Stop Playing [Bracket 3]
The awkward middle child of the bracket system
I don’t want to bury the lede, but I do meander a little bit about the brackets before getting there. Before you get too far in, I want to clarify my position and backpedal from the clickbait title: I do not think that “[bracket 3] shouldn’t exist” or even that “no one should play [bracket 3].” Rather I think that most [bracket 3] players would be happier either bracketing up to [bracket 4] or down to [bracket 2]. Now onward to the meandering:
[Bracket 2] updates
The recent October 21st announcement about the bracket system yielded an updated infographic that better describes bracket games based on gameplay expectations than previous iterations:
This image, credit to Rachel Weeks, came alongside the change I’ve been preaching about and hoping for this whole time:
Thank god.
As a player who primarily plays [bracket 2] myself (see my article for Retrofuture Commander)… the word “precon” existing in the definition was, in my honest summation, the source of a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what playing in [bracket 2] means.
Under the “precon” definition a lot of people assume that things were [bracket 3] when they were very very clearly [bracket 2] - in reality, many precons were (and still are) close the bottom of the power for [bracket 2]. Many people assumed that if you take a precon and upgrade it a little, it becomes [bracket 3]: it doesn’t, unless you specifically add game changers, MLD, or game ending combos that end the game too early… And further, many people were considering another bracket called [bracket 2.5], which is upgraded compared to a precon but not [bracket 3].
We don’t need a [bracket 2.5] because [bracket 2] is ALREADY that bracket. Always has been. The word “precon” was a huge red herring.
In some cases, [bracket 2] players were simply calling their deck [bracket 3] for fear of being associated with precons. Or they have what is effectively a [bracket 2] deck that they slapped a Game Changer in, and would be better off just taking the Game Changer out and playing [bracket 2].
The first part of this article is to say: please consider trying [bracket 2]. Don’t play a precon. Don’t skimp on interaction. Just try playing a lower pressure game with fewer staples.
It doesn’t make you a noob to like its gameplay. It doesn’t make you bad at magic or inexperienced. Lots of great and experienced magic players enjoy the slower, more casual, and more consistent gameplay of the bracket.
What is [Bracket 2]?
[Bracket 2] is the second bracket of the bracket system. According to the infographic, players expect:
Mechanically focused decks, but with some room for pet/fun cards
Win conditions to be telegraphed on board, and incremental
Game play to be proactive, but lower pressure so as to be “friendly” and give other players reasonable space to do their thing (sort of like what I describe in my article about “casual” play)
To get to play at least 8 turns before players win or lose
To not have to play with/against Game Changers, Mass Land Denial, Chained Extra Turns, or 2-card combos.
As you can imagine, that casts a pretty wide net. As I’ve been preaching for a while, each bracket has a pretty wide net of what’s acceptable within it. According to the infographic, the main difference between [bracket 2] and [bracket 3] is staples.
Fewer staples means less homogeneity… and as you run more of the best cards, you really limit the freedom of what sort of strategy or card is “good enough” to play. At [bracket 2], ironically, it can feel like you have a lot more freedom to play bad-but-fun cards when you don’t have to compete with the Rhystic Studies of the world.
The argument against [Bracket 3]
With this article timestamped (and thus the expectations about what iteration of the Bracket Beta I’m typing about set in), let’s get into it. To start with, I think that each bracket necessarily covers a wide net of possible gameplay and that’s not going to change anytime soon. Importantly, I think most of the gameplay expectations set out by [bracket 3] already fit decently within the net of either [b2] or [b4]… leaving [b3] to feel like its lacking a clear identity when compared to its counterparts.
Game Changers
At a quick glance, the biggest difference between the “core 3 brackets” [b2], [b3] and [b4] is their stance on a class of powerful cards called Game Changers. [b2] allow none of them where as [b4] allows as many as you want. [Bracket 3], thusly, is stuck in the middle where you can have up to three. I REALLY don’t understand this logic.
In all my years playing I’ve encountered people who have strong opinions about cards Cyclonic Rift, Rhystic Study, or Demonic Tutor. I’ve encountered people who strongly feel like Rhystic Study is never fun to play with in a game because of its annoying mechanic and strong advantage accrual… and I’ve encountered plenty of people who strongly feel the card is fine. Do you know what I’ve never encountered? Someone who said “I dislike Rhystic Study but its I dislike it less if you only run a few cards like that” or who said “I think Rhystic Study is a fine and fun card but how about you don’t run more than 3 cards of its ilk?” This half-in-half-out logic, in my experience, is designed to create the best game for nobody… but rather exists as a bureaucratic compromise between two extremes.
I think that it logically follows that people who dislike blatant power cards like Rhystic Study should downbracket to [bracket 2], and people who don’t mind them should upbracket to [bracket 4].
In the case of someone who LIKES Rhystic Study, but DISLIKES Cyclonic Rift… I think they are fooling themselves if they think games will be better if they run Rhystic Study and let someone else run Cylonic Rift. The Rift will still tilt them unless they either avoid it being allowed by playing [b2] or fully embracing the “all cardboard is OK” mindet of [b4].
