Grubbernaut Deckling -

• Edit User
• Edit Profile
• Enable styles
• Disable styles
• Unblock user
• Block user
• Disable chat
• Enable chat
• Remove friend
• Add as friend
• Gift Tokens
• Settings

legendofa If you're not trying to win, you're essentially playing to lose, from a power perspective. There are faux group hug decks that exploit the benefits, but those that don't would be low on the scale. Is a deck that can't close games powerful?

The closest thing (which is not in your budget) is Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, maybe - but 10 mana in modern should basically win you the game on the spot, if you want to be on-curve. By comparison, you could be paying full-price for Omniscience, almost any tron payoff, etc.

As for budget, I can't think of anything outside of tron for colorless.

There's too many variables to realistically try to science-ify it. For example: Diabolic Tutor is unplayable at high level, but it would be hard to accurately quantify with a points system how much worse it is than Vampiric Tutor, or the other "strong" tutors. If it had the same value as other tutors, that'd be a huge flaw. The same could be said for Crop Rotation vs something like Cultivate, or Fierce Empath against Imperial Recruiter.

I don't mean to say nobody should try or that it's impossible to determine, but it would be a lot of work just to show what most players can already see: which cards, and decks, are strongest.

Perhaps an "easier" way to determine a subset of this would be to take stock lists and run them through a gauntlet of pods with the other most commonly played (or strongest, or whatever category) list and see what wins the most against the field.

I enjoy being between 7-10, but preferably on-par with everybody. I love CEDH, and have to try really hard not to optimize every deck I play, but getting to play some bad cards that I "just like" can be fun in certain decks and settings.

Regarding the assessment: The 9/10 description sounds more like how a casual player would view CEDH, rather than how most CEDH players actually feel. I like figuring out tight lines, and like seeing other people do the same. To me, it's much more satisfying to know I won (or lost) based on decisions and skill, rather than because my deck or my opponent's deck was just willfully worse than it had to be.

Are there any commonly-played indestructible threats in Pioneer right now? Going down a creature to exile, especially only at sorcery speed, hurts a lot.

As far as the best Lurrus decks: Burn and rakdos pyromancer would be the way to go if that's what you're looking for. With rats, there's not really a good payoff. Ideally, whatever you recur off of Lurrus should either be immediate value or an immediate threat; as it sits, Pack Rat is the only threatening card, and (usually) will require extra mana to get to the point where it's scary.

Metallic Mimic is also pretty medium. Rakdos gets to recur things like Young Pyromancer and Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger, and burn gets a lot of hasty creatures or Eidolon, etc. It's a good point of comparison.

More specifically about Pack Rat - what makes the card somewhat powerful is that it does NOT depend on other cards being on the field to be good, so going all-in on rats reduces your overall card quality to try to power up a card that is already threatening on its own.

Fatal Push, Bloodchief's Thirst, Infernal Grasp for removal.

Pack Rat is really good, but I think you'd be better off playing non-tribal to increase the overall card quality; the payoff of having a lot of relatively weak creatures just to get some buffs isn't great. I think Piper of the Swarm is interesting, though.

Chittering Witch is neat if you stick with tribal.

What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Your original question makes it hard to know what the end goal is.

Just anything good that fits in a Lurrus deck in pioneer, basically?

Lower CMC spells that perform the same role will do better, generally speaking. The 2 life loss from Countersquall almost literally doesn't matter in EDH, where you're trying to get rid of ~120 life if you're winning through damage; conversely, Counterspell has the upside of countering anything, Dovin's Veto can't be countered, and Negate has a lower colored requirement to do the same thing.

Regarding the others: They cost less and largely perform the same function. Countering noncreature spells is generally much more important than countering creatures, and the lower the CMC, the more you can do (or protect) in a turn. That being said, if you're aiming for a lower power level or playing in a meta where creatures matter more than noncreature spells, there's merit to the other options.

Countersquall should definitely be swapped for Dovin's Veto, or even Negate. The 3-cmc counters could also be something else: Counterspell, Swan Song, Narset's Reversal, Fierce Guardianship, Dispel, etc.

There's never going to be "perfect" data for something fluid and dependent on pilot skill, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the method you used.

It's a good indicator of what a typically-played list from a given commander will rank in relative power level, which should be a good frame of reference overall. If you wanted to get more picky, you could try to find a way to compare cEDH decks, but that's a can of worms.

In short: No need to apologize, this is a good and interesting data point.

Yeah, that... doesn't exist.

He didn't test the most popular commanders, though. He tested any with 100+ decks, and while you can say that's arbitrary, I think it's a fine point of reference. If nobody is playing a commander at all, even casually, it's almost certainly unplayable.

Theoretically, that'd also probably make up for the slight point difference, most likely.

Already used, rats.

I think the avenues white could realistically approach are taxing non-creature spells, countering spells that target you or a permanent you control, or psuedo-counters giving your things/spells hexproof.

I think counters that could target anything would be a bridge too far. Blue is always going to be strongest, and for my take, I'm okay with that being the case - but there's interesting design space to explore elsewhere, too.

In non-standard sets, and for very specific uses, I'd say I'm okay with it. The blasts and Guttural Response seem 'right,' to me. Deflecting Swat is probably the least red-feeling type of effect like this, IMO.

I think a white Spell Pierce would be neat, and justifiable. White could also play with "return spell to hand" or tucking effects, too, for my take.

I think playing around nonbasic hate is actually easier than playing around having a lot of basics in a 4/5 color deck, in general. Most of the cards to deal with the issue are generically useful, as well:

Swan Song, Dovin's Veto, Force of Will, Force of Negation, Pact of Negation, Delay, Mana Drain, Fierce Guardianship, etc. And for the more common hate in the form of enchantments, Snap, Chain of Vapor, whatever other bounce spells.

IMO, as compared to other formats, there's far fewer true "hosers" in EDH if you've built a deck well, and Kenrith gives you access to whatever wincons you want - plus all the good dorks and rocks. Cursed Totem is always rough, though.

In a five color deck, at least it you're playing to win, it's hard to make the argument that playing basics is better. Especially with Kenny, there's so many pips you need to hit reliably.

If there's an abnormal amount of nonbasic hate, then yes. Otherwise, come to the dark side.

Do you have a budget in mind, or just trying to avoid tiered decks at the moment?

Off the top of my head, the only viable competitive tribes I can think of in modern are humans or goblins. Maybe elves, now

My only complaint is that the name isn't "Enbantress."