Welcome, everyone, to the Duel Commander Primer on MTG Salvation! In a nutshell, Duel Commander—formerly known as "French" from where it was popularized—is a variant format of Commander specially designed for 1v1 competitive play. The fundamental differences are as follows (many more details below):
Duel Commander uses 20 life instead of 40
The Duel Commander banlist is balanced for 1v1 play instead of for multiplayer
With players all around the world and regularly occurring tournaments, the diverse metagame has been host to multiple dozens of viable decks, still retaining a welcoming element to Commander players with stylish pet builds while also holding appeal to Legacy and Modern players who enjoy fine-tuning to an ever-shifting metagame. MTGTop8 shows us results from recent Duel Commander tournaments as well as aggregating data on the most commonly played cards, and you can see for yourself how much diversity and competitiveness exists in Duel Commander, which sustains nearly every kind of Magic build under the sun. With each newly released Commander, the metagame can and does shift dramatically, keeping the format fresh and exciting.
Duel Commander follows the exact same rules as classic multiplayer Commander, except for the following.
First, players start the game with 30 life (Note: on November 11th, the starting life total officially changes to 20.)
Second, in addition to the ability to put the Commander back into the Command Zone if it would go to the graveyard or be exiled, you may do so also if it would be put into your library.
Third, new cards are legal on release day (Friday following the pre-release).
Since games can take more time than smaller formats, we recommend a time limit of at least 55 minutes.
No sideboards are used.
Apart from the points mentioned above, all the rules of Duel Commander obey the rules of classic multiplayer Commander. This includes poison counters rule (10 counters needed to kill a player).
Why specific rules for Duel Commander ?
When you play a game with more than two players, social interactions, diplomacy and negotiations usually prevent a player from taking a huge advantage at the start of the game. Indeed, if a players becomes the main threat at the table, it is likely that he will become the top priority target for other players. Such a player should have to face several opponents at the same time, which brings balance in the game. Multiplayer games tend to be balanced by diplomacy.
When only two players are facing each other, this cannot be done. If a player takes a great advantage early in the game (example : turn one Island, Lotus Petal, Mana Crypt, Jace the Mind Sculptor), his opponent won’t be able to get back in the game. That is why we banned certain cards which lead to extraordinary early game advantages from which an opponent cannot recover (Mana Crypt, Sol Ring…). Some cards are banned as commanders for this purpose : those cards can still be played in your deck, but can’t be chosen as a commander. We also removed certain cards which can easily lead to degenerated combos, such as Hermit Druid.
Sometimes a tournament is organized for Duel Commander. Such events need to put a time limit in rounds, generally 55 or 60 minutes per round. Considering the time restrictions, we banned Sensei's Divining Top and Shahrazad, because they tend to make games last considerably longer, leading to numerous unfinished games at the end of the round.
Reasoning behind the banlist can be found in this article.
Tips for Deckbuilding
First, I should mention that traditional 4-player decks adhering to the default ban list will almost definitely perform poorly in Duel Commander for the following reasons:
1. Your deck's curve may be way too high for a faster format with 20 life
2. You may have engines in place that take multiple cards and turns to set up but won't have enough time in this variant
3. You may be running too many broad, slow answers and little to no pinpoint removal
4. Your general might be a big dud in Duel Commander, which usually has to do with the converted mana cost
That said, I don't want to discourage you if your favorite commander has a long way to go before the curve is lowered and there are more efficient answers and overall "better stuff" in the deck. I personally got my start in this format as a very casual Captain Sisay player, delighting in games taking hours so that I could assemble my Legendary Khaldra avatar and try to produce infinite Overruns with Kamahl, Fist of Krosa. Despite being your fairly average Selesnya casual Commander player, I was stuck on my general for budgetary reasons and decided to learn the Duel Commander meta to tailor my general for maximum duel efficiency. Sisay became a success.
Although not all commander can make the jump and be tournament-ready all-stars, there's a good chance that your commander can be disruptive if you're building for the meta and parting ways with [presumably (overcosted)] pet cards. Even the ramp-centric combo decks in this variant are saving room for several cards that attack the meta and shore up weaknesses, and what weaknesses you need shoring up will be determined mainly by your colors but also by the cost of your general, the number of desired creatures you want to play, the amount of redundancies you want to include, and other factors.
Even though there are always exceptions, it's worth your while to compare this format in some ways to Legacy (indeed, the ban list more closely reflects Legacy) and to include certain "Hate" cards in your maindeck (there's no sideboard) that can deal with otherwise difficult-to-interact-with builds. This primarily means making allowances for graveyard hate (Scavenging Ooze), tutor-heavy builds (Aven Mindcensor), weenie swarm (Pyroclasm), and draw-go (anything that can't be countered or has protections from blue/black or hexproof). Unless your deck is very "all-in" you'll almost certainly want to have at least one card that addresses archetypes that can quickly build an overwhelming advantage.
Now, this doesn't always mean having cards that cantrip, but it's generally advised to favor hate cards that can replace themselves, depending on the CMC. Generally, the best way to build a deck in this format is to have as few dead draws as possible. Yes, that is a pretty impossible goal, but getting as close to that goal as possible will provide amazing results. You should almost never be drawing cards that can't in some way apply to the matchup or that require 12 other cards (or turns) to make them excel.
Again, generally speaking, this is a very "good-stuff" heavy variant, as the good-stuff from Legacy tends to do excellently here, too. Some of the challenge is finding redundant cards that fill your needs (for instance, running Sylvan Safekeeper as well as Mother of Runes or running Rhystic Tutor as well as Demonic Tutor) to keep your gameplan consistent. That's just one approach, but often you'll find deckbuilders who are filling their decks with the best things and there's quite a bit more variety in their builds. It depends on your goals which approach you'll want to take.
Lowering your curve is all well and good, but more important than anything is to make sure you're running an optimal mana base. There are no hard and fast rules on the correct or optimal amount of lands (some run as few as 32 lands while others run 42 or more with either running as many as 10 mana dorks or ramp cards); you really just need to test heavily and see what works best for you, but I prefer having a liberal amount of land searching effects and fixers myself. I would advise playing all of the best fetch lands and the best dual lands with the fewest drawbacks, running some land destruction cards, and just making sure you're running enough lands/fixers so that your losses aren't attributed to mana screw more than 5% of the time. That may sound very difficult--and it is!--but making sure your mana base is near-perfect will put you ahead of 9 out of 10 other decks out there, no matter what commander they're playing. Most new deckbuilders struggle with suboptimal mana bases.
When building around a commander, it's generally unwise to put in more than 12 cards maximum that specfically compliment the commander, but it depends. Even hexproof commanders or those with built-in protections need backup plans, and the more commander-centric cards that clutter your hand while your commander is sitting in the command zone, the more games you will lose. Even a Sisay toolbox doesn't want too many Legends, and Iname is only playing the best handful of Spirits. Likewise, a Voltron general is still only going to want the best few equipments with plenty of other threats and answers.
Generally, the amount of removal (mass, spot, and counterspells) you run is proportionate to the casting cost of your commander. As an example, Gaka's Damia deck (a 7cmc general) is almost entirely removal. Abnormality's Thraximundar deck plays out similarly. Dragon commanders also fall under this banner. The "later game" your commander is, the more you have to be prepared to stop faster decks, which means scaling up the amount of disruption you run.
