where is xantcha? is this list being updated still?

No, the owners of this list aren't active anymore.

what do? i personally dont have the time nor enough knowledge to create an updated list, but im down to help brainstorm

Sadly, it would most likely be an edit of this list, simply due to the ton of work required to do tier 3+. I may work on one, though it would have to be community-driven.

well we could do just 1-3. anything beyond that is irrelevant imo. I personally reference this list when addressing cedh. casual is casual and almost anything can be "optimized." but that's just me lol

- T4. I'm not impressed with this card, but you can do cute shenanigans with Clones (especially Sakashima), Strionic Resonator, and Bounce effects. Being matchup dependent really hurts this card. Even then, it is really slow and marginal advantage at best.

I would imagine that as more of a 99 card, as with Lazav as just a spare nooze. Etrata would probably be a cute card to use in Atraxa.

I've been thinking for awhile that there should just be a new list with only tiers 1 through 2.5, and the banned commanders. Pretty sure those are mostly the only ones people look for here. After all, if you are looking to see all of the possible legends, you can just search for all legendary creatures on Gatherer.

Dune_null: You would be surprised how often lists for the lower tier commanders get asked for. A lot of more casual players are looking for good pub stomp lists.

- T5.

First-time poster, but a seasoned lurker, here coming with a non-cEDH mindset;

I generally agree that tiers 3, 4 and 5 are irrelevant for competitive play. And it's also obvious that a good competitive commander doesn't have to be good by itself in casual (ally tribal Tazri will get stomped by a decent Narset, but I don't want to poke this bear).

However, this list is so popular and so widely used that it would be a shame to leave new and/or unimformed players without such a resource. Hell, when I was starting out with EDH 2 years ago I consulted this list all the time to get the feeling for the format (tier 3 - perfectly fine for '75%', tier 4 - casual, tier 5 - mostly jank). Even now I often come by to take a look at where a random comander I saw stands and what does the community think of the new commanders and 99 cards.

Of course, cEDH comes first in regard of maintaining this list, but keeping some form of updated list for non-competitive tiers would be nice. Plus if you were to include competitive builds for such commanders (not for every single one, but for the most popular ones like Narset for an example) or even links to popular pubstomp lists (clearly labeled as such of course) that would be really awesome.

Tl;dr: as a non-cEDH player but a "casual spike" of sorts, I find this list to be a valuable resource even outside of cEDH. Hence I'd like the uncompetitive tiers to stay, if only as a broad guideline.

JohnnyCRO the issue is that you will find decks designed for cEDH as the example builds, even in the lower tiers. These decks are built like they want to keep up with the better decks and also win some games but over a longer testing period they would lose a lot more than they win in that setting. What you are looking for is probably a Tier 3 deck that is designed to battle other Tier 3 and lower rated decks while not even considering their matchups against what you find in t1-2. I'm not sure if this list and the example builds are actually such a good source for playing in a meta without any of the top decks.

As for the whole list and a possible new one: I could see a new list being made but it would probably end up being something similar to the decklist databases of the lab maniacs or the cEDH discord community. You'll always find the established top decks ranked highest in any list, also some subjective choices of the people who maintain the list and the "best build" as an example for each commander will either be a subjective choice as well or the deck with the best primer. Sorting by deck archetype and ranking the possible commander choices within each archetype would make more sense than a tier system that tries to compare different archetypes and commanders in one ranking.

I would say the differences between t1 and 1.5 are mostly about popularity, how long commanders have been known for being top choices, subjective judgements of the list creators and vague assumptions of what is slightly better in an unknown "global" meta. An objective discussion on 0.5 levels without having a shitload of data on matchups and tournament performance can't be serious imo.

@Winterblast

I'm by no chance stating that this list is a non-cEDH source, on the contrary. However, many new players come across this list, just as I did, and they hardly understand the difference between cEDH and EDH. And I myself am aware of that difference (for an example my favorite deck, Kefnet, is quite different from what you guys have here. Neither is bad, but they're simply built for different metas, so some cards that are good in one become crap in the other and vice versa). Yet lower tier differences are quite similar in both, and I still find it a reasonable resource for distinguishing a tier 3 (viable in casual competitive) from tier 4 (maybe too cute for such environment) or tier 5 (janky). A preemptive disclaimer tho, I know the tiers are just a broad guideline. But when I'm trying to understand and/or evaluate a commander I'm considering for the first time, such broad comparison is just what I need. I'm not saying that you should remake the list to fit entirely different needs than it was meant to, but that by just not removing stuff and by simply addressing new commanders, as you guys used to do, you're doing a lot to keep it helpful for non-cEDH people who come across it too.

