Bracket System Concerns and Commander's Future under WotC

[@tsucube4377]

17:43 Want another fun game? look up Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'm doing that right now

[@RedBobcatGames]

HA! THAT'S FANTASTIC! Oh good spot, that's amazing stuff. Excellent!

[@Ornithopter470]

Ahh sarkhan, selfless cathar.

[@Nerdality_Florian]

Sarkhan's Scorn also doesn't show up

[@gabrote42]

3R Legendary Planeswalker - Sarkhan Card Text: +1: Dragon cards in your hand perpetually gain "This spell costs 1 less to cast", and "You may pay Variable Colorless rather than pay this spell's mana cost, where X is its mana value." 0: Conjure a card named Shivan Dragon into your hand. −2: Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv deals 3 damage to target creature.

[@EndlessZeroSoulX]

I appreciate that when you're talking about what others said in videos you provide a timestamp, feels like a proper way to cite a youtube video

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you. I try to do things what I feel to be right as often as I can

[@AstridCeleste96]

It's just tragic that when disputing capitalism, inconsistencies don't matter to them because, hey, what's that over there! A new announcement! Get your wallets kiddos

[@rickdeckard8002]

"My deck is a 2" is going to become the new "my deck is a 7"

[@SoftwareNeos]

i dont think so. If you say 2... you know what people mean. You can look at the list and just know certain cards that are legal vs not. if you dont wanna play against 3 cards. BEFORE YOU GO TO LOCALS... just change your deck.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well, yes in theory. But in practice what even is a 2 if it can have Ancient Tomb in it? I think we're going to see more "My deck is philosophically a 2" at which point we're back to "A 7 in my playgroup is different from a 7 in your playgroup"

[@bryceduyvewaardt8136]

With decks being shuffled randomly, I guess that all the other level 2 decks are okay until a level 2 card is cast way sooner than expected thanks to the boost from Ancient Tomb for example. I’m fine with a classic Colossal Dreadmaw attacking me on turn 5 or 4 after an opponent ramped, but on turn 3 or 2 somehow I’ll feel quite differently about it if everyone agreed to a casual game beforehand and it turns out that things escalated quickly thanks to a randomly strong card thrown in the mix. Does that make sense?

[@matd2892]

​@@RedBobcatGames the difference is now you have to announce the outliers and the table has to opt in. Instead of everyone saying mid power and someone getting salty because a card they consider high power hits the table. Now there is a base line for where cards will be. Agree or disagree with placement, there is now a standard placement. It will likely lead to less salty moments from unclear expectations from rule zero chats.

[@thomaspetrucka]

@@matd2892 My thoughts exactly.

[@GuyFromCanada]

5:19 The way WoTC wants to do this system eerily reminds me of how Pokémon showdown/Smogon singles does it’s tiers. Extremely lengthy explanation, so beware. The TL;DR is the meta games are made up of different tiers, and are separate from one another, the highest tier allowing most Pokémon, and lower tiers banning Pokémon that are used in higher tiers. You have Ubers, Over Used, Under Used, Rarely Used, Never Used, Perfectly Useless, and zero use (Acronymed as OU, UU, RU, etc.). There are also other formats like Anything Goes and Little Cup, but it’s not too relevant to the discussion. For a longer description: an example is, currently Dragonite is tiered OU, while Tyranitar is considered UU. This means a team with Dragonite can only be played in OU or Ubers, while a team with Tyranitar can be played in UU, OU, and Ubers (as long as there’s no other OU or Uber Pokémon on your team). This is kinda how WoTC wants to do commander, however there are some major differences between these systems that shows why smogons system (mostly) works and why the bracket system will not. 1: The way showdown does its tiers is an active process based on usage. The theory is that the best players with use the best Pokémon, therefore if a Pokémon gets high usage, it should be in a higher tier. This is encapsulated with their monthly tier shifts, where depending on usage stats, Pokémon will move up and down tiers. Magic can’t reasonably do this, the card pool is too deep, and the data is too shallow. 2: Pokémon teams only have 6 maximum slots, not 100. This means an OU Pokémon is 17% of your total “deck” strength, instead of 1% like in magic, leading it to be overall more impactful in the wider meta. A single vampiric tutor in a precon won’t do as much damage as a Dragonite in a UU team. 3: Pokémon showdown is FREE TO PLAY, so there is no financial incentives for any party to actually engage with the game. A banned Pokémon does not have real life financial consequences, a banned magic card does. You’re not required to pay $100 for your Dragonite, unlike for dockside. 4: There are 7 different brackets in Pokémon, not 4, and they’ve been added overtime as the game has gotten more complex. Considering there’s only around 1,000 Pokémon compared to magics nearly 30,000 cards. 4 Brackets simply doesn’t feel like enough to encapsulate the entire complexity of magics card pool. 5: The tier system isn’t perfect with Pokémon either. There have been times where Pokémon who don’t belong in high tiers get bumped up because people use them and just become unusable. Likewise in the reverse, there are Pokémon who have to put into what’s called “Borderline” which means they don’t have enough usage to be in the upper tier, but are too strong for the lower tier, so they kinda just hang in limbo, and don’t have a home. (Often this creates a new tier) There is significantly more to this comparison and they are definitely not one-for-one, but it’s already long enough. The end conclusion is the bracket system is similar to tiers, but but lacks the infrastructure and structure of the game to function the way WoTC wants it to.

[@ChaffyExpert]

Another reason is that MTG is a synergy and combo based game, a good deck with junk cards could beat a bad deck with unrelated good cards and no overall strategy. I'm not sure what Pokemon is like because I've never played it, but it sounds like a game where individual card power matters way more.

[@GuyFromCanada]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@ChaffyExpert it’s important to distinguish I’m talking about the actual Pokémon games, not the card game. But yes your statement still generally applies. “Card” power is way more of a focus in singles because you have less slots, so each Pokémon needs to carry a ton of weight relative to MTG.

[@Quamosthy]

I really like that comparison, and to add to it a lot of Smogon bans take place after a suspect test, rather than just being the decision of the relevant council so people who play both with and against something problematic have at least some say in whether it stays or goes.

[@luckyowl9191]

also smogon players generally play to win, so the assumption "the best pokemon will be used the most" is an easy statement. Not so true in commander

[@meepilee7991]

I'll add 2 minor corrections (though I totally agree) 1. Pokemon has 600-700 fully evolved pokemon (I think), and maybe 800 if you count the ones that can feasibly run eviolite so the disparity between mtg and pokemon is even greater 2. The entire idea behind Smogon is that people will play the best pokemon, because they want to win, therefore playrate is a valid metric to use and is a way to remain as objective as possible. Commander metrics are ENITRELY subjective because people the point of the format is not necessarily to win. Commander as a format also encourages creativity in a way that Smogon does not.

[@johnario3156]

I love how dates went for YY.MM.DD to YY.DD.MM to MM.YY.DD and keep shifting on every iteration, nice attention to detail.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you, thank you!

[@J_Stockhausen]

Just use iso YY MM DD

[@marcoottina654]

@@J_Stockhausen as a computer scientist, it's easy to sort stuff this way!

[@PheonixRise666]

​Iso is YYYY/MM/DD

[@manjackson2772]

Dates are a solved problem, depending on who needs to read them. Human-read: DD-MMM-YYYY (eg 21-OCT-2024). Computer-read: YYYY-MM-DD.

[@PMMeCuteBugPhotos]

As someone who's working in game development, or game design specifically, the brackets presentation feels like the kind of thing you'd talk about during a meeting or talking a colleague to show you're working on it and are trying different things to see what sticks. "I've had this simple idea but it has problems" is a good starting point for poking others for ideas and establishes what's been explored already, which is exactly what you want to talk about when discussing with your other designers, but not as great as presentation for the public where they're likely to stick to all your words as something of a committment to an idea. I'm not surprised when they only have two days to throw something together they're defaulting to this. EDIT: I guess I probably should have waited until watching more to comment. Anyway I think it's a bit more evident that this is really more of a "putting what I have out there for discussion" than a proper presentation for the wider audience. I have had similar talks behind the scenes, even the best designer can sound a little lost while in the middle of the design process, it's just that what you usually end up seeing is the final product, or if you're with behind the scenes a show of progression between the different ideas. I think it really shows the thing has been thrown together VERY quickly to tell people: "Hey we're doing something with this!"

[@yurisei6732]

Absolutely. Every game design discussion I've ever had starts with something like "so here's an idea, here's a few of the limitations I've noticed, here's how I think we might want to design around them".

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah, I agree. This very much seems like a first draft, which I understand why they've shown us it, but also it doesn't change the fact that it seems like only a vauge idea at best

[@Cassapphic]

Honestly I think if there were no rules attached to it and the bracket system was just "a lot of commonly powerful cards we put into buckets so you know generally what to expect of them and to help give some universal language to ground what a 7 is" is a really good concept! But trying to wuantify it any further makes the whole system too convoluted and messy.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think if they're going to bracket the cards as strictly as they're suggesting, then they need to bracket them all. Or, leave EVERY bracket up to guidance and philosophy, instead of this half and half approach

[@BatCaveOz]

Online MTG content creators will get *a lot* of content rom this by printing list based articles, with titles such as: "Pubstomp your friends with these combos that are somehow bracket 2".

[@RedBobcatGames]

Ugggh, not for me though. No thanks

[@casmiry]

Yeah, I'm totally gonna still use Scryfall to search stuff. The +2 Mace thing should be hilarious if only I could actually find the damned card on the Gatherer lol.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Scryfall ALL the way, I love it

[@BlackQuest575]

I have spent too much time on Gatherer trying to find +2 Mace. Is it even on there?

[@davyespectador]

@@RedBobcatGames I found +2 Mace immediately when I tried, what is the problem?

