2 color decks...missing something?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Feb. 18, 2015, 10:13 p.m. by Deckologist
I have this theory. It may not be popular and by all means I'm willing to listen to counterpoints but here it goes.
I believe 2 color decks are incredibly weaker than mono or three color decks.
Mono blue/mono green is just insanely good. Now throw the 2 together and you get something that synergizes well but it seems like it's missing something. It needs just a little something more.
Add black to that mix and you have everything you can ask for in a deck. Hyper ramp. Great control. Tutors and draw power.
Now as I said before these are just my theories. This all came about when I was trying to build a simic EDH deck. I was playing azami, wanted to build kraj, realized black would give me so much more, and built damia.
What are your thoughts?
Wow, with those colors I absolutely agree (never thought of it before). Same goes with Rakdos. But I do like Orzhov, although Esper is incredibly good. I also like grixis better than izzet for storm. hmm, the more I think about the more I agree. Lastly, Azorius is not even good imo but esper and even bant are very good. I also like temur better than gruul.
February 18, 2015 10:20 p.m.
it all depends man- Ur delver was tier 1.. cant argue with that. UG Infect,.. Rg tron etc. No correlation. Good decks are good decks no pattern.
February 19, 2015 7:25 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #5
@klone13 " Lastly, Azorius is not even good imo but esper and even bant are very good."
The Arbiter would like to have a word with you. Seriously though, I think 2c decks are well off enough.
February 19, 2015 7:46 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #6
Don't forget Geist of Saint Traft. Or what about Boros? Look me in the face and tell me that Aurelia, the Warleader is bad. Dimir is lacking something too? Idk about that. Golgari is bad? Jarad and Nath and that one other guy I always forget want to have a word with you.
I think the thing is that two color decks aren't weaker than three color. It may just be that color combo, because maybe simic and rakdos are just trash, I don't know. But I think that they can be extremely strong decks, and adding a third color completely changes the way the deck works. Sure, you can't tutor in UG but usually those decks make sure to not rely on needing tutors. Sure, Rakdos is awful at ramp and card draw. But ask it to deal a lot of damage in a very short amount of time and boom done.
Three color decks are weak too, just in different places.
February 19, 2015 8:11 a.m.
i only like the arbiter in duel edh but in multiplayer, brago is ok imo.
February 19, 2015 8:16 a.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #8
klone13 yeah, Grand Arbiter Augustin IV is one of the most played commanders. Same with Geist of Saint Traft.
I feel that 2-color decks are just fine. Obviously 3-colors are more powerful as you have access to the best cards of all three colors and mono-colored decks are arguably less powerful than the 2-color ones as the extra color gives you that much more power cards. Azami, Lady of Scrolls is a niche, build-around commander. It is no wonder that the UG deck with the remnants of her seems like it is missing something. For a UG deck, approach Experiment Kraj as an independant commander and build around him. I wouldn't recycle an Azami deck to build him.
February 19, 2015 8:17 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #9
@ThisIsBullshit UG can tutor, you simply run Momir Vig, Simic Visionary as your commander and you always tutor.
Also everyone forgets that there are enough artifacts to support whatever a deck needs. Mana ramp is always available in the form of Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, signets, talismans, etc. Card draw is easy when you use Staff of Nin and Mind's Eye.
February 19, 2015 8:19 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #10
Just like any other format, running more colors gives you more card selection, but punishes you by way of requiring a greedier mana base.
February 19, 2015 8:35 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #11
Skullclamp is the best colorless card draw assuming you have a minimum of a handfull of creatures.
February 19, 2015 8:42 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
@Portfolio: Those aren't EDH decks. What works in other formats doesn't necessarily work in EDH.
Two color is worse than three color, at least in multiplayer. In the 1v1, there are several good two-color decks. A lot of the power level depends on the general, though, so I don't necessarily feel like you can really assess the power of certain colors unless you include commander options within those colors.
February 19, 2015 9:41 a.m.
Deckologist says... #13
True story. As I said it was just something I noticed with my personal collection/general choices. I've played momir big and kraj before and they work very well. I have also played Sidisi and damia and they just felt so much better. Even without the general. Grand arbiter is great for control in 
however if you throw him into an oloro deck running the same theme I feel it becomes infinitely better. As I've said before these are just personal experiences.
February 19, 2015 9:44 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #14
I have no problems with my GR borbo deck. I don't think adding another colour would help.
February 19, 2015 9:47 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #15
@ Epochalyptik Not necessarily. There are still powerful options for multiplayer generals in two colors, like Selvala, Explorer Returned and Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord. It is true that the "more consistent mana base" argument doesn't really work with multiplayer, but two color decks can still shine without the options from the third color. I would rather play an Izzet deck than a Grixis or Jeskai deck anytime, mainly because the deck will have a different focus and Izzet has cooler generals.
Also another argument that wasn't really mentioned before, but two color can deal with a resolved Blood Moon or Hall of Gemstone much easier than a three color deck. Not hugely relevant, but it can be in some playgroups.