If you're noticing an "it depends" theme here, that's because there are a wide range of viable decks out there. Generally, they curve low. Generally, you can get away with a few "pet cards" or those with high CMCs and awesome effects. But you'll find way more valuable tips and advice through watching matches and reading Primer threads than you'll find in a generic tip section. I'd recommend looking on Salvation for a pre-existing thread on your commander and joining in on the discussion. If one doesn't yet exist, create one!
Nice thread! I've been waiting for something like this. Thanks for putting it together.
One nitpick though; Tiers are based on popularity iirc, not power, so putting Sisay under A Tier seems a little biased I only remember seeing her top 8 once in all those French Tournament results, unless these are based on a 'Trice meta as I don't play there. Also, has Evergreen's Iname list started seeing a lot of play online from anyone other than him? I've goldfished the deck a bit. Quite nasty.
I think one thing the old Compendium had that was nice for deckbuilders was an extended list of sample decklists of the top tier decks. Hopefully we can have some of these up after a bit. But awesome so far!
Nice thread! I've been waiting for something like this. Thanks for putting it together.
One nitpick though; Tiers are based on popularity iirc, not power, so putting Sisay under A Tier seems a little biased I only remember seeing her top 8 once in all those French Tournament results, unless these are based on a 'Trice meta as I don't play there. Also, has Evergreen's Iname list started seeing a lot of play online from anyone other than him? I've goldfished the deck a bit. Quite nasty.
That's definitely the challenge I was faced with in putting together this Tier list, trying to reconcile the differences between tournament results and the Cockatrice meta. In some cases (like Lyzolda and Nin), there are so few players piloting these decks (and thus, fewer players participating in the discussion to optimize these decks) that it's difficult to really place a value on decks featuring red, but my experience with these particular decks and generals is that they really have the potential to shake up (if not dominate) the current meta.
But yeah, I should emphasize that the Cockatrice meta has really adapted to practically neuter Edric and other tier 1 generals. I say practically because Edric in particular still obviously has ridiculous potential if he gets active, but the majority of games I see/play in against Edric on Cockatrice are frustrating exercises for the Edric player, as he's sure to face more removal or decks so finely-tuned that every single thing resolving against him must be answered, and the Edric player just doesn't have enough answers. I'm sure the topic of Edric will be covered exhaustively in this thread, but those are my opening sentiments, anyway.
Sadly, Sisay's representation in the French meta seems to adhere more closely to the old multiplayer style, a very (relatively) slow combo build that is trying to do what the new Karador deck is doing, but much much weaker. Her "optimal" build has her overwhelming her opponent with must answers and consistently abusing Jitte. It's also the best deck for getting and playing Elesh Norn, which obliterates most decks in the meta. It's really not that interesting of a deck, but it gets the job done, and goes even or better with all the decks I put before it. =P
I've seen maybe only two other players attempt Evergreen's list, but I've also noticed that it's a popular topic on this French forum, where there's a list that's clearly derived from Evergreen's. In my opinion, I think that mastery of Iname is ridiculously hard compared to other decks, and (especially given the discussions in that French forum and in Evergreen's old primer), a lot of other players attempting the deck aren't playing the deck correctly/optimally or making the most meta-conscious choices in their plays. That is, Evergreen is an evil genius, and regularly predicts what's in his opponent's hand at any given time based on their open mana and hesitations, and I see him beat just about every deck out there very often. I'd definitely recommend that new players watch Evergreen in action. They can learn a lot.
I think one thing the old Compendium had that was nice for deckbuilder's was an extended list of sample decklists of the top tier decks. Hopefully we can have some of these up after a bit. But awesome so far!
Absolutely! I've been taking a Khymera approach to a ton of seemingly C-Tier generals lately (including Azusa, Brion Stoutarm, Numot, and Nath of the Gilt-Leaf), and I'd love to include a section for developing decks that have the potential to shake up the meta. I'd definitely encourage players like Abnormality (hint hint) to share their, say, Thraximundar tech, and Mr.Cheff to talk about his crazy yet effective Kami of the Crescent Moon build. There's so much room for innovation yet in this variant, and I'd love to highlight those awesome efforts.
What's "S Tier", never heard of that before. I guess it's super or something based on the fact that's it's placed above everything else but it could use clarifying. Could you point me to a good flying men 1vs1 Edric list?
The best of the best. I wouldn't consider Edric to be in a class by itself, but it sure can be close. Edric is incredibly annoying.
I definitely have to disagree with the notion that Edric is S tier (especially that both versions are). Not only that, but for them to be the ONLY S tier commanders is certainly false. Doran is absolutely A tier. Sisay is definitely not. Zur hasn't been A tier in years. Since when is Lyzolda relevant? You didn't even mention Merieke. Is Ruhan actually making waves (I ask because that would be my deck)?
I also feel creating a "Dev Competitive" section is not at all conducive to what this thread tries to accomplish. There are always dozens of "Developing Competitive" lists floating around. Trying to track them is not helpful to anybody new to the format and most veterans are already paying attention to that sort of thing.
Your general tips section is actually a little misleading. If we run with the assumption that people trying to get into this format have a deep enough understanding to not run sweepers in decks like Edric and Ezuri, then we must also run with the assumption that they know everything else you have written there. There are many, many decks that do not ever want sweepers and this should be mentioned. Your tips also push tempo decks a little hard, in my opinion. They make up a significant amount of the format, but your mini-guide pushes people to build these kinds of decks instead of build to beat them.
Those quibbles aside, this is some good work and it is appreciated. The biggest thing is getting that tier list in order, the rest are extremely minor qualms that plenty will probably disagree on.
I think I agree, but I'm not sure who I'd list as being on par with him at this point in time. My first iteration had GAAIV also in the S-Tier, but the lack of representation (and my admittedly limited experience witnessing him playe on Cockatrice) made me doubtful.
I definitely have to disagree with the notion that Edric is S tier (especially that both versions are). Not only that, but for them to be the ONLY S tier commanders is certainly false. Doran is absolutely A tier. Sisay is definitely not. Zur hasn't been A tier in years. Since when is Lyzolda relevant? You didn't even mention Merieke. Is Ruhan actually making waves (I ask because that would be my deck)?
To rapid-fire respond: You're probably right, that's possible but not what I've witnessed, I strongly disagree, I strongly disagree (and so would omgmakeme and his very powerful build), since she wrecks a good number of the top tier decks by virtue of having great access to spot removal alone, she's mentioned in the developing competitive decks for having really only been represented once in a recent tournament to my knowledge, and your Ruhan and a tier list I perused on a French forum are my only points of reference but he seems very promising. =P
I also feel creating a "Dev Competitive" section is not at all conducive to what this thread tries to accomplish. There are always dozens of "Developing Competitive" lists floating around. Trying to track them is not helpful to anybody new to the format and most veterans are already paying attention to that sort of thing.