[@RedBobcatGames]

@davyespectador We're talking about Gatherer

[@BlackQuest575]

@@davyespectador what did you search? I couldn't find it at all no matter what I did

[@Azeria]

if only there was an organisation that has been collecting data on how ‘salty’ each card is…

[@RedBobcatGames]

Ha! Yeah, exactly

[@stencil25]

Game Designers would rather create a whole new scoring system than just socialise

[@RedBobcatGames]

So it seems

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

As a game designer, I agree with their aproach here.

[@PhoenicopterusR]

Oh don't you worry, the players do to. It was one of the most baffling takes I saw coming from the changeover. Dude really said that he opposed the ban, but him and his league weren't going to overrule the ban locally because they didn't like too much talking before playing.

[@Drewbe821]

Honestly, no news is good news when it comes to the glut of mtg products. Silence is golden with this wagon train of endless sets.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Tell me about it! It's been mad this last month

[@dutssz]

They are wilding if they think the bracket system as they presented can replace the power level scale. My playgroup don't really have fetch lands or shock lands on their decks because, as they are great, staple cards, they are just too expensive for the value they add. However in turn this limitation makes so the mana base of our decks is just generally weaker then the ones that include it. But according to the bracket system, even the strongest dual colored lands are still bracket 1, so there's no difference between decks with every fetch and shockland and decks that run the life-gain taplands or the nap lands This system sounds more like a way for them to bring back mana crypt and jeweled lotus in a way that doesn't piss off the people who value competitive integrity over market gains

[@flyq7470]

exactly, they didn't acknowledge at all that a mana base is a big contributor to how strong a deck is. its even wilder that they didn't acknowledge that as a contributor to deck power because they already know that, Its what separates Standard and Modern (there are lands they will just never put in standard because they make mana bases too good) and the reason the Fetch Lands were auto banned in Pioneer.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean, they kind of did acknowledge it by saying Polluted Delta is going to be bracket 1. Which, honestly is kind of the worst answer haha

[@isaacsantos6200]

Fetches are so cheap though, like between $10 - $20

[@blightyfrogs]

entire pauper decks are so cheap though, like between $10- $20

[@dutssz]

@@isaacsantos6200 Probably a conversion thing, but for example the cheapest copy of Arid mesa I can get in my country's most popular site is R$100, my playgroup's decks are around R$200

[@zachall1573]

I think the Bracket system is meant to be an easier way to describe your deck. With fhe power level system, its so vaigue and undefined that most peopke jsit say "my deck is power level 7 but..." Etc etc. Saying "my deck has one bracket 3 card and about 10 bracket 2 cards is a lot easier to get a general sense of power level.

[@CraigStevenLikesStuff]

Yeah. I don't think you have to say is "my deck is a 3." I think we'll say " My commaner is X, and I have Y bracket 2 cards and Z bracket 3 cards. Everyone good?"

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd agree, but as they pointed out they're likely not going to be bracketing cards and instead just leaving it up to guidance and philosophy. Which then opens up the conversation of "Hey, I thought you said this was a 2 but you're running X & Y and they always felt like 3s to me"

[@camfunme]

@@RedBobcatGames What they said about guidance and philosophy to me sound like they're going to bracket like 2,000 of the most played cards, but if you play Titania's Song as a board wipe for artifact tokens it won't be on the list. Likely because the man-hours to categorize every card would be too expensive, or "wasteful".

[@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena]

Easier way? nah just say "My deck's a 7" like usual as everyone says their deck is a 7

[@richardharrison4762]

I have issues with ‘my deck is a 7’ stuff because when I’m playing Goldfish my decks can go crazy, but every plan fails when it encounters the enemy. I even put together a Tergrid God of Fright deck… on paper it should be devastating but in practice it’s my weakest deck because Tergrid gets countered and killed immediately

[@docopoper]

My biggest concern is that once you define concrete power levels, the system you used to define those power levels becomes part of the game to optimise. Currently the game to optimise is your friends' views about how fair / fun your deck is. If the target to optimise around becomes more systems based then the game becomes more inherently competitive, less focused on the people around you.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yes, at which point people start asking for high tier 3 and low tier 3 to be seperate brackets... and before you know it, high low tier 3 and low low tier 3 too. It won't work

[@tc5589-1]

That won’t happen. Ultimately spiky people that don’t care about their playgroup already don’t care about what the other players feel. This will make those people a little more insufferable when they’re like “no I promise every card is power level 1” but the deck will be stupid over tuned.

[@Imanmagnet00]

I for one agreed with the banlist by the RC and would HATE to see wizards go back on it. Not only because I agree with the bans due to price, power and rifts those cards cause, but in light of all the harassment and anger, it shows the format needs a sterner hand to steward it. With that said, as much as Gavin is a dear friend to members of the online community, he's still a wizards employee and his card track record, power creep ain't going away any time soon, they might whine about people rubbing Nadu in their face but until the upcoming sets reflect the lessons learned they need to be reminded why the community doesn't trust WOTC. Also screw them, Smothering tithe isn't a design mistake like Arcane Signet, it might go in any deck with white but what else does white have to actually ramp? White catches up and equalizes, which is fine but tithe is the ONE card that ramps, god forbid they give white anything while green keeps getting the whole pie.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I did actually think something similar about smothering tithe. I can see where they're coming from as it is VERY good, but also white doesn't have much else going on so, you know...

[@JimFaindel]

This bucket system mades me sad, because I recently bought a box of Dominaria remastered and pulled all of the tutors, which promptly went into all my precon and loose tribal decks I've been putting together with standard cards to teach my friends to play and every now and then I take into the LGS for a friendly game. My deck may have a vampiric tutor for bling, but its still just an honest to God mimeoplasm deck, and now I have to take out this exciting new card I was lucky enough to pull or get crushed by CEDH decks worth more than my entire collection.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, that is going to be yet another issue it seems

[@LucyBean42]

WOTC adopting Commander 13 years ago was the biggest mistake in magic history. I've been around long before commander existed and played through all the changes. As their focus on profit made them focus entirely on commander, comp play suffered. Limited suffered. Modern suffered. The idea of throwing together a jank deck with a 20 year old legendary and whatever supports it was the charm of commander. It was WOTC's equivalent of "hello, fellow teens"

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, completely agree. Well kinda, I'd say the biggest mistake was sending the pinkertons to that guy's house. But the commander thing was a close second... Magic 30 3rd?

[@collardcow4183]

I keep saying this won’t work. Every deck was a 7, now they’ll all be 3s. People like to responded with “nuh uh, the brackets are more concrete than “my deck is a 7””, but I don’t think there’s ever going to be a way that this system is implemented well enough where it’s even universally accepted. Players who just have precons or don’t pay attention to mtg drama won’t know what the heck you’re talking about when you say “hey that’s cheating, you used a bracket 4 card!”, and different decks/players with different cards can play in the same pod, regardless of brackets. I’d play my brother’s goofy deck with a Vamp tutor in it against my Goreclaw deck with no bracket 4 cards and I’d kick the snot out of his deck. It’s good that WotC is brainstorming for ideas on how to improve the format, but this one isn’t it, they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yep, I believe I agreed with every word you just said. Spot on my feelings too

[@reanamet1901]

If you haven't been hearing much about Duskmourn, I might as well say something about it: drafting it on MTGA was, and is currently, an excellent experience, even after 10+ drafts, and, while this is a matter of personal preference, I ended up largely enjoying the aesthetics of the set, save for a few select eyesores. Manifest Dread turned out out be an excellent mechanic with tons of emergent depth, and I have largely enjoyed the impact some DM cards had on the decks in my EDH playgroup. P.S.: I am a huge dog person, but crabdate > pupdate

[@RedBobcatGames]

I agree, about the Crabdate. I was just thinking of people that didn't see the last video but may watch this one. I didn't want to explain it again, and I think my dropping the word "Crabdate" without explanation at the beginning of a half hour video may have put people off haha. "Pupdate" is just a letter away from "Update" so i think new people could get it easier

[@greatbrandini3967]

Duskmourn sealed was a blast. I hadn't done a sealed since TBD, and I loved the variety of viable strategies besides just "run more creatures". I had a nice UR rooms deck that was pretty solid.

[@Veelofar]

It’s just Rule 0 removing the bottom of the 10 scale. “Everyone is a 7” isn’t true, I ran 2-4 decks all the time! My theme decks aren’t there to win, and will just sit around and do their thing until someone does anything to disrupt it and will never win unless the entire table is doing the same thing. For some of us winning isn’t the goal, it’s to assemble the entire fellowship of the ring, or it’s to get all 69 lands in the deck on the battlefield, or to make one of every artifact token I could get a hold of, or etc etc etc

[@RedBobcatGames]

Now see, I pick and choose my battles because I like to come and chat to people in the comments. SO, I didn't say this in the video but I completely agree with you. I'd say every deck I have is between 2 to 4 and nothing more powerful than that. I agree, the idea no the first few levels don't matter is just wrong, but that would have been a whole other video I suspect

[@Veelofar]

@@RedBobcatGames right? Low power Magic can be fun! Years and years ago the lgs near me made a side quest edh format with like six posted quests that changed every week, and the goal was over a week you tried to complete all the quests. My favorite I completed was “Beast’s Castle” which was “Attack with 1 of each permanent type, no doubling up” which was really fun. Before Theros, it was not easy to attack with an enchantment.

[@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena]

@@Veelofar That just sounds like you need to play D&D instead

[@Veelofar]

@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena I play ttrpgs, these don’t have anything to do with each other. It’s an alternative goal like any other. Do you tell that to people that do Nuzlocks in Pokémon?

