Two years ago I commented saying that Arcum Dagsson was Teir 1. I gave a list that was basically like every other list at the time. With a few different personal choices.

Well for two years I've played at different tables, competitive, casual. Testing, gold fishing, streamlining.

In that time I've arrived at this list.

https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/arcums-infinite-puzzle-box/

This list differs from every other competitive Arcum list I've come across.

In a few ways, no draw spells. Drawing into memnite feels bad when you need torpor orb or something. Brainstorm, ponder just don't dig deep when's there's 92 singleton cards.

No clunky win more instant speed win cards, that are added to the base combo. Resulting in a lower average mana cost, increasing its consistency for turns 3-5, and possible turn 2 wins that are hilarious when they happen.

I've found that this is probably the most consistent T3-5 deck, even through disruption. ( personal opinion mind you, but by all means go try it yourself. Just keep in mind it might take some time to get use to/figure out all the tutor patterns/lines.

No "alternate win conditions". That require big clunky artifacts. Just 1 win condition with 4 ways to do it and dozens of ways to assemble the combo and some silver bullets when needed.

Sorry been awhile since I've tagged anything.

Arcum's Infinite Puzzle Box

No, the archetype is redless/witchmaw Hermit Druid combo.

Also, Sidisi/Prossh/Tazri are Sultai, Jund, and 5 color, so they would be separate Food Chain lists on color basis, Thrasios/Tymna and Atraxa are witch/redless, and so aren't in the same boat.

I understand, but you called it 4 color combo, and then claimed jund, sultai, and five color are in the same boat, you brought up color identity having to do with the names of archetypes first...

Oh yeah, and we totally agree that way of tiers is ridiculous. Like I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a list like that, but it would be absurdly complicated to make. I didn't ask for that, I only said I wouldn't mind it.

Also, Combo, Stax, and Control are the three main types I would argue are the main archytypes (ugh differeniating umbrellas and subcategories is annoying), as Stax is different than permissions, though both lead to long games.

What cEDH aggro deck do you know of, not rhetorical, like actually, I mean Tana/Tymna blood pod is beatdown, but hardly aggro.

SynergyBuild: Edric, Spymaster of Trest would be aggro.

enpc: Yeah... wow I didn't think of that.

n0bunga: I was just saying they were hermit druid lists, I apologize that I gave the wrong impression. I know aggro exists, but then we should talk about midrange, as that is another normal archetype in MTG.

Oh yeah, also vintage? How many aggro decks are in vintage? I guess you could claim dredge is, but come on, like really? that is a combo deck. Ravager shops is more midrangy, Lodestone Golem isn't the epitome of aggro, and Wurmcoil Engine definently isn't.

Really, every format is different, and archetypes change for them.

Oh yeah, and I really like Yuriko! Decent card advantage for 2 mana, it is like a bad Dark Confidant, though confidant is so good it doesn't matter!

n0bunga combined with Arcane Adaptation she could be a beast

I don't think they change constantly, but they do change on the format. Combo in modern, legacy, vintage, and commander is a fast-paced instant win kind of deal, in pauper, it is a slow, instant win, thing, like Inside Out combo. Toolbox I feel is like tribal, there are toolbox midrange lists, like legacy maverick (the banning of Deathrite Shaman hurt it, but still), and toolbox control lists like sultai gifts loops. Yes, I have seen a toolbox aggro list using Green Sun's Zenith, it looked pretty janky and was a fun bant build, but apparently was competitive.

So yes, I know toolbox is something in every archetype, but I never talked about toolbox until now, why bring it up?

It's like saying: "Did you know there are tribal decks in all of the main umbrella archetypes, there are tribal lists that are aggro, control, stax, and combo!"

It is irrelevant to the conversation.

Onto dredge, there are many varients that win through Laboratory Maniac (milling themselves with Hermit Druid because bazaar is too good to pass up), so those aren;t winning through aggro, not to say the best don't only that the win condition is not the archetype, dredge is fast-paced combo, plain and simple.

