Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth | Art by Chris Rhan

The last "few" additions to the Game Changers list back in April continues to drive players to question the strength of cards that they play with and against.

The first 40 Game Changers left many feeling more was necessary, especially with some cards being extremely similar in power and playstyles, and yet only some were Game Changers and others weren't. With today's 61 Game Changers, many players approve of this current list and are eager to use it, at least until next year when the earliest possibility for a Bracket System update is promised.

At the same time, many others feel that current Game Changers aren't enough and that the Commander Format Panel (CFP) should've been stricter with what's considered a Game Changer, particularly with cards that outright win the game on the spot or the moment they're engaged with.

For this discussion, I'll call these cards "Game Winners," as that's what they've been introduced to me as.

This isn't something the CFP has designed or some official list, rather a loose catch-all term for some cards, like Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth, that are associated with winning games the moment they're resolved.

I agree that these "Game Winners" are an important aspect that the CFP should review, however I also believe that a card does not require Game Changing status for its Game Winning tendencies alone.

Game Winner? I Hardly Know Her

As mentioned before, Game Winners is a loose term used to describe cards that, well, win games. It describes strong cards that only are present to end games, with Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth being a prominent example. Craterhoof is the premier example of a single card being resolved and winning the game that turn, sometimes even the same phase or step.

Craterhoof is very rarely played just for value and is instead played explicitly to end games. The CFP, as Gavin Verhey explains, has considered Craterhoof as a possible Game Changer due to its innate playstyle and some of the Magic community pushing for Game Changing status. This is due to Craterhoof prematurely ending games when paired with certain cards like Natural OrderNatural Order that provide early, easy access to a Game Winner.

However, this is the fault of cards like Natural Order that enable Craterhoof to be exploited prematurely, not the fault of Craterhoof.

Verhey explains that "it is certainly true that this card can end games. However, for an eight-mana green creature, it is acceptable to end the game this way. While cheating it out early by way of something like Natural Order is a problem, a long-game Craterhoof is something we believe is acceptable."

Without cards that actively seek to exploit these Game Winners, then cards like Craterhoof aren't problematic and therefore not worth categorizing as Game Changers.

Now, it is possible for a card that wins games to be a Game Changer. ExpropriateExpropriate, Ad NauseamAd Nauseam, Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle, Underworld BreachUnderworld Breach, and other Game Changers are considered Game Changers due partially to their tendency to win the game on the spot, but that's only a piece to the Game Changer puzzle.

Not one Game Changer is called such due to its ability to end a game. I hope that explaining why Craterhoof ought not to be a Game Changer will reveal that there are multiple factors contributing to a card earning Game Changer status, not just its ability to win a game.

Kill On Sight ≠ Game Changer

So, what are some things that separate Game Winners from Game Changers? How are cards like Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth so different from things like Bolas's CitadelBolas's Citadel?

Firstly, the CFP has to draw a line at some point between how strong a card is and how many hoops players must jump through to exploit the card beyond Brackets' 1-2 intentions.

In other words, the CFP tries to define when a card is too easily broken. In cases like ExpropriateExpropriate, the card is simply too oppressive to be cohesive for Brackets 1-2. As Verhey explains in his article introducing Brackets Beta, "While it is expensive, the combination of take a turn alongside taking three permanents (provided none of them give you extra turns) is strong enough to end some games on the spot."

Expropriate is a prime example of a Game Winner being too strong on its own and thus requiring Game Changing status.

This is different from Game Changers like Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright. On her own, Tergrid is a powerful card that can occasionally steal someone's Evolving WildsEvolving Wilds or hinder an opponent's GravecrawlerGravecrawler shenanigans, but it's how Tergrid is played that earns her Game Changing status.

Nobody's incidentally running Tergrid for the occasional anti-wheel tech. Just review which cards are some of the most synergetic with Tergrid.

Tergrid is intentionally commanding a deck that insists on running mass sacrifice, mass discard synergies. As if these playstyles weren't unfun enough, Tergrid then turns every opponent's deck against themselves and ends the game swiftly, often sooner than their opponents could have ever dreamed of achieving themselves.

How Tergrid is played is a significant reason for her to remain a Game Changer.

While Craterhoof may be powerful, it's only because its owner has built a sufficiently large board that enables Craterhoof to become lethal. Craterhoof on its own is fairly underwhelming, which is starkly different from cards like Bolas's CitadelBolas's Citadel. The Citadel does not ask much in order to warp a game.

