Ok so....put HD into the tier list, because that's the ACTUAL best way of showing it. What I've been saying all along.

Seriously, though, if the claim for the list is "100% optimized"...wtf is Cromat's list that puts him in tier 5? I'f it's not HD, then what would his optimized list be?

Part of the " optimized lists" here that I think is being missed is that certain commanders are rarely ever not used for particular builds.

Sliver overlord for example, is ALWAYS a sliver tribal deck where Sliver Queen is always a combo deck.

Cromat is almost always 5c superfriends and atogatog is almost always tribal atog with changelings.

"Optimization" means that we take the deck that a commander is best suited to pilot and then tune that.

Another example is Krenko/Kiki. You would rarely see a Krenko list that wasn't tribal goblins but Kiki is more value so it's likely that deck wouldn't be purely goblins.

@NarejED I'm pretty sure Kaalia was slated for a downgrade to tier 3 at some point, and that discussion probably got lost in one of the comment resets. She does fit the tier 3 description almost perfectly.

Sliver Overlord isn't always sliver tribal deck. It can also be used as a commander for tutor deck or for Mirror Entity combo deck. Hypergenesis Cromat is tier 4 deck, so it should be used instead of superfriends Cromat. "Tier 4 These decks are 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." Hypergenesis has trouble winning in competitive metas, does well in casual games and need very favorable meta (less than 23 opponents with Force of Will) and very lucky hand (combo) to do win against decks like Zur. Deck casts it's commander about as often as Jeleva, who is considered tier 1, so it shouldn't be a reason to use superfriends deck instead of Hypergenesis when evaluating Cromat.

My two cents:

• If there is a card that is in the 99 but is actually the most important card for the deck, I believe that card should go on this list. So for example, superfriends can be represented by The Chain Veil, HD can be represented by Hermit Druid (duh), and so forth. So what do the commanders represent? The 100% most optimized list that needs the commander at some point. If the commander literally can't be built around, like Cromat, then there is no such thing as 100% optimized that makes any sense because since there is no direction provided for the deck, the most optimized list has no plan to cast a pointless commander.

• Kaalia is tier 2, because it's easily stopped in cEDH. What's more likely actually is that someone wins before she gets to be cast the second time after she definitely gets removed the first time. Mayael the Anima is like her, but worse because you have to pay 6 to cheat something in for free. I don't like that kind of free. Probably tier four? I'd be alright seeing her at tier 3 though.

• We have so many cards now that colorless decks can be really powerful and optimized decks. Based on that, any monocolored deck can literally play all colorless cards and be at least that powerful. As a Nahiri player, she rarely comes down, but when she does, something gross is getting recurred. And all this "but she's mono-white" garbage is BS. I draw more cards, ramp more, tutor more, and control the board more than any mono deck (except monoblack). How about we talk about lists rather than color identity, because decks are more than just their colors. (#StopTheRacism) Each color can do so much that it's tempting for us to instead focus on what it can't do, but colorless can do almost everything (even though it's more expensive), so there aren't big holes in any mono-color anymore.

• Geist of Saint Traft is a decent voltron commander. In fact, I'd choose him over Bruna for voltron cause 3 mana vs. 6 mana leads me to a no-brainier decision. Sure Bruna does stuff, but dies to like every removal spell ever in response. Geist into totem armors into buffs seems at the very least a tier three strategy.

@yavimaya_eldred: It was suggested she be moved down, but the people who supported that idea were outvoted. Whoever rewrote the Tier description most recently must have been one of the supporters of the move.

I agree with himetic and MagicalHacker, that adding cards like Hermit Druid or Doomsday to the list is best idea to inlcude them, because that way it doesn't cause confusion like scion reanimator or zur stax being tier 1 deck. It also frees up corresponding commanders from being placeholders for combo decks and people would see what tier is deck, that actually uses them.

If deck doesn't try to use it's commander, there's another card, which represents deck better than it's commander. That card should be used for such a deck. Every creature commander can be played as voltron. If commander doesn't have better decks than optimized voltron, that commander is voltron commander and optimized voltron deck should be used for evaluating commander's tier.

I'm against using cards as commander placeholders. Here's some reasons.

Let's say I'm a new player. "Oh cool! Here's a tierlist that's updated frequently!" They look at the tiers. Okay, there's Animar, Brago, Derevi... Doomsday? What list is that? It might be Zur Doomsday, but it could be Grenzo Doomsday, or Haakon Doomsday! They could look at the lists, but it would be confusing.

