Ishai isn't that good, but she's literally up there because she is UW and has the keyword partner attached to her.

Nearly all pairings currently with her are outclassed by another partner combination with imo her best pairing is with vial smasher for Sans-G, but that's outclassed easily by Kraum/Tymna, and Esper with Tymna. But why play esper partners when you can just do Thrasios/Tymna?

And this is what happens when someone makes something as big as this "tier list", but then doesn't include explanations for card placement and also avoids updating it.

Well yeah, but Omnath is not the biggest threat in the deck. His biggest threat is the fact that he can stack mana really. I am working on a deck with him and a ton of other really large mana heavy creatures, with ways of putting stuff in for either free or super cheap. You stack mana early game for a turn or two and you can either spend it, or swing for some mid damage with Omnath, then in second main you can throw down something like Woodfall Primus or a card I just got today which is Regal Behemoth. Add that in with a card that wouldn't be good in almost ANY other deck Early Harvest, especially if it's later in the game and you have a lot of basic land out which is the only lands in my deck is just basic forests than you can really REALLY crank him up and either maul stuff down and trample or cast another really big critter..I dunno...Aggressive Mammoth? I got one of those in there. For this deck it's a solid choice. You can also do stuff like instant spells. Maybe, MAybe? have an Avoid Fate or similar spells sparsely in the deck to add some armor. Plus I also keep all of the totem enchantments in here too ( green ones of course ), so Snake, Bear, Boar, spider. Those also come in handy too. I know he is not the best commander out there because he is mono green, but I feel he can be competitive really easily with the right enchantments and fatties to back him up.

vasarto77 I think you missed the entire point of the rebuttal. If someone hits Omnath with any type of cheap removal such as Chain of Vapor or Swords to Plowshares, the mana you decided to store up is effectively just gone at that point. Then on top of that you have to recast Omnath and start rebuilding your ramp. Also how are you playing him? Do you cast him on turn 3, do nothing but tap out and stack mana on turn 4, then finally by turn 5 tap out again to cast some fatty? That's not competitive by any means and that playstyle is not productive. Omnath just has a bad early game when it really matters and doesn't rebound from removal very well while other mono-green generals like Yisan and Selvala do. I appreciate you trying to give a thorough explanation for why you think Omnath is competitive, because that's much more than a lot of other people who find themselves on this page ever do. But to me it just looks like you're aiming to tap out over the course of several turns to eventually drop a big stronk creature onto the battlefield and that doesn't seem the slightest bit effective for a gameplan in cEDH in my opinion.

vasarto77 sounds like hot trash, does it win turn 3? Does it stop each opponent by winning turn 3?

No. It doesn't hold up.

It's a very casual strategy. I think you do well with it in your playgroup and are having a hard time comprehending what we mean by competitive. I suggest joining the Discord and finding some cEDH games so you can see.

win turn 3 in edh? Hogwash. Yeah, maybe if you somehow get an infinite combo in an ultra lucky first hand, but most commanders I have ever seen are not a 3 mana drop so winning turn 3 with only 1 of each card in a 100 card deck, I highly doubt your going to be consistent with that. What, like 1/20 games you might pull one of your lucky win on turn 3 combos? I have played against dozens of people and most have several edh decks and play in tournaments against each other. The earliest game win I have ever seen is turn 9.

Then you're not playing competitive EDH lol

@vasarto77

You obviously don't know what you're talking about; research a bit before you try to explain an entire community that you're the smartest cookie out there. Take a look at the provided lists and goodgle for some competitive gameplay.

For crying out loud, my Edric deck can easily win far before turn 9 and it's nowhere near true cEDH...

Breakfast Hulk AVERAGES turn 2.5...

I've played some cEDH, I've seen a bit of turn3's in my time... But I will say that people are quite liberal about Turn___ wins. In that dude's defense it does get a bit annoying how many people like to exaggerate wincons, their frequency of occurance, pull turns off the true winclock, or speak of them like they are occurring within a vacuum (maybe people play a lot of 1v1 cEDH?). I'm much more likely to trust personal experience more than podcasts.

Getting a bit annoyed here. So the turn 3 is in a vacuum. Ive been in enough pods to know you have to do something productive by turn 3 at the least and dropping a fatty doesnt do it. Kess/jaleva usually is setting up an end step naus to go off that turn, flash hulk is usually waiting for a nice stack to win through, godo kills by turn 3, teferi locks the game by turn 3, najeela and frog are already comboing through that. Unless you can keep up with decks that generally dont have to look at you except to punch you for 50+ (craterhoof/aetherflux) or dont look at you at all (doomsday), i dont see where omnath is coming above tier 3 in either case. Hell, azusa uses early harvest better and produces more stax benefits, titania can generate fatties more efficiently and thats just in green. yisan is aiming for the turn 3 kill and selvala is aiming to combo around that turn anyway. tapping out for 3 turns while doing nothing but floating mana sounds horrible to me. (proof of concept: muldrotha and pheldda. the cedh circles know where i went with them. theyre nice in theory, but too slow to keep pace with the meta.) If you want further proof of concept, i can link videos of cedh games and not many would be phased by turn 2 woodfall primus, aggressive mamoth, nor regal behemoth.