[@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena]

@@Veelofar What you said is that your goal is not to win but to have an experience and that is the same for D&D

[@dutssz]

The brackets system sounds a lot like the Pokemon showdown rankings, which is good for me because I really like it. This concept of giving space to less popular pokemons/cards to shine without outright banning the strongest most oppressive ones Is one that my "love to craft theme decks, but understand that I'm actively making unoptimal deckbuilding decisions" loves. However it really sounds like they are strugling at that with the whole "some combos will be ranked separately from their components" and the "the strongest Dimir land, and proclaimed strongest card of the game, is somehow on the lowest bracket". The former sounds like clutter that will just overcomplicate things further and make this system impossible to maintain, and the latter defeats the whole purpose of the bracket system, with the weaker, less popular cards still being overshadowed by cards that have no buisness being in the lowest brackets

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, listening to their thoughts really underlines how what they're suggesting, in the way they're suggesting it clearly won't work

[@Ornithopter470]

The problem with the Smogon tiers is that they're based entirely on usage metrics, or power levels. Ubers are based on power, everything else is usage based. Without actual tournament data, you're going to have a bad time trying to implement it.

[@webbowser8834]

@@Ornithopter470 Yeah, usage based tiering works because Smogon has something concrete to go off of, usage data. If a pokemon is being used heavily in a tier, it must be good in that tier, period. However, you can't really get usage data for commander and even if you could, do you really want to do a usage based tier list? Like, lets say that cultivate appears in half of all green commander decks, and commander decks that have access to green make up 10% of the commander meta, meaning that cultivate would be 5% of the meta. If we assume that the current commander meta is the equivalent to Overused, aka tier 4, that would make cultivate a tier 4 card. I will readily admit I am not a heavy MTG player, but I am pretty certain that would be utter insanity and nobody is going to stand for that (I will also admit this hypothetical makes a lot of assumptions about a format I only have a very casual understanding of). However if you aren't going to do tiering based on card usage, what are you going to base these power brackets off of? Vibes? The reason why Smogon does usage based tiering is because there aren't many metrics you can actually use to describe the power level of a card/pokemon. The power bracket idea is incredibly underbaked and I don't see an obvious route they can take it without causing a lot of confusion.

[@GerBessa]

​@@RedBobcatGames The problem seems to be that Blake, Gavin and Aaron only got the cliff notes and have to guess today's UBER, OU and UU tiers without having played pokemon since RBY...

[@TheShinyFeraligatr]

Keep also in mind, this is the tier list that puts Armageddon (a powerful card that ultimately loses a lot of its bite in EDH except as a counter to specific strategies as being one of the strongest cards in the game, while I very highly doubt that all of those incredibly powerful lands will get higher than the second lowest tier at best.

[@austinaustinaustin]

this is so intrusivlely complicated. most groups I've been in do fine with a regular "low power-mid power-high power" system, and things tend to balance out when decks in the same level play against eachother. you could add cEDH do that. I think it's even pretty understandable to new players

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think how complicated it seems will put some people off playing honestly

[@austinaustinaustin]

@@RedBobcatGames I have some friends just starting with edh and I'm trying my best to keep power level talk very simple. I feel the more people get caught up in balancing power, the more people get frustrated as soon as one player in the pod gets any significant advantage

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, my play group went through a similar phase and we basically ended up making our own format from it. I need to do a video on it at some point because it's great

[@marcocamaiti212]

If they implement this, people will take it as a challenge to build competitive decks for every bracket. The problem is that, like it or hate it, commander was not supposed to be the main way that mtg is played. And you can see it in all of these problems popping up. It is by its own nature a format that cannot be regulated.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I do wish they'd stop printing cards for the format and go back to making Standard their focus. I think the game was better off for it

[@aclevername7613]

Pretty much. EDh should of been the casual off side format and they should focus mostly on cards for standard and such not making things just for commander.

[@watchm4ker]

​@@RedBobcatGames Good news. You got your wish. *They'll all be in Standard now.*

[@tc5589-1]

@@watchm4kercommander sets wearing a “swearsies realsies I’m a standard set” shirt are not doing what he wanted.

[@watchm4ker]

@@tc5589-1 Yes. That was the punchline behind my ominous tone. Should I have been more obvious by having a monkey's paw curl a finger?

[@geek2thextreme]

i like how you source your quotes, it's very principled and thought promoting

[@AkaAkoVT]

Mornin' all

[@RedBobcatGames]

Good morning!

[@marcellosalis5063]

In Old School, they have a variant called: "X points". Most relevant cards are worth some points, your deck can't have more than 10 points and things are arranged so that, for instance, you can't run all the power 9. It's a system used in other domains as well (for instance, fighting games) but I don't see how it could work with all the cards available in EDH.

[@luketfer]

Canlander (aka Canadian Highlander, which is a singleton format like Commander aka Elder Dragon Highlander) also uses the 10 point system with points assigned to cards. The reason they didn't do that is because it would be "too complicated for players".

[@BlackQuest575]

@@luketfer as if the bracket system isn't also complicated

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think as new players have to upload their decks to an online client to figure out it's bracket, we'll lose a large portion of players

[@luketfer]

@@BlackQuest575 Keep in mind this was also the idea with the RC that removed the 'banned as commander' because it was 'too complicated for players'...I swear both the RC and WotC had such a low expectation of players...

[@Crushanator1]

​@@luketferi do kind of like The Professor from Tolerian Community College's idea to basically just use the CanLander points system, and rather than have a limit just really use that so you have a rough numerical value to describe your deck. Lots of Precons and slight upgrades will end up below 10, while CDH decks would end up over 100 points.

[@ReyaadawnMTG]

I was actually flabbergasted at how unprepared they clearly were to take over the format. How could they not have foreseen this inevitably happening and have been laying groundwork months if not years ahead of time. They literally hadn't considered it until the moment it happened and I'm beyond baffled by that. Me, as some dude on the internet has a document of what I'd do Day One if I was given full control of the format. Absolutely mindblowing.

[@BlackQuest575]

can you share some of these changes you would do from the doc?

[@RedBobcatGames]

In fairness, I'd be unprepared too. BUT in my defence, I'd say the chances of commander's control being given to me are about 0%

[@ReyaadawnMTG]

@@BlackQuest575 here’s my changes. Hybrid mana works properly First player doesn’t draw Partner share a tax Partner reduces your opening hand size by one Ban rhystic Unban a dozen or so cards 7 card sideboard so wishes and such work After presenting commanders, you can SB.

[@ReyaadawnMTG]

@@RedBobcatGames I sit around and think about pretty much all the time

[@JustaSmilingHedgehog]

Tell me 10 things WotC didn't blunder in the last 10 years.

[@GerBessa]

They kept Hasbro afloat ten years in a row. They didn't blunder, but it's not a good thing either...

[@RedBobcatGames]

I REALLY liked the way Ravnica Remastered was designed I think taking a step toward printing new alt arts of Sol Ring is a win I'm glad to hear we're going back to Lorwyn I think the return to Kamigawa was a raging success I may be wrong, but I think card quality is on the uptick I forget his exact name, but I like that Zagroth Chaos Rider devil man from the Jumpstart decks Oh, I think Jumpstart was an excellent idea! I like that they reprinted Thalia, and that they gave her new art I like that they created Universes Within versions of those Walking Dead cards I like the setting of Bloomburrow This was difficult, and even some of these I would say have aspect that they bungled, but here. 10 things I can praise them for (sort of)

[@isambo400]

The limited formats have been great for a decade. Its upsetting how hard it is to play limited in paper anymore

[@CyrusdVulture]

Bloomburrow was the best set they've released in over a decade if not *ever*

[@JimFaindel]

If you want to hear about Duskmourn, let me tell you my tale. I mostly engage with this game through Arena's best of one ranked queue. 2 days after the release of the set I reached Mythic rank with a mono red aggro list that runs 17 lands, 4 leylines, and can quite often kill on turn 2. Its honestly been a blast, but I imagine it getting old for people who don't figure out how to play around that behemot of a standard deck.

[@JimFaindel]

I mean, you know a format is fast when you end up cutting monastery swiftspear from your low to the ground aggro list, as it just doesn't make the cut anymore.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Turn 2? Ooof, yeah, not for me I think. But thank you for sharing

[@dragonfeets2032]

Now that I've finished the video, I'm going to leave my thoughts on one thing... I've never had a good 1-10 scale conversation. Every single time someone asks "what's the power level?" I always say "I don't know how to answer that." then follow usually that up with "I'm going to tell you the commander and 3 or 4 words about the decks I wanna play." The best and most recent time I said this, the player WHO ASKED was stunned and said "I... don't think I even know how to answer that either." On that note, I'd like to leave a few short deck descriptions here. In my playgroups, the other players would pick which one sounds interesting and I'm happy to play it. Ashaya, Soul of the wild - Landfall Green Stompy Judith, Carnage Connoisseur - Lifegain in Rakdos The Second Doctor and Leela - Everyone's drawing cards Don Andres, the renegade - Steals your things Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar - Arby's Theme deck. Rukarumel, Biologist - Kindred Commanders, the deck. The Mindskinner - Combat damage mill

[@RedBobcatGames]

I actually really love your take on rule 0. That's great, because you're right the ranking 1-10 system is garbabe BUT the reason I say rule 0's not been unsuccessful is it still allows us to have conversations like you described. I've not seen it done like that before though. Great stuff, I may try that myself

[@RedBobcatGames]

My last deck Saryth, the Viper's Fang - Trample plus Deathtouch

[@stenstensson2610]

We should be rating players, not cards or decks. If your netdecker rating or tryhard delta is too high you go in the corner with the other clods

[@RedBobcatGames]

This would be quite funny actually. Maybe that app they're talking about should count W/L rates

[@tc5589-1]

“Cedh is a mindset not a card list” is a line that really resonated with me. Spikes will always be spikes regardless of what tools they have and what limitations you place.