Most [bracket 2] players don’t want to have their game ruined by seeing a game changer. Most players who are happy with seeing game changers would be happier in [bracket 4] where you can play with a lot of them. Having “some game changers” makes no sense.
And it’s not like this design-by-committee issue is without downsides, either: it effects the power variance of your deck. Having some games where you get obviously more powerful cards and other games where you don’t creates a wild swingyness in terms of a deck’s “power level.”
Indeed, many [bracket 3] decks I’ve seen are decks that “play like [bracket 2] sometimes but play like [bracket 4] other times.” Players generally will have better games if they Load Level the power of their deck, which could be accomplished by running more game-changer-level effects or by running none at all… effectively setting a “power level target” for their deck and making the deck more likely to hit that target consistently.
Combos
Another very polarizing topic that the “core 3 brackets” have a different stance on is combos. Although the infographic itself only specifies “2 card combos,” I’ll just be saying “combos” here.
[b2] attempts to have no combos
[b3] says no combos before Turn 6
[b4] says you can combo at any time
Again I find [b3]s stance to be a silly half-in-half-out stance that’s designed to please no one. Players usually either like their games to be able to end in combos, or they don’t. No one’s sitting around saying “I think combos are kinda unfun but like… if you Exquisite+Bond me on curve its fine… just don’t ramp it out a turn early lol”
Like with Game Changers, the combo restriction for [bracket 3] occupies this weird middle ground where most people who like combos would be happier playing without the restriction and people who dislike them would be happier in a meta where they’re removed altogether…
But combos have an additional problem that Game Changers don’t. While I can understand the admirable attempt to reign in the speed at which combos affect the game by setting a turn target… the rule itself doesn’t feel like it actually accomplishes much. It’s clear that no one, not even the designers of the [bracket system], wants you to sand-bag your combos until after Turn 6… so what does it even look like to build a combo that is targeted at turn 6+?
As a thought experiment: What does it look like to design a combo you literally can’t pull off until turn 6, even under that combos most ideal conditions? Try it. It’s totally doable, especially if you don’t run any real ramp in your deck.
Most [b3] decks on Moxfield have combos that don’t fit that description.
Similarly to the game-changer topic, it is also my belief that this half-in approach to combos creates actively worse gameplay than either of the extremes. [Bracket 2]s removal of combos and [bracket 4]’s everything-goes mentality both create a consistency of output that defines a consistent power level… both of which are healthier than the power-spiking nature of having “some limited combos” and arguing on reddit about whether a particular combo is OK in [b3] or not.
Other “Quantitative” or “Hard” requirements
Other than game changers and combos, in which [b3] feels like it holds a slapdash and identity-less middle ground… [b2] and [b3] are identical in the “hard requirement” department: No mass land denial. No chaining extra turns.
This means for players with a general dislike of “power staples,” “combos,” and “game changers” the pipeline for downbracketing into [b2] is quite the straightforward one. For people who like power staples, combos, and game changers… I have good news too! [Bracket 4] has no restrictions and you can play all that stuff to your heart’s content (no silly half-restrictions)… and just because you can chain extra turns doesn’t mean you have to, so it’s pretty easy to upbracket too.
The “Qualitative” or “Soft” expectations
So other than the hard limits, each bracket has qualitative expectations set out for it… and for each of the expectations in the infographic at the top of its article, I’ll do my bit where I talk about it on a website where I say whatever blasphemous stuff I want:
… decks to be powered up with strong synergy and high card quality. They can effectively disrupt opponents.
I really don’t see what’s functionally different between this and the description for [bracket 4]. Sure [b4] has some fun edgy terminology like “lethal,” but unless the [b4] expectation is that you physically throw your fine cardboard slices at an opponent’s external carotid artery I’m not sure how any non-[b1] deck doesn’t qualify as lethal. The goal is to win. Doubly so if you start using descriptors like “strong synergy,” which imply lethality. The [b3] and [b4] descriptions are effectively synonymous.
… win conditions that can be played from hand in one turn, usually because of steadily accrued resources.
So if a win condition is able to be played in hand in one turn… it pretty readily fits into [bracket 4]’s description of ending quickly and suddenly. The caveat here that they require “steadily accrued resources,” which usually corresponds with the same restrictions [bracket 2]’s wincons have. Which is it?!? Are they played in one turn? Or are they accrued? The main difference between this and [b2]’s wincons is that [b2] calls out on-board telegraphing, where in [b3] telegraphing in other ways is fine… but is building a large graveyard, large hand size, or a million mana not part of your board state? Once again I find myself repeating: “I get why [b2] and [b4] are different, but its unclear to me what sets [b3]’s vibes apart.”
… gameplay to feature many proactive and reactive plays.
This is a fairly empty descriptor for a game. Pretty much all games have proactive AND reactive plays. [Bracket 2]’s descriptor draws attention to being “low pressure” so decks can showcase their plans. [Bracket 4]’s descriptor draws attention to the proactive plays being “powerful” and the reactive plays being “efficient.” But here we have “proactive and reactive plays,” which is probably one of the most generic things you could say about an EDH game. You might as well say “… gameplay to feature Magic: the Gathering™ Trading Cards.”