I disagree with this sentiment. I think it's absolutely important to highlight the efforts of those trying to diversify the meta-game, especially those who are actively involved in the Cockatrice meta (no doubt the most highly developed French meta by virtue of infinite budget alone but also due to its liveliness). It's been said that it seems as though any highly tuned deck stands a chance of top 8'ing a tournament, and although that's a tiny bit too optimistic, it's not entirely inaccurate. It's helpful to paint a picture of viability and diversity for a format that, ostensibly to newcomers, appears to be ruled by King Edric. "Developing competitive" is also important to increase potential tournament-goers awareness of the sorts of archetypes/generals they might have to face. That's very useful information, I think.
The controversy, sure, is narrowing that list. It might be cleaner to highlight the top 10 (15?) decks at any given time that seem to stand the most chance of impacting the meta or breaking into the Tier list.
Your general tips section is actually a little misleading. If we run with the assumption that people trying to get into this format have a deep enough understanding to not run sweepers in decks like Edric and Ezuri, then we must also run with the assumption that they know everything else you have written there. There are many, many decks that do not ever want sweepers and this should be mentioned. Your tips also push tempo decks a little hard, in my opinion. They make up a significant amount of the format, but your mini-guide pushes people to build these kinds of decks instead of build to beat them.
I mention "exceptions" in a vague sort of sense, but you're right that it's probably worthwhile to directly speak of those exceptions. Not that it's any sort of fantastic excuse, but I was pressured by deadlines to get this thread up last night! =P
That is, I definitely do intend to break that section into bulletted points and to generally clean it up for readability.
I'm not sure what it is that makes EDH so exceptional, but you might be surprised by the sheer number of newcomers who either refuse to run removal in their decks or (as I forgot to mention in the OP) that a large majority of the player base (even some veterans) refuse to run a suitable amount of lands or mana fixers. Mana screw should really only ever happen once in a blue moon, and not being able to disrupt your opponent at any point ever is just asking for trouble.
But I see your point. I can better highlight the exceptional Merieke reanimator deck or Jester's unintuitive Animar build rather than giving the impression that THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG.
The guiding principle behind my tips is encouraging players to be mindful of what they'll face, ultimately building to improve their matchups vs. all of the decks to beat. In that sense, an archetype breakdown might suit the section better.
IMHO, the Tier list is interesting, but it should stay objective and be based on facts (tournament reports).
High performance and high popularity should both be taken in account.
Here is my proposition :
1 point for each attendance
3 additional points for each top 8 list
3 additional points for the winner
Here's an example : last French Commander National (64 players)
Attendance :
6 Edric, maitre espion de trest
2 Grand arbitre Augustin IV
5 Doran, la tour de siège
1 Rhys l'affranchi
2 Ezuri, chef renégat
5 Wydwen, the Biting Gale
4 Jenara, Asura de guerre
6 Zur l'enchanteur
3 Geist de saint Traft
2 Animar, âme des éléments
2 Scion de l'Ur-Dragon
1 Radha, héritière de Keld
1 Karadar, ghost chieftain
2 Clique Vendilion
1 Oliria Voldaren
5 Rafiq of the many
3 Kaalia de l'immensité
2 Isamaru, chien de Konda
1 Dralnu, seigneur liche
1 Cranebruyère, la tombe ambulante
1 Sygg, surineur de rivière
1 The Mimeoplasm
1 Nin, l'artiste en souffrance
1 Teysa, Orzhov Scion
1 Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund
1 Captain Sissay
1 Iname, aspect de la mort
1 Skythiryx
Top 8:
2 Jenara, Asura de guerre
1 Edric, maitre espion de trest
1 Wydwen, the Biting Gale
1 Doran, la tour de siège
1 Ezuri, chef renégat
1 Grand arbitre Augustin IV
1 Rhys
By cumulating data from several tournaments, I'm sure we can get a good tier list...
This is a very good suggestion, and it does beg the question: What is the purpose of a Tier list?
My inclination is to adhere to the Fighting Game definition of a Tier List, which is as follows (taken from SmashWikia):
In gaming, a tier list is a list that ranks each character in order of their potential to win under tournament conditions, based on analysis of the metagame. Tier lists are commonly made for competitive fighting games, as well as strategy games that involve a selection of usable characters, such as Pokémon. The metagame of each game in the Smash series encompasses all currently known techniques and strategies that have proven useful during tournament matches, thus, the tier list for each game ranks and measures the expected competitive performance of every character, based upon analysis of these techniques and strategies. The most widely accepted tier lists in the english speaking community are those produced by the Smash Back Room.
Individual matchups affect, but do not ultimately determine characters' tier list rankings. Often, a particular character will carry a supposed advantage over another character who ranks higher on the tier list — such a matchup is known as a counter. For example, suppose Pichu held an advantageous matchup against Fox but suffered from matchups poorer than Fox's against every other character in Melee. While it would be considered a counter to Fox, Pichu would still be ranked lower than Fox on the tier list. Thus, if two players at the top of the known metagame played a match with Fox and Pichu, the tier list alone could not predict the outcome of the match. Furthermore, tier lists do not rank characters relative to the numerical average of their matchup scores.
In brief, the Tier list is an attempt to highlight which characters/generals stand the most chance of outperforming their competitors, all data considered. Thus, there is an attempt on my part to give reasonably accurate predictions of who would outperform who the majority of the time (given optimal, meta-conscious builds), factoring in the highly developed Cockatrice meta, while also measuring that against existing tournament data. I don't think it's appropriate for us to use tournament data solely to build the Tier list (although indeed an argument can be made that this is the fairest way to determine which tactics are "proven useful"), but I do find that there's value in sharing these statistics, in revealing which generals are most likely to appear in greater numbers. That definitely promotes awareness and yields tighter competition.
That said, I don't know that there's a completely scientific or mathematical way to build a 100% accurate portrait of who's best, especially as it's difficult to quantify what makes a deck perfectly suited to compete in the meta. For that, we must rely on the words of obsessed Primer creators and eye witness reports from Cockatrice players/observers, and, unfortunately, a whole lot of opinion.
I think that the current list may in fact be trying too hard to factor in tournament data while grating against what Cockatrice players are experiencing in the meta. It's probably worth having both a list for highlighting tournament popularity and placements as well as a list that discusses the evident Cockatrice meta. Reconciling the two may not be possible, as I really have difficulty justifying, for example, placing Edric in God Tier, given all known data.
Alternately, an informed council could be assembled based on popular vote to debate the positions and reserve final judgments on the Tier list, but--given my experience in the competitive Smash world--I understand that this could be more controversial than anything else.
Great thread! Makes me want to convert people in my group to playing by the French Rules ;-)
Qne question, though: what does "S" mean in "S Tier"? Could somebody please explain?
S stands for "Super." It's like the classes for classifying cars. An A-Class car would be like a Ferrari 458. A S-Class car would be a Ferrari Enzo. While decks are tier one, there's one that just stands above the rest. Maybe a tier 0.5 or 0? lol. I'm pretty sure they came up with the ABC classes and didn't know what to do when they made one better than the A class so they inserted the S-Class.
Anyways, the Karador deck looks interesting. It's just basically a dredge deck that abuses loyal retainers. You can find those decks running around Cockatrice.
Does someone know the reason why there is a special rule regarding tuck effects? And the 30 life?