UXx Storm's wincon is usually stuff like Ignite Memories, Tendrils, Brain Freeze, Grapeshot, etc. This would be confusing to see multiple copies of a card in a tier, or copies of a card in different tiers. Which one is better? For example, Dralnu Combo, Grenzo Doomsday, and Zur Doomsday would all be Doomsday decks that have vastly different playstyles. It's a confusing and complicated system.

Finally, there are many decks with multiple wincons. For example, Zur can win through Doomsday, but wins through Ad Nauseam or Necropotence-powered storm as well. GB Midrange can win through Necrotic Ooze combos, but can win through Buried Alive + Victimize, or a big Lord of Extinction sacrificed to Jarad. Which card should be put up there? How would you differentiate between similar-but-different decks like Meren/Jarad or Mizzix/Melek?

Anyway, I really don't think the "use cards as the commander" idea is good. Any other thoughts?

I'm against using cards as commander placeholders. Here's some reasons.

Let's say I'm a new player. "Oh cool! Here's a tierlist that's updated frequently!" They look at the tiers. Okay, there's Animar, Brago, Derevi... Doomsday? What list is that? It might be Zur Doomsday, but it could be Grenzo Doomsday, or Haakon Doomsday! They could look at the lists, but it would be confusing.

UXx Storm's wincon is usually stuff like Ignite Memories, Tendrils, Brain Freeze, Grapeshot, etc. This would be confusing to see multiple copies of a card in a tier, or copies of a card in different tiers. Which one is better? For example, Dralnu Combo, Grenzo Doomsday, and Zur Doomsday would all be Doomsday decks that have vastly different playstyles. It's a confusing and complicated system.

Finally, there are many decks with multiple wincons. For example, Zur can win through Doomsday, but wins through Ad Nauseam or Necropotence-powered storm as well. GB Midrange can win through Necrotic Ooze combos, but can win through Buried Alive + Victimize, or a big Lord of Extinction sacrificed to Jarad. Which card should be put up there? How would you differentiate between similar-but-different decks like Meren/Jarad or Mizzix/Melek?

Anyway, I really don't think the "use cards as the commander" idea is good. Any other thoughts?

Honestly my first choice would be to ignore decks like HD entirely and rate i.e. scion as a tribal reanimator commander, or whatever the "most scion-y" deck is. Basically, the card itself's power level. He's still pretty decent, but definitely not tier 1 in that list.

Adding combo decks as their own entries to the list could definitely be confusing, and absolutely if you start adding garbage like "chain veil" to the list it would turn into a cluster****. That said, unless you're assuming players are reading the actual decklists, putting scion or karador as tier 1 is misleading too, because most scion/karador lists out there are pretty far from tier 1, even if they're optimized around using the commander's ability, which seems to be the assumption behind the other, lower-ranking commanders. I think probably the only totally consistent solution is the "rate them on their power as cards" approach rather than on their decks' power levels, but if you absolutely gotta have HD on the list then that's not really an option.

Cromat:

I'm pretty sure even if you're arbitrarily deciding that Cromat is superfriends (what? why? I made hivelord as superfriends because he survives my boardwipes better than cromat) he'd still be at LEAST tier 4. He'd still definitely be better than a volrath deck imo. But also, that's not mentioned ANYWHERE and, as someone who piloted non-cromat superfriends AND has a friend who used to play non-superfriends cromat, I never would have guessed that he was being ranked as "the superfriends deck". When you start assuming decklists for commanders that aren't REALLY explicit about what kind of deck they want (i.e. krenko) the list really stops making sense.

I feel like there's 2 ways to deal with cromat. Either put him at rank 2-3, because obviously any remotely-optimized list for 5c will be at minimum tier 3, or keep him rank 4-5 because you're ranking his power level as a card, and he's a piece of poop. But then you kinda need to put karador, scion, etc on lower tiers as well.

Not going to argue, just a note: Karador and Scion are vital pieces of their decks. Scion provides the backup plan, by Entombing Niv-Mizzet and reanimating Necrotic Ooze, while Karador is a huge value engine that reanimates your hatebears.

Busy now, I might be able to address some of your grievances later.

I have to agree with Leinahtan. Clogging up the tiers with non-commander cards would only serve to confuse readers. It's not the answer.

we could always have a pull down list i nthe description that shows which archetypes are used with the tier 1 commanders

@MagicalHacker "And all this 'but she's mono-white' garbage is BS. I draw more cards, ramp more, tutor more, and control the board more than any mono deck (except monoblack)."

