Podkomorka, how dare you! Blue has ber serious wizards that have no sense of humor. Red has goblins that fly, explode, and exploit their severe lack of common sense!

JK, Mono-blue is probably better than Mono-red.

Not going to comment on Sidisi's placement since I run her (albeit in the jankiest list known to man), but I will chip in my vote on moving Azami down to tier 2. Teferi is just better, and was less hurt by the mulligan change.

hey all i am looking into making another edh deck and i was thinking to have Scion of the Ur-Dragon as my commander, I would like some help and input to make him great and have a nice combo's to shut other player's down, i know red well and green but need more help with the others colors as i am not as familiar with them as i am the others and if a deck can be put up for me as i would like to try it out.

The best Scion of the Ur-Dragon deck, in fact, does not really uses him. It is an Hermit Druid combo deck, with Necrotic Ooze and the like. You can look at Epochalyptik 0% basic deck, even if it is not the same general, it will give you a great idea, and it is a great primer.

The main difference with Scion is that you have the opportunity to run some backup combos using dragons, like Moltensteel Dragon + Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon or Atarka, World Render + Moltensteel Dragon .

If you want to build a tribal Scion deck, the best idea would be to go into the reanimator route, since you can fill the grave with dragons then try to mass reanimate them and crush your opponents. Even if it is not a tier 1 deck, it is still really great.

For the colors, how I usually consider them in my 5c decks, white brings support amd exile removal, blue brings control couterspell and mainly draw, black brings removal and tutor and reanimation, red brings artifact removal amnd chaos (it also brings many cards for the HD combo if you go that route), and green brings ramp, creature tutor and mana fixing, mainly, as well as many other things, couls not list them all ;)

Hope I helped!!!

What is the reasoning behind Sliver Queen being tier 2 and Sliver Overlord being tier 3? Overlord can tutor slivers out for a more consistent and resilient game. Even if you are dead set on winning via Queen combos, I feel that Overlord is just a better commander since you can more easily set up the combo.

Is it just me, or is Azusa, Lost but Seeking built at highest efficiency as a MLD deck where one of the combos is her + Crucible of Worlds/Life from the Loam + Wasteland/Strip Mine/etc.? I feel like I've seen that somewhere...

I believe the rationale is that Sliver Queen is tier 2 as the head of a 5 color combo deck. She has more utility as a secondary win condition in a non-sliver deck than Overlord with cards like Mana Echoes. As others have said all 5 color generals are theoretically tier 1 due to an OP color scheme but they are ranking these generals based on how they are used. Sliver Overlord is primarily used as a sliver Tribal which is a tier 3 strategy.

Ah ok.

just a strange question, i recently picked up some random cards on a buying binge. but um.

what are the best colors and commander for the most competitive spider tribal. I still want combos and insta-wins, but with spiders.

What all commanders were moved in the most recent update? I'm working on an excel file that organizes this into a sortable list, and I want make sure I'm not missing anything. Is it just Azami?

Also, I noticed that there might be some gems hiding down in the lower tiers, like Azusa, Lost but Seeking and her combos with Crucible of Worlds/Life from the Loam and Strip Mine/Ghost Quarter, Ambassador Laquatus and his mana dumping to win after getting infinite mana, Varolz, the Scar-Striped and his ability to scavenge cards like Phyrexian Dreadnought onto Inkmoth Nexus to kill players, and more. These all seem like tier 2 material, but at least tier three.

• Azusa has been discussed already and most of us have agreed that she really isn't that good. She's just not fast or consistent enough to compare to most of the other tier 2 commanders. Azusa can't find LFTL or Crucible, and has problems in the lategame.

• Ambassador Laquatus? No. He's really bad, as Mono-Blue has so many better generals (Teferi, Jace) that utilize combos better. You have better wincons, and you'd like your commander to do something.

• Varolz is way to slow. Sure, you can get a 13/13 infect creature, but that's on about turn 4 at best. Then you kill one guy, but the entire table will likely target you to death if you haven't lost to a combo already. It might steal a few games, but it isn't likely to win much in higher-up matches.

I agree they're not tier one. But are they tier two? The tier with Teneb, the Harvester, Jace, Vryn's Prodigy  ^Flip, Shattergang Brothers, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, etc. has to have room for destroy-lands.dec, mono-blue infinite mill, and a deck that I've lost to on turn two in a multiplayer game that went on to win on turn four.

Even if the answer is no, well then are they actually tier three instead of tier four? The way I've summarized the tiers is as follows:

1. Nearly unbeatable by a tier three deck

2. Beats tier three decks, but sometimes can lose to one

3. The average between the most cutthroat decks and the most casual decks

4. Loses to tier three decks, but can sometimes beat one

5. Nearly impossible to beat a tier three deck

If that is the correct setup, then those aforementioned examples of some mistakes in the fourth tier are evidence that it might need some work.

Ultimately, I think the issue is this: it's very hard to trailblaze an optimum build for a commander that is either stuck/built in a casual way or rarely built at all. The first one is especially hard, because the commander appears to be figured out to be low-tier.