Well, JohnnyCRO, though you say that some cards are crap in each other's meta, I think you are a little off. Some cards from CEDH may not be as useful, or rarely useful at all in a non-CEDH meta, for example, Spell Pierce in a Hermit Druid deck, where all of your opponents are only playing their Steel Leaf Champions and Cultivates, perhaps having no interaction one game, where you'd rather a Ponder, but that doesn't mean that the card is crap. Generally speaking, the Hermit Druid player finds a tutor, goes off, wins, and has that extra Spell Pierce buffer protecting it. Even if it isn't entirely as useful, countering a Cultivate that'd put off an opponent from Iona, Shield of Emeria in some circumstances, or lead them to kill you with a horde of elves given a bad hand on your part.

Really, I find that though many cards are crap from normal EDH to CEDH, the opposite is lesser true.

Also, your point on that tier 5 is too janky to win in cEDH is false, it doesn't have a 25% winrate (average in 4-player given each player is playing at maximum level, knows their opponents decks, and aren't janking out wins) against Tier 1, but 20% winrate isn't awful.

I have found all tiers to house commanders that can helm exceptionally powerful decks, and though you may as a Karona, False God player why don't they run Scion of the Ur-Dragon and up their decks performance by a decent margin, having part of the Worldgorger Dragon combo in the zone, their winrates are about the same, despite being 3.5 tiers apart. I'd estimate the decks average winrates to only be a good 2% different against Tier 1 lists, with the main difference being that the dragon has more win-combos, and Karona replacing some of the dragons with more tutors and consistency with the druid line.

@SynergyBuild

I may be a bit off, but the main point was that cEDH and EDH function differently enough that cards that are good in one can be relatively bad in the other and I still stand by it. Spell Pierce as an example is indeed useful in "regular" EDH, but depending on the meta it can often be much worse than the alternatives. It's not as useless as there are simply numerous better/much more reliable options to include. Sure it sill has its uses, especially when going for an early win or when fighting a counter war, but it's outclassed for the spot by more expensive, yet more reliable interaction. I agree that cEDH can cross over to EDH more easily than the reverse, but they work so differently that card quality varies drastically depending on which format is being considered (my experience here comes from researching mostly cEDH decks as a source of ideas for decks and from "converting" those for "regular" EDH).

Probably unintentionally, but there has probably been a misunderstanding on your side. I didn't comment on cEDH tiers, I commented on "regular" EDH and how these competitive tiers relate to that. First thing I noted when I commented here is that I'm not into cEDH and that I cannot comment on tiers there, and hence I thought that it was obviously implied by my constant clinging to EDH as opposed to cEDH. I know, and have witnessed, that a janky or weak deck can squeeze out a win. But if not going for an optimized competitive build but for the deck "fitting" for the commander at "75%" level, the difference in winrate and consistency between tiers 3 and 5 can often be quite significant and this list illustrates that somewhat. I'm not saying that the Best Adriana deck can't win, but that on average in 75%, Aurelia is a better bet for a Boros deck than Adriana.

And I also stated in my first post that I'm aware of difference between pure commander quality and the importance of the build (Tazri/Narset example) and I explicitly said that I don't want to go there since you guys said everything a few weeks back; commander is just part of the mix and a good deck can be built to bypass using a (relatively bad) commander while maintaining a solid winrate.

But we drifted away from my original reason for posting here. I'm not here to teach you guys about cEDH, you play it, I don't, hence I can't discuss it even if I wanted to. I just wanted to drop by and tell you from a non-cEDH perspective how popular and useful this list is for us (more than a few people agreed with me over the course of last 2 years I've been in EDH) and that it would be a shame if you stopped maintaining the lower tiers. It's a few minute's work for 2-4 of you to agree on its approximate placing (and apparently 6-9 months to do the actual update. No ill intentions here, just piling up on the questions/complaints about that xD ), and it helps anyone new to the EDH or to the particular commander to quickly get the idea how good it is compared to the other commanders one might be more familiar with.

P.S.

Just to be clear; I disagree with the "75% theory". But it's the most widely known expression for the so-called casual competitive and I tend to use it often because of that. Decks weaker and slower than cEDH, but that can steamroll "casual" decks. Just to address that one in advance.

Aurelia is better because of the combo with Helm of the Host, honestly Adriana isn't even close. I'd never cast Adriana in an Adriana cEDH deck, it would just be a stax list I think. Again, besides the point JohnnyCRO, really, I was just saying that the quote:

"[...] distinguishing a tier 3 (viable in casual competitive) from tier 4 (maybe too cute for such environment) or tier 5 (janky) [...]"

Was a little off, given how this list doesn't fit that description perfectly.

Otherwise, I'd simply say all commanders have a spot in a non-cEDH veiwpoint, and that the jankier the commander the better, as it normally forces you to do really cool things to make it work, like some of the weird partner parings.

Actualy my point was that even the lower tier example decks are built in a way that assumes you are playing them against the top decks...for your purpose JohnnyCRO you would rather need a list that shows builds that are made for fighting against other lower power decks because you can focus with your interaction on other stuff when you are sure that you won't ever have to face storm or hulk decks.

why everyone getting worked up lol tiers don't matter. every commander has potential to be competitive, just play what u wanna play n be happy in the incredible world of EDH :)

I mean DangoDaikazoku, what is the Tier Description for then?