[@Robotoken-299]

Blake, Gavin and Aaron said in the beginning of the video that they had no idea how the commander format should be managed which shouldn't be surprising. They have little data to go on (no, EDHREC is not dependable because they go off of decklists posted and not necessarily played unlike tournament lists) and it is about vibes. Remember, this stream was made days after WotC was given control over a format they had no wish to take over but were absolutely fine designing and selling cards for while letting another group manage it. It's not surprising that their (early) ideas are not well thought out. These are raw ideas that are coming from an unenviable position days after a debatably bad banning.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah, like I say I honestly don't know what else they could have done. Putting out that stream was probably the best choice, but they're also a megacorporation putting out a public statement, and so what they say should be analysed. Two things watching this that I found were enlightening (but didn't mention in the video), 1. at the start they made a point about how Gavin was there because the community liked him, which I think proves they knew they needed a friendly face to sell the message. And 2, it really highlighted that for all these years they've been printing cards directly into a format they don't understand. Kind of explains why so many cards are in the conversation over needing to be banned

[@PUDRETE919]

But if all you have is raw ideas, than don't but out a "concrete" statement, have the guys around a table video/podcast and let them "free flow" (obv with corporate oversight, don't want them to hurt future profit margens with what they say); but X amount of people in front of a camera, let them prate around for 45min and upload that, it creates space to syphon ideas of the community and let your future process be influenced, while not pigeonholing yourself and after taking some time to formulate ideas and trying to pick them apart, present them to the public with some conflidence, instead of the semi-stance they are taking rn, people are already insecure in them taking over and them babbling AND presenting less than half-baked ideas, is not helping that, for me it makes it so so much worse; honestly said, I would have preferred the RC communicating that because of the abuse received they are considering handing over the format to WotC, I believe it would have floored a whole bunch of people right quick, no we are in the malarkey

[@Robotoken-299]

@@RedBobcatGames Having Gavin on the stream is not just having a friendly face for reassurances from the public, he also has had a hand in designing commander product over the years. Commander 2017 and a watered down version of his personal deck that was sold as a Secret Lair come to mind. He has even discussed commander design over the years with Melissa DeTora who I believe is the head of commander design today over on his KZbin channel. Having someone in the creative process of these products is only natural.

[@leadpaintchips9461]

Also to add onto it is that they don't have data because the former organization 'managing' the format specifically didn't gather data on it and was going off of vibes too.

[@plastefuchs666]

@@leadpaintchips9461 the thing is, how do you gather data that you can rely on, without people skewing the reported data to their liking?

[@Cookiedive]

I like all the Red Bobcat's videos

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you very much!

[@KoyoteDawn]

Thank you for being so thorough in your presentation, including to quote directly from the source of WotC community statements. It's really needed to help promote better dialogues about the issues the community at large has been vocal about.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well thank you, and yeah like I said toward the end of the video I'd still advise people to go and watch the original than take my word for it (body language and tone mean a lot) but I do try my best

[@sethrose9534]

After years of separating friends with technology and only talking to your family in text and Facebook reactions we now want you to work on your communication skills - "WoTC"

[@brunop.8745]

I mean that wasn't really their doing that's just society right now

[@RedBobcatGames]

@brunop.8745 True, but WotC certainly lean into it. The lack of physical how-to guide for instance is an example, and I think even a lot of their recent card designs betray a "digital first" mind set

[@brunop.8745]

@@RedBobcatGames you got a point there

[@ZillahEnoch]

What I think will happen if they go forth with their bracket system is that instead of having a format awkwardly shared between casual and competitive players with radically different goals as to why they are playing, you will have 4 different formats awkwardly shared by those same players. There will be tiers of meta cEDH decks for each of the 4 brackets, and the problems will be the same only multiplied by 4. It won't be that bracket 2 is the new "my deck is a 7", more that "this is my deck that is a 7 at bracket 1, and this one is a 7 at bracket 2, and so on for brackets 3 and 4" As you pointed out, it's a social problem, not a card problem. No amount of banning will make a format mandatory fun.

[@RedBobcatGames]

No, and I think the format branching into multiple formats is almost inevitable by the point

[@ZillahEnoch]

@@RedBobcatGames I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me. My point is that whatever formats you split into, you won't be able to make it a "casual", a "semi-casual" and a "competitive" formats. Each of the formats you split into will contain all of these demographics. Making a format weaker does not make it more casual, it just changes the meta.

[@alexandrbatora9674]

I think you are right. I can build an absolute smasher of a deck for my group with only 50 bucks of budget and made of the most crappy cards possible. I'm pretty sure my buddy would LOVE to play his enchantress deck against my "it's a 1" deck packed with fifty naturalizes plus 12 Craw Wurm look-alikes.

[@aclevername7613]

Honestly just have two formats. One for cedh with all the tricks and fast mana allowed and another for casual with the bans in place to slow it down and make it more for the casual.

[@manofepicness3403]

I might be getting it wrong, but I feel like all they're trying to do with the bracket system is make rule zero conversations easier, and at worse will be something most if not all players will ignore, or just a tool similar to the power level system. The only things I'm really scared of by WotC taking over Commander is releasing pruducts that will be harmful to the playerbase because they found a new way to profit of off the knowledge they'll gain from being in control of the format, and/or changing the banlist in such a way that people will have to ignore it and make rule zero conversation infinitely harder.

[@SeriosSkies92]

This is how i see it. brackets just give a more on rails way to talk about rule 0. people who didnt rule 0, still wont. people who did will then fall into the camps of people who do keep up on bracket cards and people who dont. and the previous group will just say "Im a bracket x with so and so being inclusions from higher brackets" over some kind of rigid power structure. while the former will just keep to a more traditional rule 0 talk. The monetizong company being in control of the popular format sounds as thrilling as limiting SL prints because the sense of scarcity looks better on paper to shareholders.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah, I'd be amazed if we don't see some decisions from WotC that are good for them and no one else. My corncern over the bracket system is that by the sounds of it they won't go far enough in categorizing the cards, leaving things open to discussion which (and maybe I'm wrong) will be more of a tool for arguments than anything else. "Hey you said this deck was a 1, and I know they're not listed but I feel like X & Y together really make a 3" for instance

[@SeriosSkies92]

@@RedBobcatGames no worse than miss labeling your deck on the power level scale. You'll get a "whoops I didn't mean that" game every so often but it will course correct like it always has. And where it doesn't you now know someone you don't game with.

[@manofepicness3403]

@@RedBobcatGames I agree that if they go out of their way to catagorize cards they should do it for all cards, but that does make me lose confidence in if it will have any impact, because I'm doubtfull that they'll put enough time into doing it right/thoroughly enough. We'll have to see and wait how much afford they will actually put into the system

[@martinmnagell2894]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I honestly think a weighted average and weighted point system would be nice together, though it may be complicated. (I really like numbers) Each card would have its power level and an associated weight that shows how influencial (for lack of a better word) the card can be on the game/deck building as a whole. Then, during pregame when discussing deck powers, you could give the weighted average to give an idea for how strong the deck is and also give the total points to show how influential the cards are. Basic lands would have a weight of zero, not affecting the average but will reflect in the point total (meaning decks with many basic lands will tend to have lower point totals than decks with fewer of the same weighted average). Sol Ring would have a high power but weight of 1 as it is a powerful card but more decks tend to use it than not. And you could give other powerful cards the same power as Sol Ring but also give them a high weight to reflect its high influence. You could even return some banned cards and just give them a high power and ridiculously high weight so that people know what to expect. The only issue I see aside from complexity would be with assigning weights to middle power cards. (Low power cards would have a higher weight depending on how many cards there are that are better than it and how easy they are to replace as they are in many cases not objectively good.) Side note: this could make a new type of deck what has a really low average but a higher than normal (for that power level) total that is just filled with what are objectively some of the worst (or easily replaceable) cards in magic.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I agree, but I think they'd have to make that it's own format. I don't like numbers at all, and so any kind of defined ranking system that I need to crunch the numbers for is going to put me off immediately

[@richardharrison4762]

I did indeed pause the video and tried to look up +2 mace with my magic companion app. No card found

[@RedBobcatGames]

Nope, check out Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv for a laugh too

[@thegarunixking1101]

Wasn't the idea for a deck rating algorithm an April Fools joke on EDHREC one year?

[@RedBobcatGames]

Haha, god I don't remember but maybe. That would be priceless if so

[@Xhadp]

I saw this mentioned elsewhere and I agree with it a lot rather than whatever obfuscated nonsense that is being with trying to explain it. If the bracketing system was designed to reflect the current layout of 60-card formats by creating Standard-EDH, Modern-EDH, Vintage-EDH, Legacy-EDH (not exactly reflective terms or exact representation but you get the idea). This would better expand the importance of commander in simple terms rather than trying to bring every jargon associated with commander, CEDH, combos etc., into the mix.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh that's an interesting idea. Though I'm not sure WotC would go for it. I think they want to print cards for the format as a whole, rather than worry about how each one may affect the different levels of format

[@Benply]

The bracket idea sounds like Smogon tier list where legendary Pokemon are banned outside of the Uber tier, and each tier having an increasing banned list for that tier.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I've heard a few people say that. Fingers crossed WotC can make it work

[@Pendragondnd]

I think the best way to think of the bracket system, is as a series of ban lists, not as an indicator of how powerful it is. So if there is a deck that is stronger than a 2, it needs to have some of it's cards "banned" to tier, so that the remaining deck is at a power level of 2. Although that certainly doesn't seem to be how wizards are talking about it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

No. And in fact they seem happy with you running some higher tier cards if the rest of the deck is lower tier, which kind of defeats the point I think

[@icarusmcduck9309]