I won't debate against the fact that turn 3 wins (& earlier) CAN & DO happen, but again if they are the AVERAGE for a deck when you are looking at 1 multi-component wincon out of 99, then maybe your meta needs to block shuffle a bit more. No doubt I see a ton of IMPACT plays by that point in cEDH, but saying T3 WIN; as in game over - e finito, is the norm seems like an exaggeration. Turn 4 seems more common & plausible... I guess that is all I'll say, I think it is difficult to prove one way or another.

Gleeock the average goldfish for Breakfast Hulk is not in any meta (it's a goldfish), was a quite large sample size, and was likely not even all done in paper. Stop talking like you know what you're saying because you don't. Sorry but it's true, and it gets annoying:)

Get ready to be annoyed then!

I don't think calling it a Turn 3 deck misrepresents anything. It means that it can typically threaten a win on T3. Obviously it doesn't work that way in practice, but that's because opponents have disruption. When giving an honest depiction of the clock the decklist puts you on, I think the turn it typically threatens victory should be what is used to describe it (i.e. via goldfishing), because at that point, the onus falls on the table to respond.

Due to the high density of tutors in every deck, yes you can grab infinite combos (isorev, flashhulk) really easily. That is why we refer to decks as Turn X decks. The measuring stick is disrupting turn 5 wins at worst or winning consistently by then. If you want to run the numbers for flash hulk, you have 11 tutors for flashhulk on top of them itself. the odds that by turn 3 youd hit NONE of them are low once you factor in mulligan. Taking it as pure statistics and no diging, you have only (85 choose 10)/(98 choose 10) or .223% chance of not hitting hulk flash hulk. Accounting for 0 landers, 4 landers, 5 landers, 6 landers and 7 landers in opening hand, we get ~10.9%. So I would think that at least 77.7% chance of threatening a win on turn 3 is stable. If we bring that to turn 5, we see about an 84% chance of hitting flash hulk. And thats not even factoring LED+auriok in this list. Shall i go on?

deck used for math: Sigi's breakfast hulk brew

QED: you need to demonstrate consistency in threatening a win early or lock everyone else out of a win by that same point. if you want to further discuss the math or the theory, feel free, but I think the point comes across through sheer number theory.

Gleeock it's not just theoretically possible but also happening in practice. Just to give you an example, in our last tournament we had 2 matches that went really long, like over 1.5 hours (thinking about setting a time limit because of how that delayed the whole event) but there were several faster wins. With Thrasios/Tymna and Najeela we had two hulk decks and I believe the first round for the Thrasios/Tymna player ended on turn 3, at least it was only like 10 min of playing. I myself had wins on t4 (with being disrupted twice - destroyed a mana rock and countered my first game winning spell), t3 and in the final round on t2. The opponents in two of the rounds I was in could definitely have won just a turn later, so the games were at a balanced power level. The decks really go off that fast and consistently and it also happens in real games, not just by doing the maths.

I haven't paid close attention to the other tables obviously but for my own games I've written a little tournament report because I think it's important to collect data and experiences and not just base every claim on theoretical discussion.

Well, I won't argue that. I do forget about mulligan, when I play cEDH it's usually not a formal setting & we only allow 1 mulligan; in practice, I was usually seeing turn 4 - & maybe turn 3 lockdowns without the player having truly "won" yet...This tends to force players to stack a few more lands in deck I think. But it is good to see your experience in practice. Just trying to be devil's advocate for others, regardless on if I agree for the same reasons. Based on the overwhelming response I would say Hulkflash isn't the best example of "win by turn x" exaggeration, but I do think overall the "win by turn x" statements are often made in a vacuum & are thrown around a bit liberally. I also think that the term: "WIN" is used too liberally - I never scoop because I've seen really unusual things happen when someone believes they've "won". Usually in my games SOMEONE can truly win by turn 4 (sometimes earlier) but it does not seem that our hulkflashers or one particular deck averages this, it is more the nature of cEDH that SOMEONE out of 4 people has a near lockdown at that point.

I have not known Winterblast to sensationalize things though, & trust the tournament report.

