Why Are the Other Free Cards Not Regarded as Game Changers?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Sept. 29, 2025, 8:57 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Deflecting Swat and Fierce Guardianship are both on the list of game changers for the EDH format, a decision with which I fully agree, but the other three cards in that cycle, Flawless Maneuver, Deadly Rollick, and _Obscuring Haze, are not on that list, so I wonder why that is; are the other three cards simply not as powerful as are the red and blue members of that cycle?
What does everyone else say, about this? Why are Flawless Maneuver, Deadly Rollick, and Obscuring Haze not on the list of game changers in EDH? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts, on this matter.
IMHO it doesn't matter if it sees play at higher levels, it matters if it's unfun in lower brackets. Nobody should give a crap if a card sees any play whatsoever in Brackets 4 and 5, neither Bracket cares about GC, so why count that! This is devil's advocate stuff, but by that logic perhaps Rollick, Haze, and Maneuver should be GC, because they're so specifically useful in Brackets 1 and 2, where everyone is on derpy combat decks? I feel like most Bracket 1 and 2 Dinosaur decks would care a lot more about Haze being used against them compared to Guardianship; how many key non-creature effects are even in a low power Dinosaur deck? I would say it should also be considered whether the card would be an issue if it was completely unrestricted in Bracket 3. I hate it when they ban stuff that's great only in cEDH, IMHO if you really want to run Mox Diamond in your Bracket 1 or 2 deck go for it, it's not likely to help you if you're actually building at those power levels. I think all of us who played back in the day remember finding out that stuff like Dark Ritual 100% didn't go in every deck, and if you've been around even longer you might have noticed it with the much lauded Black Lotus. There are decks where you'd rather play slower and not go down a card, be they Control or just a bad deck. I think a lot of lower power Commander decks are like that, where they wouldn't proxy a Mox Diamond or Black Lotus even if they could, for the same reason they don't run Ritual mana in general.
September 30, 2025 9:40 a.m.
PhotogenicParasympathetic says... #4
Except that part of the point of the Gamechangers is to help point to decks that are going to skew gameplay towards themselves vs decks that don't play those cards. Saying "Bracket 4 and 5 don't care about GCs" is missing the point. If I'm playing a low level deck, I'm going to be outclassed by a deck running cards like Fierce Guardianship. I'm NOT going to be outclassed by Deadly Rollick.
September 30, 2025 3:42 p.m.
I feel like I haven't made my point clear, in Bracket 4 and 5 you just play the best cards you can think of (that work together), you don't need to reference a list of Game Changers for ideas unless you're new to this game. YMMV, but I feel like players new enough that they don't know what cards are good probably shouldn't build a 4 yet? This is why they took Trinisphere off the list IIRC, and said they were looking at other cards that were pointless at lower levels. Does that make more sense?
Also, can you offer some specifics to back up your assertion that Fierce is to be feared in Brackets 1 and 2, thus justifying it's effective ban from those Brackets? In a meta that's driven by creatures, low in combos, and that frowns on huge splashy effects, what exactly are you expecting Fierce Guardianship to counter that's so important? I would expect there are plenty of creature based decks that wouldn't bat an eye at a Fierce, especially in 1 and 2, not because the card doesn't have a high ceiling, but because it doesn't interact well with their strategy. I doubt they'd take Force or Fierce off, I'm merely of the position that lower levels don't care as much about those cards, as long as you're not playing them in a type of deck that would already be a problem for those Brackets. Bracket 1 and 2 games almost never hinge on a single non-creature spell the way they do at higher levels.
October 1, 2025 8:38 a.m.
hyalopterouslemur says... #6
Also, if you're playing at a lower power level, Trinisphere becomes weak? Mind, never completely useless, since it makes a lot of removal/counterspells cost to more, but it's not nearly as strong in a Bracket 2 deck as it is in cEDH (Conversely, Gaddock Teeg is stronger in lower brackets, but still keeps Wraths and MLD off the table in higher brackets.)
The difference is a meta issue, as so much of Magic is. I always use the example of four- and five-color decks. In the lower brackets, there's only your budget stopping you from playing as many nonbasic lands as needed, and it's possible to even build a three-color deck with no basics. (In fact, the only nonbasic hoser of note that's legal in the lower brackets is Primal Order, I think. Oh, I guess Molten Rain.) But in bracket 4 and 5? Blood Moon, Back to Basics, Winter Moon, Ruination, suddenly playing five colors is a losing strategy.
