BrainstormBrainstorm | Art by Tony DiTerlizzi

In one of my previous articles, we discussed the differences between synergy and exploiting. Synergy is often used to describe the broader theme or plan of a deck, whereas exploiting specifically refers to artificially drawing value from a card.

Synergy is a helpful way to tell others how your deck was built and the intentions behind it, but the idea of exploitation was shown to demonstrate the power of a card, if not the deck as a whole.

Exploitation shows us the balance between a card's raw power and how easily its potential is "broken", but how does this help us determine what's too strong or incompatible with Commander and its Brackets?

The Brackets' subcategories like mass land denial and tutors are helpful with achieving this goal, giving players the agency to determine for themselves what's appropriate and what isn't.

This agency is integral to Commander as players always reserve the right to exercise Rule Zero and create their own, unique gaming environment without outside interference (Arguably, players should have a Rule Zero discussion before every game when applicable).

Players who wish to say no to playing against certain cards, decks, or play styles ought to be able to, but this does not bar the Commander format from creating an "objective" standard.

Commander's structure, whether it be Brackets or Ban List, is undeniably influenced by subjective data such as player meta information.

For example, players having no desire to interact with stax strategies is one reason Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGrand Arbiter Augustin IV is a Game Changer.

But there is a level of objectivity absent of player input - Yawgmoth's BargainYawgmoth's Bargain will always be objectively stronger than FastingFasting regardless of how much meta information you try to analyze.

Commander's Bombs and Their Consequences

Magic cards are best evaluated relative to each other. Claiming that Black LotusBlack Lotus is one of the most powerful cards in Magic only works if there are other, weaker cards to point to. Doing otherwise would mean there would be no way to determine whether individual cards were fair or overpowered.

It would be impossible to have the concept of power creep without referencing how powerful other cards are.

For example, DivinationDivination was the example of what blue's cards drawing capabilities looked like until Quick StudyQuick Study was introduced, which was deemed necessary due to Magic's overall power creep.

Black LotusBlack Lotus is too powerful only when the most powerful mana rocks in Commander demand more input and possess less output.

It's important to note that external information like how widely played a card is should be considered when evaluating problems such as Dockside ExtortionistDockside Extortionist, but that's a separate discussion.

We're focusing right now on how to evaluate power only through internal means (i.e., how good is XX as a game piece?)

Now that we're looking at the cards themselves and their potential to be broken, how can these factors predict problematic cards? Without external information, how can Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle be predicted as a Game Changer?

To be completely honest, I'll concede that some Game Changers cannot be called such without external information.

It's clear that Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle is objectively powerful on its own, but it was ultimately its meta-warping effects that earned its Game Changing status.

Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle could've just as easily been played in so few decks and had such an insignificant effect on Commander's meta that its status as a Game Changer wouldn't be appropriate.

But that's inherent with predicting Game Changers; this is half of the discussion that isn't meant to take out the very human elements of Commander.

We could predict that unbanning Jeweled LotusJeweled Lotus would be unharmful, but that's all we would be doing - guessing, however educated the guess may be.

Compulsive ResearchCompulsive Research | Art by Sara Winters

A great example of how effective this educated guess is lies with Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIERSephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER. SephirothSephiroth is an insane push in every aspect.

The closest examples of a black aristocrat card being this powerful would be Blood ArtistBlood Artist or Bastion of RemembranceBastion of Remembrance, neither of which hold a candle to the One-Winged Angel.

Sephiroth is the single greatest aristocrat effect that doubles as an extremely enticing commander to build around.

A super popular character with an extremely threatening archetype is trouble enough, but, as I've said before, let's focus solely on Sephiroth as a game piece and exclude the noise surrounding Final Fantasy availability.

Starting with the basics, Sephiroth only costing allows players to play him in any aristocrat deck that includes black.

Nothing is sacrificed by swapping out, say, a Corpse KnightCorpse Knight for Sephiroth. Casting costs and abilities are deliberately crafted to either promote or inhibit a card's natural capabilities.

Costs that include "pips" like serve as a indication for the card's intended "home", similar to how OmniscienceOmniscience is found mostly in blue decks and NecropotenceNecropotence is found mostly in black decks. Pips' presence limits the scope for how players can utilize spells.

This is notably something missing from Sephiroth. He's comfortable being resolved in any deck that builds on creature death en masse.

Any deck that would run a Blood ArtistBlood Artist trigger, let alone an untouchable emblem, would be going out of its way to exclude Sephiroth.

A player would have to search for an excuse not to include the absolute bomb that Sephiroth proves to be. Giving every deck that runs black the possibility to have easy access to an emblem with Blood Artist's text is a provocative design choice.