My theory: I believe there is a strong correlation between the types of commanders that are successful in French 1v1 and the fact that tucking is useless as an avenue of dealing with generals. In other words, decks that are heavily reliant on their generals (i.e., Edric + most of the "tier A generals") are in positions of unequal power in large part because of their easy access to key, low-cost commanders which simply cannot be interacted with in any meaningful way.
To a player who mainly plays with normal EDH rules, I see tuck effects as very necessary ways to interact with generals like Edric or Zur or Rafiq or any similar style of deck that over-relies on its access to a cheap commander. Usually these decks rely extremely heavily on their general and countermagic and do very little without their general, yet nevertheless attempt to prevent their opponents from, essentially, meaningfully playing the game. Removing the weakness of a particular deck style promotes homogeneity among the style of decks that players bring to the table and this is reflected in the displayed tournament results. Variety is highly valued in commander, as it is at its roots, a casual format wherein the deck-building/general picking process
is often just as interesting as the gameplay itself. In this way, I don't understand the appeal of artificially conforming a format's rules to favor a particular style of play.
The 30 starting life is also significant in that it further caters to these style of incremental advantage type of decks. Though it seems somewhat arbitrary, the reduction of the starting life total no doubt aids the cause of decks such as Edric.
Perhaps it is just my first response to this modification on the EDH format, but French 1v1 seems boringly unintuitive and uncreative. In a format that prides itself on its variety and high level of interactivity, modifying the rules to give special prowess to generals which are inherently un-interactive seems highly uninteresting and an unbalacing of an otherwise fairly balanced, fun format.
Maybe the French like seeing the same commanders all the time and their games homogenized, but everyone in my playgroup would rather have more interactive games. Just my 2 cents.
30 starting life allows aggressive decks to actually exist and makes red a lot stronger because burn becomes a lot more meaningful. The jump for 30 to 40 life basically kills aggressive decks from being competitive because trying to deal 40 in a short period of time is really really hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
30 starting life allows aggressive decks to actually exist and makes red a lot stronger because burn becomes a lot more meaningful. The jump for 30 to 40 life basically kills aggressive decks from being competitive because trying to deal 40 in a short period of time is really really hard.
There are plenty of aggressive decks that are viable. Aggro-control translates perfectly well to EDH, as do other aggressive strategies (as the strength of decks like Isamaru or other voltron decks attests to). So i completely disagree there.
Burn is really not a meaningful strategy on its own above 20 life. Especially in multiplayer. Burn relies on multiple copies of the same spell like lightning bolt for a sturdy early advantage and cards like browbeat to keep the pressure up. While I would agree that red is highly under-rated in its ability to kill creatures regardless of type or color, its loses many of its main strengths, which are speed and efficient creatures. Instead, it is a pretty reliable removal color that has a lot of blow-out spells and the coveted ability to destroy problematic lands. Sure there are good burn spells, but most that are good in EDH are multipurpose, like comet storm or bogardan hellkite.
Really though, I was more concerned about the reasons behind the special tuck rules. I find it hard to believe that theyre legitimate.
Really though, I was more concerned about the reasons behind the special tuck rules. I find it hard to believe that theyre legitimate.
The whole point of edh is to have a commander and make a deck around him. I believe they said that it is for flavor. They feel that tucking removes what is special about edh. I will try and find the post.
Does someone know the reason why there is a special rule regarding tuck effects? And the 30 life?
My theory: I believe there is a strong correlation between the types of commanders that are successful in French 1v1 and the fact that tucking is useless as an avenue of dealing with generals. In other words, decks that are heavily reliant on their generals (i.e., Edric + most of the "tier A generals") are in positions of unequal power in large part because of their easy access to key, low-cost commanders which simply cannot be interacted with in any meaningful way.
To a player who mainly plays with normal EDH rules, I see tuck effects as very necessary ways to interact with generals like Edric or Zur or Rafiq or any similar style of deck that over-relies on its access to a cheap commander. Usually these decks rely extremely heavily on their general and countermagic and do very little without their general, yet nevertheless attempt to prevent their opponents from, essentially, meaningfully playing the game. Removing the weakness of a particular deck style promotes homogeneity among the style of decks that players bring to the table and this is reflected in the displayed tournament results. Variety is highly valued in commander, as it is at its roots, a casual format wherein the deck-building/general picking process
is often just as interesting as the gameplay itself. In this way, I don't understand the appeal of artificially conforming a format's rules to favor a particular style of play.
The 30 starting life is also significant in that it further caters to these style of incremental advantage type of decks. Though it seems somewhat arbitrary, the reduction of the starting life total no doubt aids the cause of decks such as Edric.
Perhaps it is just my first response to this modification on the EDH format, but French 1v1 seems boringly unintuitive and uncreative. In a format that prides itself on its variety and high level of interactivity, modifying the rules to give special prowess to generals which are inherently un-interactive seems highly uninteresting and an unbalacing of an otherwise fairly balanced, fun format.
Maybe the French like seeing the same commanders all the time and their games homogenized, but everyone in my playgroup would rather have more interactive games. Just my 2 cents.
Having a commander be the theme or centerpiece of the deck adds a lot more variety to this format than the usual "pick some cards out of the top 50 cards of each color" that I usually see multiplayer edh decks quickly become.
Although you could argue that playing around a tuck effect on your general increases interactivity, it also effectively could basically end the game turn 2 - turn 3 if every person isn't playing only "good stuff from top 50 cards of each color" deck. From what I've seen, the french list emphasizes avoiding things that swing tempo advantage a ridiculous amount in the first 2 turns (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Mana Drain, Strip Mine/Crucible).
Additionally, I find this french list to have many times the level of interactivity of multi-player lists. If you have actually observed the french deck lists and actual games being played you would see that every deck plays a variety of actual answers that actually affect the game state in meaningful ways toward an actual victory.
Rather than playing 50 Bomb, 13 mana accel, 36 land deck, the current french meta supports playing an actual game over waiting to draw/tutor for insurrection/exanguinate for infinite, genesis wave for infinite, overwhelming stampede, tooth and nail, etc.
Honestly, after playing countless multi-player games where everyone ends up doing absolutely nothing besides mana ramp and card draw until their game-winning bomb from their good-stuff-only general-only-for-colors decks, French EDH is a very refreshing format.
Burn is really not a meaningful strategy on its own above 20 life. Especially in multiplayer. Burn relies on multiple copies of the same spell like lightning bolt for a sturdy early advantage and cards like browbeat to keep the pressure up. While I would agree that red is highly under-rated in its ability to kill creatures regardless of type or color, its loses many of its main strengths, which are speed and efficient creatures. Instead, it is a pretty reliable removal color that has a lot of blow-out spells and the coveted ability to destroy problematic lands. Sure there are good burn spells, but most that are good in EDH are multipurpose, like comet storm or bogardan hellkite.
See: Zozu, Lyzolda, Olivia
You should maybe see the format in action before judging it.
There are plenty of aggressive decks that are viable. Aggro-control translates perfectly well to EDH, as do other aggressive strategies (as the strength of decks like Isamaru or other voltron decks attests to). So i completely disagree there.
