Yea, please don't bring back 6 tiers, really... We have tried it and it wasn't useful... Please keep on going about improvements in a 5 tiers system instead.

On another note, what happened to the comments?!? Would you guyz like a reset? All the comments just went back...

Even as the person who suggested a 6 tier system in the first place, I'm sick and tired of it too.

The whole reason I suggested it originally was that T5's upper bound was too low, which was making T3 and T4 a mess of mismatched power levels. Adding a sixth tier gave the middle some room to breath, but now that all the commanders that were in T5 and T6 have been combined into one giant T5, that issue really isn't a problem any more. So long as we remember that T5 has a high ceiling and keep from bumping lots of commanders out of out of it, the list will be fine as is.

If we ever want to tease out the exact difference between a a janky-fun commander and a complete garbage commander, it might have a little bit of merit, but the discussion recently has been very focused on the top two tiers, and now that we're adding deck lists there are better ways to improve the list than arguing about what's jank and what's more jank, so until then we should just stick with five.

Speaking of Tier lists, it looks like a few links broke after I changed thief names. Here are the fixed links.

Sisay: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/stop-being-such-a-sisay-1/

Mizzix: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/25-04-16-mizzix-spellslinger/

Teneb: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/teneb-midrange-1/

Yeah, gonna need a comment reset. Not sure what happened, but it was on profiles too it seems.

The list is pretty stable at the moment. With this being one of the more active threads around, I suspect that people want there to be something to debate/discuss.

The new commander cycle will be released soon, and I hear they will be 4 color. That should be fun to discuss. Has anyone seen anything spoiler-like about them yet?

Maybe we should have SEVEN tiers instead!

I dont know if you all are intentionally missing the point or if I just wasn't blunt enough, but the real point is that you are doing hierarchical clustering with ill-defined qualitative features.

By the way, still waiting on the discussion of how we judge each commander compared to others besides "just feel it bro", but I mean, probably just nonsense or a rehash of a discussion we have had since the dawn of time. You can say "I'm bored with that discussion and have no suggestions for how to quantify commander rankings", or "I don't think trying to rank commanders and predict new commanders is a productive use of time", but it's certainly not a nonsensical discussion once you move beyond "we don't need six tiers"

The whole thing is almost nonsensical in that EDH is pretty much unsanctioned by WOTC, so all discussions are based on a casual format by which the metas are different at every table... especially in multiplayer settings.

Feel it, bro :)

I've been thinking about it and..

if we have 608 tiers every commander will finally know its place!

cEDH seems like a pretty competitive format to me. Also, WOTC has said that they are now allowing EDH FNM's. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that that classifies EDH as a sanctioned format.

Lol for the 608 tiers DERPLINGSUPREME ;p

Seriously though, I think that for now our 5 tiers system works realy well. For sure some cammanders we can still argue moving, but nothing I think is worth adding some other tiers for now.

And what happened to the comments? I can't seem to be able to reset them in updates...

I didn't see some of the Kamigawa flip commanders when I scrolled through, did we get all of them?

Yep, Erayo is banned, Rune-Tail tier 3, Homura and Sasaya tier 4, Kuon tier 5. All there!!

Yeah guys, obviously the only way to improve the tier system is to add more tiers, totally what I am saying, even after it wasn't what I was saying the last time. And of course, since this is a casual format, why even rank commanders at all?? (To follow that nearly irrelevant argument just one step further)

Why not just kill ourselves? That's a suggestion on par with "defining a set of features to rank commanders", if I'm to draw conclusions from the weird hostility to the idea. I'm moving on, this discussion is nonsensical, only because you all seem to be completely uninterested in using this exercise to better understand what makes a commander "good".

#BringBackTier6 #DereviDid911

hello

@dashdo101 woah man you took a joke too far

I had a bit of free time so I decided to try my hand at building a competitive multiplayer Marath deck. It's too early for anything conclusive, but it's definitely promising. I had the chance to test it in a few 1v1 and small group matches against various Tier 1 and 2 decks, and its results were promising.

Marath Competitive

Commander / EDH* NarejED

16 VIEWS

Input is greatly appreciated.

@illumfolly If you don't like the discussion or the system, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be here. A lot of us have put in a lot of work into playing with and discussing commanders, and if that isn't enough for you, then this thread isn't for you.

"It might be worthwhile to actually find a set of features for all commanders, judge each commander on a scale based on those features, and then cluster the resulting data accordingly."

Now if you wanted to do that and share that information, that would indeed be useful, but you shouldn't be surprised if we balk at the idea of such an incredibly time-consuming breakdown of every commander in Magic. Even crowdsourcing something like that among the few of us that have tried out a hefty number of commanders isn't realistic - I don't even have the time to do detailed breakdown of the commanders I'm currently running, much less the number it would take to help get this list near perfection. There's nothing wrong with a polite suggestion, but calling our decisions "arbitrary" and "nonsense" is insulting and unhelpful.

But do we have Nezumi Graverobber and his ilk? I'm on a mobile device so it's hard for me to check such things. My apologies if they are already listed, but I didn't see them.

Dredge4life - they aren't legal commanders because they aren't inherently legendary.

Oh really? Well, that's disappointing...

A commander is only legal if it's front face, unflipped, printed type is "legendary creature." It's similar to why Withengar Unbound  ^Flip and the new Ormendahl, Profane Prince  ^Flip aren't legal commanders.

@yavimaya_eldred: illumfolly has some valid points, we shouldn't just tell him to go away.

@illumfolly: "the real point is that you are doing hierarchical clustering with ill-defined qualitative features."

Yes.

Just yes. You are correct. Ranking 608 commanders by tier is a highly subjective and arbitrary process that usually falls back on the experience on the most "expert" contributors.

But I have a counter-question to that assertion: What would you like us to do about that?

If we need a set of features for all commanders that we can judge each commander on an scale accordingly, why haven't you tried to come up with the beginnings of such a system?

The simple fact is that coming up with such a system is very difficult and complicated, and if you identify a complex problem and don't offer possible solutions, chances are everyone is going to ignore you. And it's not because they don't think what you said has merit, it's because they have no idea how to solve the problem either, and would rather speak on something they can tackle, like why we shouldn't have six tiers (which is actually a conversation with some merit, since six tiers has proven to be an insidious and reoccurring topic that refuses to die, and which I am entirely to blame for).

But since no one else has any ideas, I suppose I'll try my hand at coming with a more defined ranking system. I've got a couple ideas, but I'm gonna brainstorm for a few hours and post later tonight. It will most likely be some sort of point/trait system.

I have no problem with someone providing new ideas and suggestions, but I find the attitude behind his last post aggravating.

I propose that Yasova Dragonclaw be moved down to tier 5: It's hard to keep buffing her throughout the game so that she can steal larger creatures, and the mana cost on her ability is awkward anyways: In the 2 or 3 turns after she's cast, her controller can't necessarily activate her ability and cast 2- or 3- mana spells.

Surrak Dragonclaw is an OK maindeck card but a lousy general that belongs in Tier 4: His "can't be countered" effect is often useless, and giving trample fits better in a "size matters" deck where Naya commanders like Mayael the Anima are a better fit.

um, perhaps you didnt notice that you would die to Phage the Untouchable entering so unless you have Platinum Angel or something... tier 5 tier 5 tier 5.