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.

@himetic fine, I guess it doesn't say that.

now please explain to me how you rate any card in a tier 1 modern list.

you rate it by its synergy with the decklist, right?

for example, kiki jiki. He's AMAZING in his list, but when not in that list what do you suppose we should be rating him by?

I'm simply trying to inform you of the reason. It was not my decision to do it this way, nor do I care about 5c commanders in particular. I ran a janky angel of glory rise human tribal alara baby deck. It was fun for about 2 weeks and it crushed my playgroup, but playing with every possible legal card at your disposal in magic is just too easy. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because who the hell would run the crap 5c commanders for a tier 1 list except to be hipsters? This conversation has become tedious. I just don't get why you are insisting on ignoring explanations just to argue something that by its very nature is simply a compromise that works for most people involved with this list. There is no "right" way to classify a tier system so you just make compromises that make sense. Chromat is garbage and so its tier 5. It is normally used for crap strategies for Cedh. End of story.

Placement is usually based off of typical uses for the commanders. Synergy with their deck as optimized as it can be while sticking to the commander. You wouldn't run the aforementioned niv+ooze in a sliver queen deck same as you wouldn't put gemhide in a Scion deck.

Some commanders are just bound to specific auto includes based on the commander and that's what we are referring to. Not every optimization is the same for decks because the commanders are different.

@himetic If our list bothers you so much, why continue to argue about it? Just move on. It's never going to be perfect or match your ideal, so it's better off for everyone if we just drop it. Most of us like the tier setup the way it is, so we're not going to throw it all away because one dude has a philosophical problem with it.

Here's my issue:

• There are a range of commanders in terms of how necessary the commander is to the gameplan. When a player (especially a new one) sees a commander, they don't ever think of the build that uses the commander as a backup plan or as synergy in worst case scenarios of a highly tuned combo deck or a brutal control deck. Most people immediately think of the build-around-me decklist (if that's even obvious enough, as very few people know what that would be for commanders like Selenia, Dark Angel and Mishra, Artificer Prodigy). We need some way to distinguish in this list between decklists with a commander that are the best fit for a 99 that is powerful enough with no commander and the decklist of the most synergistic 99 around that commander.

Solutions:

• Adding non commanders to the list (meh, yea it's unclear and confusing)
• Using foil/language to distinguish between builds (I think this is a decent idea)
• Any other options to fix this note-worthy problem?

just wanna point this out, MagicalHacker, but if someone comes into EDH immediately saying "I'm going to make a tier 1 deck!" and then does absolutely no research on the commander or anything involving it, they're already doing something wrong :\

DERPLINGSUPREME, that's part of the learning process. They try to make tier 1 deck and fail. They try again and keep failing and learning about the game, format, cards and decks until they success and make tier 1 deck. That's not wrong way to do it.

no, I mean since its a social format. Learning is good. fun is better.

im tired

Why don't we put in brackets beside the lists what it's supposed to be. For example Zur Stax or Scion Hermit Druid? It's not perfect, but it would at least avoid some confusion.

One of the biggest and best arguments against non-Zur Esper generals is this: is this general better than Necropotence? For most generals (Oloro, Ertai), the answer is no. This is the reason for their low placement.

The same can be said for the 5c generals. What is the draw of playing Cromat? From what I've seen, it's the beatdown plan. Now, which is better: beatdown with Cromat or a backup Buried Alive combo? To me, it's the combo, hence Scion's placement.

What's the draw of Sliver Overlord? Probably the sliver combo, which Overlord tutors. Being much slower than Scion, Overlord is lower down.

Just my two cents.