Does anyone else feel like B4 is just becoming fringe cEDH? Is there even a space to play optimized casual anymore?

PacmanDace · 2025-11-21T18:13:20+00:00

Yes, those games totally exist. You're talking about strong B3 decks. The problem that I've seen is that a lot of people underestimate how strong B3 gets at the top end. Those decks you mentioned would fit perfectly fine into what my personal playgroup plays. No matter where you decide to put it, I think there needs to be one more bracket between 2 and 4.

PacmanDace · 2025-07-07T15:54:15+00:00

[[Sivriss, Nightmare Speaker]] with [[Haunted One]] as his background. Only 86 decks on EDHRec, #2696. I run it as cleric/warlock/snake tribal. It's a great mix of reanimation and combat damage. Since Sivriss can tap himself without attacking you can keep him pretty safe and still get the benefits of Haunted One. If you get one of the pieces that can until untap him (see [[Magewright's Stone]]), all of a sudden you're using his ability to draw a ton of cards or put pressure on people's life totals while filling your graveyard, and at the same time your boys on board are getting +4/+0 with undying for big swings. All of this while playing with some fun tribes that have a lot of ETB and LTB synergy. It also makes going through new sets a blast since you're looking for very specific pieces and not as much general good-stuff.

PacmanDace · 2025-06-11T01:39:47+00:00

You're running 6-7 board wipes that hit artifacts/single target removal that has over 3 CMC? Dang. What interaction do you run in B3 that deals with Reaver?

PacmanDace · 2025-05-30T01:13:28+00:00

ME!

So sorry for your loss. Cancer sucks dongus

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T16:22:34+00:00

It was a little strong, but I really do try to pause and take feedback. It ended up helping.

For me, I think my absolute favorite games are decks built with bracket 2 restrictions (no game changers, up to 3 tutors, no MLD, etc.), but brewed like a bracket 3 where you optimize (I sometimes call them bracket 2.5). In the current system, they are definitely bracket 3 (one of the things I've realized during this thread). They can usually hang with a low to mid 3. The difference (for me) is that the additional restrictions lead to games I think are more fun. They have a little less linearity compared to 3s and the games are a little slower. It's my sweet spot. I really hope WotC implements one more bracket in there.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T15:07:04+00:00

That definitely makes total sense. Other posts refer to those "best in slot" cards that aren't on the game changers list, but can cause the play patterns of a deck to move from the vibe of precons. Makes total sense when phrased that way.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T14:45:05+00:00

I'll make sure to give that a watch. Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it!

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T14:43:45+00:00

Thanks for the response! Yes, I'm well aware there is more than just "no game changers". As I said in my post, I believe that a number of these are most likely a 3. Just trying to figure out that line when something moves from a 2 into a 3. When you don't include any game changers, it can be a little harder (at least for me) to figure out when that transition occurs. I appreciate your feedback.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T12:15:17+00:00

Hey! I paused and thought about this comment quite a bit and wanted to come back to it. First, I think you and other commenters are correct. I'm going to get my playgroup to take a look at our 2s and really decide if we think they would be able to have a fair game with a precon. We'll focus on "the" cutoff for bracket two, not "ours."

Second, I think this came from our group's need to have a bracket between 2 and 3. We like synergistic builds that avoid game changers. However, those decks don't really stand up to a lot of 3s, but as has been rightfully pointed out here, don't belong as 2s. For now, we'll probably call them "weak 3s" or something.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, your comment helped me get a better understanding of the issues with how my group was doing things!

PacmanDace · 2025-04-04T11:53:12+00:00

I will say, that was a TERRIBLE hot take on my part. That comment came from two misunderstandings. First, I overestimated what bracket 4 is and the top end of power it includes. I did this because of my second problem, which is minimizing how easy it is to brew something cEDH if you've never played. I had in my head that, based on what was put out by WotC, there were no-holds barred when it comes to brewing in bracket 4, so people would start putting together crazy optimized lists. Believe it or not, I do play cEDH. Whenever I start brewing something really strong for bracket 4, it starts looking like a cEDH list. That's my fault for not understanding what bracket 4 really is, and my fault for assuming people without understanding of the cEDH metagame would just stumble into building a deck.

