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.

[@thomaspetrucka9173]

@@matd2892 My thoughts exactly.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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...

[@Azeria]

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

[@RedBobcatGames]

Ha! Yeah, exactly

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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?

[@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

[@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

[@AkaAkoVT]

Mornin' all

[@RedBobcatGames]

Good morning!

[@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

[@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

[@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*

[@Cookiedive]

I like all the Red Bobcat's videos

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you very much!

[@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

[@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?

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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...

[@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

[@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

[@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!

[@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

[@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)

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@TheSushiandme]

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

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean that works too

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@Red-yt2dk]

I unironically call my deck a "3 or 4" it has a bunch of individually powerful cards in it, but it deliberately is very vulnerable to disruption and interaction It's very slow, very fragile, lacks ways to reliably close out a game, and loses more than 3/4ths of games it's in but I enjoy playing it it creates nice and tense situations in my playgroup as people figure out how to not lose to it together Also, Red Bobcat is my favorite MTG youtuber

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh well thank you very much! There was already WAYYY to much in this video, so I didnt make the point, but yes I'm the same as you. When he said the first few levels don't matter I would diagree. I'd say all my decks are a 4 and no higher

[@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!

[@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

[@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."

[@InsomniaticVampire]

I can't wait for the bracket to come out and for the magic community to be in such an uproar that nobody notices Foundations release. The best thing wizards could've said is we have the format now, and we're looking into helping players with the rule 0 conversation, building an advisory group, and figuring out how to run the format. Or they could have just sat on camera laughing maniacally and told us to wait until MagicCon.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah pretty much!

[@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!

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@michaelturner2806]

The biggest problem I have with the bracket system is how absolutely nothing it is. "What if we rate decks based on the strongest cards?" is not a new idea in any way, shape, or form, and as presented, there's no evidence you can point to that more than three minutes worth of thought was put into it. And the thing is, the examples of cards they've given, they're not bracketing cards by power level, they're bracketing cards pretty much by how unfun they are to play against. Everybody's used to Sol Ring, and nobody blinks when you plop one down on turn 5. Rhystic Study and Smothering Tithe are annoying for the advantages the controller gets, but I'd argue they're more annoying because the controller has to ask "Do you want to pay for that?" every trigger. That said, I'll take anything as an improvement over the answer to my attempt to get a pregame conversation of "What kind of experience do we all want to have today?" be grunts and stares and people just flipping over the commander of the deck they brought. At least we've all agreed we're past the point of even mentioning the 1-10 power level.

[@RedBobcatGames]

True, but again evidence that this requires a social solution. I'm not sure any kind of system would help improve a pregame conversation with people that just don't want to have one sadly

[@pedrohdalla]

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

[@RedBobcatGames]

Haha, exactly

[@wiener_process]

WotC has made me so cynical I search for profit motive in everything. Let's say we create an official power scaling list. Then let's print new powerful cards and designate them lower brackets. Now we're officially sanctioning playing new high power cards in low power play, basically shoving power creep down the throats of people content with playing lower power, forcing them to buy new cards... Or something like that, this allows Wizards to attempt complete control over what power level means and if I could come up with an idea how to milk that for money in 3 minutes, the reality is going to be much worse. On a side note, considering the computational complexity of an MtG game, a useful power scaling system might not even exist for mathematical reasons.

[@RedBobcatGames]

No, I think it's a pipedream. And I too have become cynical around their profit motives. I've been accused a few times in the comments here of being biased in my feedback and... yeah. I have been, and that's down to them and their past actions

[@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.

[@neoteo7478]

I think of the bracket idea as simply an extension of the old RC ban list. The original ban list was intended as a suggestion about the types of cards that can ruin games of commander. They emphasized that the pre-game conversation should include discussions about the TYPES of cards on the ban list. What the old ban list lacked was a ranking for the power level of the banned card types. Many complaints about the brackets I've heard are 'we don't need this' and 'it doesn't solve the problem of balancing games of commander'. This is absolutely correct, however the old ban list didn't solve those problems either. Let's be honest and admit that commander has a balance problem and its hard for players to communicate what kinds of games they want. Everyone has different understandings of salty and fun. Some people don't know what battle cruiser means. Some people think CEDH means high power or the vibe of cut-throat decision making. Pre-game conversations often failed commander players in the past because they don't have a common understanding about what kinds of games can happen. The brackets provide a standard format for people to start this conversation. It's an attempt at making an actually useful version of the 1-10 power scale. I would love a comprehensive ban list for commander. But with so many cards in existence, and so many new cards being made, who's going to update the list and test everything? It's not worth anyone's time for a casual game. Philosophical frameworks are a good middle ground for people who actually care this much. Remember that many commander player's didn't even know a 3rd party rules committee created the ban list. 4 overall groups sounds like a good start. Something like: precon/brew, battle cruiser only, combo wins welcome, meta/high salt What do you think: Is the banlist enough? Can brackets remove the need for a ban list? Will casuals remain unaffected by those on the ivory tower? My answers: no, yes, yes I think commander players are understandably afraid of change. We're not going back in time to the RC days or the days before direct-to-commander card design. Give the designers at wotc the chance to add to the conversation about improving the banlist, and commander balance. They're going to power creep as always, but they still make a game you care to discuss and play

[@RedBobcatGames]

For me I think as long as people weren't quitting the game, Rule 0 was doing the job well enough to function. I would like to see a system to help ease those conversations, but I think unless EVERY card and combo is bracketed, I can't see this working. It's too vauge, which is the issue with rule 0 to begin with

[@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!