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I disagree with the idea that the power level system and Rule 0 conversations were working just because people are playing Commander. I do not like Commander, if I had my way, I wouldn't ever play it- largely because of the power levels and the rule 0 conversations. Again, this is anecdotal evidence at best, this probably speaks more to my play group than to the format as a whole but I'd wager that I'm not the only person in this position. I only play Commander because everyone I play Magic with has tried to force-feed the idea that it's the objective best format and are rarely willing to play anything else. "Okay," I thought, "I can't complain too much, I do prefer casual Magic to competitive Magic and having access to every card could be fun." During Rule 0 my group tells me I can't play silver border or land destruction, I think "Fine. Makes perfect sense, those sorts of decks aren't often fun to play against, especially if you don't have a similar deck." So I build a different deck and play a few matches. I get really fucking sick of seeing Sol Ring and Arcane Signet on the field, so I put in some extra artefact destruction and play it. Get told that I can't do that because it's "basically the same as land destruction." Now I'm starting to get annoyed. I build some jank decks that are kinda fun for various reasons- lore, or combos that are hard to assemble if they pull off, etc- and I'm told it's not fun to play against a weak deck because the game ends too quickly. Now, I'm having to play this format I don't even want to play, and I don't even get to participate in the creative deck building that is supposed to be the main draw of it. On top of that, yeah. "My deck is a 7" is a VERY real issue. And it's not like I'm entering an existing play group who'd already put together all these rules- I introduced these people to Magic in the first place, then they played with a few other people and decided that this very specific version of Commander is the only valid way to play, so my options are play Commander or not play Magic. Well, even after all of this I don't HATE Commander, and I love Magic, so I deal with it. But that doesn't sound like a healthy format to me, and again, I'd bet I'm not the only person having this issue. I'm not saying that I think WotC is going to fix anything, I agree with basically every other point in this video (as I often tend to agree with your videos, I am after all quite an enthusiastic subscriber of yours, so I hope this doesn't come off as rude). My point really is just that it's kind of a weird position for anyone to be in, Commander is a very strange format to have in a card game like Magic, and it's very very weird that it's popular to the point of essentially being the default.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I don't think you were rude at all and your comment was very welcome, thank you. I hope you don't mind me saying, but from the outside, it sounds to me like the playgroup aren't really listening to you and are maybe using rule 0 as a cage to box you in. For instance, I've not heard someone say that removal is unwelcome from a game because it's the same as land destruction. I just flatly disagree with that. At which point though, if it were me I'd ask if after we've played a game the way they like, if we could play a game the way I like. Compromise a bit. Maybe if they tried it they'll even learn to enjoy it. If not, and I'm not having fun I'd probably try to find a new group honestly. Which sucks, but that is also a part of rule zero. Figuring out if people are going to gel

[@alexandrbatora9674]

Man, this is the story of my old group, not en edh, rather the ancient "we play what we got" band. Every card/concept was a trouble. LD? Trouble. WorB? Trouble. Counterspells? Trouble. Mass removal? Trouble. Combo? Trouble. Highlander? Trouble. Even green stompy was trouble. I moved to competitive mtg to escape this mentality. I guess there are ppl who don't wanna play the game, they just want to enjoy their solitaire. smh. Also edh is objectively the worst format to learn mtg/introduce new ppl, no questions about. It may lso be the worst format gameplay-wsie, but that's up to debate.

[@icarusmcduck9309]

@@RedBobcatGames Glad I didn't come across as rude! And yeah, definitely a lot of these specific issues would be solved by a different playgroup, but I still think my broader point is important: even if I wasn't saddled in with really dumb R0 deckbuilding restrictions, I still don't think I'd enjoy EDH very much. It's ridiculously long, it has a wildly unstable power level that can't be accounted for by the 1-10 system or WotC's stupid bracket system or even the points system that's been floating around thanks to Tolarian, the virtually infinite card pool makes for way too many broken concepts, etc. If you like or don't mind all that stuff, great! I'm not saying it's inherently bad BUT it really just isn't for me. My ultimate point is really that, I only play Commander because almost everyone I know thinks of it not only as the best but the ONLY valid format to play Magic in, and that really bugs me when the format almost doesn't even feel like Magic anymore. To tie back to my specific point about your video, I'm wondering how many other people like me there are, who only really play Commander because it's become SO ubiquitous, thus I disagree with what you're saying about it being a perfectly fine format as is just because people are playing it. Sure, it had to genuinely draw lots of people in to get to that point in the first place, but I'm wondering if maybe for people like me at least, WotC fucking it up will make it better in a roundabout way by slightly breaking the hold it has over the community, and letting me do a draft or a 60 card match once in awhile. Then, the people who really want to play Magic as a social politics game (for some reason) can continue playing Commander, ignoring as much of WotC's bullshit as their playgroup wants to, and those of use who'd rather play Magic as, well, Magic can do that again- and when we want to play social politics games we can play Coup or Secret Hitler or The King's Dilemma or Spyfall.

[@icarusmcduck9309]

@@alexandrbatora9674 If your old playgroup was banning white and black, counterspells, and green ramp, then it sounds like they were pretty much only playing red decks, and at that point why did they even want to play Magic 😭. But yeah, definitely there is that mentality of people who think "I only enjoy the game if my opponent won't interact with my cards because if my deck doesn't get to do its special combo I'm not having fun." And that really bugs me, I don't want to play competitively because, quite frankly, I'm not good enough to. I want "casual magic" to mean "the power level is a bit lower, the rules are a lot looser, and people are playing with jank and random cards and off-beat formats" rather than "you're only allowed to use certain decks and you have to let me do what i want to do." Also, fully agree. Introducing someone to magic through EDH is a great way to make them unable to play any other format ever lmao.

[@89qwyg9yqa34t]

I think that it's somewhat safe to weigh a deck's power should be based on core objectives. For each core objective, there are a certain number of required cards to pull-off the plan. A Black Lotus in a precon wouldn't help all that much, and may actually be a hinderance for decks that are not optimized for a fast-out strategy, but a deck with a certain set of tutors and a certain set of legal fast-mana to produce a win between turn 1-6, uninterrupted, assuming any three of a 12-card strategy are found, should be considered high-power. Each additional core feature can add to its power, depending on things like which game pieces can be used interchangeably. A deck that can trivially beat these strategies shouldn't be considered high-power by default, as is the nature with paper/rock/scissors. Basically a core could be like the body of a car. Another core could be the engine. Another, the wheels. Another, the steering. $100k in, and you have a phenomenal machine that we already know has been made. Other superior cores aren't being used in racecars because we don't know that they'd do a better job yet and so can be marked inferior. The power level of a deck should be the average of all cores. Also some cards should add to the weight based on criteria. Force of Will is awful without blue cards, so its true value depends on how many other blue cards there are, but it should be expected to be a core otherwise, almost by itself.

[@c1orey1]

I'm optimistic about the 4 bracket system. I think it's simple and easy to implement. The 1 thru 10 system failed it will be nice to try something else. Enjoyed hearing your feelings on it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Cool, thank you for the comment

[@punkypinko2965]

Regarding some kind of bracket system, currently, the only "brackets" that work are EDH vs cEDH. The whole power level system does not work. And I think the proposed new bracket system will fail for the same reason: it's too complicated. So here are the two options that I think might work. The first option is we have brackets based on the intention and gameplay, like EDH vs cEDH. And we already do this now. I hear people say, "I'm going to play my low power deck" or "I'm going to play my high power deck". The particular cards in the deck don't really matter; it's what the deck is designed to do that matters, like EDH vs cEDH. The second option, if we really want to focus more on particular cards, would be to just bracket the commanders, not every single card in the deck. So maybe some janky commander that isn't powerful would be bracket 1 and the most powerful commanders would be bracket 4. And then you could put any cards in the 99 that you wanted. People already do this as well by saying "I'm going to play Lathril" etc and then other people might try to find a similarly powerful commander. They wouldn't even have to bracket every single commander; all commanders not bracketed would by default be bracket 0.

[@Mwarrior1991]

honestly, as presented, this won't work. while I'm sure they know that too, I'm glad they are being so transparent about their process.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yes, I agree. And I both appriciate it, and feel a bit bad about how critical I've been. But they asked for feedback, this is my best method for that and honestly what they have right now I don't think will work

[@lancearmada]

19:45 if the power level cruncher is api driven it can be integratedninto archidekt so that archidekt automatically tells you the “wotc rating”. So long as its simple like that, i wouldn’t mind it. Managing your decks and collection using these tools is a good idea for keepijg track of things.

[@thegarunixking1101]

Archidekt already has a an EDHREC salt score accumulator, do you really think WotC can do better?

[@RedBobcatGames]

I for one don't, but I can see intergration with other tools being a benefit. Sadly for me, I don't use any. When I build a deck the most digital it gets for me is looking cards up on scryfall and maybe writing it down in a google docs

[@AutumnReel4444]

I like most of your points here. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that rule zero works. Rule zero is the least pleasant and effective part of commander. Good vid ty

[@RedBobcatGames]

You're welcome. And I guess I should have been clearer cos I've heard that feedback a lot. By "works" i mean it didn't make people quit. I am in no way saying rule 0 is good, or even really functional, BUT people can still play the game. I'm not sure what this bracket system is going to do to make anything better though, and I honestly think it might actually make it worse in some cases with how half hearted it seems to be

[@MstrCorrin]

You just don't get it - it's a clearly delineated, mathematical, codified, malleable, esoteric, socially driven nonsystematic system. I think its too brilliant to fail.

[@RedBobcatGames]

When you put it like that...