Also, in 25 years, the archetypes have changed, not a lot, but the ideas behind them totally have, originally lifegain was much more dominant, and most players lacked the understanding of card advantage that is known commonly today, control was very different, and so was aggro.

n0bunga just put Atraxa under both then. 4c Boonweaver and 4c Hermit Druid.

Or just Boonweaver. If that's the main combo. Just list them by their main combo and then under the combo have the commanders sorted by color in order of how good the decks are. Maybe it seems a little complicated but it actually makes sense, as opposed to tier like the current list, when any tier 5 commander can theoretically run a tier 2 or 3 list

Wow, I said 6 words on lifegain, what history lesson?

I honestly could argue aggro is just comboing creatures with your opponents face, and combo is just slow aggro, if you want to say it slows the opponent with removal, plenty of aggro do too, and if your argument is that the idea behind the deck's gameplan is different, so is it with stax and midrange, two separate archtypes.

If you want to say, so what about toolbox, generally, toolbox only means a deck that can rely on tutors to fetch out one ofs in a deck, so it makes them have an array of tools, or options for any situation while still remaining consistent. The gameplan can still be stax, aggro, combo, or control, and toolbox won't make it different.

Tribal decks abuse synergies between creatures of a chosen type, and tribal decks do not have an innately different gameplan based on that alone. If it was aggro before, it still is.

The point is, I can come up with clear archetypes, and subcategories within them.

Midrange has consistently not been called control, it has always between aggro and control, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. That is not for you to decide as control.

Stax is a form of control. I will agree, I use the term control to mean a permission control list, if you want all of the EDH archetypes, they are as follow:

Fast-Paced Combo, Interactive, Midrange Combo, Midrange Engine, Stax Control, and Permission Control.

If you include other archetypes that don't see play in cEDH, there are 8, with the addition of Creature/Burn based aggro and midrange lists.

I can reasonably claim that these 8 archetypes are different than sub-categories, and are consistent, and have existed in some form since the beginning of Magic, since apparently you care about that.

Isn't this list suppose to be about the General. Not the list. I'm pretty sure most people don't care that a T5 commander can have a T2 list. It's not about the list at all. It's clearly labeled as EDH Generals by teir. Not EDH Generals by teir (depending on what list you run.) It's about how much more effective does X General make a competitive list.

Why the heck are you guys arguing about Archtypes and sub archtypes. This is about the teir's. Every other Teir list for every other format. Doesn't include archtypes, because they are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what Archtypes it is. They get categorized by, is this the best of the best? if not where does it stand.

TranscendingAll All of these commanders suck without a good list, what is prossh going to do with 99 Wastes? honestly I think n0bunga makes a ton of sense, but we just see things in a different light, I don't know what you are saying at all.

n0bunga I mean, Jund commonly turn ones an aggro, and Bloodbraid Elfs into Tarmogoyf yeah... very controlling. Yes, they can be control, they can be aggro, that is why they are midrange.

n0bunga whether or not there are only 3 archetypes is not up to you, sorry. You have your opinion and we have ours. The fact remains that this is a highly debatable way to list commanders and we need something better. Also in EDH, simply saying "combo" is far too broad, as almost every single deck wins primarily with a combo.

Hmm I see why n0bunga is having such a difficult time trying to explain things to you now.

What I'm getting at is say for example. Every competitive list is T2. What General now turns that T2 competitive list into a T1. Is it the 6drop vanilla creature or the General that contributes to the game in a major way.

That's what this list is about. Is how effective is the General at helping the game plan.

Because most of the competitive lists are made up and share similarities.

Like I said this forum we'll call it is Labeled as Edh Generals by Teir.

Not EDH Lists by Teir. Not EDH Archtypes by Teir.

Ugh, you know, I really was just going off of the archetype description on this page, it had 4, but hybrid wasn't really one, it was just a mix of them, so I didn't include it. Okay? I was just going off of THIS list's definition, you know, the one we are commenting on. There are three, we can get more specific, but Combo, Stax, Control (and any mix of them) are the three, aggro isn't.

Under tier description:

"Archetype Descriptions

Combo: Resilient, recur-able combos, usually with a backup plan, and that packs protection. These decks run cards that "combo" with each other to get a game-winning boardstate (Mimeoplasm), infinite tokens and draw (Prossh), or just downright win the game (Doomsday). Decks will pack lots of acceleration in order to power out the combo.