Right but aggressive strategies are definitely way worse when they have to deal more and more damage, hence why Aggro isn't a part of multiplayer EDH because it just isn't feasible to deal 120 damage without dying. By starting at 30 life aggressive strategies become a lot stronger and in fact a lot of the decks in the french metagame are aggro/aggro-control much like Legacy. Not to mention Red Decks are actually viable in the French metagame because they gain a lot of their power back since burn is a lot stronger (it kills more dudes and the have less life).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
1. Having a commander be the theme or centerpiece of the deck adds a lot more variety to this format than the usual "pick some cards out of the top 50 cards of each color" that I usually see multiplayer edh decks quickly become.
2. Although you could argue that playing around a tuck effect on your general increases interactivity, it also effectively could basically end the game turn 2 - turn 3 if every person isn't playing only "good stuff from top 50 cards of each color" deck. From what I've seen, the french list emphasizes avoiding things that swing tempo advantage a ridiculous amount in the first 2 turns (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Mana Drain, Strip Mine/Crucible).
3. Additionally, I find this french list to have many times the level of interactivity of multi-player lists. If you have actually observed the french deck lists and actual games being played you would see that every deck plays a variety of actual answers that actually affect the game state in meaningful ways toward an actual victory.
4. Rather than playing 50 Bomb, 13 mana accel, 36 land deck, the current french meta supports playing an actual game over waiting to draw/tutor for insurrection/exanguinate for infinite, genesis wave for infinite, overwhelming stampede, tooth and nail, etc.
5. Honestly, after playing countless multi-player games where everyone ends up doing absolutely nothing besides mana ramp and card draw until their game-winning bomb from their good-stuff-only general-only-for-colors decks, French EDH is a very refreshing format.
6. You should maybe see the format in action before judging it.
1. Goodstuff decks will always be a part of the format for those who are not concerned with being particularly inventive. The given tier-list even cites "Edric Goodstuff" being in the highest tier. If youre saying that evasive creatures in an Edric deck or enchantments in a Zur deck are the definition of variety, you may want to re-examine your idea of variety.
2. This is a confused comment. Taken literally, I don't think anyone would agree that tuck effects should be turn 2-3 game winning events against decks that are properly designed. A deck should in some way be able to interact with its opponent with or without the general.
On the point of the example of artifact acceleration you gave, if youre having a huge problem with those, you may want to consider running more efficient artifact destruction. Plus the amount of hate they draw from the table is often insurmountable, unless that player has a god-hand in a singleton format.
3. Most of the games I've played on cockatrice are against abusive edric decks that are anything but inventive and interactive. Or animar/other aggro control decks with unrealistic budgets (very very few people have imperial recruiters,etc).
4. Obvious exaggeration. A deck with fifty bombs is never going to win, at least not in a healthy meta that has varied removal. Problem with insurrection/overwhelming stampede/(insert blowout effect here)? Play fog-like effects. Exsanguinate blowouts are usually based on combo/doubling effects, which are in turn open to artifact/enchantment destruction. Creature theft is great vs TaN. Either way, there are plenty of ways to interact with such effects before or after they happen.
5. Maybe you or your meta should play effects that punish ramp and card-draw if you have a problem with card advantage. You mention Zo-Zu, so I assume you know some of them. If someone combos off by drawing their deck, play sudden impact or runeflare trap.
6. Ive played french a few times, but really, it's just a bunch of un-interactive aggro-control decks. The fact that the format is modified to favor a particular deck style is, in my opinion, an unbalacing factor.
@Feaor: I understand your point about aggro decks in a multiplayer settings and generally youre correct, aggro/burn as a strategy is weak without some element of control, but I dont think the situation for red is as bad as people make it out to be. It can deal with creatures rather easily, punish abusive behaviors such as extra turns, card draw, ramp, artifacts, and lands, and other than blue, is the most prominent color that can interact with the stack. Red has a role in well-developed metas.
The point about the 30 life doesn't really worry me so much and might be the one thing I take away from the idea of French 1v1.
As someone who has had plenty of experience in both formats, I would like to say a few things.
1. Neither format is better. They are different. EDH was created for multiplayer. It has since been adapted for 1v1.
2. The French Ban List is the best for 1v1, horrible for multiplayer. It tries to remove cards like Necropotence and Sol Ring which are incredibly unbalanced.
3. Different cards are good in both formats. I do not think Mana Leak is good in Multiplayer EDH. French decks do not usually play Insurrection.
4. Deck design is more linear in French, decklists have curves more comparable to standard, usually much lower.
5. A deck that uses it's general starts with 8 cards. A deck that does not starts with 7. The focus of the format is the general, even more than in multiplayer. My Zur getting Hindered means I lose. In multiplayer this is not always the case.
6. The format is dominated by aggro control because of the high life total. With 40 life it would be less aggro. The reason being is the Philosophy of Fire (Read Mike Flores article here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/7157_The_Philosophy_of_Fire.html). Each card has to do more damage than in traditional 20 cards formats. Games go longer as it takes longer to die. For example, suppose a Standard Mono-Red burn deck can do 20 damage around turn 5. That same deck would take longer to do 30 damage. The extra life turns into extra turns as your opponent is not dead and gets to untap. What deck has the advantage when the games are going to go longer, Mono-Red or UW Control? UW Control.
Most importantly, French is a 1v1 format. It is a variant of a variant. Arguing about which 100 card singleton format is better is like arguing whether two hand touch or flag football is better. They are really supposed to tackle. We are really supposed to use 4 cards. In a casual format the point is to have fun. If your format was really as awesome as you say, you probably wouldn't be in our thread in our subforum telling us that our format sucks.
Most importantly, French is a 1v1 format. It is a variant of a variant. Arguing about which 100 card singleton format is better is like arguing whether two hand touch or flag football is better. They are really supposed to tackle. We are really supposed to use 4 cards. In a casual format the point is to have fun. If your format was really as awesome as you say, you probably wouldn't be in our thread in our subforum telling us that our format sucks.
I just wanted to post my thoughts on the proposed ban list changes for March, and to see what others in the community think.
Banning Loyal Retainers over Survival of the Fittest:I seriously think that the French committee is trying to keep Survival around so that all the French Karador players can keep their toy. What are they thinking? Have we not learned anything from the Bitterblossom banning? We shouldn't just ban stuff that help out the problem,* we should ban the problem itself. Otherwise, we're just going to see Survival banned in the future just like Bitterblossom was. A bigger ban list doesn't make a better ban list.
Banning Umezawa's Jitte:The thought of having this card banned infuriates me. Jitte and Winter Orb are the two cornerstones of the French meta. Banning either one just seems wrong.
Banning Ancient Tomb:I can see why the French rules committee would like to see this go, but it shouldn't go before something like Demonic Tutor.
What do you guys think of these proposed bans?
*Banning the turn one tutors back in the day was a good idea, but that doesn't compare to Loyal Retainers being banned over Survival.
I just wanted to post my thoughts on the proposed ban list changes for March, and to see what others in the community think.
Banning Loyal Retainers over Survival of the Fittest:I seriously think that the French committee is trying to keep Survival around so that all the French Karador players can keep their toy. What are they thinking? Have we not learned anything from the Bitterblossom banning? We shouldn't just ban stuff that help out the problem,* we should ban the problem itself. Otherwise, we're just going to see Survival banned in the future just like Bitterblossom was. A bigger ban list doesn't make a better ban list.
