thegigibeast, I was wondering if we could remove the tier labels. Things like "Overpowerd tier" and "average tier" the like have all these emotional things attached to them and might skew views

MTWEmperor: Then what is the point of the list?

Just having all legendary creatures? A simple gatherer search does that better.

MTWEmperor; if anyone gets really emotional about their commander being called 'average', then they really need to toughen up, and also develop a better sense of humour.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why Teysa, Orzhov Scion is Tier 2 while Athreos, God of Passage or Karlov of the Ghost Council are tier 3. After looking it up most of the decks I've seen with Teysa at the helm are all combo decks but only occasionally utilizing her as a combo piece (though she can be)..

In most of the instances I have seen she could easily be switched out with either of the other two generals and the deck would be more or less unchanged and would function equally as well.

It sorta reminded me of the Karador, Ghost Chieftain and Teneb, the Harvester comparison earlier in the thread, where in effect the generals are only a small difference in power level and can fit the exact same deck without much difference in their function..

Teysa, Orzhov Scion is one of the extremely controversial commanders. Some feel it's a Tier 3 commander at best, but enough people on here thought it was worthy of Tier 2 to have it moved up. She is solidl stronger than either Athreos or Karlov, though. And, as you pointed out, similar commanders with similar decks like Teneb are Karador are typically placed one tier apart, so it's logically sound to place her at least a Tier above Athreos, who really isn't very playable in EDH.

Speaking of possible changes to the tier discriptions, I've been thinking about this for a while:

I think there should be six tiers.

Here's why:

It seems like this list was made with competitive and casual mindsets squished up against each other (which could really be said about the commander format in general, but whatever). This makes an unusual problem, commanders that are average at competitive levels of play are considerably above average for the more casual playgroup. Naturally, that's going to happen somewhat. There's always going to be some variance in what's considered good between playgroups, and that's the point of making tiers in the first place, but right now we have a list where certain commanders that have incredibly powerful interactions and strategies available to them (Chainer, Dementia Master, Karn, Silver Golem, or Saffi Eriksdotter)are stuck in limbo in Tier 3 with commanders who are much weaker (Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas. Dragonlord Atarka, Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund), just because they have some weakness that disqualifies them for competitive play in Tier 2.

This causes a lot of arguments where people see commanders that they know to be much more powerful then some of the other commanders in their tier and suggest that they be moved up, but then have to deal with other people arguing (rightly) that the commander doesn't meet the qualifications of the next tier.

I think there are two issues that are causing this:

The first is that Tier 5 is taking up too much space.

Consider for a moment that instead of using tiers we were rating commanders out of 5 stars. How many stars would you give a commander like Barktooth Warbeard? One? Of course not. He's complete garbage. You'd give him zero stars. But, zero stars isn't Tier 5 in our system, one star is. Zero stars is the equivalent of a sixth tier, which we don't have.

Secondly, there's too much variance in power level at Tier 3.

I said this already, but I go into more detail. The human mind is set up to work in extremes. Things are either good or their bad, they're the best or the worst. There are very few words that denote degrees of middle ground, and we don't use them very often. So naturally, when any of us goes to make a list of commanders, we start out with the ones we know to be the best of the best, and the ones we know to be utter garbage. These are the endpoints and they're easily definable. However, what happens with this is that when we don't leave enough room for the whole list, things don't bunch up at those end points, they bunch up in the exact center. In this case that's Tier 3. And when the list is finished and we're fine tuning it (like we are now), we don't tend to refer back to those endpoints anymore, those are fixed and don't change much, but rather we look to the middle as a baseline for whether something needs to be moved up or down in comparison. If that baseline is fuzzy or too broad, then it throws off the entire list and our ability to edit it.

Adding a sixth tier would solve this issue since we'd be able to separate Tier 3, our baseline, out into a upper and lower Tier 3, which would just become Tiers 3 and 4.

The Tier descriptions would look something like this:

The best of the best. These commanders are capable of either outright winning or creating nearly unwinnable matches consistently by turn 4 if left unchecked. They're strong, fast, and incredibly resilient to hate. Typically commanders in this category will also lend themselves to many avenues of deckbuilding, with one or two "optimized" builds.

Only slightly weaker than the decks in Tier 1. These commanders are still capable of holding their own in any match, and they can usually win matches or set up unbeatable board states by turn 5 if unchecked. They usually have more problems with speed and / or consistency than the tier 1 commanders, and may have more cards that can hose their strategies. Commanders in this category typically have more than one avenue of deckbuilding.

