Etali, Primal ConquerorEtali, Primal Conqueror | art by Ryan Pancoast

We've all been in the uncomfortable situations when we sit down for a game of cEDH (Bracket 5 or B5) or Bracket 4 (B4), and someone at the table isn't exactly playing what we expect.

I've certainly accused decks of being cEDH and thus being pub-stompy at a B4 table before. I've also informed a player that their deck wouldn't survive at a cEDH table. A lot of us have, I think.

Like all things surrounding Brackets, knowing if we're right isn't as clear cut and/or easy to negotiate with our opponents.

Even while reaching out to get information about how to discern the difference between cEDH and B4, Ryan from Playing with Power said, "These are honestly pretty difficult to nail down right now. There is significant discourse on the difference between brackets 4 and 5, (what's the "meta"?

Are all off meta decks bracket 4 until proven? What is considered "proven"? etc.). Until WOTC refines its definitions a bit more, it's probably too tumultuous for me to really give these questions a fair answer."

However, I didn't want to give up. I wanted to find some kind of answer to this question, no matter how approximate the answer had to be. I had my own opinions but I didn't feel like an authority on this topic.

So, I reached out to Higher from Playing With Power, Cam and Dylan from Play to Win, and Fernando also known as BearClaymore. I consider these people to be experts in the field of cEDH. Hopefully they can help me negotiate some answers.

What Do We Mean By "Meta"

The Bracket distinction between Bracket 4 and 5's expectations considers when the games end. Bracket 4 expects to play 4 turns before anyone wins or loses.

 This is important. In cEDH, or Bracket 5, games can end on any turn. What does this have to do with meta?

In most competitive formats—of which commander isn't really—the strongest strategies, the most consistent, the most effective in securing the win, despite the efficiency of other decks, is the meta.

Winning whenever it is possible is meta. This concept creates most of our problems later on, but we'll get to it in a minute.

The criteria for player expectations in cEDH is"decks...are meticulously designed to battle in the cEDH metagame, with the ability to win quickly or generate overwhelming resources; often built using existing cEDH knowledge, tools, and/or decklists."

So, according to the Brackets, the expectation is that a cEDH deck is powerful, efficient, and using knowledge of the meta to increase that ability to win.

This is where things get weird. How do we determine what the cEDH metagame is and isn't?

Is it popularity? How do we break the mold in meta and experiment without leaving the meta?

If something isn't in the top meta decks, is it suddenly not cEDH?

Is a deck that is "off meta" but still in line with the metagame, not cEDH either?

Is the Commander or the 99 that make the meta?

There are a lot of questions. I've broken this concept into a few distinct questions that I asked our experts. Let's see what they say?

Practically Determining Meta

I asked, "How do you know when a cEDH deck is actually meta? What are you looking for?"

Higher started with, "For me, a deck becomes 'meta' when it's consistently showing up in meaningful numbers and producing results against the best decks in the format." Cam agreed, saying, "I normally ask myself 'How often does this deck come up in cEDH tournaments.'"

Fernando added, "A meta deck is normally defined by what the cEDH database would post (which is no longer as reliable as it used to be) and/or the list of most played decks from tournament data as published on edhtop16.com."

From this standpoint it seems like the Commander is most important thing to determine meta here. Cam even says, "We don’t need to take into account anything inside of the decks themselves, we just need to consider how frequently a commander or commander pairing is being brought to cEDH tournaments."

Dylan seems to bring a little bit of nuance to this concept though.

He said, "How to know when a cEDH deck is actually meta changes as cEDH evolves. The metagame is really just 'what is popular right now.' Specifically what decks are winning the most tournaments right now. So it's less about specific cards and more broadly just the 3-5 most popular most winning strategies."

So there is some flexibility based on how the meta evolves. It feels like it's "time-locked" in some way. The meta now isn't the meta later, necessarily. Cam agrees here stating, "Any commander that appears in 95-100% of cEDH tournaments during a specific time period I would consider to be a meta cEDH deck. What these specific decks are, changes depending on the time period you’re studying."

This idea makes me go back to what Higher said about, "producing results against the best decks in the format." If I took a Commander that had the color identity of the top deck, and kept the 99 of a cEDH deck, I might have a disadvantage, but would it suddenly not be cEDH? It would produce the results—maybe not the best results, but still results—against the best decks, I'd assume.

