- cross-posted to:
- edh
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I think this system has the potential to achieve its objective, if it doesn’t end up causing more confusion. Five brackets might be kind of a lot, although I hear what Gavin’s saying about why they went up from three, and 40 “game-changers” is definitely a lot. Nobody will or should try to memorize what’s a game-changer, especially if the list can fluctuate the same as a ban list. It might be better to try to use categories that explain why the game-changing cards are a problem… except that Gavin did exactly that in the article, and it’s still a fairly long list.
All of my Commander decks would be in bracket 1 or 2 and my main question is how to decide which. Most don’t have sub-optimal card choices to fit a theme, but all have sub-optimal card choices for budget reasons, and I’m not sure whether any of them are really a fair match for a precon. Should I say “bracket 1.5”?
I think this is a pretty good idea, and I like the overall take on it. It’s a little confusing at first but I imagine it will get iterated on. The Game Changers are very confusing, I feel like people will just optimize against these or any list like this.
What I love most is that my old school 5c Knight Tribal Kenrith actually qualifies in the bracket 1 it’s designed for. Whenever I said Kenrith before people never wanted to play against it but the deck stinks! It’s just equipment and knights from the first 15 years of the game. Kenrith is only in there to get 5c and because he’s an awesome and loreful king and commander.
I actually think this will revitalize the jank decks by giving them kinda of a dedicated format in Bracket 1.
I like this, but I feel like the brackets could be expanded on for 4 and 5.
What’s the criteria for game changers?
Having fully read the article, I still have questions about the Game Changers, and I really want to know what the absolute mad lad running Winota at the WotC HQ has in their deck that gets her on a watchlist.
What’s the criteria for game changers?
If that list is exhaustive, it seems to be “An arbitrary subset of powerful cards in each color, chosen more or less at random”.
As an example, Trinisphere is on the colorless list, which is very good at slowing down degenerate decks and isn’t really problematic in commander in decks that would fall into bracket 3 anyway, but Winter Orb, one of the more hated effects in the game, is suspiciously absent.
Edit: I guess they’re excluding things that fall into the ‘land denial’ category (which itself is very weirdly laid out. What about Liliana of the Veil? It can destroy at least half of a player’s lands, but only a single player, and it’s not the primary function of the card. Their definition of land denial includes ‘multiple players’, so is that fine? Can you play the card if you’re not using it for that purpose?). What if player A plays Enchanted Evening, and player B has Tranquility in hand - are they disallowed from playing it, because it would, due to the current boardstate, destroy all of the lands? What if you have both in your deck - neither card alone destroys lands, but together they do. Same goes for cards like Kormus Bell and Living Lands combined with e.g. Pyroclasm.
In that case, what about Nether Void? Having Trinisphere but not Nether Void is a weird choice. How about Humility, or Smokestack? If I was creating a list of cards that ruin the fun for some subset of the table when they’re cast, those would certainly be on it. Mana Breach doesn’t fit their definition of land denial; neither does Vorinclex, but Vorinclex is explicitly on The List, whereas Mana Breach is not. I’m curious where they got this list from.
My play group has a set of deck building guidelines that we all follow, and a prohibition on mass land destruction is in there. There’s a couple people with lands-heavy ramp decks, which go basically unchecked, because the cards you’d typically use to keep such a strategy in check are disallowed.
I’m really hoping this is a sneak peak of sorts because I’m having a serious issue believing my mox opal is degenerate enough to take my deck to a whole new tier of play. Underworld Breach is a problem but Sneak Attack is ok? Feels like they asked a group of test kids what cards make them salty.
I have a Kwain deck that has no win condition. The entire basis for the deck is to give everyone cards and life and mana and keep everyone alive long enough to draw, resolve, and protect a Divine Intervention. Typically by the time that happens, when I manage it, the entire table has drawn through their entire libraries at least once. I’ve never had anyone - regardless of the power level of the table - tell me they found the deck to be oppressive or unfun to play against. However, it has a Fierce Guardianship in it, so I guess it’s degenerate now.
I could totally see fierce guardianship being used degenerately but it’s inclusion alone shouldn’t be the benchmark. That’s a really good counter and should basically be auto-included just for the commander related ability.
@Postmortal_Pop @KoboldCoterie isn’t all this covered under the explicit Rule 0 discussion point? Where you say “yeah this card is in my deck but I’m not using it optimally so think the deck is a lower tier”
Oh for sure, and this is already so much better than everyone’s unique definition for 7.5/10, I just really like to see metrics. This list say I need to be weary Winota and I would appreciate a reason behind that.