[@JimNoBoDie]

I still don't get why a ban list is such a dirty word. It's so much easier to look at something and go "okay that's too strong to run just overall." Tier lists just muddle and confuse the issue.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Because some people don't want to even think about what cards they can't run. I think if looking up a ban list is too far, they'll never go for a bracket system either

[@Skylos]

7:33 I mean, the purpose of the bracket system is to just make communications about power level easier. You would not need to list every single combo possible, or every single combination of cards that achieves the same combo. Just having an example in a bracket should be enough for people to able to discern the idea of the combo. Nobody who wants to have a good faith discussion about how powerful their deck is would argue that their deck is in a lower power bracket because their combo does not exactly match the cards in the brackets, even though it is functionally the same combo

[@RedBobcatGames]

But that's the issue. A lot of people don't want to have a good faith discussion, and it feels to me like this system is to try and help in those situations. I'm just not sure it will

[@Skylos]

@@RedBobcatGames I mean if people don't want to have a good faith discussion then literally nothing can be done about it. These systems are to assist in making sure that those who do are on the same page.

[@tc5589-1]

To quote someone else: cedh isn’t a card list it’s a mindset. You will see people try to make the maximum possible power deck in every wotc bracket. There’s no feasible way to avoid that. A Timmy deck with lots of power 4 cards will lose badly to spike deck composed form only power bracket 1 cards.

[@alexgosan5707]

my system that at my lgs works really well in very short for literally every player understandable is pretty much this: What were your intention with this deck? 1. CEDH 2. Build a strong deck 3. I let cards i find cool influence the process strongly 4. Its a precon i made some changes to 5. Chairs in artworks CEDH kind of stands on his own otherwise across 1 level in this system games generally go fine as long as people are able to be honest with themselfes(so some decks of 2 and 3 for example). Sure there is the ocasional player that genuinly enjoys mana crypt and jeweled lotus so for them 2 and 3 kind of grow together but if you when in doubt just take a deck thats atleast in the 2.5 range its usually fine too plus you can filter a little based on the commander choosen. I do usually also ask for very efficient combos eseentially for everything 2 card. but that is pretty much softbanned in my lgs anyway as nobody likes them. What also works well is ask people "If you cant say 7 is it an 8 or a 6 then" and that usually also gives you all the information you need

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd say by your scale my decks are all 3s. I think your scale works, though I'd want to change 2 to "Build a strong deck / I have been told my deck is a 2 because I accidentally build something very powerful". Other than that, yeah I like it

[@alexgosan5707]

@@RedBobcatGames yea the scale requires to some degree that players avoid lying to themselves and you will have „I put the mana crypt in because it fit the flavor“ players but they are usually easy to identify if you regularly go to the same lgs for example. So yea I think that is a good addition to the definitions. 4 also has potential to be a light pitfall as for experienced players nowadays it’s very easy to take a precon and turn it into a 2. the intention is more to have beginners in mind that make a few changes that often don’t influence the powerlevel by a big margin. I have decks ranging between 2 and 4 but I like 3 the most.

[@kevingrob5816]

The idea I got out of all of this is that commander is more or less being split into 4 formats but the lines between them are fuzzy. Different groups and events are likely going to be different levels of strict but if you make a deck that is all 2s but with one 4 you should mention it but you need to be prepared to sub it out. The brackets are all about hard coding a shared understanding in a shared language.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Or attempting to at least. I just don't think you can hard code an understanding, without going all the way and actually bracketing every card and combo. Leave it up to interpretation and I don't see the system being any better than what we have now

[@Fenen24]

I don’t think the bracket system will even worked with the way they are planning it. Swords to plowshares isn’t a 1, but they need to make it a 1 to keep printing it in precons.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I like to pick and choose my battles so didn't bring that up in the video, but I had that exact same thought

[@denshitenshi]

Duskmourn is a super fun set. I'm surprised actually. I've done a sealed and 3 drafts of it already and the experience is varied and feels pretty balanced. Rooms are also a pretty cool mechanic and I think more intuitive than split cards.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'm hoping to cover the set soon. Not sure how yet, but it's in the works

[@darkbreaker9767]

16:40 reminds me of Blizzard and the "you guys all have phones, right?" presentation

[@RedBobcatGames]

I very nearly quoted THAT EXACT THING but decided against it

[@lsh6108]

This video is so well made and detailed. Instantly made me remember I’ve been enjoying your content without subscribing for too long (a crime which has been corrected) have a good day

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well thank you very much, you have a good day too!

[@darkusandtoast2207]

My problem is that I believe the bracket system was not designed for a ban list but for precon decks sales. The new precons would be listed with a copeditive rank of 1-4. Thus, maximum profits and no ban list.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, why ban cards when you can just class them as tier 4 and let the community sort it out I suppose. I can see issues with that, but I guess time will tell

[@christophertomlinson8097]

The problem with commander right now is the fact that everyone builds around the commander and what it can do unless you are playing CEDH. WOTC needs to print a few control based recons for people. Showing permissions, hate bears, and stacks deck are welcome in the format despite the salt can help people expand how they think about building decks

[@RedBobcatGames]

I honestly don't know if even this would have been as much of an issue before they started making "Made for" commanders. To me, it feels like once they started making cards that filled the gaps and decks became less jank, that's when we started seeing issues. Though I admit that may be rose tinted glasses there

[@pedrohdalla]

If you put a Lorwyn card into your pioneer deck it is now a modern deck

[@RedBobcatGames]

Haha, exactly

[@iceygamingrulez]

The bracket system sounds really good to me, i think it is a toxicity score more than anything, going against strong decks isn’t really that frustrating if it wins in a simple creature based way. I don’t think finding what part of a combo is that hard usually either, oracle is clearly the enabler because it says win the game. Also 1-4 is a very small fange so it isn’t too vague. I think one card being able to change the score is good because it makes people less encouraged to get some super strong combo card which wins the game out of nowhere when the rest of their deck plays completely differently.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I mean I hope they go all the way with it and actually pull it off. This, one foot in, one foot out approach I don't believe will work though. They either need to actually bracket the cards, or leave it all to guidance and philosophy I suspect

[@azurios7999]

A simple tiering system that would be more evocative would be one cappable your deck average turn expectancy before reaching either a win con, generate 7 mana in a single turn or a dramatic fall off. If the differance is more then 4 turns between the lowest and higest player at the table then change decks cuz some one is about to have a bad time.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, but I doubt WotC will want to put in the work to calculate what would be needed to make a system accounting for all that to work sadly

[@natedawg6755]

I like the Professors point system of just counting your card points

[@RedBobcatGames]

I do too, but it's a bit more work on the deck building side of things. Any kind of point value system like that will probably be enough to put me off bothering honestly. I suspect I'll be sticking to Kitchen Table mostly from now on

[@hazelsparks4503]

I think one of the biggest cultural challenges that we have is the incessant desire towards quantization. Theres a few centuries of history and conditioning behind it, and the problem ranges from dumb kpis at your job to the entirety of the health insurance industry. The fundamental misunderstanding is that it does not matter how many levers and dials you give a computer, it is *never* going to give you a single number or even a set of numbers that will be even a fraction as descriptive of a deck compared to have a simple, friendly conversation with the human being sitting across from you who probably spent hours making it, and knows it better than any computer could

[@doommustard8818]

Playing devils advocate but i think the third reason to presenting things even though you have nothing: fast way to get feedback and ideas from people who want to correct you or in other words: The fastest way to find the correct answer is to be wrong on the internet.

[@RedBobcatGames]

NO IT'S NOT AND I CAN PROVE IT! Let me show you all of my research etc etc (this would have been funnier if I had an actual link to send)

[@GreatWhiteElf]

I thought their ideas were great. It'll likely help my play group tremendously. We have a lot of trouble pairing up decks to have a balanced game

[@RedBobcatGames]

I hope they get it right, because if done well this could be a great tool for exactly that. I just don't have much faith, but am hopeful to be proven wrong

[@Mako276]

Haven't finished the video yet but I'm actually a big fan of assigning a point value to every card. I've had this discussion with my coworkers and they explained that wouldn't work with a Thoracle combo because the points would be lower than you'd expect. I countered with the fact this just points that the card is too powerful and needs banned. If a deck with a much lower point score is consistently beating ones with higher scores that means shows something is too powerful in the lower point deck individually.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd agree that a points system would probably be good for the game, but I don't see how they could effectly pull it off and by the sounds of it they're not aiming too. Which I think is mostly my concern

[@Mako276]

@@RedBobcatGames I agree I don't envy their position. They're not going to make anyone happy with any of their moves. The RC basically tossed a live grenade to WOTC.

[@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena]

@@Mako276 if anything if they stick with this stupid system that would only makes things worse Thassa's would be quickly reranked a 4 even without the demonic consultation combo as there is no way it can be a fair card since it can combo with too many things that can get rid of your deck such as Mirror of Fate that exiles your deck when used

[@jameshinds2510]

EDH really needs a plurality of benchmarking tools rather than a tier system. Many EDH players bring several decks, so you really want to make an informed decision about what combinations of decks available for a pod to play are the most fair. This doesn't need to be perfect; it just needs to give players an organized ballpark. I think that the ideal way to benchmark a deck is to upload your entire decklist and for a computer to give you a current score based on each individual card and any combos it detects. This is far too complex to do by hand, but would actually be a good first-order approximation of how the meta currently sees your deck, and would be quite easy to change in real time. WotC could straight up automate it with player feedback on salty cards or MVP cards from game victors. Below that would probably be a Points system. You categorize your deck based on how many points it was built with, with different power brackets having different point maximums. This would inherently ignore combos, but as this is not the "best" benchmarking tool, you don't have to be precise. Below even that is the self-assessment 1-10 scale. This is inherently not accurate, but it is better than nothing. And realistically, experience playing a computer-benchmarked deck against a Points-benchmarked deck against a self-assessed deck will quickly tell you how these approaches compare. And I think that's the trick most people are missing; you don't need to upload your decklist to a computer to give you an objective score. You need to play 5-6 times against someone who has.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but I honestly think even the suggestion people need to run their decks through a calculator will put people off. It may be the line for me honestly

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh, and to clarify. I understand that's not what you were saying. I'm just making a point that if perception changes and it seems like you're supposed to run your deck through an online tool (even if it's not a requirement) it will put people off. I think the atmosphere of the game will change

[@jameshinds2510]

@@RedBobcatGames Some people, yes. Others will absolutely geek out over that. So long as you offer players ONE way to do this quick and dirty, it's fine. Don't get me wrong; I am not optimistic about WotC being in full control of EDH for profit maximization reasons. But tiers are a good idea, even if the execution here is...rough.