And Dylan goes on to say, "Right now in cEDH, that often looks like decks that can win on turn 2, decks that are built to stop decks from winning on turn 2 and can win with overwhelming card advantage later on, and decks that can pivot between which role they need to play depending on the pod." This is in relationship to the most popular winning strategies.

It makes me wonder if the Commander always matters? Higher did say, "A deck isn't meta simply because it's powerful. Plenty of powerful decks exist. A deck becomes meta when the broader competitive environment has to account for it. If players sit down and think, 'I need a plan for this deck,' that's a strong sign it's part of the meta."

Maybe that means the minor boost you get with a strategy is the important to the meta. Choosing a meta commander alongside a meta strategy is precisely what matters to the idea of optimization.

Every bit of advantage matters in a healthy meta deck. That's how other competitive formats work.

But that puts Bracket 4 in a weird position. If only the hyper competitive decks are cEDH, what happens to decks that have elements of the meta, but not enough to compete? According to Dylan the competitive decks are:

• Rograkh, Son of RohgahhRograkh, Son of Rohgahh/Silas Renn, Seeker AdeptSilas Renn, Seeker Adept
• Ral, Monsoon MageRal, Monsoon Mage
• Etali, Primal ConquerorEtali, Primal Conqueror
• Rograkh, Son of RohgahhRograkh, Son of Rohgahh/Ishai, Ojutai DragonspeakerIshai, Ojutai Dragonspeaker
• Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyKinnan, Bonder Prodigy
• Sisay, Weatherlight CaptainSisay, Weatherlight Captain
• Rograkh, Son of RohgahhRograkh, Son of Rohgahh/Thrasios, Triton HeroThrasios, Triton Hero
• Tymna the WeaverTymna the Weaver/Thrasios, Triton HeroThrasios, Triton Hero
• Tymna the WeaverTymna the Weaver/Kraum, Ludevic's OpusKraum, Ludevic's Opus
• Tymna the WeaverTymna the Weaver/Dargo, the ShipwreckerDargo, the Shipwrecker
• Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier
• Magda, Brazen OutlawMagda, Brazen Outlaw)

It is still possible for someone to win on any turn, long before turn 4, but isn't exactly cEDH? This makes the brackets feel really inefficient. What do we do with these decks? Are they more Bracket 4 or more cEDH? It's hard to determine.

Additionally, how do you manipulate the meta, breaking through with new strategies? How do new metas present themselves? I don't think I have enough of a clear picture to come to any conclusion yet.

The Intentionality of cEDH

I've noticed when experienced players talk about cEDH there is always mention of winning despite other strategies. This is intentionality in building. The intentionality of the deck seems to matter to some degree in what makes a cEDH deck cEDH.

Well, I assumed. So I asked, "Would you consider off meta stuff still in line with cEDH intentionality? Is it just "bad cEDH" or not cEDH at all?"

Fernando started with, "I believe that cEDH is more about the mindset than the deck. If you have the right mindset you will have a cEDH gameplay experience."

Cam agreed too, saying, "So long as you built a deck to be able to play against other cEDH decks successfully, your deck is cEDH." Higher added on, "I don't think cEDH is defined by popularity. I think it's defined by intent. A deck can be completely off-meta and still be cEDH if it is built with the goal of maximizing its chances of winning in a competitive environment."

According to this, cEDH players want to maximize their ability—as any competitive format might—but if you build any deck to its best ability to play against other meta decks, then it is cEDH? I need a little more clarification.

Cam said, "For example, Anti-Meta is a strategy you can do where you are specifically building a list to take down the most popular cEDH tournament decks."

Dylan went on to say, "True 'off meta' cEDH to me means decks that are not very popular, but are still very aware of what the meta in cEDH is, and has a specific plan for it... For a deck to be cEDH it has to pay attention to what is meta, whether it itself is part of that meta game or not."

Together, this picture is a bit clearer. Strategies with the intention and capability to compete with cEDH must inherently be maximizing all aspects in a particular strategy or deck. This makes it cEDH, not necessarily the popularity of the commander.

"Off meta" still has the intention and ability to play at the table, though there's dubious clarity on how much more efficiently it can do that over the top meta deck.

Higher puts it perfectly, "I reserve 'not cEDH' for decks that intentionally sacrifice competitive performance for flavor, theme, pet cards, self-imposed restrictions, or social considerations."

Like Dylan says here, "Something like The Cabbage Merchant is not a typical cEDH deck, certainly not meta, but has been picking up a little recently because it has the tools to win at instant speed, over top of someone else in the middle of a huge stack war."