February 19, 2015 9:52 a.m.
Deckologist says... #16
@lemmingllama while yes a two color deck can deal with those cards a three color deck has room for more answers to those cards. Just playing devil's advocate:P
February 19, 2015 9:55 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
@lemmingllama: I don't deny that there are powerful bicolor generals, but tricolor as a whole just outclasses bicolor as a whole. Bicolor too often suffers from a goldilocks search for just the right utility from each color, but it doesn't have all the options available.
February 19, 2015 9:56 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #18
So are we saying that five color decks are the best because they have the most room for answers to everything? They can run whatever the heck they want to.
February 19, 2015 10:20 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #19
I think that a deck's "power level" has nothing to do with the number of colors in the deck. If you want more options you're going to need to run less utility lands and more color fixing (and still get color screwed sometimes).
February 19, 2015 10:34 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #20
ThisIsBullshit in a vaccum yes, in actuality: no.
February 19, 2015 10:54 a.m.
Deckologist says... #21
True point. As well all know Magic totally throws away the laws of probability. Ask me how I dredge away most of my deck and all 4 bridge from belows are the bottom 4 cards of my deck and I can't dredge into them....
February 19, 2015 10:57 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #22
It's not a single, upward-trending curve between power and colors.
Tricolor is, in my opinion, the strongest because you have a network of synergies and options that work well together. Tricolor land bases are easy to manage (if more expensive than bicolor or monocolor), and you generally don't need to worry about too many weaknesses because you have two colors to back you up and round out your capabities.
February 19, 2015 11:06 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #23
I agree with that to an extent. choosing 3 colored is a stronger broad option, however it depends on the deck, plenty function well and streamlined on < 3 colors.
February 19, 2015 11:15 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #24
I think the power of the deck depends a lot on the commander. You guys are using Damia as your example, which is fine, but I have to see a competitive Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge deck. Or what if you're running Mardu? That sort of deck doesn't do well in multiplayer commander. I think it just depends on the color combo and the commander you're playing, as opposed to how many colors you're using.
February 19, 2015 11:17 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #25
This is true. Tricolor is the strongest (unless Hermit Druid is a thing), but there isn't a significant difference between monocolored decks, bicolored, and tricolored. It's kind of like the argument of using fetchlands to thin your deck, it has some merit but the 1% difference it makes to your number of wins is insignificant to the average player. I play in a more casual meta, and we will often use bicolor generals due to the less prohibitive monetary costs and that they can still be viable when built correctly. Tricolor decks may win more often, but I can still have fun and win my share of games with my bicolor decks.
Also for the three color vs five color deck argument, typically a five color deck is a three color deck splashing for the other two colors, and they can easily find the colors they need with an expensive enough manabase and some Chromatic Lantern/Crucible of Worlds type of effects. So there isn't always a great difference in the number of answers you can put in a three color vs five color deck.
February 19, 2015 11:23 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
I'm thinking that you're, to some extent, missing the point of my argument. A tricolor foundation is stronger than a bicolor foundation. I'm not saying that every tricolor deck is stronger than any bicolor deck, or that bicolor decks can't be strong, or that tricolor decks can't be weak. I'm saying that the options available to tricolor are inherently more diverse and stable than the options available to tricolor. You can point to any commander and name five examples of commanders in other colors or other color counts that are worse, but the leek of support available for that commander by virtue of its colors is, beyond color identity, independent of the commander itself.
February 19, 2015 12:20 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #27
But increasing your options requires you to pay a cost in game when it comes to being limited to high color weight, lower color production consistency, and less room to play utility lands.
Apples and oranges, I say.
February 19, 2015 12:43 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
There are obviously downsides, but it's easier to mitigate poor color fixing than it is to mitigate a lack of efficient utility of a certain type.
And, if we're considering the possibilities, color weight is insignificant because any color combination can be supported by strong color fixing effects. Yes, implementation has a cost associated with it, but you often get some other return (e.g., color fixing + ramp) as well.
February 19, 2015 2:52 p.m.
jandrobard says... #29
I'm going to go with Epochalyptik this time. From experience, the less hoops you have to step through to accomplish a task, the more space you have for synergistic cards and the more powerful your final deck is.
Deckology Your comment about monocolor has some merit, monocolor generals in general (no pun) have more linear and synergistic effects that work well with the color.(except mono red. No one can really fathom all that's up with mono red.) However from my (semi-limited) experience monocolor is just as awkward as 2-color.
Sorry about the huge block of text. I really should figure out how to show my opinion with less words.
February 19, 2015 5:11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #30
I think each color combination has advantages and disadvantages, and no color combination is strictly better than another, so the idea of which is better is completely personal preference. Colorless decks will never have color screw ever, they can play all the utility lands they want in their colors, and they can still have an efficient strategy. The downsides are that the spells you are playing could be played for much less if you weren't playing colorless, but that can always be mitigated. Everything can.
I still think everyone's entitled to their own opinion when it comes to color combinations IF they acknowledge that it's their opinion.
I'm sure everyone can agree to that, right?
