Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer | Art by Grzegorz Rutkowski

Game Changers are, generally speaking, some of the strongest cards in Commander that require players proactively deciding what kind of Commander night they'd like to engage in.

Despite these cards strengths, the current list of 53 Game Changers only includes two potential commanders, Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright and Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGrand Arbiter Augustin IV.

Why aren't there more commanders as Game Changers if there are very strong commanders, regardless of how you build them? What makes the Commander Format Panel (CFP) so hesitant about making more commanders Game Changers?

There are a few different reasons, but I believe the most poignant reason some commanders are so warping is also their strongest reason to not be Game Changers. Let me explain.

Making a Game Changer

For the most part, what makes a card a Game Changer is its inherent power plus how players play with it. Fast mana rocks, efficient tutors, and strong protection spells all are either too strong on their own for lower Bracket experiences or are played in ways that aren't fostering lower Bracket expectations.

The same can be said for banning cards as well. The CFP takes into consideration how strong a card is, how it's played, how it affects the overall Commander meta, and how removing said card is believed to change the format.

So why then aren't more legendary creatures Game Changers? A lot of commanders are strong enough to be comparable to other Game Changers or have an immediate effect on a game the moment they resolve.

Sometimes they influence games before turn one due to other players either not wanting to play against said deck or counter picking which deck they play.

Aren't these outcomes definitively game changing?

For a moment, let's look past the argument that the CFP leans away from deeming strong commanders Game Changers due to the possibility of a player building a deck without realizing their commander is a Game Changer and thus invalidating their whole deck from their intended game experience.

Additionally, we won't be considering the argument that players not wanting to play against a particularly strong commander won't play against said commanders, thus effectively self-policing what is and isn't allowed in their preferred Bracket.

These are true points and good arguments, but we're interested precisely in what makes commanders so special when specifically evaluating card strength and how commanders are played.

Strong Commanders Demand Strong Answers

Having an eighth card in your opening hand that's immune from hand disruption and is effectively permanently accessible at any point in the game is undoubtedly strong.

Even if it were just a humble MemniteMemnite, the command zone increases the minimum power level of any card that commands a list of 99 cards curated to further leverage having immediate and recurring access to a commander.

Additionally, commanders nowadays have grown in power drastically ever since WotC has shifted its focus from Standard to Commander.

What better way to sell to Commander players than to directly support their once niche and weird deck lists with power crept commanders targeting highly specific strategies?

And yet, despite the inherent power of a commander and the overall power creeping of modern commanders, I'll argue that these factors are reasonably outweighed by the concept of "kill on sight."

Kill on sight (KOS) commanders are what they sound like: commanders that demand to be answered immediately lest they run away with the game. Aesi, Tyrant of Gyre StraitAesi, Tyrant of Gyre Strait, both Jodah, Archmage EternalJodah, Archmage Eternal and Jodah, the UnifierJodah, the Unifier, Krenko, Mob BossKrenko, Mob Boss, and Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIERSephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER are but just a few examples.

This style of commander offers a high risk, high reward game plan centered around ensuring the commander is permitted to "do the thing" for a high reward (often winning the game, plain and simple) at the high risk of an opponent removes their commander in a variety of manners (often resulting a game loss).

Yes, there are ways to mitigate this risk through protection spells and timing exactly when the threat of winning the game is presented, but generally speaking this is the shared experience of KOS commanders. If they live, they win. If they're answered, they lose.

This is different from, say, an Urza, Chief ArtificerUrza, Chief Artificer style of deck in which the commander plans on slowly building up to a game winning board state. KOS commanders are often finishers in the commander zone, whether on their own or through minimal leveraging required from the 99.

Why Being the Loudest Doesn’t Make You the Strongest

KOS commanders are strong, sometimes outright stronger than some current Game Changers, but there's a bit of a catch. A lot of attention is drawn to these commanders during a game which is often attributed as a problem with Game Changers.

However, this attention is a double-edged sword. The game does often warp around them, but that isn't necessarily detrimental. It's because of this attention that their overall game-ending effect is lessened as players see it coming since before turn one.

Let's take one of the more egregious examples from earlier, Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIERSephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER, and create a hypothetical Bracket 2 experience to demonstrate what I mean.

Even without early two card infinites or Game Changers, a faithful Bracket 2 Sephiroth deck is strong enough to compare to slower or weaker Bracket 3 decks.

Aristocrat strategies are already popular and have plenty of support to be strong in every Bracket, but Sephiroth granting a Blood ArtistBlood Artist as an emblem is especially note worthy.

Let's say there are generally two ways this Bracket 2 Sephiroth deck can try to win. It can either try to play as many Sephiroth-esc effects at the same time and go tall with sacrificing as few creatures as possible for maximum life drain.

Or it can go as wide as possible and resolve Sephiroth the turn it has as many sacrifice triggers as possible, immediately draining for a bunch and securing his emblem for the rest of the game.

The clear weakness for Sephiroth and similar KOS commanders is to remove Sephiroth at the earliest and most decisive moment. With Sephiroth specifically, it's probably best to let the deck attempt to flip him before killing on sight, but the point still stands.

Once removed, the deck will have to fight tooth and nailtooth and nail to build up back to a board state where Sephiroth can again threaten an emblem, which can again be easily thwarted.

Same goes for Aesi, Tyrant of Gyre StraitAesi, Tyrant of Gyre Strait, both Jodah, Archmage EternalJodah, Archmage Eternal and Jodah, the UnifierJodah, the Unifier, and Krenko, Mob BossKrenko, Mob Boss.

Both Jodah's are pretty susceptible to removal and struggling to recover once their commander has been answered once or twice.

Aesi is a bit more resilient as playing multiple lands a turn almost guarantees Aesi can be recast on a later turn, but if the Aesi deck is simply casting their commander plus a 2-3 mana cost permanent spell to maximize their landfall triggers for multiple turns, that's a good enough way of stopping them from winning.

Krenko is a bit trickier as the common case is that he'll have a big board and have haste as soon as he's resolved, mitigating the time opponents have of stopping Krenko from "doing the thing" to countering him on the stack or playing stax cards like Blind ObedienceBlind Obedience.

However, if we're generous with what answering a KOS commander looks like, we could argue that wiping the board the turn before Krenko resolves is killing the commander on sight in spirit, just in a preemptive sort of way.

Game Changers Are More Than Just Loud

This is all to say that the publicity these KOS commanders draw isn't always good publicity, not in the way Game Changers do. Game Changers warp the game in ways the vast majority of commanders cannot attain.

Now, there are commanders can and have done so, such as Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright and Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGrand Arbiter Augustin IV. These commanders are a combination of drawing too much attention in a game plus generating unwanted playstyles in lower Brackets.

Odds are that there will be more commanders like these that warrant Game Changer status, however I believe that the majority of commanders as they are currently played aren't worthy of said status partly due to their KOS factor that works against their inherent strengths as commanders.

But what do you think? How do you feel about commanders becoming Game Changers? What are your thoughts on what it takes to become a Game Changer? Do you think commanders ought to be treated differently when it comes to Game Changers?

I hope this article was an interesting discussion surrounding commanders and Game Changers. Find me on BlueSky at @ajwicker4.bsky.social, I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are.

Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!