Stax: Speedy lockdowns, usually with a combo finish or beatdown strategy, that packs redundancy and tutors to counter other gameplans. These decks will play cards like Static Orb and Stasis to slow down opponents, while having some way to break resource parity, whether by blinking permanents (Brago), or untapping lands (Derevi). They can easily lock down the board, and proceed to win with either beatdown or a combo finish.

Hybrid: Disruption, silver bullets, and hatebears make these decks powerful. They will usually pack a combo, but won't play it out as quickly, opting instead to disrupt other gameplans with cards like Cursed Totem and Phyrexian Revoker. They can be tuned to local metas, packing specific hate cards against powerful decks. These decks can win quickly or play the long game.

Control: Cheap counterspells, good disruption, and a powerful draw engine. This archetype is usually considered to be one of the weaker ones, as having enough counterspells to fight an entire table is tough. Each counterspell is card disadvantage (1:1/3), so this must be offset by a powerful draw engine in the command zone. Azami and Damia are two examples of decks that have enough sheer card draw to get the counterspells they need."

Now, TranscendingAll, I fully understand where you are coming from now, thank you for clarifying. I would like to refer you to the tier description tab, in which it claims that commanders with tiers lower than 2 cannot efficiently compete with tier 1 lists. This is all I want to comment on, if a 6 drop vanilla creature as the commander can compete, yet a better option is still better, both should be tiered higher, by the definitions given, thank you.

I've been following this conversation for a while and thought I might as well throw my thoughts into the ring.

I have always seen this list as serving two important functions. First, it provides new players an easy way to sort through the myriad legendary creatures and determine which ones they might want to play. Second, it provides an example deck for each Commander players are likely to play.

I want to elaborate some on these two points before going into my suggestion on how to resolve this current debate.

Regarding the first point:

The actual tier rankings are not important to experienced players. Anyone who has a knowledge of EDH knows Zur is a powerhouse due to his versatility and speed; Nekusar is strong and explosive, but so one dimensional as to be middling; and Lady Caleria is outclassed garbage. These are players who know their metagame and rivals, and really should be choosing a commander based on their own knowledge, not based upon this list.

While these are the players who should be debating and deciding the tier numbers, they are not the players who need the tier numbers. As such, whatever system is used for the actual ranking should be focused primarily on providing newer players the most helpful information possible.

Regarding the second point:

These decklists are useful to new and experienced players alike, and can be easily looked up in the main body of the thread's text. Not really much else to say here.

So, how would I structure this list:

1. I think the tier list itself is fine as-is. Is it perfect? No, but it provides a pretty decent guide for new players, without being complicated or intimidating. There's usually pretty good debate over what should go where, which helps keep things relatively reasonable.

2. I think the text of the thread could be reworked some to provide different deck lists to show the best deck for that commander, but also one or two other competitive lists. So, it might look like (just by way of example)

Zur - List used for ranking: Ad Nauseam
- Secondary List: Combo

1. There should be a section that is "Top 5 for Each Playstyle." (I am avoiding "Archetype" since I have no interest in getting involved in that particular debate). Playstyles should be fairly broad--I'd probably use tribal; tokens; stax; control; spellslinging; large creatures; Voltron; reanimation; combo; lands matter; graveyard matters; and perhaps one or two more. The goal would be to have enough specificity that new players can find a commander they would enjoy playing, without going so narrow only one or two commanders can fit into the list.

cdkime I couldn't agree more with what you've said.

SynergyBuild go back and read what I said. Actually read it to understand, not just reply.

Because a vanilla general has no right being a T3/T2 just because it has a good 99 behind it. The deck in its entirety might be T3/T2. But it's not about that.

It's about how effective the General is.

Now if someone changed/created a new 99 that bumped a general up a Teir.

It should be because the General can now add that much more value to the 99. Because there's that little extra synergy or consistency.