This is another case where, IMHO, [b2] and [b4] clearly define what sets their gameplay apart… and [b3]’s basically saying “it’s a game!”
… to play at least 6 turns before anyone wins or loses.
Initially I thought this is the part where [b3] most clearly stands apart from [b2] and [b4]. This is the part where it seems to draw the clearest line. After all, “turn 4” “turn 6” and “turn 8” are factually different turns, so how could this be ambiguous at all?
Well the operative words are variance and intent. Games don’t end on the same turn every time, and naturally some games end before OR after the target. My [bracket 2] server has an average match length of about 10.5 turns, but it has several on-record games as short as 5 turns. Natural variance is normal and, as I mentioned in the section about combos, some games will just end faster or slower. This is compounded when you consider some strategies (i.e. aggro or voltron) are faster at killing a single player and some strategies (i.e. control) are slower… without necessarily being strong enough to be pushed out of [bracket 2].
Building to win after turn 6 is a fine intent, but once you add in the variance in deck strategy and variance in deck output… it has a lot of crossover with a turn target of turn 4 or turn 8. For me [bracket 3]’s turn expectation feels like, after they picked [b2] and [b4] turn expectation, they just thought “uhhhhh I guesss… we go right in the middle?”
[Bracket 3] is the Enemy of Consistency
If you’ve made it this far into the article without quitting because I’m ragging on your preferred bracket… firstly, I commend you! Secondly, you’ve probably noticed that the most clear argument I have against [bracket 3]’s gameplay is that its rules lean towards inconsistency, where as I think that a game with a more consistent target power level is generally a better one.
Personally, I’m one of those crazy players who does not play Sol Ring in [bracket 2] decks because it’s usually a clear power outlier that ruins the consistency of your curve. I’ve already linked my own article for this concept, but I want you to know that I’m in good company when saying “running 1-3 cards that are clearly stronger than the rest of what you’re doing” (*cough* game changers in [b3] *cough*) “could be ruining your deck.”
Trinket Mage has made a video about it. Salubrious Snail has made a video about it. Even some fresh and cool bird has made a video about it. Many youtubers and other types of creators have said something along the lines of “running 1-3 cards that are clearly stronger than the rest of what you’re doing can ruin your deck’s consistency, which can ruin the fun and matchmaking ability of your deck”
When you play at at a consistent power level, you reap the benefits of a deck functioning similarly every game. Compared to a “swingy” power level where sometimes you feel like Bruce Almighty and other times you feel like Oliver, a deck that plays more consistently will be able to do its thing more reliably, participate more reliably, and be able to “play more magic” more reliably. It’s also more reliable to matchmake for without getting accusations of pubstomping or being in the wrong bracket.
Who SHOULD play [Bracket 3]?
Over the course of this article I've been making the point that [bracket 3] is sort of a nondescript mush that exists between two perfectly playable brackets… and that unlike [b2] and [b4], it fails to set itself apart in any meaningful way. To me [bracket 3] is a purgatory that many people get stuck in because of misunderstandings about [bracket 2].
In my opinion, the primary audience for [bracket 3] is the “my deck is a 7” crowd:
It’s good for casual players who “just want to play” and are not interested in taking stances on controversial issues like “game changers” and “combos” or increasing the consistency of their deck
I think the largest demographic that really does belong in [b3] is this sort of “un-invested” group. If you’re not entrenched enough to read articles and seek a more consistent game, [b3]s issues won’t bother you.
It’s good for players who bought a strong Game Changer or two and feel attached to them.
Trust me, I get it. When I first heard many people were cutting Sol Ring because it made games worse by making your power variance more swingy, I thought I could never do that. I happen to be the proud owner of 6 full art foreign-language copies of Sol Ring that I paid to have imported from overseas. Now? Those copies collect dust in my collection, and games are better for it.
It’s good for people who like game changers and combos, but don’t want to deal with Mass Land Denial
Honestly I kind of wish that this was actually what [bracket 3] looked like: the consistency of allowing staples and combos (not being half-in on them) but still holding the other restrictions. Here’s a reminder: pre-game talks still exist. “I’m playing [bracket 4] but I really don’t want to deal with MLD, if you’re playing MLD I’ll probably opt out” is a totally valid opener.
Conclusion
The bracket system is great. I love the bracket system. I believe that, while a [b3] deck may have to power up to play in [b4] or down to play in [b2] it is better for most players to “choose a lane” by doing so rather than staying in [b3].
Most [b3] decks I’ve seen, because of those “middle ground compromises,” are actually just decks that inconsistently play like they’re in [b2] sometimes and [b4] other times… with the hope that that inconsistency somehow evens it out to play in the middle. Moving the deck up or down a bracket would make them play more consistently at an intentionally chosen power level.
I highly encourage all players who really only play [b3] to play some games of [b2] and [b4]. Test the waters. See how they go.
I primarily play [bracket 2] so enjoy my takes with a picture of this guy:
And feel free to let me know if I should put any other brackets in a cargo box.