These commanders do quite well in casual kitchen table matches, but they suffer from noticeable problems in higher levels of play. These commanders might not have easy access to removal or answers to cards that shut down their strategies. Some of these commanders can win before turn 6, but may often be able to be shut down by a single well-placed counterspell. They can still compete against tier 1 and 2 decks, but they typically require favorable politics to win.

These commanders can do well in casual games, but lack any significantly oppressive strategies. These commanders rarely manage to win before turn 6, or require very favorable politics to do so. These commanders may frequently have only one or two avenues for deckbuilding.

Commanders in this category, while still playable, suffer from one or more severe issues. They often they will be run in casual good-stuff decks, where the Commander has little or nothing to do with the deck, and only serves as a backup body if deck runs out of steam. These are the decks that often take 10 or more turns to win. A commander that is capable of making a Tier 4 deck centered around it, but is limited to only that avenue of deckbuilding may also fall into this tier.

Incredibly weak commanders that essentially serve as a placeholder for the command zone. Often these commanders are only used for their color identity. They bring nothing to the table on their own.

(Someone let me know if you can't view those spoilers, I'm on a school computer and I can't tell if they're working. I'll repost them if need be.)

thegigibeast, Would you be up for restructuring the list this way? Or should I try it on my own list?

Oh, and I can tell you from experience that an optimized Teysa, Orzhov Scion list and an optimized Karlov of the Ghost Council list look vastly different, so much so that it's not even fair to compare them. And I'm not entirely sure what an optimized Athreos, God of Passage list looks like (or if it even exists), but from what I've seen it doesn't look much like Teysa.

I think that if you are going to add another tier (which I agree with), then we should list the legends that should go into that tier as well. It will make it easier for thegigibeast to edit.

Hello everyone! So tonight is THE night! I am currently updating the list by reading through this whole wall of text!

sonnet666

Your description sounds far more accurate than what we currently have, I am changing it right now!

Sleazebag. I meant the actual words "Overpowered" etc. Tier 1/2/3 is fine....

Jazzyboy: I'm all for having a thick skin on the internet but some people really do have that thin a skin and I'd rather not have to deal with someone whining that their jank commander that stomps all the durdle decks is tier 1.

thegigibeast sonnet666. So in essence we're splitting up tier 3? Doesn't sound too bad.

MTWEmperor, In essence, yes. I have a feeling it will cause a few commanders in other tiers to be bumped up or down, but Tier 3 would be the main change.

I would agree that Teysa and Karlov are very different. As was mentioned ealier in the thread, Teysa has a number of cheap infinite combos available to her whereas Karlov (and Ayli, for that matter) are more synergy-based, grindy life-gain generals. I think a tuned Teysa list is probably much more efficient than a tuned Karlov/Ayli list.

Excellent. Now it's just a matter of reworking Tier 3-6 into something satisfactory. It looks like Gigi still has a some updating to do with Tier 2 though, so I'll save my recommendations until a better time.

Yep, I am far from finished updating... Doing a little bit now and then while not at work should get it done!!!

Concern: Why is Tier 1 labeled "Cutting Edge"?

"Cutting Edge: the latest or most advanced stage in the development of something."

Strong misuse of the term. I had it labeled "Overpowered" originally for a reason.

Hardly a strong misuse of the term, but, if it satisfies your nitpicking inclinations, then so be it.

Nonetheless, there are more pressing to be discussed, I daresay. For example: Perhaps Isamaru, Hound of Konda should be moved to tier six? I'd argue that he fits the criteria (or lack thereof) of said tier quite roundly.

I think the 5 tier system was fine. Why did a vanilla tier need to be made? Pretty much common sense where they stand. (bottom of tier 5)

I suppose it's a question of 'fine' versus 'ideal'. There are, after all, distinctions between 'vanilla' and 'french vanilla'.

Moreover, I would argue that certain commanders belong in tier six even though they still have actual rules text--such as Haakon, Stromgald Scourge, or any of the Myojin. The printing of Command Beacon really doesn't make them any more playable, frankly.

Yeah, the problem could have been solved simply by moving more of the weaker Tier 3 generals into Tier 4. Unfortunately, no time was given to discuss the suggestion. It was just immediately implemented.

Jazzyboy in re to your Xira Arien being unplayable comment a few months ago...

I beg to disagree.

Maybe yall should add something telling people the most competitive archetype that could be built around each commander in the high tiers.

@MTGTCG: Some day. That, or we'll have direct links to optimized decks for most of the Tier 1 and 2 commanders.