[@beckhamjenkins4798]

I think this will be a TOOL for rule zero convo. If you are playing at a lower power game(1~2) but you have a higher power card like winter orb, it helps you know which cards to mention. I have played with commander with point systems and I found that that did a great job to find power level and this seems like a more practical way to do a similar thing with in paper play

[@RedBobcatGames]

I have my doubts, so will need to see it in action but I hope you're right and this all works out

[@bryceduyvewaardt8136]

As someone who’s had over five feel-bad moments about infinite combo decks when I don’t have a counter spell and/or open mana for it in time for a “low level” game with strangers at a locals (which I’ve since moved from after unsuccessful discussions), I think that yes, Wizards ought to keep an obnoxiously long list of combos ranked for anything on Spellbook or not bother at all. My friends and I will die to a Thoracle combo in a “merfolk meme deck” just as easily as a Bazing Sunsteel + Copy Artifact on an indestructible creature for example.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean, yeah. That's kind of where I'm at. Either do it or don't do it at all. My issue isn't so much with the bracket system, but their seemingly half hearted approach to it

[@bryceduyvewaardt8136]

@@RedBobcatGames Agreed, it does not bode well as you pointed out -great use of the examples from the Wizards video by the way. Let's cross our fingers and brace for impact.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you, and pretty much where I'm at too now, yeah

[@SumTingWong886]

12:44 Little confused by "powercreep sells" comment, sure in the case of jeweled lotus. Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but can you really point to mana crypt as an instance of power creep when it has existed as long as EDH itself? Same goes for sol ring, really I think the community's sentiment is that they want whoever is in control of commander to pick a side, either we are doing fast explosive mana or we aren't. And if we are there would be a lot less complaints if WoTC's reprint philosophy around other fast mana like crypt, lotus, legal moxen, etc was frequent enough that those pieces would be accessible to as many players as sol rings are. (but I'm not naïve enough to think Hasbro would ever let them do that).

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh sure I'd happily say older, more powerful cards like Mana Crypt are instances of power creep. Not necessarily in that they are new, but in that their wider introduction into the format raises the power level of that format overall if widley adopted. And if not widely adopted, then they remain overpowered chase cards which will creep the power of a playgroup, rather than the format as a whole. Mana Crypt has always been a thing, yes. But WotC knew full well what people's reaction would be to seeing it reprinted collector boosters, even in very rare numbers. But by putting it front and centre of the marketing they get to have their cake and eat it. They get to make it seem like they're reprinting over powered cards without actually printing them enough to change the balance of power in the format, thus keeping them overpowered, chase and expensive.

[@SumTingWong886]

@@RedBobcatGames I really don't disagree with a single thing you said in your reply. as I said in my original message "WoTC's reprint philosophy" is the reason sol ring is a bulk uncommon and crypt was/is a 150+ USD card. I think I just disagree with the semantics of labeling mana crypt as an instance of "powercreep" because if the supply of the card hasn't changed meaningfully enough to effect it's price and the text on the card hasn't changed, where is the "creep" of the powercreep exactly? It's just an example of "power" no? You used the example of a new player would hate the bracket system, having to download an app just to make sense of the physical product they just bought etc. My point is doesn't content creators, such as yourself, using terms like "powercreep" to describe cards older than this format cause similar confusion? At least based on how the term "powercreep" almost always refers to new features of a game that are disruptive in some way.A Again I agree with your main points, and I've been saying I'd like to see commander just ban all fast mana (including sol ring) rather than only banning a select few pieces of it. And I wish WoTC's reprint philosophy didn't allow card prices to go about 40-50 USD. But those are just my opinions.

[@the_devils_jester]

With precons being bracket 1 it feels a bit like they're trying to get rid of low power decks, which makes sense since low power players can't be forced into rotation by power creep.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oohhhhhhh, very interesting though. You may very well be right

[@GhostAcez]

I think the lines between bracket 1 and 2, as well as bracket 3 and 4 will be blurred too much and thmakjust seemingly makes deck building so much more restrictive and limits everything too much. I personally think if they feel the need to do anything like this it should be a 2-3 tiered system thats much more simplified. 1 casual commander with a stricter banlist that play groups can choose to follow or ignore. 2 CEDH with its own seperate banlist and regulations. 3 Precons only. A potential 3rd tier is at public commander events there could be a 3rd tier for precons only if thats something people are interested in.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I feel like we're in for a split in the community and new branching formats at this point. I think that's probably okay

[@KaitlynBurnellMath]

I see the brackets filling a few purposes: 1. Examples of rule 0 conversations. Like...I expect a bracket that (in addition to a few bans) says something like "no infinite combos, no land destruction, no general tutors" which is a decently common set of rule 0 rules. 2. I expect bracket 3 will be, in addition to a few power outlier bans, basically "cEDH, but you don't need a $3000 deck"--ban a bunch of reserve list cards so that bracket 3 players don't feel like you need to get Gaea's Cradle and Mox Diamond and Mishra's Workshop and Lion's Eye Diamond and original dual lands in order to keep up with the format.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I think it could work as a framework for discussion, but I think the issue is the problem they're trying to solve will potentially be made worse by this. It seems like they want clear cut rules on what is and isn't powerful so that beginners have more of a guide and bad actors have less leverage to mislead about the power of their deck. But, unless they bracket every card then some things will be left up to interpretation meaning beginners still won't have much more help and bad actors will still be able to argue their point. I hope this system works, but I just can't see it happening

[@jasonstatom9693]

WotC's logic with Polluted Delta makes sense to me, Its an enabler just like sol ring. A precon with fetchlands is still a precon just one thats more reliable that power is capped by deck design. This is the difference between Polluted Delta and other powerfull cards like Rhystic Study one gives consistency to power the other amplifes it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

True, but then a deck with a bunch of fetchlands to me at least always feels like it's going to be more powerful than a deck with nothing but basics. It's weird to include both of them at tier 1 I think

[@jasonstatom9693]

​@@RedBobcatGamesthe power increase is just consistency to hit colors on curve stronger yes but feels different than other high power cards. My group plays fetchs/shocks in low power decks they have been normalized for me i guess. What gets cast with the mana is what i care about when it comes to power.

[@deohere7647]

When self rating your deck you need to consider two things. How consistently fast can I win, and how consistently can I stop someone else from winning. It's not just about the cards being present, but about how often you can make them work for you. Having a commander that helps with this, automatically will bump you up pretty high. Board wipes, counter magic/protection, taxes/stacks, spot removal, and draw typically add to your power level as well. What I hate about how rule zero, in how it's been presented is that it makes good deck building seem unfair. Every deck should be able to do everything I listed and have a synsergestic commander to some degree. And yet, the number system currently implimented or how the next one is being talked about makes it sound like the old rules committee and the next one think anyone outside of cedh just wants to pillow fort. It's far better to have an Ultra Jank deck that exsists to make "fun and unique board states" (we talking knowledge pool+ hive mind. We talking your zedruu deck that gives people terrible creatures that are all white bordered. We talking your, I hate green deck that turns everything into a green spell and then specifically counters green), a Janky but playable deck, a deck with a couple of what I mentioned, a deck or two with all of what I mentioned, and a deck or two with all of what I mentioned that can do it consistently. Then just describe your level of interaction and how easily it can win and you're golden.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I think this is the issue with any kind of ranking / bracketing system really. I like I say in the vid, it's a social problem and I agree, what people really need to be doing is describing what the intention of their deck is better

[@shoenessperson]

The tier system is fine if the tiers were concepts instead of cards. As an example, my Queza, Augur of Agonies deck has a power level 2 infinite with the commander and Lich's Mastery. There's no redundancy from me there, but it can be bumped into tier 3 because of Thassa's Oracle and Laboratory Maniac. I do have Demonic Consultation with my thoracle, a tier 4 concept, but I don't have a suite of tutors, another tier 4 concept, making it tier 3. Then there's the self-mill reanimator with cards that accelerate my deck churning and tons of bad draw spells that sculpt my hand. It can just win out of nowhere after stalling the game, so it's a confident tier 3 concept with plenty tier 1/2 individual cards. Rashmi, Eternities Crafter is another of my tier 3 decks just because it out values as a control deck. With my tier 2/3 individual cards, I buid a tier 1/2 value engine. Controlling with non-targeting and free casting every turn, I turn it into a tier 3 value engine under the concept of cheating mana values. For my final example, I have an Atla Palani, Nest tender deck that is high tier 2 or low tier 3 not because it has beaters like Blightsteel Colossus or Ruric Thar, the Unbowed that can just come out for free, but because all my combos have insane mana value requirements. Skullclamp, Pyrohemia, and Ashnod's Altar take the deck out of tier 1 and low tier 2 by making it more playable. It has the fewest mana rocks of all my decks, slowing it down even more. My magical Christmas land cards are things like Mirror March, Warstorm Surge, and City on Fire, but sometimes I can just play them. The issue is their high mana value and the idea, the concept, that I'm -2 mana every turn cycle with a very removable commander that HAS to be on board to make the deck function. Skullclamp doesn't make this deck a 4 just because it's so damn powerful as a card. This deck doesn't want to draw cards, making the effect that makes it so powerful a card a negative concept. They should keep it and retool it for concepts kinda like their thought putting thoracle combo in tier 4, just don't focus on individual cards. Cheerio rocks are a tier 3 concept, but if you run 3+ of them, that is the concept of permanent fast mana, something squarely a tier 4 idea. Infinite mana on a couple cards at a low mana value is definitely tier 4 whether you have a mana sink or not. Infinite mana on a handful of cards with either special conditions or a high mana value is tier 3 in concept. Putting cards in this system is entirely downsides all around.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd agree but honestly, if they're not willing to list the combos, or even bracket every card I can't see them looking at how each deck could funtion either. You're suggestion would probably require less work than that, but to me they seem to want something even more hands off still

[@utterlybrandsky14]

I did look up that +2 Mace, and it's much faster with just the browser than Gatherer (both simple and advance).

