That's just it. Roon isn't Tier 1. Hundreds of competitive EDH players have confirmed that. He is indeed significantly weaker than Brago, King Eternal, albeit in a stronger color identity. Don't get me wrong, Roon is quite strong. He's just nowhere near on the same level as Derevi, Empyrial Tactician or Zur the Enchanter. Again, Paramount has skewed ideas of what good commanders are. Notice how he says both Prossh, Skyraider of Kher and Karador, Ghost Chieftan are obsolete, yet calls Teneb, the Harvester and 5C Splinter Twin tier 1 decks.

It's impossible to try to analyse his opinions, because they're just so blatantly wrong. It's essentially looking for enlightenment where there is none.

I vote for the five tier system. It seemed perfect as it was, and the added sixth tier bring nothing to the table since all the tier five/six cards are, for all intents and purposes, equally unplayable. I'd rather raise the floor for the tier three requirement to clean up the glut of generals there, as adding another tier didn't really solve that problem anyways. This makes tier four a lot bigger but honestly most generals throughout Magic history just happen to be at that power level.

Frankly, just shut up about switching back to five tiers. sonnet666 has done a good job of seperating tier 5 and tier 6 cards, and pretty much proven that there is an observable power split between them. Geist of Saint Traft is very bad in EDH but he isn't quite as unplayable as Hunding Gjornersen.

Anyway, sonnet666, I do agree with most of your lists. However, I think Dralnu, Lich Lord, Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas, and Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet should stay in tier 3.

Dralnu: I'll just echo PlattBonnay here. "Unchecked, Dralnu plays out almost like Melek does, taking as many turns as they can, putting themselves very far ahead of the rest of the table, eventually either landing a threat to kill the table or finding some infinite combo to end the game on the spot. Played correctly, his downside (the sac clause) is almost entirely irrelevant."

Kalemne: Kalemne is in EDH's worst two-colour combination, yes, but she's in two of red and white's best creature types. She's also a 3/3 double striker for 4 mana that gets bigger through her own ability. Either an armada of tribal lords or a powerful voltron strategy can push her through to win via commander damage fast.

Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet: I think Kalitas is the single best commander mono-black has had so far. He may not have the infinite combos that Mikaeus has, but his ability makes use of mono-black's greatest strengths: Removal and boardwipes. He can turn Damnation into a very nicely costed mass-token generator.

@Sonnet666 Now that, I did not know. Apologies if I came off as somewhat condescending. That said, my vote is wholly in favor of the tier list you yourself laid out for us. I've already outlined my reasoning thereof in posts previous, I believe.

I'm unfamiliar with this 'Paramount' fellow and his opinions/skill regarding competitive multiplayer EDH, so I'll just stay out of that discussion.

@Jazzyboy You know, that was pretty rude. I may not agree with Narej, Yavimaya, or any of the others who are presently in support of the originalsystem, but you're making all of us look worse when you tell them to shut up instead of further arguing your side of the issue. Let them speak their minds, for goodness's sake.

Perhaps I could have put it less bluntly, but I'm just getting fed up of their still arguing for the old system for whatever reason.

What's actually wrong with having 6 tiers? Even if it doesn't make anything better, it can't possibly make anything worse. Sonnet has already laid out tiers 4, 5 and 6 for us and he's done a good job of it for the most part, so there isn't even any more work to be done to make the 6 tiers work. So I just don't see the problem.

I know they've already laid out their reasoning for going back, but most of their reasoning was that there was too much work to be done to rebuild the tiers. But that was always just a massive overexaggeration. It wouldn't have taken all that long, as sonnett has just proven completely.

I prefer the 5 tier system, just because it is easier to place Commanders in a 5 tier system than a 6 tier system. The 6 tier system really doesn't have any advantages over the 5 tier system. I mean the 5 tier system was already clearly labeled and everything was in their proper place, what was the point of complicating it with a 6 tier system?

I also would like if narejED would take over the tier list because he seems like the most knowledgeable and insightful person in this discussion, while the current list master, no offense to him; he has worked hard and all, seems much less active in this discussion in terms of sharing ideas and explanations which leads me to believe he just follows people like NarejEDs ideas for the list instead of creating much of his own. But what do I know. Maybe Narej doesn't want to be list master, maybe the current list master won't agree. That's just my opinion.

You know, on second thought, perhaps you weren't so very incorrect in your behavior, Jazzyboy. Why do I say this?

I'll let literally everything MTGTCG just said in his last two posts answer that question for you.

Wasn't blunt, was rude. Redoing the whole list with 6 tiers might as well just give the whole thing a start over. 5 tier system was just fine. Tier 5 was very good for bad commanders, and commanders that were close to bad.

This whole list was based on discussion, and the abrupt changes were made without discussion. List was very close, now we have a large amount of change to make that does not really have a huge impact.

What exactly did I say that offended you NoOneOfConsequence?

Ok ok guyz I am gonna change it back later on, I just don't have the time now (on my phone...)

Keep the 6 tiers until they give an argument that isn't basically just 'It's too much work! Nooooes!'. Again, SONNET HAS ALREADY DONE MOST OF THE WORK. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM?!

Well... Sonnet is one person... We can't just change the list into something that only one person suggested. The list needs to be a collabrative effort to make it good, so a lot of extra work has to go on to make the new list as good as the old one. Also, everytime a new commander comes out it is going to be harder to place it into the right tier. I know that's a small reason, but even those matter when there is little to no benefit to a certain change.

@MTGTCG: Thanks! I'm glad you think I'm insightful.