Had a meal, so there is a few things I need to unpack now, ugh.

cdkime I do agree with pretty much everything you said, my point was geared towards newer players, and I think a list like this might be misleading them in the thinking that Lady Caleria can never compete against a powerhouse like Zur the Enchanter no matter how much you try, otherwise, I like your idea for the structure of the list, but am concerned about how much effort would need to be put into it.

n0bunga Okay, that is fair, a few things I would like to unpack, this list is not made by one player, but in fact three, and it isn't gospel, but I only started commenting on this list because I wanted to talk about the list. I actually started talking about Karona, False God being tier five, almost a week ago, that is when I started commenting, and is how we are here. Your opinions on unrelated topics to the page, are of no concern to me, and I realize now you don't care about this list, and have opinions on all of cEDH, and not the particular page. I would suggest commenting elsewhere.

TranscendingAll I am glad we can agree on cdkime, and I believe there is a misunderstanding. Yes, the title of this list would imply it was solely speaking on the tiers of the generals, and I agree with everything you said in that regard, however I would like you to take a look at the description of the list, below is a direct quote under the "Tier Descriptio" Tab:

"Tier 1

These decks are the most powerful decks in the format. The combo decks can go off on turns 3-5, the stax decks get a lock on turns 3-4, and hybrid decks get a disruption engine by turn 2-4. They will commonly be seen at competitive tables, and players should know how to combat them. They are resilient, pack protection and backup plans, and take dedicated hate to truly counter. Never underestimate these decks, as they are the strongest in the format.

Tier 2

Less powerful than the tier 1 decks, but still quite strong, these can definitely hold their own against tier 1 decks. They are usually a turn slower than tier 1 decks, or they have consistency problems.

Tier 3

This is the middle tier. They can't usually compete against tier 1 decks, but might do fine with tier 2 decks. They usually have "the Aggro Problem," or they are wildly inconsistent. Most of the "pubstomp" decks that dominate casual meta go in here. They may have a bad reputation, but that doesn't make them tier 1.

Tier 4

These decks are somewhat weak. They have trouble winning in competitive metas, but may do well in casual games. They need a very favorable meta and a very lucky hand to win against decks like Zur."

If you notice, every time, it specified decks, not generals, but decks, I believe you misunderstood that this list is not about ranking generals, but the decks that they pilot. Either that, or a lot of rewriting needs to be done in the description.

SynergyBuild Going off the description, I understand what you are getting at.

However the description does conflict with what the title says.

So I'd have to say there needs to be some rewriting.

Oh my god... finally, thank you TranscendingAll, you made my day, like ten-fold my whole week, and my week was pretty dang good, I became the #2 deck lord and #1 helper this week, but finally someone understands my frustration.

You are a legend.

Yeah so I think generally we can all agree now.

That this list is for newer players mainly, or for research purposes on a play style.

So moving forward, we could that some of the descriptions need rewording.

That the list as it is, is pretty good but needs a little updating and some other options of play styles for X generas added. To give people a better understanding of not only the competitive Generals/lists, but of other good play styles as well.

Does that make sense?

n0bunga I've had a chance to look at your Najeela build and I have some questions, most of which come from my own experience with the commander and how I came to use the strategy I currently have.

First of all, did you build a jeskai ascendancy deck with Najeela because you thought that she would be the best commander for such a deck or because you thought there wasn't any reasonable build going round for her and this felt like a competitive approach? I can see that she is an outlet for mana generating combos but it seems like you don't get much value from her if you are behind or unable to get the Ascendancy online. I tried to implement a win con that has overlapping pieces that combo with Najeela alone (Derevi) so that the commander is an actually valid plan B without wasting slots in the deck.

Is protean hulk dying actually winning without further setup or is it just a value hulk that needs a haste enabler in play and then further spells to win? Can you get rector and sac it for ascendancy? Are there other ways to use hulk besides flash? Do you have instant speed kills with hulk? Overall, is hulk worth being played in that build at all then?

How do you feel about the commander having a rather cheap cost and not really contributing anything to the setup or to the late game grinding ability of the deck? When I switched from Ramos to Najeela I first thought that I would just have a better deck without changing anything in the 99, but I quickly saw that the commander being castable in the early game can actually have a huge impact on how the deck goes off or generates card advantage. Eventually it influenced my card choices for carddraw and interaction (Edric, Tymna, mindblade render, azra oddsmaker, aura shards...) that I had exactly this commander available. It might not be better to do that in your build, because you need a critical mass of instants and sorceries, which brings up the question again if you really think an Ascendancy combo is suitable for that commander as the build you would suggest to someone else.

