Halphinian that is why I don't think you can argue the placement of your commanders. I know I want to say the same about almost every one that I run.

Maralen of the Mornsong < Sidisi, Undead Vizier even if it is slower to play you are the only one to tutor.

Check it out here:

Buzz Lightyear was lying...

Commander / EDH thegigibeast

SCORE: 9 | 3 COMMENTS | 218 VIEWS

Yep. It's a fallacy. Most people immediately want to say "I run (X) as a commander, and it does really well. Therefor, (X) must be super strong and high tier!" Because most people only have experience with EDH inside their own pod or LGS. They've never played against the truly powerful decks in the format, so they don't have a good grasp on power or ranking.

Once you've seen an entire table get turned 1'd by Karador Boonweaver Giant combo or Ad Nauseam combo, you start rethinking the strength of your homebrew.

As for Muzzio, Visionary Architect, Tier 2-3 is pretty fair. He plays a deck quite similar the Arcum Dagsson, but he's almost strictly worse. Arcum goldfishes wins by turn 4 consistently, with turn 3 being the average (glass cannon build). Muzzio struggles to consistently win before turn 5 if you're building strict aggressive combo.

Didgeridooda, NarejED: I know I am biased in my ratings, but I just think that the descriptions of the different tiers are a little unfair. That is the real reason I commented here. I know Muzzio isn't the best, but I don't think he's only "decent enough to build a deck around", just as I don't think that I would rather have a basic land than Stitcher Geralf. Maybe put things like "most consistent wins on average" for Tier 1 and "least consistent wins on average" for Tier 5. I apologize for wasting everyone's time with my personal opinions.

Opinions are fine, and that is why I am saying making a case for your own commander is prob not the best way to sort out the list.

Tier 4 is where Merieke Ri Berit, Roon, and Yisan sit, tier 3 for Omnath. I know that I am vested in these decks, and would rank them higher. If this list is only one tier off (Muzzio is def not tier 1 as you agree) then it is pretty close. I would say take the tier that you think your deck is on, and then make it one tier lower to account for bias. Your commander is a strong one, and NarejED and I never disagreed with you.

Maybe you could come up with some better descriptions of the tiers. They seem like they could use a little more work in explaining. I think that the tier descriptions are close, but could def use work.

Tier 4 not good, you're forcing a deck out of this one. Actually makes me want to make the case for my guys, but like I said I know I am biased with them. How about your thoughts on the 3 commanders that I run in the 4th tier, and their placement? I would like to see someone else critique them.

Notices for the first that Roon is listed as Tier Four.

Looks again.

Rubs eyes to make sure he isn't seeing things.

Looks a third time.

Shakes head in utter disbelief.

Roon is widely accepted as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. Given that weaker commanders like Iona, Shield of Emeria are listed as tier 1, I'm more inclined to put him in that catagory.

I know Narej, but I am trying not to rate my own guys. What do you think of the other ones I listed?

As far as classifying into tiers some things I want to discuss is what other factors should be taken into account. Does the same color better option go to a higher tier automatically, pushing the lesser(if still really good) option lower. I feel esper has many strong commanders. Do we rank them all independently, or against each other?

I really love the idea of this, and think the debate is interesting. The list is so large, and experience so varied that I think we have a really cool topic. Just need an active OP lol

I would like to be part of that, as I exclusively play commander in a SUPER competitive meta (with Scion of the Ur-Dragon Hermit Druid and stuff like that), and I am active on this site, so I could update a list with your suggestions on which we could migrate the discussion and I would keep it updated (unless someone already did!)

I think it's easier to give rankings like this for duel commander.

In multiplayer so much of it can come to player dynamics so that the deck itself (and especially the commander alone) are highly unreliable at predicting who will win.

For example, I have a good record with my Roon of the Hidden Realm deck, but it comes down to politics and if they don't go my way, I can't force a win unless the rest of the table allows me to build a ridiculous board state unchallenged. Multiplayer depends too much on the mix of commanders, and more importantly, the people at the table and their social dynamics

100% agree with you, guessling. Same thing for me with decks that are considered really great (usually in 1vs1), politics was the thing that make me win or loose.

So what do you guyz think? Should we redo the list more in a 1vs1 form or try to make it multiplayer?

I would say try to keep it multiplayer oriented. I admit that it's much more difficult to judge power in multiplayer, but if you base it more off of 1v1 matches, you run the risk of over-rating certain decks and under-rating others. For example, pure control can be incredibly oppressive in 1v1 environments, but its power is inversely proportionate to the number of players at the table. The opposite is true for certain decks. IE, Derevi Prison actually becomes stronger in multiplayer, because the main dynamic of the deck remains constant, but certain utility cards like Prophet of Kruphix, Consecrated Sphinx, and Rhystic Study become stronger as the table grows.

TLDR: It's easier to rate commanders in 1v1 matchups, but I feel it's worth the extra effort to rate based on multiplayer performance.

Also the overall interest in the format is in multi-player. 1v1 is not nearly as popular.

I guess that one thing that can be rated that is independent of player dynamics is an explosive combo win requiring little or no board state. However, even pulling this off does entail convincing others go not go for you while you are relatively open and at least some people at the table know what you could do if allowed to do so again.

Comparing possible board states is not realistic if disruption and sweeping aren't factored in. Some board states can rebuild after a sweep (or endure a sweep) more easily than others.

I know that other online resources either specifically limit themselves for duel commander or give criterion for rating that references a commander's relevance in the different formats (such that a strong commander in 1v1 and multiplayer would rate better than one who only did really well in either/or).

thegigibeast, I say that'd be a good idea. Multiplayer formats offer too many variables to place a general in a tier and have them consistently maintain that position.

Put Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Purphoros, God of the Forge, Azusa, Lost but Seeking, and Brago, King Eternal into the same game and there will never be one that dominates based on its build. The life of this format is in its politics, and that is where the skill of the player is measured.

I made a Reaper King deck that utilizes changelings and other cards that modify the abilities of the changelings to give us an insane board state. Played it against a Nahiri, the Lithomancer deck and an Azami, Lady of Scrolls deck at the same time and crushed them. However, 1v1, the format changes dramatically. Azami wiped the floor with both of us without a problem consistently when the threats offered by a second opponent were removed.

According to your comments, I will try to create a multiplayer list of generals by tier. I will still require your help, because I will for sure have difficulty to rank certain commanders. I will start as soon as possible and link my resource here. Thanks for support and help!

Curious as to how Oona made it into the tier 5 list. Oona Combo is generally considered pretty good. Just need to make it black blue control, put a good amount of infinite mana generators into the deck, a bunch of tutors in the deck, and mill everyone out with the general, blue suns, or exsanguinate. Really pretty easy to kill a table with that.

Thats exactly the reason we are starting iver this resource: it has a few errors and we want a new, updated one.

Thanks, Gigi! I will hound your list mercilessly once you create it.

Just copy this deck, and tweek it from there. It will give citation to the original, and be really easy for you to put together. This list is wrong in places, but a very good launch pad into the idea.

@ Didgeridooda: Doesn't work unfortunately. Copying the deck undoes all of the formatting and leaves you with an unsorted list of 590 creatures and 5 Planeswalkers. Try it yourself.

That will be a lot of fun to mess with! Seriously, before starting, do you think the current tier descriptions are good enough? Or should we also modify them? Should we remove/add tiers?

NarejED ahhh, that would have made it too easy. I believe you. I have just never tried.

thegigibeast I don't know. I do like the current ones, but tier one to me might need a better description. Maybe if we were able to shuffle the list they would fit better.

I think tier 5 and maybe 4 need rewording.