Identifying Intention

Intent is such a hard thing to quantify, both in self identification and in identifying it in other players decks. How do you stand up for yourself in a Bracket 4 game that ends on turn three with a Demonic ConsultationDemonic Consultation and Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle combo?

What if the rest of the deck isn't exactly meta? What if it is but there are one or two pet cards included? How do we identify the intent of another player's deck?

So I asked, "What does intentionality mean for you all when you play cEDH? How does intentionality and optimization inform building?"

Cam said, "I am playing cEDH with the mindset that I want to win as many games as possible and my opponents will do whatever they can to stop me or win themselves. I am only picking the strongest, most efficient cards to be in my deck and only making game actions that help me win the game."

When I think about Bracket 4, it's sort of the same thoughts. Right? I thought this at first, but then I realized immediately that it can't possibly be true.

You're not trying to win no matter what; you're trying to win in your strategy, your budget, and your Commander.

That's not the same thing. Winning no matter what means you're playing Thoracle or Underworld BreachUnderworld Breach combos as soon as possible.

Higher gave a checklist for what the mindset of a deckbuilder should be:

• "Does this card help me win?
• "Does it stop opponents from winning?
• "Does it improve consistency?
• "Does it solve a specific metagame problem?"

This got me thinking about this concept of cEDH being faster than Bracket 4. That's not necessarily true. Speed isn't a factor according to Higher and Dylan. Higher said, "Optimization isn't about making every deck look the same.

Optimization is about maximizing a deck's chosen game plan." Dylan said, "For other commanders like Kinnan, Rograkh/Ishai, or Sisay, the goal is more often to stay alive, and set up long term, repeatable, passive card/mana advantage, like Rhystic StudyRhystic Study and Smothering TitheSmothering Tithe. So how you build your deck really depends on what you think will give you the best chance at winning the most games." Durdly decks with the intention to win every game despite the meta, is very much in line with cEDH.

Winning at any cost, building to that end, excluding commanders and strategies and cards based on how efficiently it will help you win answers the question of how to self-identify intention.

But I still don't think this helps us identify a deck from the outside. How do we set expectations about what a Bracket 4 game should feel like?

The Difference Between Bracket 4 and cEDH

We need answers. We need a way to best tell when a deck is pushing B4 and when it might not be appropriate for competitive play.

We're not going to get that. Ryan said, at the top of the article, "Until WOTC refines its definitions a bit more, it's probably too tumultuous for me to really give these questions a fair answer" and unfortunately that's the truth.

I'm not sure there is a good way to name this distinction as it stands, except with a remarkable understanding of cEDH meta and receipts of the success of the deck in question. When asked, "What would you say is the difference between off meta cEDH and Bracket 4?" the answers were hard to swallow.

Fernando said, "Aside from the mindset, strictly on deck building, they are pretty much the same."

Cam said, "An off meta cEDH deck is just an unorthodox commander choice that still considers the other cEDH meta decks it will play against during deckbuilding, and how it will need to interact with them.

Whereas a bracket 4 deck just pushes a commander to see how strong and synergistic it can be, and does not consider a wider metagame during deckbuilding."

Higher said, "A Bracket 4 deck may be extremely powerful, but it often isn't built around surviving and succeeding in a tournament-level environment... a Bracket 4 player might ask: How strong can I make this deck? A cEDH player asks: How often can I win against the strongest decks available?"

Dylan added, "If you think your deck can hang at a cEDH table, who am I to tell you not to try. Just like if you bring a mono-black Vampire deck to a Modern tournament, it's still a Modern deck. Just a bad one."

Conclusion

Brackets are finicky. All we can do is share our expectations. Higher said the difference between Bracket 4 and cEDH, " is the expected environment." The Bracket system doesn't put a number on your deck. It's a tool for discussion about your expectations in a game.

I think it's important for players to explain their lines and expectations in their own deck in a Rule Zero conversations.

It gets rid of some of the mystery of the deck, but after the first game it is known what it's trying to do. Talking this over lets me know if you're tutoring for a turn 3 win, or casually playing Thoracle. We can't account for bad actors, but we can try our best to share our expectations before and after a game.

I want to leave you with two last words. Higher said, "There can be overlap in power level but a significant difference in philosophy" when talking about the difference between B4 and cEDH. Cam said, "Intent is the name of the game… Well technically Magic is the name of the game but you get the point." Gotta love Cam.

What do you think? I'm @strixhavendropout on everything.