But this is hardly where Sephiroth's ultimate form is found. Up to this point, he's shown to be very powerful in any deck that just wants to play him on his own.

His ultimate value is achieved by players that will openly exploit his triggered abilities and run as many "edictedict" effects as possible, which coincidentally also plays into black's reanimator shenanigans.

The more edict effects that a player runs, the more valuable Sephiroth is. In fact, a player that runs exclusively edict effects would have very little reason for not running Sephiroth. What's lost when Sephiroth is added to a deck?

Players Paid for the Deck and Want to Use the Whole Deck

Commander is a format that aims to play the flashiest cards and the "swingiest" of spells. The format is so comfortable with these large spells that the format actively enables Sol RingSol Ring in a whopping 84% of all Commander decks despite very similar spells like Mana CryptMana Crypt being banned.

Commander decks are provably aiming to amass ramp or rocks or dorks as early as possible so that these larger spells can be readily available ASAP.

This isn't a case of looking at external information to determine a card's power; Commander as a format is intrinsically played with fast mana, or at least the speedy acquisition of mana.

To say that Commander decks running high-cost spells aim to resolve those spells quickly is only to explain what is apparent; it is a truism of the format.

SephirothSephiroth benefits greatly from this. The quicker he's resolved, the greater his controller benefits. The sooner Sephiroth hits the table, the sooner he can Fleshbag MarauderFleshbag Marauder away everyone's first mana dork, like Llanowar ElvesLlanowar Elves or Silver MyrSilver Myr, immediately securing Sephiroth's emblem for the rest of the game.

This is both a clear disadvantage to Sephiroth's opponents and an indirect advantage of Sephiroth's controller. Cards like Beast WhispererBeast Whisperer are directly benefiting its controller through card draw but are indirectly putting the opponents at a disadvantage.

An opponent drawing more cards than you isn't directly worsening your position; however, an opponent resolving a Ravenous ChupacabraRavenous Chupacabra and blowing something of yours up is directing putting you at a disadvantage.

Three opponents all spending their first turn or two resolving mana dorks or other cheap creature spells are effectively having their turns skipped when Sephiroth sees his first edict.

Additionally, these opponents most likely intended to play the rest of their hands dependent on their cheap creatures. Without them, these opponents are hamstrung too soon to be able to meaningfully engage with Sephiroth.

You may be quick to defend Sephiroth and claim that the three opponents should know how he's played and to hold off casting their creatures until Sephiroth is dealt with, however I would argue that this is engaging with meta knowledge of how Sephiroth is played.

This external information shouldn't be an expectation for Brackets 1-2, perhaps even 3. These Brackets should not require players to understand their opponents' strategic intentions before the first land is played.

Behold the Power of DestructionBehold the Power of Destruction | Art by Esper Ejsing

Sephiroth demands players to make room for Magic's latest and strongest reinvention of the wheel as an easy upgrade. Some decks may be so moved as to switch Falkenrath NobleFalkenrath Noble for Sephiroth, not just because he costs less and does more, but because their deck contains so many similar effects that they can begin switching out good cards for strict upgrades.

A deck that seeks to wholly exploit Sephiroth may find themselves categorizing him as a Two-Card Infinite Combo. Sephiroth just needs to transform once and every three card combo that requires a Blood Artist effect shifts into two cards + an emblem.

It's because of this that Sephiroth rivals current Game Changers and how quickly they warp a game. Should a Bracket 3 be allowed to run Sephiroth as though it were not a Game Changer? Should modern Commander precons prepare to face untouchable emblems?

In The End, It Does(n't Even) Matter

At this point, I hope that it is abundantly clear that predicting Sephiroth to be a Game Changer is no stretch of the imagination. His immense power is obvious when we look at how Commander operates and how he demands to be played.

If this investigation of the internal reasons why Sephiroth should be a Game Changer wasn't enough, I would highly suggest building around him with Archidekt and seeing how simple it is to resolve him early on and permanently change the game.

Interestingly, I began writing this article about 2 months ago for and wanted to emphasize that how a card is played is a large factor in deciding whether or not it's a Game Changer. After Final Fantasy's release, it was clear that there were more pressing cards to address.

I still believe that Ugin may deserve to be a Game Changer, but it ultimately depends on how people would play him. At the moment, I'm unconvinced that there are enough Ugin-players in the world to point at and say "here's the problem." But Sephiroth? Oh yeah, I can definitely do that.

How do you feel about Sephiroth (or Ugin for that matter)? Do you think that he should be a Game Changer? What are some other cards that you believe should be Game Changers?

I hope that this article serves as a helpful starting point for determining a card's power, but I'd love to hear from you if there's something missing or if I've started yelling at the clouds. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!