Not to be rude, but this statement is confounding.

@MagicalHacker yes. white can ramp.

worse than all other colors.

and it can draw.

terribly.

it sure can control the board. because of wraths and lots of spot removal. this is what white is played for (mostly)

and it can tutor.

Enlightened Tutor, Academy Rector, Three Dreams, Idyllic Tutor, Heliod's Pilgrim, Plea for Guidance

what do you get with those in mono white?

mediocre enchantments.

Karador is so clearly Tier 1 it is not even funny. At this point it is pretty clear to me that you are committed to not understanding the rationale of this list. Many people have tried to explain it to you and you are not budging an inch. Instead you are just trying to change the list to fit your own perspective of what commander should be. I don't see why any of your suggestions would improve anything except maybe making your reverse phyrexian obliterator commander tier 3 because aside from Marath who deals direct damage in cedh?

@Lilbrudder Phyrexian Negator

Haha yes that is what I was going for :-)

nahiri:

I certainly won't argue that white is pretty bad at draw and ramp (although the ability to wreck other people's ramp is certain its thing), but I will say that enchantment and equipment tutor is all I ever wanted in Nahiri. If I had white demonic tutor it'd fetch humility 100% of the time.

As far as her tiering, all I can say is that I've played Nahiri and found her to be at the same level of competition, or higher, than many currently-tier-3 commanders.

Cromat:

My problem with this list is that you're comparing different things, and you're not making it clear what it is you're comparing.

My objection to cromat's vs scion's position on the list is that cromat isn't in tier 5 because his deck is bad, because obviously a tuned cromat list would be powerful - he's tier 5 because he's a crappy card and nobody likes him. But scion gets to be tier 1 because of his deck, not because of his own strengths, which would probably put him around tier 2-3.

You're rating cromat as a card. But you're rating scion as a deck. Imo, you should be consistent.

We're rating both as a deck. Cromat doesn't have a deck.

@himetic: The reasoning behind Scion's rating vs. less useful 5C commanders was already thoroughly explained. If you're going to ignore our reasoning, why even bother?

If cromat doesn't have a deck, how can you rate him at all?

I'd accept this list if you basically got rid of all tier 4/5 commanders and some of 3, and gave an optimized decklist for the remainder, then it would be consistent. Because sure, it doesn't make sense to talk about "optimized cromat" because you'd never play cromat as the commander of an optimized list. But if you're going to include him in the list, he has to have a deck. And if you're going to say your list compares optimized decks, it has to be optimized.

@narejED, you said earlier that neither ranking by pure build-around power, nor ranking by CI, works as a system and you're using a hybrid. I'd disagree with the former, but if you're going to use a hybrid you should probably get your story straight, because most other people seem to think that you're comparing optimized decklists, which is patently false. Also it doesn't mention anywhere in the description anything about a hybrid rating system, and afaik you're the only one who's mentioned it.

Even if you are using a hybrid rating system, wouldn't it be nice if that were at all clear in any way? Because looking at the list I don't see any indication of which commander is being rated as a deck, and which is being rated as a card.

@himetic I like cromat :[

also we rate him by usability.

Give me a reason to voltron him instead of Sliver Hivelord.

how about control?

walkers?

what reason is there that he is better than literally ANY OTHER 5 COLOR GUY?! he's NOT. he's pretty bad.

himetic: The 5 color commanders are a special case. There is no reason to list them all as tier 1 even though you could theoretically make them all this way in spite of their commander. The top tier would be clunky as hell so it was decided to rank 5c commanders based on their use. You may not like it but there it is.

you don't say anywhere in the list "we rate them by usability". You say that you're rating optimized decklists. Obviously you're not ONLY rating by usability. So what's the weighting of commander usability vs deck strength? None of this is clear.

@lilbrudder

couldn't we say the same of many other color combinations? For example, if you're comparing optimized mono-blue decklists, the difference between say lorthos and reveka would be nil since neither will get played, but they're on separate tiers. 5C isn't a special case at all.

As far as I can tell, you're ranking a handful of combo commanders based on their deck, and everyone else is essentially being rated as a card. Lorthos is a better card than reveka, but the actual decks are basically identically powerful, so you're clearly ranking them as cards, not decks. It's the only explanation that makes sense of this list to me.