The Motherlode, ExcavatorThe Motherlode, Excavator | Art by Josu Solano
Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas? This week, what do you do when you reach the limit of "No Limits"?!
This column is for all of you out there who have ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"
I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email amithebolas@gmail.com with your story, a pseudonym you want to use, and of course, only include details you don't mind in the column! You might see your story below one day. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast?
I'm Mike Carrozza and I think this guy looks better without his little hat!
*Gif of Reaper KingReaper King taking off his crown and long hair flows out like a beautiful actress in a movie is being introduced*
(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and then some.)
SUBMISSION
Hey Mike,
This is a game I played a while ago back when the Bracket system was new. It was a Bracket 4 game that was clearly indicated as such before the game started. I was playing a mass land destruction focused Thalia and The Gitrog MonsterThalia and The Gitrog Monster deck. I don't remember what any of my opponents were playing. Considering that this was a Bracket 4 game, I thought that Mass Land Destruction, while annoying, was an acceptable deck to play.
Well, it couldn't have been further from the truth. Upon playing my first MLD spell, two of my opponents became livid and insisted that I shouldn't be playing MLD in a noncompetitive game. The third opponent was fine with an MLD deck but said something to the effect of "You should have announced that you were playing an MLD deck before the game started."
Now, had this been a lower bracket, I certainly would have asked permission to play MLD. But since this was Bracket 4, I didn't feel the need to give any sort of warning about my deck and thought that basically anything was fair game at this level of play (I didn't even win the game in question). But because all three of my opponents were at least somewhat critical of what I did, I have been second guessing how I handled this game and haven't attempted to play MLD in Bracket 4 since.
Am I the Bolas?
Storm of Crows
VERDICT
Thank you for writing and asking me to weigh in on your story. As I mention every week, if folks don't write to me, there's no column, so if you, the reader, want to send me a story, whether it's your own or one from Reddit or a friend's, please send it to amithebolas@gmail.com and I'll get to it here.
I'm a little confused by this one. Let's start with reminding everybody what Bracket 4 is from the latest update article on Magic's site.
"BRACKET 4: OPTIMIZED
Players expect:
Decks not to adhere to the cEDH metagame reserved for Bracket 5
Decks to be lethal, consistent, and fast, designed to take people down as fast as possible
Game Changers that are likely to be fast mana, snowballing resource engines, free disruption, and tutors
Win conditions to vary but be efficient and instantaneous
Gameplay to be explosive and powerful, featuring huge threats and efficient disruption to match
Generally, you should expect to be able to play at least four turns before you win or lose."
In the original beta of the Bracket System, Brackets 4 and 5 have no restrictions besides the banned list. Meanwhile, Brackets 1-3 discourage MLD, extra turn looping, and early two-card infinite combos. Having just one of these elements would bring your deck up to Bracket 4 immediately. It really feels like the only Bracket where anything goes - even cEDH is beholden to their own meta. Bracket 4 is where you can play powerful decks with more than three Game Changers. This is where the "no mass land denial" and "no looping extra turns" agreements are no longer.
There's a general understanding that no strategy is really off-limits because this is the Bracket where these strategies end up being accepted because it is the only place for them. So I am shocked to learn that these players would be upset. I understand that Bracket 4 has no restrictions, but now I'm recognizing something I had not considered yet: Are there subcategories to Bracket 4?
Is there a chance that some players simply put four Game Changers in their decks and have to report as playing Bracket 4 when still playing at a lower power level? Do some Bracket 4 players put a lot of emphasis on the C of cEDH as the defining difference between Brackets 4 and 5?
This submission is stuck in my craw. On the one hand, if you're playing land destruction, it should be discussed in the rule zero conversation. On the other hand, if anything goes and we're agreeing to play in Bracket 4, then telling you about it feels like it should be optional. Let me get this straight - I need to tell you about my mass land destruction so you're aware of it and can prepare for it while you don't give me any information on your deck just because you're not running land destruction, too?
Knowing about MLD will make you play differently: You'll hold onto extra lands in hand so you can recover better, you'll save counter magic to nullify the attempt at destroying all lands, and, if you're not prepared to play through such a playstyle, you'll probably be focusing your player removal efforts on the mass land destruction player before they even get a chance to eliminate lands.