I'm not sure if I'd be the best person to be in charge of the list though. While it's true that I'd update it much more often, my own ego would probably get in the way. I have a bad habit of over-valuing my own opinion, and/or under-valuing other's. Any list I ran would invariably have too much of my personal placements.

The benefit of having thegigibeast run the list as that he's not nearly as opinionated. He's more or less neutral on most suggestions, which means Tier placements usually end up being voted on by multiple users, which is a much fairer system.

MTGTCG, Sonnet rarely shows any bias in his evaluations, so I'd say most of his list is pretty accurate. Anything that we do disagree on, we can discuss. I very much doubt that there are going to be many arguments about it though, unless somebody starts arguing just to be really annoying.

The post of moves to make is a huge list, and a large %age of total commanders changing place. Really hard to discuss each one like that.

@MTGTCG Well, for starters, I found your suggestion to change the 'list master' of this tier system to NarejED from thegigibeast quite presumptuous and asinine, if I'm being wholly honest in answering your question. What's more, your reasoning as to the maintenance of the five-tier system was altogether bland and unoriginal--more of the same 'but it would be too much work to change it' rationale. I understand that perhaps you just can't see the payoff of all that work--the relative closeness to the actual truth of the matter that it would bring us to, that is--but every explanation that could possibly be needed thereof has already been laid out. It'd simply be a waste of my time to repeat it.

@ sonnet666: Your proposed changes are all well and good, and I'm sure most of them I would agree with were we to use a Six Tier system. Keep in mind though that Gigi would have to manually update the list to reflect those proposed changes, which is in of itself a colossal undertaking. Forcing him to make such an unnecessary update would be downright cruel.

Posting a deck-list for review on Alesha, Who Smiles at Death's potential for Tier 2 rather than 3. The turn 5 win is almost always followed with her, and the latest she'll ever go (when nothing seems to go her way) is turn 8.

The Unfair Girl, The Daughter of Kaalia

Commander / EDH* Femme_Fatale

SCORE: 60 | 31 COMMENTS | 8125 VIEWS

I would do an argument for Eight-1/2-tails, but I don't know how viable white-stax or white-lock down is in Comp. Those are where Eight really shines because of the difficulty the opponent will have in removing certain pieces. Plus you can "look" like you are going voltron by sticking some protection equipments on Eight and then swing around and do something completely different with stax or lock-down. Here's the list if you want. I Protect the World, the World Protects My So copy

EDIT: Oh, and Haakon now has a card that you can use with him: Command Beacon.

@Femme_Fatale Alesha tends to combo off about as consistently as Captain Sisay, and she's tier two, so I can't exactly fault you for your logic. Now, for my money, she's a version of Shirei that's much, much slower, but far more diverse, but that says nothing about her actual competitive potential.

Yes, yes, Haakon can interact with command beacon. If we could measure these sorts of things in percentages, I'd say that makes him about 0.01% better as a commander.

In my experience, Krenko, Mob Boss doesn't stand up outside of friendly matches in multiplayer. He can own in 1v1 but usually in the face of any hate or boardwipes or other disruptions he crumbles. If this were a 1v1 list, I would agree with t2; but in multiplayer the more players, the worse the blowout.

Red offers neither protection for this build-around general nor tutors for artifacts or combo pieces (which tend to be limited). Being able to outrace other decks helps take 1 person down; but after that the power levels of all the other opponents will stretch well beyond anything mono red goblins can touch.

I think this is a case of a general who owns in 1v1 but must rely on politics in multiplayer - which I think fits t3 well. There is no way krenko could take on a table of focused hate or win with no alliances the way Marath, Will of the Wild or prosh can. Also, compared to Uril, the Miststalker who is similar in assassin-like power against a single opponent, krenko doesn't protect himself or have reliable access to the means to do so.

In every multiplayer game that I have seen krenko show up, it is just "krenko? kill him" ... 3to5 turns later because green has no ramp to speak of / all the while having no game impact because the deck depends on the commander ... "krenko again? Bye!" ... rinse/repeat until everyone at the table is too OP to give 2 shits how many goblins you make anymore ... "GG"

I do run krenko BTW - I still like him - he is just not competitive in multiplayer - not even close to the way he can kick butt in 1v1. I still even run him in multiplayer sometimes, but when I do it has to be like "OK wait til there is a worse threat and hope they don't pick you ... sneak that haste onto the table, there ya go ... OK now these two guys are rivals and stopped paying attention, maybe krenko will actually stick ... aha now my goblins can clean up after the biggest threat has been managed by everyone else ... cool"

Can you give a description of why she's slower than Shirei NoOneOfConsequence? And I enjoy the ability she has to bypass any lock-down or fort. Some are harder than others to get through, but most can be completely ignored.

There is a reason we are asking that people do not advocate their own commanders here.

@Femme_Fatale Well, you see, Alesha has to attack in order to do her thing. That's hardly something you can do every turn. All Shirei requires is a sac-outlet such as Viscera Seer and some manner of ETB/LTB effect such as Grave Pact, Big Game Hunter or Bone Shredder to start going to town on people's board states every single turn. Follow this up with things like Thoughtpicker Witch, Noxious Toad, or Sadistic Hypnotist, and you can very easily lock people out of the game. As for actual 'I win' combos, there's really only one: Shirei + Coretapper + Magistrate's Scepter. That's pretty slow, of course. In that regard, Alesha is far better. Two very different strategies, as I'm sure you can see. Sure, Alesha is much slower if you're trying to go for the sort of strategy I just described, but that's not at all what you'd be doing with a truly competitive Alesha deck, for that very reason. They're really only superficially comparable, then--my apologies.