October 1, 2025 4:31 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #7
DreadKhan you're not wrong, but your insight in why which cards are useful in which brackets had flipped some cause and effect. Fierce Guardianship is needed in bracket 4-5 because the wincons in those brackets are noncreature spells that need to be broken on the stack to be stopped. To the point that playing free counterspells now is signpost tryhard behaviour showing the game you're playing is too efficient for lower brackets.
Not being fun in lower brackets is a reason to put card on/off the gamechangers list, but it's not the only reason. Playing gamechangers is a sign you want to play a different kind of game than precons are built for. A game full of interaction and strong/ efficient ways to win, that can't be deterred by a few good blockers. The fact that you need the (tryhard, freespelling) gamechangers for both offensive and defensive uses, makes it bracket 4, it's not bracket 4 because you can play the cards.
And obligatory repeat:
The bracket system is not a legality checklist. It's a tool to start a conversation about what you want and expect out of a game of commander. There's no legality tied to it, the gamechangers are there to tell the oblivious players that; if these are the cards you like to play, there's a big percentage of players that will not have fun playing against your deck. So that the matchmaking of decks beforehand will lead to the opposite of disappointment for the most players involved. You can build decks without any gamechangers in it, still with the means to combo on turn 3. The deck isn't bracket 2 by lack of gamechangers, the intent matters as much as the cards do.
And the intent of someone playing Force of Will and Fierce Guardianship in their deck is barely ever different from "I need to win at any cost, and stop everyone else from doing so". Which makes it at least bracket 4. That's why they're on that list. Like Food Chain. You don't play that card without a way to make infinite mana with it. Those plans are not casual commander plans. Deadly Rollick does not in any way convey that same sentiment, and is therefore way more widely accepted, and not a gamechanger, even though it's free. That's the conversation the Gamechanger list is trying to start.
October 2, 2025 5:39 a.m.
Unless I misspoke without noticing I didn't say you don't want free interaction in Brackets 4 and 5 anywhere. My whole point was that you don't CARE about them in Brackets 1 and 2, that's a very different point. Similarly, I don't care that people play free interaction in Bracket 4 and 5, and I don't think people need or want hints to do so from the people managing the format. I think it's an equally valid point that "free interaction is associated with Bracket 5 in particular because it's conspicuously bad in lower Brackets". FoW and similar suffer from costing you cards (which are more precious in lower power metas), while Fierce and similar aren't very relevant because they don't interact on the right axis for those metas, because they're limited to non-Creature spells. It's INCREDIBLY bad form to ban or restrict cards that aren't even seeing play in a format/Bracket. This is why Trinisphere was taken off the GC list. For a great example of a card that's not a GC but meets the same standard as Fierce (is incredibly in high power and terrible at low) is Rule of Law; Rule of Law is a MUCH stronger stax effect in Bracket 5 than just about anything else, almost no decks can win around a Rule, other than decks built around it. Nobody wants Rule to be a GC because it's silly, but you don't live in fear of a Fierce in Bracket 2, you fear something like Bane of Progress or Blightsteel Colossus, some big honking creature that wrecks stuff.
I feel like it needs to be restated for some reason: what exactly are people countering in Brackets 1 and 2 with Fierce that would justify it being a GC there in particular, where GC are actually important? It being on the GC list has no bearing on Bracket 5, you yourself have said the GC list isn't meant to be a 'checklist'. Nobody should ever care if a card is played in Bracket 4 or 5 because it's a self-solving problem unless it also happens to be too good for Brackets 1 and 2. The only things that ever need to be GC are cards that aren't fun for Brackets 1, 2 and 3, that's all the GC list even does, it has ZERO impact on Brackets 4 and 5 because you should just be running the best cards there anyways.
I guess I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that the GC list should be referenced by people building 4s and 5s, as both can just run anything that they want. They shouldn't need to reference a list other than the ban list. The GC list IMHO should only consider Brackets 1-3, with an emphasis on 1 and 2. Building a GC list around brackets that never care about them is both unnecessary and counter-intuitive.
plakjekaas says... #2
Yeah, being able to interact with other spells on the stack is more powerful and changes the game way more than just interacting with creatures or with combat damage. The high-power games that are associated with bracket 4 and 5 will more often end in a combo turn than be decided by regular combat damage, and the blue and the red ones can way better interact with, and protect from, those wincons than the white, blue and black ones do.
The fact that you can cast spells without paying mana is quite powerful in itself, but not enough to qualify as a game changer, or Ornithopter and Memnite would be one too. Force of WillGC is part of a cycle, but not many people will argue that Bounty of the Hunt is on equal footing with a free counterspell.
September 30, 2025 3:31 a.m.