[@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

[@robertdascoli949]

What if every card had a power level? Sol Ring is a 10, Ancient Tomb is a 10, lighting bolt is a 2, ect. You add up all the power levels and you get a number. If you tell someone your decks power level is 169 and they say there's is a 16, you know what you're getting into before you play.

[@RedBobcatGames]

A good idea I've heard a lot. But even then though, what about combos? And cards like tutors and fetch lands are only really powerful when used in conjunction with other, better cards. I think however they do it, it won't ever be a perfect system

[@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

[@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.

[@thefluffymunchkin5430]

I actually like the idea of putting out the very skeleton of the bracket system and letting the community go to town because it lets them hear criticism before they have put so much work in that shareholders won't let them change it for lost time or they are too dedicated to an idea and don't WANT to change it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, that's a fair point actually. Like I say, I don't mind them sharing early thoughts. I just wish they seemed a bit more... prepared, maybe?

[@kargoncoppercoin2093]

Wotc: "All players claim all their decks are 7s" Me, who has a couple decks that I just don't use unless I know we're playing a higher power game: "They do what?"

[@RedBobcatGames]

Haha, yeah. Honestly for me I don't think I've got a single deck I'd say was higher than a 4

[@krysto2012]

After playing commander for about a decade, I think the bracket system and deck rating system takes up a lot of air in the room for something that will never work - like said it's a card solution to a social problem. Instead, I propose a Player-rating system, one that is fairly objective on a few metrics and that players can be held to by the group they play with. Instead you'd say "I will be playing/want to play at level 1-10" With 10 being - I am playing to win. I have built my deck to win. Given the opportunity to win, I will do so without hesitation. I know the play patterns required to win. And 1 being I am here to have fun. No consideration to winning has been made in deck construction. I will not take play actions see that will reduce the amount of fun being had. And so on. If a player says they're here at a 7, they've brought a deck that either has the capacity to win or will be piloted in such a fashion, but hasn't been min-maxed to do so in a way that is efficient enough to do so consistently or quickly. It's far easier to work out 10 idealized levels of players than it is to assign 1-4 ratings to thousands upon thousands of cards and combinations thereof. A 7-player will ultimately build or normalize their decks towards 7, regardless of the individual cards in question, if that makes any sense. We just need to better define what makes a 7.

[@RedBobcatGames]

That is actually VERY similar to an idea I've been cooking. I saw the professor did a video on what he would do and I started thinking about how I'd improve things, and it's very similar to what you've just described. Mine's not numbers though, but based on names i.e. Timmy / Spike etc

[@Magnet977]

Good video! I think Wizards committed to saying this idea way too early. Magic's complex interactions make it almost counterproductive to try and stick individual cards into some kind of tiered system. The perfect point to this was brought up early in the video with Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation: on their own they have some impact but they function at maximum efficiency when put together. To say its a tough problem to solve is an understatement, but I don't think this bracket idea is going in the right direction, especially if it leads to unbanning highly problematic cards like Hullbreacher.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I just think it's going to be too much of a workload for them to do justice. And what about when new sets come out with new combos? What then?

[@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.

[@deohere7647]

The best way to solve this problem is to reduce the monitary price of cards, which means PROXY EVERYTHING.Outside of this, we need multiple edh formats. One that's Pre 2012, our legacy so to speak. Why? Wotc began printing commander only products late 2011 which changed the format forever. It's possible that some sets can be reviewed during 2012, 2013, and 2014 before commander cards started going in standard sets but that's a dubious road. This is what a lot of veteran commander players I've talked with are considering mind you, having one or two decks from before this format went mainstream to hearken back to the formats origins as a judge game between rounds. The next one? A legacy format revolving around casual/fun play with a somewhat large ban list to prevent early game win cons. The atmosphere here should be about making interesting things happen, playing politics, dumb combos, and generally having a good time with your friends. This is what the majority of players want, and a larger ban list (as well as proxies) will make this far, far easier. Cedh needs a far smaller ban list and should be designed by Cedh for cedh. That stuff is wild. The last one world be some varient of standard designed to get two to threeish games in during an official event. Something where there is a far more limited pool of cards, side boarding is done pregame once we reveal commanders, and perhaps with a unique mulligan or land drop rule for constancy. This is the best path forward but it won't happen. Wotc will never split the base again if they can help it, they already think there's too many formats. Instead, they're going to try and cram of all edh into the last format I mentioned in hopes of making it a standardized form of constructed play. This also explains why they want a power level list. So it can go onto Arena 2.0. We already know all the formats have tier lists for each card that are based entirely on vibes and not updated which can be exploited to manipulate matches. Having a list like this will make it easier for match making online, and I suspect also help mgmt imagine a more acessable format without banning cards or printing currently expensive cards cheaply (shock lands, fetch lands, triomes, bond lands. You know, the stuff every decent commander deck NEEDS to have to function) But really? It's fine. The community can codify these things and we can keep playing with our friends at home and in cool shops around the globe. We can meet up for a late night snack at a diner and ask to use a table in the back. We can rent a room at a local library or host a community event ourselves. The fact is that we need to organize all of this, from rules to events, to printing cards ourselves. WOTC under hasbro does not have our best interests in mind and it should be clear at this point, so let's do it ourselves. But seriously proxy everything. You can order a whole edh deck on quality stock for cheaper than 4 shock lands or two fetches. Or you can print out the cards you want at a library, slice the paper with a paper cutter, then sleeve up your bulk with the print outs. Introduce these notions to your table and it WILL improve your games. It will even out power levels to where money isn't a problem and help reveal deck building problems that your group can discuss for a more enjoyable experience.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I suspect that branching formats is going to be the end result of all of this, whether that's under WotC or not. Also, yeah 100%. Proxy everything!

