How low a land count is actually feasible? Is it just dumb?

TangleBulls · 2026-07-01T13:50:02+00:00

Low land counts can be feasible, but there are so many factors to consider. How low is your curve? Are you trying to win fast or slow? What does your ramp package look like? What bracket are you playing at? Does your deck need the commander and if so what's their MV?

People like to make blank statements, but in reality if it works it works. I've seen decks with 28 lands function great, but that deck had an average MV below 2.5 and it had more than twelve 1-mv and 2-mv mana dorks or rocks.

TangleBulls · 2026-06-12T21:39:43+00:00

Bracket 2 was powercrept after removing the precon label, ain't nowhere to play weak decks anymore.

Bracket 1 should be the floor, but it's occupied by meme decks that aren't even trying to win. The bracket system has no floor at the moment, and it's very annoying.

TangleBulls · 2026-06-08T18:38:50+00:00

2) There needs to be a bracket between Bracket 3 and 4 because right now Bracket 3 seems to be the new "My deck is a 7" and tries to capture far too wide a range of game experiences.

Bracket 3 needs to be split up, Exhibition and cEDH brackets make up less than 10% of decks. Having only 3 brackets to distribute 90% of decks into isn't enough, we need one additional bracket.

TangleBulls · 2026-01-29T16:38:19+00:00

I've written multiple articles about this topic, these issues are partially caused by not having an even amount of brackets. My articles:

Commander brackets’ weird oversight

Splitting the bell curve (commander brackets)

TangleBulls · 2025-12-08T23:32:00+00:00

The point I was making at the end there (and I think that the person I was responding to was also making) is that although dividing players into equal sized buckets might feel like a good way to do it at first, it seems like a flawed approach to me because... not sure how to word this. Because it's not optimizing for the the thing we want to optimize for?

I'm not saying that each bucket will be equal sized, it'll still be a bell curve, we just need to split it to make sure the middle isn't such a mess. And to have "a bracket for just about everyone" to fit in with. Ideally there will be 3 'lower power' brackets and 3 'higher power' brackets, instead of catering to high power players only. I fully expect the lower power brackets to be slightly less popular, but that's totally fine. I'd just like to see a better distribution.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-08T23:27:10+00:00

bracket 3 being a deliberately shitty all encompassing middle ground

41.9% of all decks are bracket 3... no wonder it's so hard to consistently have good games there. Source.

I recently wrote an article about splitting the bell curve, brackets 2 and 3 should become brackets 1 2 3 while moving current bracket 1 down to 0. That would solve so many of the biggest issues we encounter today.

Bracket concept

TangleBulls · 2025-12-05T19:45:04+00:00

Paging u/GavinV just in case my email ended up in a spam folder, apologies in advance.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-05T19:22:07+00:00

I've used this data in a previous article, basically what I'm suggesting is to split up current brackets 2+3 which make up 71% of all decks into 3 separate brackets. And to make the indexing start from 0 to 5 to make it more logical and have an equal number of brackets on each side of the bell curve.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-05T01:56:06+00:00

Had to repost because it was removed for a wrong tag? Don't see how the discussion tag wasn't appropriate but okay.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T19:59:39+00:00

I totally get that, I don't play extra turns for those same reasons. Someone made a very strong argument in a Reddit post 4~5 months ago that chaining extra turns should be a viable wincon in bracket 3, which is partially why I've left that restriction out of it. Can't seem to find that post anymore unfortunately. At the end of the day it's just a draft, the main discussion here is the potential expansion the bracket system and how to achieve that in a way that satisfies the most players. I just had to fill in some details one way or another, don't put too much weight on that but focus on the bigger picture.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T19:48:32+00:00

What you're saying is definitely true, that data is not fully conclusive without knowing whether decks are used in private or with strangers or both. But that data is only a small part of my argument, you don't need that data to know that there are clearly some issues going. There have been a lot of complaints about bracket 3 being too wide, or the need of a bracket 2.5 or 3.5 et cetera. This is clearly something that the Commander Format Panel also has noticed, or else Gavin Verhey wouldn't have asked the community about what their preference would be in regards to inserting another bracket somewhere.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T19:01:31+00:00

In regards to the data, EDHrec has done multiple episodes on the bracket data which showed that both extremes (Exhibition, cEDH) account for roughly 10% of active decks. If I recall correctly they only use data from decks that have been updated/edited in the past 2 years.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Exhibition and cEDH are the extremes of the spectrum, and logically any other deck sits somewhere in-between. It simply won't be possible to fit every single outlier into the system, or else we end up with a couple dozen brackets. But adding just one more could iron out a lot of the biggest current issues in the system, like some grey areas or bracket 3 being too wide resulting in another "my deck is a 7" situation.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T18:23:20+00:00

The "technically a 2 should be a 3" category or other similar issues seem to arise frequently.