Not a formal setting, but you only allow one mulligan? That sounds REALLY formal. Dang, I get if you don't want some guy to mulligan like 5 times, but really at that point they're fighting a losing battle haha. My playgroup allows one friendly mulligan, but every one thereafter is treated normally, and no one really mulligans more than two to three times at most because if they don't get the right cards at that point they're going to be playing with a crutch. One mulligan feels really strict though in my opinion. "Not a formal setting" to me sounds more like a casual and flexible playgroup (not saying you're playing casual EDH, but a cEDH game can be played in a casual, friendly environment with a familiar playgroup!). I can understand if you use that rule to preserve time for the game, and there might be someone who frequently abuses the mulligan privilege, so a limit may an appropriate house rule. But a one mulligan limitation is pretty rough. A bad hand is a bad hand, and if I got stuck with no lands OR all lands on the only mulligan I was allowed I would just auto-concede to be honest. It's a rare occurrence for that to happen, but it does happen. I don't mulligan that often, but if I was in your playgroup I would fight that rule to the death because it just feels really oppressive to me. Let the fellas play their Magic and have fun with it bud, no need to restrict them.

Gleeock mulligans are really important for that and I'd argue that no matter in which setting you play you should do them correctly. Sometimes aggressive mulligans down to 5 and in rare cases even 4 have provided early game wins...if you take the first or second hand in every game you might indeed get a much higher average turn for game winning plays

The "friendly mulligan" is an official rule which sadly a lot of people don't seem to know. Gleeock, cEDH games are not won by "oh he's got a lock I'll scoop." They're won by winning. We've already explained why "win by turn x" is really not an exaggeration. Maybe go take a course in statistics?

• Ouch Soren, A little condescending... I guess I'm happy to see that my opinions & experiences truly did annoy you.

• Regarding mulligans, we were having issues @ least in cEDH, we started to place a stricter cap on mulligans and it worked for OUR playgroup(s). It works because by committee - we are against taking them, and the consistency of our deckbuilds aren't usually irreparably hurt by a 1 mulligan cap. There is no true rule against them I guess, but take too many & you get mercilessly Booed, like that lady in "The Princess Bride". So no, it is not really me restricting anything, more of a group concession (that's what I meant by informal, it WOULD NOT fly at an LGS); Therefore, as I was saying above, my perception is a bit skewed in the matter - which I admitted to.

• In more "run-of-the-mill" EDH (majority of the games I play) there are no house rules to speak of. Regulations are a killjoy, I can enforce regulations @ work - preferably not at the kitchen table.

I guess I just don't get why anyone would be against mulligans aside from it taking time away from actual play time when it's a fundamental part of the game itself. I apologize if my words came across as accusing you of making that rule because that's not what I intended. I understood that it was a group consensus because otherwise I don't see why you would want to play if you disagreed with the rule. I'm still scratching my head over a one mulligan limit though. You now say it's a loose rule, but I don't think you should boo someone who is playing the game as it's intended? I don't see at all how taking a couple mulligans is a problem. Weird stuff happens sometimes even if your deck is deemed consistently competitive. Nobody should be punished in any way for taking mulligans, but it sounds like you're giving them a hard time because you can and it seems to be in good fun. However, your group is still incentivizing people not to take mulligans because the mechanic is basically being labeled as bad and anyone who takes more than one will get shit on by everyone on the table and I'm not into that at all. Sure, I guess it works for you guys, but it seems to me like you guys are a bunch of sticklers over the rule no offense and I'd hate to expect getting flak for daring to take a second mulligan in your playgroup. That would get old to me real quick.

Also can we try not to say things to poke jabs and intentionally irk others? I don't want anyone to get into another pissing match over stupid things because it's been happening a lot lately haha.

• DangoDaikazoku No problem, I didn't really take it that way but I did want to clarify that I am the last person that would place stiff meta-regulations on a table. I admit, I'm probably the 1st guy who'd give someone grief for heavy whining & "talk it over" meta problems in EDH... I mean seriously, some of these meta complaints are like a friggen: "Dear Abby" column or maybe getting the stuffy doll out & asking: "show me on the doll where the mean magic player hurt you" :) .

• I think the tradition of heavy razzing started when we had 2 decks in cEDH in particular that kept repeating heavy mulligans, one of my buddies said: "let me check that deck"... you can probably guess from there how that story goes.

• Winterblast Effectively changed some of my opinion on the turns/win basis of your average cEDH deck by explaining his/her experience of true mainstream cEDH games. When mulligans were mentioned I realized that my meta experience of cEDH does not reflect the mainstream & I had become so accustomed to the peculiarities of my meta that I did not even think of that difference anymore (mulligans are used so rarely in my group that it is easy to forget we are different). This is very much subject to opinion, no one in meta would call someone stupid for taking multiple mulligans but it is my personal opinion that "taksies backsies" can do a disservice to decks that are built for more consistency with things like mana-screw in mind. I do understand that you can get really screwed & just not want to play the game with the hand you have (the way decks our have evolved I have not seen this issue), a problem in our group is also the subjectivity of what people considered a "playable/keeper hand" as well. There is definitely a good amount of inside-history of why we are that way.

• I prefer to see credible personal experiences over pissing-contests, although I guess I am not aversed to the latter :) .... Turns out I AM the Goblin Diplomats