Commander Brackets: Your Deck Is More Than a Number

Baron von Count

by Jesper Ejsing

As anyone reading this article will hopefully know, Wizards and the CFP released the Commander Brackets beta on February 11, 2025 to general approval. Unfortunately, with the internet being what it is, many folks will have only seen an infographic or screenshot and not read through the more in-depth article in full.

This article is my attempt as a member of the Commander Format Panel to explain the most important aspects of the system that I think folks are missing when they dismiss the system or offer some common complaints.

First of all, I would ask anyone who hasn't read the article or watched Gavin's Good Morning Magic video on the new system to do so, as it's clear to me that a lot of folks are running off of second- or third-hand information or have only seen screenshots or the infographics from these places.

There is so much more to the system than what one social media post or screenshot can convey, and I promise that you'll get so much more out of using the brackets system if you understand what it is and what it isn't.

What are Commander Brackets? 

• They're an optional new pre-game discussion tool to help players find the right game in untrusted play settings, such as at your LGS or a convention like CommandFest. 
• The brackets can also be used to gauge the strength and gameplan of your own decks and perhaps guide your deckbuilding to better match that of others. 
  • For example, if you have a deck that better matches the playstyle of the Upgraded (3) bracket, but that contains no game changer cards, then perhaps you'll feel more free to add one or two to the deck since you know you'll be likely to play against other decks that do run those cards.

What aren't Commander Brackets?

• Commander brackets are not mandatory if you're already playing satisfying games of Commander with a regular playgroup or already have a good system for matching up decks at your LGS, etc. This is just another tool that's now available to you. 
• They aren't a way for Wizards to sneak a secondary banlist into the format, but rather a way for some long-established community norms around what cards don't belong at more casual tables to be more codified.
• The brackets aren't five sets of deckbuilding requirements. There's a philosophy that goes along with each bracket which is more important in determining where a deck belongs. The deckbuilding requirements are just one aspect of each bracket.
• This isn't a perfect algorithmic matchmaking system. You still need to have a pre-game conversation with the other players about your decks and goals for the game. The brackets are just a shorthand to help kickstart that conversation and get folks onto roughly the same page.
• No system can keep players from gaming the system or outright lying about their decks, which is why pre-game communication is still crucial to having a good time.

Don't Count on the Numbers

These brackets aren't a hierarchy, value judgment, level system, or anything else that would imply that one is better than another. They're categories to help people find games, and they're all fun and valid ways to play Commander. As such, I believe that referring to them solely by number isn't at all helpful or good for the future of the bracket system. They only have numbers at all for ease of use, but the name of each bracket is more important than the number by far.

I would ask you, the reader, to always use the bracket name along with or even instead of the number when you discuss your decks either online or in person. The bracket names are labels that actually say something about that bracket, whereas a number is just a number. There's a reason "My deck is a 7" is a meme, and the meaningless number is a big part of it.

As an example, which of these sounds like it'll be more productive in getting a good next game?

• "You said your deck was core, but it really feels more like an optimized deck to me with how fast it was."
• "You said your deck was a 2, but it really feels more like a 4 to me with how fast it was."

To me, there's a stark tonal difference, and simply more to work with in the first statement.

Exhibition & CEDH: Playing on the Fringes

OK, I can hear your eyes rolling from behind my screen. Enough about the ideals and goals of the system, let's talk about how to actually use it and how to assess your own decks, all right?

First of all, let's make one thing clear: If you need to ask what the difference between Bracket 1 (Exhibition) and Bracket 2 (Core) is, or the difference between Bracket 4 (Optimized) or Bracket 5 (CEDH) is, then your deck is Core (2) or Optimized (4) and not Exhibition (1) or CEDH (5). The most casual and most competitive brackets are most clearly defined by mindset and deck construction.

While a regular Commander deck can start out at bracket 2 and be upgraded and refined over time into a bracket 4 powerhouse, exhibition and CEDH decks require more intention and planning and are almost exclusively built with those brackets in mind. (I'll leave discussion of what truly delineates CEDH from high power Commander to those more involved in that end of the format, however.)

An Exhibition (1) deck is almost always built with some major quirk in mind. It could be a restriction on card names, artists, art elements, flavour, or any other number of things, but the point is that the deck is built around that quirk. As an example, let's look at my own Exhibition deck: 

Exhibition Example - Muxus, Goblin Grandee

The conceit of this deck is that every card (other than basic Mountain

Proper Bracket Assessment: Not just a checklist

Your intent and playstyle doesn't only matter in brackets 1 and 5, however. The whole system is built as a combination of what cards you play and how you play them. Yes, the number of game changers, tutors, etc. you play in your deck defines the lowest bracket number it could fall into, and currently deckbuilding sites like Moxfield and Archidekt are assigning that bracket to decklists entered there by default, but it's up to you, the player, to determine if the deck belongs in a higher numbered bracket.

The system can't account for synergy, average mana value, turn length, etc. There are so many factors that could be considered and no way to incorporate them all into a system that needs to be approachable, so we have to trust the players out there to know their decks and where they belong.

Allow me to explain this through a couple more examples of my own decks that exist in brackets beyond what their contents would suggest:

Upgraded Example - Helga, Skittish Seer

My Helga, Skittish Seer

Oh, and a quick note since some folks seem to be confused about bracket 2 (Core): It's for all decks that are around the same power/synergy/etc. of a modern day preconstructed deck, and not just for precons themselves. Changing one card from a precon doesn't suddenly make it Upgraded (3). A lot of my own decks live at Core level, even with careful deckbuilding.

Optimized Example - Xyris, the Writhing Storm

This deck looks like the definition of a deck that comfortably fits into bracket 3, with only a single game changer (Ancient Tomb

I know that there are flaws in elements of the Commander brackets as it was announced. It's a beta after all, and we need all the feedback we can get about what the community likes and dislikes about it. All that I ask of you, the reader, is that you approach the system in good faith and try it for what it is. We, the Commander Format Panel, truly believe in the heart of this system, and we know that it can become great if the community of Commander players helps us make it so.

To those of you in the community who wanted something different, such as a more robust system like the initial sketch that was presented last year, I'm sorry that you're disappointed, but nothing is stopping you from working out your own system for yourself and your friends to use. The more tools that are out there to help folks find good, fun games of Commander, the better!

As many folks have said in many ways, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." It's easy to look at something new and spot its flaws and cast it aside because of them, but if there is a perfect solution for Commander matchmaking, no one has yet discovered it in over twenty years. Let's give the Commander brackets a chance and work together to make the system the best it can be. Maybe we'll end up back at "my deck is a seven", but I doubt it and there's only one way to find out.

If you do have any constructive feedback about the Commander bracket system, you can talk to me on Bluesky @jaqalyte.bsky.social.