Really, I agree, but your statement doesn't fit the narrative of the list above, so isn't really applicable to our discussion.

I mean SynergyBuild, tier descriptions more or less are for describing the inherent power of the commander and the deck built around it, are they not?

But take for example Godo, Bandit Warlord. He currently stands at tier 4 on this list, and I don't know how long the owners of this list have been inactive, but ever since Helm of the Host came out, it provided him adequate support to prove himself in a competitive environment and combo off by taking infinite combat phases between turns 2-4. Tier 4, and he can achieve a combo that matches the tier 1 description:

"The combo decks can go off on turns 3-5"

My statement does fit the narrative of the list above, so it is applicable to your discussion. Tiers don't matter. Anything can be viable in competitive. That's all I was saying.

Ultimately the message I was trying to get across is that you shouldn't get so worked up and argue about these stupid tiers lol. I have played competitive EDH for a long time, but I mainly play the game casually and to simply have fun so I don't see why people care about tiers at all because it shouldn't even matter where your commander stands on this tier list. I was hoping you would have understood that from my comment rather than undermining and completely dismissing what I said. Good day to you, sir.

Look, i think we got off on the wrong foot. I've been arguing that exact point since a few months ago, and made Why Every Commander is Competitive as a result. I hate the tier system, yet they matter to the list above. Ypu using this list to define options for your 'casual' EDH is irrelevant to what this list is meant to do.

I don't refer to this list at all to define casual EDH. I only get notifications from here still because I like to see the discussion of new commanders since I don't really check the spoilers all that often and it's just convenient to get these alerts and participate in the discussion haha. I don't like the tier system at all, and although it may be a good resource to new players, it doesn't accurately portray the viability of other commanders in these specified lower tiers. I've always just had the mentality of picking up a legendary creature that looks neat, and building around it and I think that's what deckbuilding in this format should be about rather than basing your choices heavily or even solely on a tier standing. I'm sorry if we misunderstood each other, I was just a little upset that you dismissed the overall premise of my original comment.

To be fair, the disclaimer in the beginning says not to hate if your commander is not ranked how you like it, and I understand that tiers matter to this list, but the thing is I've played against some tier 4 and 5 commander decks that can hold their own against tier 1 and 2 in competitive games, which doesn't match the tier description for these lower tiers either so I just find there to be inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the ranking criteria considering some of these low tier generals can prove to be an outlier and exception to these current set tier descriptions. Ugh now it looks like I'm getting roped into this discussion and looking worked up about this.

All I ever meant by any of this is not to let this tier list limit you from your commander choices. For instance, if you want to play reanimator, don't assume Meren of Clan Nel Toth is the best of the best because Meren players are a dime a dozen. Sure, Meren does offer incredible value with the strategy, but there are honestly countless choices to be at the helm of this strategy as well that offer their own unique flavor, and same thing goes for any strategy for that matter. I encourage people to be unique with their commander choices, and I can't emphasize enough especially to new players to the format not to see this list and think "since Zur is tier 1, I'm going to build Zur" or something because the tier standing should not be the driving force behind your decision when building a deck.

Cheers all.

what if someone made a list of commanders, but instead of "teir lvl" its "archetype?" too much work? i think itd help the edh vs cedh argument

Yeah, especially since this list is titled "Multiplayer EDH Generals by Tier" when it should be advertised as cEDH Generals by Tier. I think it's just misleading to new players to the format due to that seemingly minor discrepancy. I think a list providing all of the legal EDH generals is a good resource, and that's what I originally thought this list was about years ago when I was introduced to the format. Perhaps organizing generals by archetype would be too complex, considering you can theoretically play any commander at the helm of any archetype or playstyle. We could keep it more simple and organize the generals by definitive categories like Mono-Black, Dimir, Grixis, Four Color, etc.

I personally can organize a list like this if people would like that resource available. I assume it wouldn't be too hard to manage and update, and I would probably add a couple members willing to help keep the list updated in case I ever go on a hiatus or something. I wouldn't mind doing something like that if others would find it helpful.

DangoDaikazoku and Mr9Loganja this is exactly what EDHRec.com does. Every legal and a few illegal commanders are listed by color, color combinations, common archetypes, tribes, and sets. New features are added every now and then too. I find the website is generally aimed at more casual players looking for a place to start or older players looking for new card suggestions but if you use the "expensive" filter it often shows more competitive cards.

Perhaps someone or some small group that plays competitively should approach the designer of EDHRec and ask him to implement something similar to this list?

Though it wouldn't actually be that hard to redo this list. 90% of the list above is still good, just copy/paste it and make some tweaks and give 4-5 people permission to adjust it. Then advertise it here and you will attract the people that care about an updated version.