Banning Umezawa's Jitte:The thought of having this card banned infuriates me. Jitte and Winter Orb are the two cornerstones of the French meta. Banning either one just seems wrong.
Banning Ancient Tomb:I can see why the French rules committee would like to see this go, but it shouldn't go before something like Demonic Tutor.
What do you guys think of these proposed bans?
*Banning the turn one tutors back in the day was a good idea, but that doesn't compare to Loyal Retainers being banned over Survival.
Link to where this is being discussed?
I can get behind banning Survival of the Fittest 100%. You ban enablers, not cards that benefit from the enabler. And Survival is a proven broken enabler.
As for Jitte, it is interesting you bring that up because Jitte actually is banned in traditional Highlander and has been on their ban list for several years now. Just something to keep in mind.
No comment right now on an Ancient Tomb ban. All I will say right now is that the card would be a lot less good if you started at 20 life like it was designed for in the first place instead of 30 life.
That's what the rumor mill is churning in Cockatrice games, started by (I believe) a French player who is close to those responsible for making such decisions.
This is what I was told to expect I think on March 20th:
Don't forget that Karador lets you recast retainers from the graveyard after it is countered, killed, etc. It is this inevitability that makes Retainers broken with Karador.
Lots of other decks in BG, BRG, RUG colors use Survival to do broken things but their generals do not enable them to recast creatures from the graveyard. Also, retainers is super expensive!
Banning Edric is definitely jumping the shark, and I thought the tuck rule was it. If you build your deck around your general, then I expect tucking to deal with the problematic ones.
Apparently they were considering banning Clique just so they won't ban Edric by himself. But then another French player said that they aren't planning on banning Clique. So.... idk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Official Facebook Page
Tournament Reports Thread
Play/Test Online: WoogerWorks & Cockatrice
Metagame/Tournament Results: MTGTop8
Mod note: This thread supersedes the old 1v1 intro thread. -viper
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
One nitpick though; Tiers are based on popularity iirc, not power, so putting Sisay under A Tier seems a little biased I only remember seeing her top 8 once in all those French Tournament results, unless these are based on a 'Trice meta as I don't play there. Also, has Evergreen's Iname list started seeing a lot of play online from anyone other than him? I've goldfished the deck a bit. Quite nasty.
It looks quite tight already.
I think one thing the old Compendium had that was nice for deckbuilders was an extended list of sample decklists of the top tier decks. Hopefully we can have some of these up after a bit. But awesome so far!
That's definitely the challenge I was faced with in putting together this Tier list, trying to reconcile the differences between tournament results and the Cockatrice meta. In some cases (like Lyzolda and Nin), there are so few players piloting these decks (and thus, fewer players participating in the discussion to optimize these decks) that it's difficult to really place a value on decks featuring red, but my experience with these particular decks and generals is that they really have the potential to shake up (if not dominate) the current meta.
But yeah, I should emphasize that the Cockatrice meta has really adapted to practically neuter Edric and other tier 1 generals. I say practically because Edric in particular still obviously has ridiculous potential if he gets active, but the majority of games I see/play in against Edric on Cockatrice are frustrating exercises for the Edric player, as he's sure to face more removal or decks so finely-tuned that every single thing resolving against him must be answered, and the Edric player just doesn't have enough answers. I'm sure the topic of Edric will be covered exhaustively in this thread, but those are my opening sentiments, anyway.
Sadly, Sisay's representation in the French meta seems to adhere more closely to the old multiplayer style, a very (relatively) slow combo build that is trying to do what the new Karador deck is doing, but much much weaker. Her "optimal" build has her overwhelming her opponent with must answers and consistently abusing Jitte. It's also the best deck for getting and playing Elesh Norn, which obliterates most decks in the meta. It's really not that interesting of a deck, but it gets the job done, and goes even or better with all the decks I put before it. =P
I've seen maybe only two other players attempt Evergreen's list, but I've also noticed that it's a popular topic on this French forum, where there's a list that's clearly derived from Evergreen's. In my opinion, I think that mastery of Iname is ridiculously hard compared to other decks, and (especially given the discussions in that French forum and in Evergreen's old primer), a lot of other players attempting the deck aren't playing the deck correctly/optimally or making the most meta-conscious choices in their plays. That is, Evergreen is an evil genius, and regularly predicts what's in his opponent's hand at any given time based on their open mana and hesitations, and I see him beat just about every deck out there very often. I'd definitely recommend that new players watch Evergreen in action. They can learn a lot.
Absolutely! I've been taking a Khymera approach to a ton of seemingly C-Tier generals lately (including Azusa, Brion Stoutarm, Numot, and Nath of the Gilt-Leaf), and I'd love to include a section for developing decks that have the potential to shake up the meta. I'd definitely encourage players like Abnormality (hint hint) to share their, say, Thraximundar tech, and Mr.Cheff to talk about his crazy yet effective Kami of the Crescent Moon build. There's so much room for innovation yet in this variant, and I'd love to highlight those awesome efforts.
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
The best of the best. I wouldn't consider Edric to be in a class by itself, but it sure can be close. Edric is incredibly annoying.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=367446
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
I also feel creating a "Dev Competitive" section is not at all conducive to what this thread tries to accomplish. There are always dozens of "Developing Competitive" lists floating around. Trying to track them is not helpful to anybody new to the format and most veterans are already paying attention to that sort of thing.
Your general tips section is actually a little misleading. If we run with the assumption that people trying to get into this format have a deep enough understanding to not run sweepers in decks like Edric and Ezuri, then we must also run with the assumption that they know everything else you have written there. There are many, many decks that do not ever want sweepers and this should be mentioned. Your tips also push tempo decks a little hard, in my opinion. They make up a significant amount of the format, but your mini-guide pushes people to build these kinds of decks instead of build to beat them.
Those quibbles aside, this is some good work and it is appreciated. The biggest thing is getting that tier list in order, the rest are extremely minor qualms that plenty will probably disagree on.
My Blog About It
I think I agree, but I'm not sure who I'd list as being on par with him at this point in time. My first iteration had GAAIV also in the S-Tier, but the lack of representation (and my admittedly limited experience witnessing him playe on Cockatrice) made me doubtful.
To rapid-fire respond: You're probably right, that's possible but not what I've witnessed, I strongly disagree, I strongly disagree (and so would omgmakeme and his very powerful build), since she wrecks a good number of the top tier decks by virtue of having great access to spot removal alone, she's mentioned in the developing competitive decks for having really only been represented once in a recent tournament to my knowledge, and your Ruhan and a tier list I perused on a French forum are my only points of reference but he seems very promising. =P
I disagree with this sentiment. I think it's absolutely important to highlight the efforts of those trying to diversify the meta-game, especially those who are actively involved in the Cockatrice meta (no doubt the most highly developed French meta by virtue of infinite budget alone but also due to its liveliness). It's been said that it seems as though any highly tuned deck stands a chance of top 8'ing a tournament, and although that's a tiny bit too optimistic, it's not entirely inaccurate. It's helpful to paint a picture of viability and diversity for a format that, ostensibly to newcomers, appears to be ruled by King Edric. "Developing competitive" is also important to increase potential tournament-goers awareness of the sorts of archetypes/generals they might have to face. That's very useful information, I think.