As Verhey explains, it provides "overwhelming resource advantage for [its] mana value and tends to cause a player to snowball with the game." Similar to players seeking to exploit Tergrid, its effect on games only grows when its owner can run simple top-deck manipulation effects, whether through scrying, surveilling, or the Citadel's best friend Sensei's Divining TopSensei's Divining Top.

Bolas's Citadel is arguably doing more than Craterhoof to a game, as well as for a cheaper investment.

How Many Craterhoofs Does It Take to Win a Commander Game?

What does it realistically take to win with Craterhoof? It seems Bolas's Citadel and Tergrid require very little to win a game, so where does Craterhoof stand? We should start by looking at Craterhoof in a vacuum. To wipe everyone out simultaneously, Craterhoof requires 10 creatures to be present before it enters (ETBs for us oldies), amassing 136 power in total.

Accruing 10 creatures before Craterhoof is already an undertaking, which is further hindered when accounting for the opponents' boards.

Even if the opponents' life totals are under 40, their boards will include a wide variety of blockers and combat tricks that will inevitably slow down Craterhoof to some extent. Where Bolas's Citadel and Tergrid are heavily focused on what their owners are capable of, Craterhoof is fairly dependent on what its opposition possesses.

Now, it's important to recognize that Game Winners like Craterhoof are often not played on their own, just as I have described Tergrid as being heavily exploited. Players running Craterhoof are definitely seeking to quickly amass (not that kindnot that kind) a board presence that often also ramps into Craterhoof.

Some of Craterhoof's most common commanders are linked with go-wide creature strategies to get Craterhoof online as soon as possible

However, as Verhey explains with cards like Natural OrderNatural Order, Craterhoof's ability to end games prematurely is a result of other cards and playstyles. Craterhoof does not enable any of these strategies until the final turn of the game, which is the intent behind Craterhoof's design anyways.

A single eight-mana creature should be able to win the game if its owner plays it right.

Craterhoof is no ExpropriateExpropriate that only asks its owner to resolve it in order to effectively end a game, nor is it like TergridTergrid or Bolas's CitadelBolas's Citadel, which are exploitable at the slightest touch. Craterhoof enables its owner to win the game only when its owner has taken the necessary steps to do so.

A player needs to recognize when it's most appropriate to build their board and threaten a lethal combat step when facing three opponents actively preventing such an outcome. If a player tries to win with Craterhoof too soon, their board will be wiped.

Without all of the creatures that enabled Craterhoof, the player cannot recover soon enough to threaten Craterhoof again, sometimes knocking their win out of reach entirely.

When Game Winners Don't Win the Game

Craterhoof is a popular talking point for Game Winners, but is far from the only example. Aetherflux ReservoirAetherflux Reservoir requires a player to storm off in a single turn, meaning that their game has been spent leading up to Reservoir resolving and being lethal.

Just like Craterhoof requires a substantial board presence, Reservoir players are most likely running cost-reduction effects or other ways of increasing the limit of spells they can cast in a single turn.

If just one of these pieces were to be interacted with, Reservoir is not longer lethal, thus meaning the other three players are able to deal with an emerging archenemy situation. Same with Enter the InfiniteEnter the Infinite, Torment of HailfireTorment of Hailfire, and many other "Game Winning" cards. It doesn't take too much interaction to prevent these cards from winning the game.

In the end, cards like Craterhoof require a player to funnel most, if not all of their resources into it in order to be threatening. If this wasn't enough of a reason to bar these cards from Game Changing status, these cards are able to be interacted with fairly easily. One board-wipe, one VandalblastVandalblast, one CounterspellCounterspell is all that's required to ultimately stop a Game Winner from winning the game.

I will admit that this touches upon the often overused/misrepresented argument "X dies to removal," but there's a clear distinction between claiming a Craterhoof's board dying to a Supreme VerdictSupreme Verdict is enough bar Game Changing status and a Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer being susceptible to every MurderMurder under the sun not being enough to remove its Game Changing status. Another distinction for another time.

I ultimately believe that once a single spell starts costing around 8+ mana, then winning the game becomes a possibility for its effects. Coalition VictoryCoalition Victory is my go-to example, and I have every expectation that it will eventually be delisted from a Game Changer.

But what do you think? Are there some cards that I overlooked? Are most, if not all "Game Winners" ultimately Game Changers? There's plenty left on the table and I have every intention of discussing these nuances further.

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