February 19, 2015 5:41 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
We're not talking about one color combination being better than another. We're talking about color counts. Color combo, to me, implies a specific set of colors, such as red and white, and not a specific number of colors.
And yes, most everything can be mitigated. That doesn't mean everything is equal or that nothing is worse than something else. Colorless may never have to deal with color fixing, but it's terrible at tutoring, removal, and many other things. The two don't balance out. It's not a perfect equation.
And (this isn't a personal attack, by the way) the "let's agree to disagree" approach is an unimaginitive evasion of the work involved in defending a position. I want to keep debating it because I think the arguments are interesting and productive.
February 19, 2015 6:17 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #32
That coefficient that shows which side of the equation is more favorable is the stuff of opinion I believe. If someone were to start out new to the format and ask what a good combination of colors would be, I would say that each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. Asking then what they care about most (color screw, efficient utility lands, diverse deck goals) will help elucidate what color or colors they would like. But it can't be proven that 3-colored decks are outright better than 2-colored decks. Or that mono colored are better than 5-colored. Or anything else along those lines.
Also (thank you for the parenthetical disclaimer, honestly, it was helpful), I'm not saying that we should agree to disagree but that we should first acknowledge that someone can have an opinion that mono colored decks are the best if their most important question I ask about a deck's color identity is "How likely is it that I will get color-screwed?" This is not my position, but am I not entitled to care about that more than any other factor in a format where each player usually has the end goal of having fun rather than winning?
February 19, 2015 6:52 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #33
Essentially, some players will enjoy playing two colored the most, some mono colored, and some three colored.
From time to time, even players that like 5-color or 0-colored the most.
Why? Cause there is no equation to what is fun because everyone is different.
February 19, 2015 6:54 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #36
@ Epochalyptik " A tricolor foundation is stronger than a bicolor foundation."
While 3c decks provide a stronger foundation for shear card selection to cover areas a deck may be weak in, often I don't feel it necessitated. Given the power of EDH decks on the competitive side of the spectrum I can't imagine that every player is forced into play 3 colors, The pilot's decision of what they feel is strongest, most comfortable with and commander they're trying to take advantage of will dictate Color scheme of the deck more often than the fact adding a third color will simply give them more cards to work with. I will admit given the access to fetches, duals, and the color fixing artifacts in EDH there is everything to facilitate a 3c deck with minimal drawbacks, however it isn't the "strictly better" option.
February 19, 2015 7:19 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
We aren't really talking about what players prefer to play, though. We're talking about what's stronger or strongest. Player preference obviously determines what deck a player thinks is more enjoyable, or what deck he or she wants to play, but it doesn't determine how strong the possible builds are.
That's what I'm basing my assessment on: possible builds. Tricolor decks offer what is effectively the best balance between diversity, mana/color availability, responses (to all forms of actions), utility, and focus.
Five-color decks become very demanding when it comes to mana fixing, and it becomes difficult to balance mana production with color saturation and land utility. However, they theoretically offer the most diversity in options (not necessarily viable options, though).
Monocolor decks have theoretically perfect color fixing, but lack diversity and utility.
Bicolor decks have very good color fixing and better diversity and utility, but still suffer from shortcomings in options when compared to tricolor decks.
February 19, 2015 8:02 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #38
Having a larger more diverse card pool to choose cards from isn't necessarily a good thing. Putting in an extra colour to get access to bits of the colour pie previously unavailable sounds good until you mess up the synergy of the deck. Otherwise edh would just be 5 colour good stuff.
For example my GR deck is all about land, sure I could splash blue/black or white to expand the variety in cards available to me but it would be a completely different deck.
February 22, 2015 2:08 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #39
There's more nuance to it, I agree, but I'm still talking about general strength and versatility. That's why I mention that tricolor decks have the best balance between synergy and focus (among other things). Tricolor offers a great deal of advantage because it's a more rounded representation of the color pie's varying strengths and weaknesses, but it's still limited and synergistic enough to maintain focus and a reasonable land base.
February 22, 2015 5:54 a.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #40
Two color decks have more potential to be effective earlier on. Three color decks have more versatility and options. Both decks depend on the play style and commander, as well as the play group.
To say two color decks are weak is a little misguided. Edric, Spymaster of Trest decks that are tier-1 in both 1v1 and multiplayer. Sure, some colors combinations might be inherently weaker without the assist from the third color (Red/Black comes to mind), but a lot of that has to do with the commanders that are available and the nature of the meta you are a part of.
March 3, 2015 3:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
I don't necessarily agree with the idea that two-color decks are more effective early on unless your comparison relies on a three-color deck that has a bad land base. An optimized land base in a three-color deck opens an enormous range of possibilities, especially if you're playing green.
lemmingllama says... #2
Two color decks can be just as effective as three color, it really just depends on how you build it and for what level of play. Overall, I am quite happy with my two color EDH decks. Also a good thing is that two color decks will rely on synergy far more than three color "put all the good things in my colors into the deck with ramp and tutors"
February 18, 2015 10:18 p.m.