The controversy, sure, is narrowing that list. It might be cleaner to highlight the top 10 (15?) decks at any given time that seem to stand the most chance of impacting the meta or breaking into the Tier list.
I mention "exceptions" in a vague sort of sense, but you're right that it's probably worthwhile to directly speak of those exceptions. Not that it's any sort of fantastic excuse, but I was pressured by deadlines to get this thread up last night! =P
That is, I definitely do intend to break that section into bulletted points and to generally clean it up for readability.
I'm not sure what it is that makes EDH so exceptional, but you might be surprised by the sheer number of newcomers who either refuse to run removal in their decks or (as I forgot to mention in the OP) that a large majority of the player base (even some veterans) refuse to run a suitable amount of lands or mana fixers. Mana screw should really only ever happen once in a blue moon, and not being able to disrupt your opponent at any point ever is just asking for trouble.
But I see your point. I can better highlight the exceptional Merieke reanimator deck or Jester's unintuitive Animar build rather than giving the impression that THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG.
The guiding principle behind my tips is encouraging players to be mindful of what they'll face, ultimately building to improve their matchups vs. all of the decks to beat. In that sense, an archetype breakdown might suit the section better.
This is a very good suggestion, and it does beg the question: What is the purpose of a Tier list?
My inclination is to adhere to the Fighting Game definition of a Tier List, which is as follows (taken from SmashWikia):
In brief, the Tier list is an attempt to highlight which characters/generals stand the most chance of outperforming their competitors, all data considered. Thus, there is an attempt on my part to give reasonably accurate predictions of who would outperform who the majority of the time (given optimal, meta-conscious builds), factoring in the highly developed Cockatrice meta, while also measuring that against existing tournament data. I don't think it's appropriate for us to use tournament data solely to build the Tier list (although indeed an argument can be made that this is the fairest way to determine which tactics are "proven useful"), but I do find that there's value in sharing these statistics, in revealing which generals are most likely to appear in greater numbers. That definitely promotes awareness and yields tighter competition.
That said, I don't know that there's a completely scientific or mathematical way to build a 100% accurate portrait of who's best, especially as it's difficult to quantify what makes a deck perfectly suited to compete in the meta. For that, we must rely on the words of obsessed Primer creators and eye witness reports from Cockatrice players/observers, and, unfortunately, a whole lot of opinion.
I think that the current list may in fact be trying too hard to factor in tournament data while grating against what Cockatrice players are experiencing in the meta. It's probably worth having both a list for highlighting tournament popularity and placements as well as a list that discusses the evident Cockatrice meta. Reconciling the two may not be possible, as I really have difficulty justifying, for example, placing Edric in God Tier, given all known data.
Alternately, an informed council could be assembled based on popular vote to debate the positions and reserve final judgments on the Tier list, but--given my experience in the competitive Smash world--I understand that this could be more controversial than anything else.
Thanks for the sticky, viperesque!
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
Thank You Rivenor/Miraculous Recovery Studios!
GGGSKamahl's Band of Monstosities SGGG
RRRSFreaki-Kiki, The Goblin DoucheSRRR
BBGGNath, Raper of Hands and Spewer of Tokens!GGBB
BUGDamia, Sage of AnswersBUG
WIPs
BBBXiahou Dun, the Bitter Stax Enabling BastardBBB
On Break
BBBSKagemaro, First to RetireSBBB
BBBThe Walking DeadBBB
UUUSTeferi Combo PrimerSUUU
S stands for "Super." It's like the classes for classifying cars. An A-Class car would be like a Ferrari 458. A S-Class car would be a Ferrari Enzo. While decks are tier one, there's one that just stands above the rest. Maybe a tier 0.5 or 0? lol. I'm pretty sure they came up with the ABC classes and didn't know what to do when they made one better than the A class so they inserted the S-Class.
Anyways, the Karador deck looks interesting. It's just basically a dredge deck that abuses loyal retainers. You can find those decks running around Cockatrice.
My theory: I believe there is a strong correlation between the types of commanders that are successful in French 1v1 and the fact that tucking is useless as an avenue of dealing with generals. In other words, decks that are heavily reliant on their generals (i.e., Edric + most of the "tier A generals") are in positions of unequal power in large part because of their easy access to key, low-cost commanders which simply cannot be interacted with in any meaningful way.
To a player who mainly plays with normal EDH rules, I see tuck effects as very necessary ways to interact with generals like Edric or Zur or Rafiq or any similar style of deck that over-relies on its access to a cheap commander. Usually these decks rely extremely heavily on their general and countermagic and do very little without their general, yet nevertheless attempt to prevent their opponents from, essentially, meaningfully playing the game. Removing the weakness of a particular deck style promotes homogeneity among the style of decks that players bring to the table and this is reflected in the displayed tournament results. Variety is highly valued in commander, as it is at its roots, a casual format wherein the deck-building/general picking process
is often just as interesting as the gameplay itself. In this way, I don't understand the appeal of artificially conforming a format's rules to favor a particular style of play.
The 30 starting life is also significant in that it further caters to these style of incremental advantage type of decks. Though it seems somewhat arbitrary, the reduction of the starting life total no doubt aids the cause of decks such as Edric.
Perhaps it is just my first response to this modification on the EDH format, but French 1v1 seems boringly unintuitive and uncreative. In a format that prides itself on its variety and high level of interactivity, modifying the rules to give special prowess to generals which are inherently un-interactive seems highly uninteresting and an unbalacing of an otherwise fairly balanced, fun format.
Maybe the French like seeing the same commanders all the time and their games homogenized, but everyone in my playgroup would rather have more interactive games. Just my 2 cents.
Isperia, Supreme Judge: Control
Malfegor: Control
There are plenty of aggressive decks that are viable. Aggro-control translates perfectly well to EDH, as do other aggressive strategies (as the strength of decks like Isamaru or other voltron decks attests to). So i completely disagree there.
Burn is really not a meaningful strategy on its own above 20 life. Especially in multiplayer. Burn relies on multiple copies of the same spell like lightning bolt for a sturdy early advantage and cards like browbeat to keep the pressure up. While I would agree that red is highly under-rated in its ability to kill creatures regardless of type or color, its loses many of its main strengths, which are speed and efficient creatures. Instead, it is a pretty reliable removal color that has a lot of blow-out spells and the coveted ability to destroy problematic lands. Sure there are good burn spells, but most that are good in EDH are multipurpose, like comet storm or bogardan hellkite.
Really though, I was more concerned about the reasons behind the special tuck rules. I find it hard to believe that theyre legitimate.
Isperia, Supreme Judge: Control
Malfegor: Control
The whole point of edh is to have a commander and make a deck around him. I believe they said that it is for flavor. They feel that tucking removes what is special about edh. I will try and find the post.
Edit: Here it is http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7150490#post7150490
Having a commander be the theme or centerpiece of the deck adds a lot more variety to this format than the usual "pick some cards out of the top 50 cards of each color" that I usually see multiplayer edh decks quickly become.
Although you could argue that playing around a tuck effect on your general increases interactivity, it also effectively could basically end the game turn 2 - turn 3 if every person isn't playing only "good stuff from top 50 cards of each color" deck. From what I've seen, the french list emphasizes avoiding things that swing tempo advantage a ridiculous amount in the first 2 turns (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Mana Drain, Strip Mine/Crucible).