[@RedBobcatGames]

Try Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv next, that ones fun

[@Alucard_Ander]

Commander is dead and we killed it

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh I don't know about that. I'd happily lay the blame with WotC printing cards directly into the format

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

I understand what they are trying to achieve and I think It could work of well implemented. The bracket system is something that facilitates the pre game conversation. A better system would be a points System. Asign points to certain cards and combos. And they you cay say: "My deck has X points, because of this cards". It forces the player to be upfront and warn others about the sort of things the deck is capable off, and then people can discuss If thats something they want or not in the game.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I understand why they don't want that though. It's an extra level of deck building that will put people off, plus it can lead to min / maxing which they may want to avoid. Tough all round honestly

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

@@RedBobcatGames Just give Powerful cards / combos a point value and leave the rest as zero. Then its Just a matter of adding UP to see how many points your deck has

[@marxpeklegotechnicdesign3]

How about: What does your deck cost in the cheapest lp version? Or for how much money could i recreate your deck? In general: the better the card the higher the value, ofc there are exceptions and extremes but you could rule 0 that. This could be implemented right now and i guess the secondairy market is a pretty fair power indicator, not to mention.. we, the player, mainly regulate that.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but then we hit into the Sol Ring issue. Because that card is very powerful, but has been printed enough to be cheap. What about reserve list cards? So of those are expensive but terrible. I'm not sure this will totally work, but hell it's would be worth a try I suppose

[@marxpeklegotechnicdesign3]

@@RedBobcatGames Sol ring will forever be an issue, but at least that is accessible and expected, and the "bad" reserve list cards would barely see play and probably are not above 10 dollar, ofc the good ones are extremely pricey, rule zero the card(s) "my deck is about 500 dollar but 400 of that is 2 dual lands" if you opt out of mentioning the dual lands your are probably facing better balanced more powerful 500 dollar(ish) decks which is at your own expense. I wouldnt mind to play a 100 dollar deck against the 500 including 2 duals, but would not play against a 500 dollar balanced deck. But the interesting bit is the singles market regulation, it might make for more fun games as well; people will start searching for cheap unseen cards again, boosting diversity. Best of all: we regulate it.

[@TheSushiandme]

I have a solution. Just play the game. :P

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean that works too

[@Olive_Bot]

I don't play magic or even know HOW to play magic, but I like hearing you talk about it lol- Keep up the great videos!..

[@RedBobcatGames]

Will do, thank you very much!

[@mightyone3737]

If Gatherer still had comments enabled I for one would check it more often... at this point the odds of me checking it for any other reason are vanishingly low, but sometimes I'm curious if people knew how good a given weird old card was.

[@RedBobcatGames]

If you want a laugh, check out Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv

[@t.kenneth5697]

My question is, why not take the average of every non-basic in a deck? That seems like a much better way to get an overall picture if we entertain this idea.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I honestly don't know where they're going to go with it. Going to be interesting to find out

[@Phe0nix1986]

Wow. I had quite liked the brackets idea until this video. You smashed it. You put together the most coherent arguments in the community.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh, well thank you very much

[@CyrusdVulture]

Regarding the app downloading, I adamantly *refuse* to download the companion app for MtG. We don't need an app for every little thing.

[@RedBobcatGames]

PREACH!

[@MrMartinSchou]

As I understand it, the bracket system was an RC idea rather than a Wizards idea, which is probably why they're having difficulty with it. It might have been something that the RC talked about in their last few meetings and that Wizards only learned about as they were given the reins to Commander.

[@RedBobcatGames]

That's fair. As I say, still not sure it was a good idea to present it as is then, but I also understand why they did it. Tough situation to be in

[@MrMartinSchou]

@@RedBobcatGames I do agree that it was a bad idea, because they came across as "having the concept of a plan" to borrow a terrible political phrase. I will readily admit that I am the wrong person to ask about PR matters, but I feel like it would have been better to say something like "The former rules committee and advisory group has had lots of internal discussions on how to move forward with the format, both to guide us at Wizards of the Coast and to ease the rule zero conversations players have when playing with new people. We will be inviting them to have those conversations with us and the members of the new rules committee, to give all of us the best possible start on being the new stewards of this incredible format. As such, you can expect us to have open and honest discussions on our podcasts, as we try to hash out some of these ideas until we end up with something that can work. As we do this, we encourage you to give us constructive criticism on the ideas we put forth, with the understanding that while all ideas are welcome, not all ideas will bear fruit. We might spend a few episodes discussing an idea only to scrap it, simply because it turned out to be a not so good idea in the end. And we'd like your help to get to that type of conclusion faster."

[@KorpseTE]

We're going to see a hard fork in Commander. There will be a WOTC official rules format and a Sheldon Era format. While WOTC taking over was indeed inevitable, I also think WOTC doing something that will piss off major figureheads in the format. Lines will be drawn, and we'll have something like "Classic Commander" and "Modern Commander". Then when you sit to play commander with someone new, you'll have to have rule 0 conversation by default making all of the drama revolving WOTC's handling of the format null.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yes, I think at this point multiple formats springing up is inevitable

[@joshrivet4011]

It sounds to me that if a game winning or infinite combo has a certain value, then the most solid card in the combo (i.e. Thoracle, since it combos with several cards and is harder to answer than Jace, Unraveler or Lab Man) should be the card that gets the bracketing, and lesser versions getting the lower brackets.

[@RedBobcatGames]

If they take the time to bracket every combination I can see it working. But I'm not sure that's what they're going to do

[@JervisGermane]

Another chance to point this out: the format needs an unsportsmanlike-conduct rule. It wouldn't need bans, brackets, Canadian Highlander points, or an out-of-10 classification if it had rule that clearly defines what type of plays are not allowed and consequences for doing so. That can cover everything everyone is arguing about. Then all anyone has to learn are the 10-15 archetype plays that constitute unsportsmanlike conduct, and everyone's good. Put whatever cards you want in your deck, but some of them have to be played carefully or else.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I can see sort of working actually. Don't ban cards, but limit playstyles. "No land destruction" for instance might be all the format needs

[@kittenmastermind660]

How well put together a commander deck is determining it power level not how powerful each individual cards are. The ranking system is bullshit.

[@empurress77]

1: Kaalia of the Vast: is a perfect example of a variable power level commander. I recently took out most of the dragon cards from the deck as it was just too cheesy. (Never lost a single game with it.) With less dragons (given how cheesy dragons by themselves are now) it's a lot more fun for everyone. Still win with it but the games are much closer. Point being, Kaalia is very dependent on the 99 for it's power level. 2: Shauku, Endbringer. In most decks it's (arguably) an actual negative value. Put Shauku in a deck with an Eon Hub, Glacial Chasm, Corpse Dance/Worthy Cause and the like, and you've got a powerhouse of a card. Combos MATTER!

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, and to say they won't list them all has me concerned

[@PUDRETE919]

Crabdate > Pupdate

[@RedBobcatGames]

Agreed honestly

[@Alexexclamationpoint]

i like these videos! i think it would be cool if when youre doing a pull quote from a video if you could show that person saying it so we can get a little more of their inflection and tone

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I've thought about that and I see it done in other videos a lot, but I'm sort of on the fence about it. I kind of don't want to, because I don't really want to be stealing someone elses upload, and so by reading the quote myself, I'm not including tone meaning I'm leaving a big part of the message off the table. Hopefully, kind of encouraging people to actually go watch the original and not just me talk about it. But also, by not including a clip I am potentially skewing what someone said in a biased fashion. I'm really not sure, but doing it the way I have been feels... the least wrong, if that makes sense? It's also weirdly both more and less work doing it this way

[@Alexexclamationpoint]

@@RedBobcatGames yeah you should definitely do what you feel comfortable with, but i do think that within the context of these videos you're like, morally in the clear to use the clips. you're pulling quotes and doing your own commentary on them, i think that's a totally reasonable and expected thing for an opinion piece video to be allowed to do.

[@PJWALKER440]

IMO there’s a decent case for having a site listing: 1. CEDH Bans (eg Nadu) with the proviso that casual players are welcome to use the cards if everyone agrees to them. 2. ‘Red flag’ cards for casual play which should be mentioned in any rule zero discussion, with explanations for why they’re on the list. (ie - anything that’s a 9+/10 in its best usage, with any explanation of that) 3. Power level ratings for their precons, which would help set a standard for the community without pretending to be exhaustive. Unnnfortunately I don’t see a world where WOTC can be an objective source for information about the power level of their precons.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Or even keep up with all the new cards from each product they're printing honestly either

[@ChaffyExpert]

This shows more than anything that they don't even understand the game themselves. Any card's power level could go from really weak to extremely strong or game ending, depending on the rest of the deck. The old power system was vague enough, but based on a simple way of determining power- which turn does the deck tend to win on. Putting cards in a bracket system for a game that is 100% about synergy and combos is flawed to begin with. It's kind of you have to take the deck as a whole. I haven't played Pokemon like the other people talking about how it's like their system, but it sounds like that's a game where individual card power is all that matters. Which is not the case with Magic.

[@RedBobcatGames]

And what gets me, is they've been printing cards directly for the format all this time? If this is the level to which they understand it, no wonder so many cards have needed to be banned!