Maybe there is some kind of automated "goldfish"-like sequence of spells that will adequately test the capabilities of a deck. One that employs all elements that are likely to be seen in real games, like pressure, disruption, clocks, tempo, etc.? Is it worth trying to create some kind of test along those lines?

I mean, Azusa, the only one (imo) that is deserving of a tier 3 spot is already in tier 3. The other 2 aren't as strong.

• Teneb: Junk midrange, similar to Karador. Basically a slightly worse Karador, but since Karador is so powerful, Teneb is at least tier 2.

• Jace: Best commander for mono-blue High Tide. Turn 4 loot > flip > High Tide > Flashback High Tide is very strong, and can be pretty much unbeatable with no interaction from your opponents.

• Shattergang Brothers: Jund stax, see NarejED's list above.

• Sidisi: Mono-black Ad Nauseam. Currently one of the fastest decks in the format, along with Prossh and Hermit Druid. Sadly, it struggles with interaction, which keeps it out of tier 1. However, if there's no interaction, it will usually win.

Ambassador Laquatus and Varolz aren't very strong. However, just off the top of my head, a possible Varolz Stax build could be nice, utilizing him as a wincon through commander damage. Just a thought, might not pan out.

Crap, I could have sworn I saw Azusa in Tier four...

I think the biggest thing holding Laquatus back is that Memnarch infinites "better", but when you factor in that he doesn't care if permanents have hexproof/shroud (and interestingly, players too) and that he can use infinite colorless mana (there are so many Basalt Monolith combos...), it seems like he has advantages along with his disadvantages of sometimes not being able to win against someone who has an auto-shuffle eldrazi.

Varolz infect might still not be the best way to build him, but I just don't see a sensible argument for how he is significantly worse than the commanders in tier three, and that's even if there is no better strategy for him than infect.

Basically, I think we need a more objective way to determine these tiers. Not that this list is horribly wrong! This is definitely miles ahead of anything I've found like it, but there is always room for improvement.

Ambassador Laquatus's biggest issue that he has absolutely no use outside of an infinite mana combo. While Tasigur, Nin, Oona, and Memnarch all offer some utility, Laquatus does not.

Why is it that people say red is the worst color? i mean about a third of tier 1 generals have red in their color identity and about half of the tier 2 generals are red. this seems to say that red is not a bad color by any means sure it has weaknesses(card draw) but so do other colors.

@izikdornob it lacks answers to big threats. no creature removal, no enchantment interaction, and no couinters worth running.

Its easily utilized when paired though. its just the worst LONE color in EDH usually. maybe white.

DERPLINGSUPREME I wouldn't say NONE of those things, lacking, for sure but none is too final.

For mono colors, the order is: > > > > . Blue has the best card advantage, answers to everything, and powerful commanders. Green has amazing ramp and is decent all across the rest of the board, with one powerful commander. Black is strong in control and draw, but it has trouble dealing with artifacts and enchantments. Mono Red is similar in strengths and weaknesses to mono black, with worse draw power and a painful lack of tutors. White has terrible card advantage, no ramp to speak of, and no strong commanders.

For support colors (best colors in dual and tricolor decks): > > > > . Green and black switch because black has better tutors and win conditions (Ad Nauseam, Necrotic Ooze, etc). Red and white switch because white has amazing removal and hate tools, while red brings very little to a deck other than Gamble, Wheel of Fortune, and sometimes Vandalblast.

Not to be singing the praises of red, it's still one of the worst colors, but it does bring Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon, and Stranglehold.

Moon & moon makes Hermit Druid decks cry, especially if moon is powered out with a Sol Ring. It also can slow down a lot of control decks (I only use blood moon in 2 color decks or mono R though since it's too hard to support in tri color.)

Stranglehold though is just great in anything with red.

Yes red doesn't do any of the most common things very well (removing enchantments, exiling creatures, drawing cards, tutoring, ramping, etc.) but it is second to blue on being able to do weird, but awesome things. It stops people from tutoring and countering stuff, can hurt players using lots of nonbasics, can deal damage without having to focus the damage on one opponent, destroy lands, and more!

I'm surprised to see Skullbriar, the Walking Grave in tier 4... Black and Green with the right support and early (and relevant) commander damage make well-made decks pretty nightmarish.

I feel Skullbriar is significantly better in 1v1 then multi player.

How useful have people found The Gitrog Monster to be as one of the 99?

As a rule of thumb, no. Gitrog requires a fair amount of build-around to be good in a deck. Otherwise he ends up being a slow, overcosted, sometimes detrimental draw engine. Since there aren't currently any GBx 'lands matter' commanders, he's too much work to be worth the trouble. He's far better helping his own deck.

I brought up Damia a while back while Tasigur was being discussed.

With the partial Paris mulligan rule change, I don't see her being worthy of T1 status any more. At 7 mana, she's extremely difficult to justify hard-casting. The banning of Prophet certainly didn't help either, as it was one of the best tools for getting her into play. Often she would be flashed in on the last opponent's end step to try to dodge removal. I vote to move her down.