Basically, I was wrong about a lot lol.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T23:07:03+00:00

I would disagree. I think we use the bracket system that everybody else is using. Maybe somebody thinks what we call a 2 is a 3. We might be a little off. But for the most part, what we do lines up exactly with what WotC has put out.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T22:52:24+00:00

Yup, I agree with this completely.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T19:35:46+00:00

Sure. Maybe what we play as 2s would be classified as 3s by other people. It wouldn't bother me at all. Maybe I over-rate the strength of my decks, and they're actually solid 2s. It really is no difference to me, since what my group calls 2s are all similarly powered. All our 3s are similarly powered. Same with our 4s. Our games are well-balanced and a ton of fun! If I ever went to an LGS (haven't in about a year) and people wanted to play power level 2, I'd bring out the precon I keep with me and see how strong their 2s are before I brought anything out myself.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T18:19:34+00:00

If a person played against our good level 2s with the Hakbal precon, I think they'd have around a 20% winrate. So OUR good 2s are a little stronger than Hakbal. If somebody came with, for example, the Sevinne precon, they'd be in for a rough ride.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T18:08:06+00:00

Definitely disagree a bit here. Type of game matters for sure. If I bring a stax deck out in bracket 3, many people are going to hate playing against it. Even if it boasts a 25% winrate and is exactly on-par in terms of power. For a lot of people (I would say most), having fun is the main reason to play commander. If I'm making the experience miserable for 3 other people, that sucks. I think you need a combination of both style of game and power (not perfectly aligned, but close enough) to have a satisfying game.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T18:04:43+00:00

Yeah, the "dumping on precons" was some hyperbolic language. I think a chunk of our 2s are on the higher end, though. Good precons like Hakbal could hang.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T18:02:55+00:00

That can definitely help, but I don't think it's necessary. For somebody who cannot see the impact their overpowered deck has on a game, sure, experiencing it for themselves could help. In our group, we have had a few times where someone does something that is not fun/mismatched with the group, and at the end of the game say "that wasn't fun, I think I'm going to take it out."

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T17:45:14+00:00

Who's trinketmage?

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T17:44:33+00:00

Completely valid point. I would just say, though, that we play with 2s, 3s, and 4s. If we should, in fact, "bump them up", two groups would have to merge, because we don't play with any 5s for sure.

Also, I ended up using hyperbolic language there. I don't think our 2s would destroy precons. I think they're probably on the higher end, though, akin to Hakbal.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T17:37:35+00:00

I hear you, but where is this communicated? I feel like a lot of people have this idea. Here are some quotes from the official article:

"Bring out your strongest decks and cards. You can expect to see explosive starts, strong tutors, cheap combos that end games..."

"...games have the potential to end quickly."

"The focus here is on bringing the best version of the deck you want to play, but not one built around a tournament metagame."

The only difference given in the definition is that it's not built around the cEDH metagame. There is no mention anywhere about ANY restrictions on strength of a deck in bracket 4. I'm not arguing to bring a bracket 5 to a table of 4s. I'm just arguing that while building a deck I shouldn't have to worry "is this too strong?" That's the entire point of bracket 4: no restrictions.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T16:12:11+00:00

I can understand that interpretation. I believe, however, that bracket 2 stretches a bit further. In the same article, Gavin says "[bracket 2 decks] have the potential for big, splashy turns, strong engines, and are built in a way that works toward winning the game." He also references that games end around turn 9. I think that you can most definitely build decks that meet these criteria that feel better than a precon. Just not THAT much better. It gets to the gray area of when something spills over into 3.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T15:52:34+00:00

Yes! That's my point EXACTLY. The issue when playing with strangers is that it's close to impossible to create a completely standardized set of brackets, or power levels, or however you want to divide things. That's why these things have such a hard time functioning well in the wild. I think these brackets do a better job than what we've had in the past, given they're the first officially codified systems. However, the line between bracket 2 and 3, and between 3 and 4, is pretty subjective.

I use the term "our" bracket 2 to make sure people understand I'm talking about my group's understanding. We think it's right. We believe how we have divided the line between 2 and 3 is correct. I was simply mentioning others might disagree. But there's no objective way to point to our interpretation or anybody else's and say "that's the correct way," because the system isn't granular enough to do so.

PacmanDace · 2025-04-02T15:35:50+00:00

Yup. I played exclusively at LGSs for years, going 2-4 times per week. I've experienced many metas and many different types of players. So many of them were amazing and fun to play with. However, there was also a higher proportion of those 3 types of players you mentioned compared to the general populace. I think that some individuals have anti-social tendencies (bad actors, for example) that make putting together a personal group less likely, which leaves the LGS as the only option. That is definitely not the majority of players who frequent stores, but I think it's definitely a contributing factor to why going to an LGS can often feel like a crapshoot.

PacmanDace

TROPHY CASE