We know that the casual approach would be to focus on the combat combo but if you build her competitively you should be able to actually get the most value out of her while having a better and faster plan A than a commander centric beatdown. You found a fast and probably decent win con for 5c but I don't think that the commander actually helps a lot with the way you have to build that.

n0bunga

Yeah, you are right, I misread:

"It's also pretty silly to use this one user-created definition as gospel."

I mean, to my credit, I though you were saying one-user, and not one-definition, apologies on my part. I believe we are having a civil discussion. But about your whole definition thing, we are talking about semantics, and I disagree that the general definition of the word Archetype directly applies to Magic: The Gathering decks in such a narrow way, but to be fair, that is entirely my opinion, and has no evidence to back it up.

But, with evidence, I can back up the following argument:

Okay, this might be wrong, but hear me out.

EDH, being a four-player (unless you are playing 2 player edh... in which I apologies because what I have said has NOTHING to do with dual commander), 40-life format, and a lack of consistency being 100-card singleton, leads aggro not to be a competitive list.

This is point one, Aggro isn't competitive, as in it requires the opponents to play badly to win.

I mean the argument is dumb, okay, but I am not the best at this so it is the best I got on short notice:

Since you said we need to derive each deck from one of the archetypes, if I find a deck that falls outside of your archetypes, it is a new archetype? Right, yet you said, "Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro", so I can't make a deck that falls outside of these archetypes, right?

Point number two, There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.

Okay, so 99x Relentless Rats in a Phage the Untouchable deck... yeah that is my deck. It isn't aggro... it doesn't exactly win the game by swinging with creatures very fast... at all. I will admit it does have consistent draws though, and I never have to mulligan past 5 cards with it. But enough jokes, it isn't aggro, is it combo? Not really, is it control? I'd be hard pressed to find someone that told me that... I mean eventually it just dies against itself. Maybe I should mulligan to 0 cards so it takes longer to die? Whatever, the point is made, that this deck, which is a perfectly legal deck, that can even in a game if an opponent doesn't play properly and donates me some lands and a Torpor Orb for my commander or something.

Okay, so this is point number three, There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.

Okay, so now it is time to look over the points made:

1. Aggro isn't competitive

2. There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.

3. There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.

Okay, so the points have been made that contradict, points 2 and 3, so what can be done about that? Well, I guess you could say #2 should be rewritten as "[...] cannot be a good deck outside of ...", but good is very subjective, what isn't? competitive.

Now we can write it as There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.

But wait, that changes things, it means we can take away Aggro from that point in reference to point #1, Aggro isn't competitive

Hmm... well then the point, more effectively should be There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo and Control everything would fit, and it would work splendidly.

The point is, if you are willing to put stax and control together, which I agree are the same archetype at face value, I generally think of control as shorthand for permission, if we were to separate them in this point, There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Stax, and Permission, which would lead my narrative to be correct.

But wait, there is what appears to be a fallacy there! Though aggro can be dropped from point #2 and it would still work, it doesn't have to! Yes, but then we should add fishing pole as an archetype, of 99 lands, and that would be an archetype, it isn't aggro, nor is it control, nor combo, unless you pick a really weird commander... pick Phage the Untouchable and run 99 Wastes and call it a day. It fits, so lets add a hundred extra archetypes, oh yeah, because of the point number four I haven't mentioned:

"Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro"

See the word three, not four, despite fishing pole being a completely valid archetype (I don't know where I come up with this garbage), so I must assume you just haven't heard of it. In that case, you must have done the minimum amount that includes all of the ones that you deemed important, or required. This is the final point:

Any core archetype that is not required is not a core archetype in regards to point #2.

This is my conclusions, that only control (including both stax & permission) and combo exist as core archetypes in EDH.

PS: this took way too long to write, I regret this slightly.

I feel dumber after reading that.