in general. Do you know if it's just looking at game changers or is it also evaluating the "few tutors" and "no 2 card infinites" criteria?
I do worry people will lean too hard on what their deck says on a deck building site though. I'm especially worried about the 2 bracket -- it's where new players will live and it's not very hard to build a deck that vastly out powers a precon while avoiding any game changers. Hopefully more experienced players understand that just because it says it's a 2 it has no business at a 2 table. For example this list could probably win every game at a precon table.
There's actually a fair bit of analysis going on. If you hover over the tag, Moxfield gives a rundown on why they have put it at that level.
I think one of the things that has gotten lost in a lot of the print materials, but which was very much a focus of the announcement on stream, was that a deck like the one you have shown is really a 3 or 4, not a 2. Computers won't be able to fully assess and judge decks.
Edit: I think that your Sunforger deck is a good example of how the analysis is good up to a point, but that human interaction is needed. If I recall correctly, the idea is to use Sunforger to recur Chance for Glory, or at least that's one of the paths to victory you can present. The analysis of the deck shows it as a 3 (and if you hover, it highlights all the cards for a variety of rules, not just the game changers), but I think it's very clearly a 4; it's quite optimized to do the thing, and I think it will do what it's supposed to in a lot of games because of how the deck is optimized.
And just to look at things the other way, here's Eternal Dominion which gets classified as a 4, but plays like a 2, because the game plan is stupid.
I think both of these decks highlight flaws in the system, but if people work together they can probably figure out how to shore up gaps.
Yea I fully agree, there is no system that will perfectly group people, it's just too complex and expectations can differ wildly. Which is why I hope we continue to beat people over the head with this -- one of the only strengths of the old system was it was so subjective there were no tools to assist -- everyone had to self evaluate. Of course, results were not great but at least people had to look at their list and think for one second. I worry that players will rely too heavily on the label now that it exists, especially as we move on from the announcement date and people aren't familiar with the disclaimers. Maybe that's something the deck building websites can adopt, changing the nomenclature to suggested bracket with a disclaimer or something.
That's actually an interesting example, and yes, your memory is correct. It can currently win on turn 6 or 7 somewhat reliably, which is probably a turn or two too fast for a bracket 3 infinite combo. However, the combo itself has a lot of pieces and can be pretty telegraphed -- I don't think it would survive in a no holds high power bracket where I'm guessing you'd see a lot of really strong commanders paired with really strong cards. I'll probably look at toning it down a bit to keep it in bracket 3, but I wish there was another bracket in between what is currently 3 and 4.
I hope this is the case as well. Overall, I do think this is an improvement.
I have seen a lot of people talk about "the old system" but I think it's important to note that I'm pretty sure this is the first and only system that has actually been applied from the rules committee. I think there are better methods of analyzing decks available out there; generally if anyone has spent time at a game store that encourages "rule 0" conversations, then that is a better system than this, and this should be used only as a part of those other conversations.
The strength of this system is that it is "official" in that it's something that WotC / the actual rules committee are putting out as a way to discuss deck levels.
My guess is within like 6 months there will be more. I think generally there's been a generally mild positive reception because it's conservative to start; it should make the important, major adjustments fairly quick and obvious as frequent complaints bubble to the top.
I'm sorry if I'm parsing that wrong, but if the differences between 1/2 and 4/5 are pretty vibes based I'd say it's important to delineate rules-free casual and full-crunchy tryhard to help people moderate themselves over whether a play pattern / card / combo is appropriate for a friendly table. It also leaves space to make changes to the two environments separately down the line.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here, so I'll try and explain my point better. I think keeping the casual side and the optimized side separate is a good idea, but right now the gap between 3 and 4 is quite large. I would have preferred them just to demarcate CEDH as outside of the bracket system and use bracket 4 and 5 to have something in between 'upgraded' and 'optimized'. I like to play optimized decks but I also don't want to really high powered (non-CEDH) commanders all the time either.
I 100% agree with this. A lot of my decks are in bracket 4, but can't actually hang out against tightly optimized high power EDH decks. I'm left with either depowering them by taking decks that already aren't good enough and making them worse, playing them only against friends, or actually trying to power them up, despite the fact that that's not really what I want to do.
I think cEDH should just exist outside of this scale, and there should be another bracket.
Ugh, I am so annoyed that they published an infographic about the levels and left out the > super important < info from the text about when decks usually aim to win - something like turn 9+ for bracket 2, turn 7+ for bracket 3, faster than that for bracket 4, never-ish for bracket 1.
Now the entire Internet is full of idiots talking about how their Magda cEDH list with a few swaps is a "bracket 1" because they clearly have not read the descriptions beyond the image and haven't actually engaged with the system in the slightest... No, your instant speed turn 3 win is not bracket 1 just because it's a dwarves in cars theme with no game changers, ugh.
Overall though, I like it. With the info on turns included, I think it's a good starting point for rule 0 conversations; and while we could argue that it doesn't need brackets 1 and 5, I can understand why they are included. The only thing I would like is for them to specify if the two card infinites include the commander (is niv/curiosity included? Feels like a one card combo to me, way more of a problem than for example sanguine bond / exquisite blood ) and to specify if it includes things that aren't infinite, but win the game using two cards (thoracle consult, actually niv/curiosity, Malcolm Glinthorn, etc). I think they should be, but I'd like that to be reflected in the graphic because that's apparently all anyone looks at. Also maybe include what an early two card combo is... Is that based on total mana values?
My decks seem to be one 2, three 3s and one 4, and that sounds about right to me.
Other than the list of game changers, I'm not sure how this is significantly different than the previous system of "my deck is a 7". It's slightly more formalized, but probably 90% of decks are a 3 or a 4, and this still doesn't solve the problem of comparing power (or salt) levels.
I'm sure over time this will get better, and maybe they'll include a new tier between 3 and 4, but so far, it doesn't seem like it's going to simplify any pregame conversations.
I think the main thing is that there was no official "my deck is a 7" - everyone was using non standardized ways to rank decks. This is an actual standard, put out from the actual rules committee. It gives some legitimacy to actually doing pre-game chats, which are still frowned upon in some spots, where people will refuse. Now at least there's an official ranking system where you can say "no 4s or 5s in this group" and if people don't abide by that, there's some smattering of officialness to it, with some concrete things you can reference.
I think there are wild limitations and there are a number of things that bother me about the system, but I think it's actually a good starter as far as official tools go.
Yea one thing people don't realize is that the old 1-10 scale was not something from the rules committee and it had several competing interpretations on what each rank actually meant. At least now we can all use the same scale.
I think with some tweaks it will be an improvement on what came before. It's actually quite similar to the brackets PlayEDH uses, which I have found to be pretty enjoyable although mid power games there fire way more often than anything else so some additional granularity would be nice.
Not surprised Rhystic Study is in the game changers, but I was kind of hoping Esper Sentinel would be as well. I hate that card so much.
If I had to venture a guess as to why one and not the other, it's that a 1/1 creature has a lot more vulnerabilities than an enchantment. It also triggers a lot less frequently: a max of once per turn per player, and only on non-creature spells, whereas Rhystic study is just happening constantly.
Distraction Makers did a critical examination of the bracket system from a game designer perspective that I think people here would be interested in checking out. I think they make some fair and reasonable points. I do agree that in combination with what seems like total buy-in from deck building websites that maybe a point system would have been worth exploring?