Additionally, I find this french list to have many times the level of interactivity of multi-player lists. If you have actually observed the french deck lists and actual games being played you would see that every deck plays a variety of actual answers that actually affect the game state in meaningful ways toward an actual victory.
Rather than playing 50 Bomb, 13 mana accel, 36 land deck, the current french meta supports playing an actual game over waiting to draw/tutor for insurrection/exanguinate for infinite, genesis wave for infinite, overwhelming stampede, tooth and nail, etc.
Honestly, after playing countless multi-player games where everyone ends up doing absolutely nothing besides mana ramp and card draw until their game-winning bomb from their good-stuff-only general-only-for-colors decks, French EDH is a very refreshing format.
See: Zozu, Lyzolda, Olivia
You should maybe see the format in action before judging it.
Right but aggressive strategies are definitely way worse when they have to deal more and more damage, hence why Aggro isn't a part of multiplayer EDH because it just isn't feasible to deal 120 damage without dying. By starting at 30 life aggressive strategies become a lot stronger and in fact a lot of the decks in the french metagame are aggro/aggro-control much like Legacy. Not to mention Red Decks are actually viable in the French metagame because they gain a lot of their power back since burn is a lot stronger (it kills more dudes and the have less life).
1. Goodstuff decks will always be a part of the format for those who are not concerned with being particularly inventive. The given tier-list even cites "Edric Goodstuff" being in the highest tier. If youre saying that evasive creatures in an Edric deck or enchantments in a Zur deck are the definition of variety, you may want to re-examine your idea of variety.
2. This is a confused comment. Taken literally, I don't think anyone would agree that tuck effects should be turn 2-3 game winning events against decks that are properly designed. A deck should in some way be able to interact with its opponent with or without the general.
On the point of the example of artifact acceleration you gave, if youre having a huge problem with those, you may want to consider running more efficient artifact destruction. Plus the amount of hate they draw from the table is often insurmountable, unless that player has a god-hand in a singleton format.
3. Most of the games I've played on cockatrice are against abusive edric decks that are anything but inventive and interactive. Or animar/other aggro control decks with unrealistic budgets (very very few people have imperial recruiters,etc).
4. Obvious exaggeration. A deck with fifty bombs is never going to win, at least not in a healthy meta that has varied removal. Problem with insurrection/overwhelming stampede/(insert blowout effect here)? Play fog-like effects. Exsanguinate blowouts are usually based on combo/doubling effects, which are in turn open to artifact/enchantment destruction. Creature theft is great vs TaN. Either way, there are plenty of ways to interact with such effects before or after they happen.
5. Maybe you or your meta should play effects that punish ramp and card-draw if you have a problem with card advantage. You mention Zo-Zu, so I assume you know some of them. If someone combos off by drawing their deck, play sudden impact or runeflare trap.
6. Ive played french a few times, but really, it's just a bunch of un-interactive aggro-control decks. The fact that the format is modified to favor a particular deck style is, in my opinion, an unbalacing factor.
@Feaor: I understand your point about aggro decks in a multiplayer settings and generally youre correct, aggro/burn as a strategy is weak without some element of control, but I dont think the situation for red is as bad as people make it out to be. It can deal with creatures rather easily, punish abusive behaviors such as extra turns, card draw, ramp, artifacts, and lands, and other than blue, is the most prominent color that can interact with the stack. Red has a role in well-developed metas.
The point about the 30 life doesn't really worry me so much and might be the one thing I take away from the idea of French 1v1.
Isperia, Supreme Judge: Control
Malfegor: Control
1. Neither format is better. They are different. EDH was created for multiplayer. It has since been adapted for 1v1.
2. The French Ban List is the best for 1v1, horrible for multiplayer. It tries to remove cards like Necropotence and Sol Ring which are incredibly unbalanced.
3. Different cards are good in both formats. I do not think Mana Leak is good in Multiplayer EDH. French decks do not usually play Insurrection.
4. Deck design is more linear in French, decklists have curves more comparable to standard, usually much lower.
5. A deck that uses it's general starts with 8 cards. A deck that does not starts with 7. The focus of the format is the general, even more than in multiplayer. My Zur getting Hindered means I lose. In multiplayer this is not always the case.
6. The format is dominated by aggro control because of the high life total. With 40 life it would be less aggro. The reason being is the Philosophy of Fire (Read Mike Flores article here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/7157_The_Philosophy_of_Fire.html). Each card has to do more damage than in traditional 20 cards formats. Games go longer as it takes longer to die. For example, suppose a Standard Mono-Red burn deck can do 20 damage around turn 5. That same deck would take longer to do 30 damage. The extra life turns into extra turns as your opponent is not dead and gets to untap. What deck has the advantage when the games are going to go longer, Mono-Red or UW Control? UW Control.
Most importantly, French is a 1v1 format. It is a variant of a variant. Arguing about which 100 card singleton format is better is like arguing whether two hand touch or flag football is better. They are really supposed to tackle. We are really supposed to use 4 cards. In a casual format the point is to have fun. If your format was really as awesome as you say, you probably wouldn't be in our thread in our subforum telling us that our format sucks.
Level 1 Judge
WUBRG
There IS intelligent life out there.
Banning Loyal Retainers over Survival of the Fittest:I seriously think that the French committee is trying to keep Survival around so that all the French Karador players can keep their toy. What are they thinking? Have we not learned anything from the Bitterblossom banning? We shouldn't just ban stuff that help out the problem,* we should ban the problem itself. Otherwise, we're just going to see Survival banned in the future just like Bitterblossom was. A bigger ban list doesn't make a better ban list.
Banning Umezawa's Jitte:The thought of having this card banned infuriates me. Jitte and Winter Orb are the two cornerstones of the French meta. Banning either one just seems wrong.
Banning Ancient Tomb:I can see why the French rules committee would like to see this go, but it shouldn't go before something like Demonic Tutor.
What do you guys think of these proposed bans?
*Banning the turn one tutors back in the day was a good idea, but that doesn't compare to Loyal Retainers being banned over Survival.
Link to where this is being discussed?
I can get behind banning Survival of the Fittest 100%. You ban enablers, not cards that benefit from the enabler. And Survival is a proven broken enabler.
As for Jitte, it is interesting you bring that up because Jitte actually is banned in traditional Highlander and has been on their ban list for several years now. Just something to keep in mind.
No comment right now on an Ancient Tomb ban. All I will say right now is that the card would be a lot less good if you started at 20 life like it was designed for in the first place instead of 30 life.
This is what I was told to expect I think on March 20th:
Likely to be Banned:
Loyal Retainers
Umezawa's Jitte
Possibly being Banned:
Ancient Tomb
Humility
Gilded Drake
Commanders Considered for Banning:
Edric, Spymaster of Trest
Vendilion Clique
I'm just going to let that sit for a moment before I join in on what I'm sure will be an outpouring of "wtfs."
@Emether: Any insights?
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
Lots of other decks in BG, BRG, RUG colors use Survival to do broken things but their generals do not enable them to recast creatures from the graveyard. Also, retainers is super expensive!