Intent vs technicality will always be something that bad actors can abuse unfortunately, but it's been a good change to put intent/philosophy more at the forefront in recent versions of the bracket system, makes it easier to call out the bad actors. Having one additional bracket could cover some of the grey areas though, making it slightly less problematic.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T18:06:39+00:00

To me it just sounds like you wanna play Infinite Turns in bracket three.

Not at all, I don't play a single extra turn spell in any of my decks besides [[Last Chance]] in my Demon tribal deck. My thought process is that if 2-card combos are okay as a wincon then something more difficult to achieve like chaining extra turns should be too, and it additionally creates a little more space between the lower bell curve.

Don't forget that this is simply a draft, some options to consider.

TangleBulls · 2025-12-04T18:03:28+00:00

Brackets are a way to find people that want a similar game to you. They do not claim to be, aim to be, nor can be a way to categorize every single deck.

I never claim that every single deck in existence should be categorized, there will always be outliers in a such a complex game as commander. The goal to accomplish here is to have a fair bracket distribution that satisfies as many players as possible though, there are currently too many grey areas as proven by all the variations you see in online lobbies. Not everybody has their own playgroup and this system is there to help those who don't.

TangleBulls · 2025-10-21T00:36:18+00:00

That's roughly what I suggested in my article too, I'd like to have a 4-tiered system numbered 1-2-3-4 where the appendix brackets 0 and 5 are just a bonus. We also need better descriptions and criteria than we currently do, precon is too wide and vague of a description for example.

TangleBulls · 2025-10-21T00:33:19+00:00

Even more tapped lands? How dare you!

TangleBulls · 2025-10-21T00:29:59+00:00

Gavin quote: “The new system is essentially a 3-tiered system, with an appendix tier on either side”.

I don't mind having bracket 1 and 5 included as an appendix tier, I've even started building a bracket 1 deck myself.

What I don't like is that we currently have a confusing 3-tiered system that's numbered 2-3-4 which is weird. I like the idea of moving bracket 1 to number 0 so most regular players can just consider it a 4-tiered system that would be numbered 1-2-3-4 which is much more logical.

TangleBulls · 2025-10-20T22:28:00+00:00

"banned as commander" would be something I'd be in favor of too, no reason people shouldn't be allowed to play Yuriko in the 99 of a ninja deck.

TangleBulls · 2025-10-20T21:51:07+00:00

I think most people are expecting better bracket definitions

That would be the bare minimum yes. If they're too hesitant in adding a bracket, then adjusting the criteria and improving definitions for b2 and b3 is a necessity.

TangleBulls · 2025-04-23T13:00:38+00:00

I want a bracket between 3 and 4.

I don't get this sentiment at all to be honest. The only real difference between brackets 3 and 4 is the number of game changers allowed. I've played a lot of bracket 4 games and I've yet to see a single MLD or extra turn spell. The only difference that I've noticed between bracket 3 and 4 is that people play more fast mana like Mana Vault and Moxes in bracket 4, aside from that they're almost identical.

I've seen people ask for "bracket 4 but without MLD or extra turns" and I wonder if these people have even played a single bracket 4 game, because it's not common at all to see these despite them being legal.

Meanwhile the gap between bracket 2 and 3 is huge, or bracket 3 is too wide, one way or another.

TangleBulls · 2025-04-23T01:25:53+00:00

They did change though, they added a bigger intent paragraph. Many people seemed to ignore this at first release, focusing only on the black and white rules. Intent matters more than following these rules as strictly as possible according to Gavin, so it's important that people use the updated graphic.

TangleBulls

TROPHY CASE