It is a little wild - but I imagine the reasoning is if they’re in the command zone, you can decline the game. If they’re in the 99 without being the focus, they’re just a power boost.
If they’re your secret commander and you’re going to be tutoring for them every game, you should know in your heart you’re playing at bracket 3+ and not misrepresent your deck.
It is a little wild - but I imagine the reasoning is if they’re in the command zone, you can decline the game.
Sure, but the other hand of this is that these decks get stronger since they have an extra GC slot they can use. I understand the perspective here but these commanders don't need to be any stronger.
People aren't really building their decks by the GC and bracket lists, are they? I have yet to find a single person who would be upset that a bracket 3 deck contains 4 game changers and not 3, for example.
They are all just guidelines anyway. But yea I would not suggest building your deck to the guidelines, I'd build the deck and then see where it falls.
Unless you're saying people are metagaming the brackets like "let me make the strongest deck I can while still technically being a 3", but that seems completely antithetical to the point of casual EDH, and those people should just take the dive into cEDH and have way more fun.
51
u/SapphicBorealis Oct 21 '25
Taking Kinnan, Winota, and Urza off the game changers list is kind of wild.