In a pod where the agreement is to engage with the rules of a Bracket that says there are no rules (yeah, yeah, besides the banned list), how far does that extend? Does this mean a rule zero conversation around Bracket 4 games boils down to "Bracket 4? Okay, good!" repeated by every player? I would hope not.
Regardless of the Bracket, a rule zero conversation should be had. Even if it's a reminder of the Bracket's rule about having no rules, it might uncover that this game might be more Bracket 4-adjacent. Some folks really don't like to play against mass land destruction and I think that's fair. Discussing it before playing a game is important to get people on the same page. This is what the Bracket System is about, in the end. It's not the end-all solution to your pods, but rather it's a means to get the conversation partly started in a common understanding before discussing particulars if you don't accept them wholly.
However, given that Bracket 4 begins and ends with "just no banned cards," part of me believes it would have been up to your opponents to mention they don't want to play against mass land destruction in the rule zero conversation when sitting down for Bracket 4 Commander. Brackets 1 through 3, if someone had land destruction, even if it technically is not allowed in the Brackets, they would need to announce that this is something their deck does and it can be requested that they find a Bracket 4 game where it is understood to be accepted by default because it is, again, one of the only placements for this type of strategy.
I'm with Storm of CrowsStorm of Crows here, to be honest. I don't think it should be necessary to announce that your deck does this. However, I do think that a reminder of the Bracket 4 rules is a good idea before starting. A blanket statement of "this is Bracket 4, anything goes - infinites, mass land destruction, extra turns, Game Changers galore - it's all in" and if someone objects, the conversation begins for real.
Here's where I'll get a little more venomous about it though.
If you really, really, really want to play all those Game Changers and that's all that makes your deck a Bracket 4, then you'll have to get acquainted with some of the other stuff that's not available in lower Brackets. Oh, you don't want to face down mass land destruction? Bracket 3 is right there. Trim your Game Changer list down to three and get creative with your other slots.
I promise you that you don't need Jeska's WillJeska's Will and Rhystic StudyRhystic Study in every deck. Find some cool tech for your deck. Get weird with it. Not only will your deck be more personal to you and more specific in strategy, but it ensures that you're not up against the strategy that gets you crossing your arms and huffing at the LGS employee about how "it's not fair."
Sure, this is a reductive characterization of the opponents in OP's story, but I feel like there's a level of hypocrisy at play, here. If you really want to play in Bracket 4 and build Bracket 4 decks, then you show up for all of Bracket 4 or you have a conversation up front to discuss what you'd like excluded then deal with the consequences of this request. Whether that means moving forward with the game or having to find another table, that's on you.
Also, what the heck is a noncompetitive game? It's Magic: The Gathering, there's going to be a winner at the end of the game. It's inherently competitive. You decide whether you care about the competition or not, but it doesn't just stop existing because you're not interested in that aspect. You define your own wins if you eschew the traditional competitive aspect. If you want noncompetitive games, I would recommend having a lengthier rule zero conversation about what it is you expect from the game and you'll recognize that when you say noncompetitive in the second most competitive bracket, what you're saying will sound like "I want to have a better shot at doing what my deck does."
Isn't that a competitive statement when you're discussing a deck that belongs in the highest non-cEDH bracket?
Get acquainted with your inner wants and needs, then get other people involved.
Turns out, I'm pretty peeved at these opponents! I don't think you're the Bolas, Crow StormCrow Storm, but I think what you could start doing in Bracket 4 games is beginning the rule zero conversation with a reminder of the rules of the bracket and the expectation. No need to divulge the strategy, but lightly reminding everyone about it being accepted in this bracket should be enough to have the others pipe up if they oppose.
Thanks again for writing in.
Mike Carrozza
Mike Carrozza is a stand-up comedian from Montreal who’s done a lot of cool things like put out an album called Cherubic and worked with Tig Notaro, Kyle Kinane, and more people to brag about. He’s also been an avid EDH player who loves making silly stuff happen. @mikecarrozza on platforms.
Your opinions are welcome. We love hearing what you think about Magic! We ask that you are always respectful when commenting. Please keep in mind how your comments could be interpreted by others. Personal attacks on our writers or other commenters will not be tolerated. Your comments may be removed if your language could be interpreted as aggressive or disrespectful. You may also be banned from writing further comments.