[@boycottwarhammer6016]

the fact they didnt come out and immediately say "we don't know what we will do and will workshop for several months" and immediately ship this concept out says alot.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Okay, congratulations. Because I think that maybe you've found a course of action that might not have upset anyone? I certainly wouldn't have complained as much... oh no... wait! I just thought about it and realised that they needed a system fast because if it's not ready by Vegas their shareholders would be furious. Good shout though, because I think that's a great suggestion. I just can't see the higher ups going for it, and that fact literally occured to me as I was typing this reply

[@boycottwarhammer6016]

@@RedBobcatGames yeah, give the powers back to the players like how it was before the RC and let the tables decide, the once the dust settles check in with players and give a solid solution going forwards if they want to use it

[@boycottwarhammer6016]

@@RedBobcatGames I will say though, when it does get sorted out it will help people judge power levels better and let conpetitive players, casual players and jank players all get their niche and better formulate groups

[@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

[@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.

[@dougmoody8418]

I've learned from a playtesting process in another game that I love (X-Wing) that unless we provide data gor our arguments, the arguments become useless. In the last few years, over and over again, and theough lost friendships, i e born witness to the fact that a pre-game discussion just doesn't work and has never actually worked. I'll happlly try this bracket system, once they have it in working condition, but only as a test. Something must be done, and we won't know what ideas fail completely until we've given them a fair shake. Pre-game discussions were given a chance, and have utterly failed in my eyes.

[@RedBobcatGames]

That's fair, though I worry it's may be doubled edged as unless this bracket system DOES rank everything, without leaving anything up to philosophy and guidance, then all we may end up doing is giving those most likely to argue enough vauge data to dig their heels in and try twist the brackets to their favour. "Well when you think about it, this card is kinda like this card so really it should be bracket 1" etc

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@thomaspetrucka9173]

I like the idea of the new power level system because it takes the current arbitrary number system and gives players a quantifiable way to discuss their deck's power level in short hand. "Ur-Dragon, but it's a 7, I swear!" is a lot more arbitrary than "It's a 3, but only because I included this one card--and only because it's an 'oops all artist' deck. Are we good?". And if someone lies about their deck or is delusional about their deck's power level, you can point out exactly why and how--in a way that new players can understand. It's reductive, and clunky, but that's how shorthand always looks. The question is whether or not it sends the right message--and I think it does! It's certainly in line with how the RC talked about the rule 0 discussion, and I see it as a way to facilitate that, while also carving out an integrated spot for CEDH! Now, I hadn't watched that stream, and you're right! The comments are...worrying. And I don't think they see the tiered system the same way as I do. 😅 I also think Magic players are a degenerate group that will generally try to break any rules you give them--just because they can. (Myself included) So I'm curious to see how it goes. I certainly think it will be more effective than "my deck is a 7." Thanks for the video!

[@RedBobcatGames]

You're welcome. And I think the bracket system COULD work for the reasons you stated. But listening to them and I don't think they're going far enough. For instance, maybe Ur-Dragon isn't going to be listed and left to "philosophy", then what? You know? We're back to arguing whether it's a 3 or not which is basically the same as before

[@thebigdork8030]

Maybe a bracket based on Commanders? Easier for players to keep track of, most decks are built around thier commander, and if you're using an unusual/unoptimized deck then you can Rule 0 it out with your friends.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I honestly think the way forward is going to be branching formats. I suspect most players will turn to kitchen table as a result

[@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

[@SwedeRacerDC]

As far as the banlist stuff, it's not necessarily contradictory, but vague. The first statement sounds like: "(once we've made the changes we want to make initially) we don't want to issue bans very often." Then the following statements about reevaluating and possibly unbanning make more sense. I still think they can completely end up contradicting themselves in the future with their actions, which is what I've come to expect from WotC

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, 100%. Like I say, some of what was mentioned in this video about their actions and plans just does not line up with their past choices