I think you're interpreting the list (which, as I mentioned, was just off the top of my head) a little too literally. It's not a "who has the most of these things" sort of rating system. Starke is a rattlesnake but he's not a very GOOD rattlesnake, nor is he very good at stopping aggression against you. Also, he's terrible in a category that wasn't on the list (because, as I said, the list was incomplete and off the top of my head, and also because this point is irrelevant when talking about angus vs rafiq): he restricts you to a color that sucks. The list was more of a guideline, and even if a general only hits one category, it still might be an ok general if it hits it hard enough.
I would even go so far as to say that starke, if he were in bant, would be a decent general. Not great, but pretty good. His biggest weakness is his color, which isn't a part of this debate.
No, I'm just showing you that your criteria for looking at generals is very narrow. It supports one style of play but pretty much ignores many others. I can appreciate that you love being political, but not everyone follows this style of play, nor do they have to. Many of the best generals can completely eschew politics and win regardless of whatever everyone else is doing.
4 damage per turn depends on what's happening. If someone is getting a huge field advantage, then the 4 damage probably doesn't matter. but if the field is relatively balanced and I'm looking for someone to attack with the Akroma I just cast, and THAT RAFIQ GUY has been hitting me for 4 every turn, then I'm sure as hell going to go for that guy. And if I've got an STP in my hand, and he's attacking me with lu xun, there's a pretty decent chance I'll stp lu xun to avoid the hit and avoid letting him draw cards.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. You make the assumption that all of your favorite generals can avoid drawing hate by politicking, why do you assume Rafiq will just randomly attack someone with no regard to the board state? Honestly, if Rafiq is attacking for just four damage a turn, all at the same person, they're just asking to lose. StP, it happens, so what? It's about as likely of that happening as the aggro player using his swords on Angus to get damage through.
Angus-wise, he's usually not a huge target for the aggro player early-on, nor should he be, unless it's become a small game, or unless you're clearly becoming a large problem. Fog-on-a-stick means they can't attack that player UNTIL angus is tapped or dead or whatever, but they have to kill EVERYONE, so it doesn't make much difference whether they kill angus first or last as long as he's not fogging you every single turn (which he won't, obviously). The biggest threat to the aggro player is the guy trying to get the mana for his obliterate or who's about to combo out, the people who need killing NOW. Angus doesn't need killing NOW unless you're assembling a combo or whatever. He's an obstacle in the aggro-player's plan, but it's not an obstacle with a time limit unless you're threatening to win. His first priorities should be the players most likely to stop his momentum. He'll have plenty of time to kill angus when he's killed everyone else.
Now, certainly, if angus gets killed and the aggro player sees an opening, he'll probably go for it. That's why anyone playing angus should make sure to protect him from targeted removal, and run backups like constant mists in case angus is temporarily out of comission.
Okay, if someone's playing Arcum or another dedicated combo deck, obviously you hate them out first. But outside of that, the biggest threat for the aggro player is the guy that prevents you from using the combat phase - and it's not like Angus does crap against combo either. Anyone who knows what he's doing and wants to use the combat phase will use their removal on a Fog-on-a-stick. It's just common sense. I use Spike Weaver in my decks, and it's an absolute lightning rod for removal. It doesn't matter my board position or how well I try to politick, people will remove it as fast as they can, period.
No, I'm just showing you that your criteria for looking at generals is very narrow. It supports one style of play but pretty much ignores many others. I can appreciate that you love being political, but not everyone follows this style of play, nor do they have to. Many of the best generals can completely eschew politics and win regardless of whatever everyone else is doing.
Again, that list was OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. It's a ROUGH DRAFT. Mostly I was highlighting the features that Angus provides which rafiq does not. If I felt like it, I'm sure I could create a more all-inclusive list, but I'm busy with homework. You may wonder why I'm still on here when I have homework due tomorrow and it's midnight, and to you I say shhhhhhhhhhhhhhutyomouf.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. You make the assumption that all of your favorite generals can avoid drawing hate by politicking, why do you assume Rafiq will just randomly attack someone with no regard to the board state? Honestly, if Rafiq is attacking for just four damage a turn, all at the same person, they're just asking to lose. StP, it happens, so what? It's about as likely of that happening as the aggro player using his swords on Angus to get damage through.
This discussion SORT OF has to do with politics, but not entirely. I consider "politicking" to be making deals or convincing people to make a certain play by talking to them. I.e. "I'll attack him if you take out his defender" or "If you attack me, I'll kill your favorite creature" etc. Rattlesnake cards (such as merieke) can definitely be used politically in that way.
Angus doesn't generally need talking to work. People see him and they know attacking you is pointless, so they attack someone else. That's not politics so much as it is good decision making. I don't consider No Mercy a political card either, because it doesn't need any manipulation to work. Both angus and no mercy as deterrents, but not political. At least, in my view.
Everyone plays a little differently, but when I'm making my threat assessment, I'm going to put immediate dangers over defensive problems. Say I'm playing Rith, and I see a guy playing Angus. Now, I COULD use my stp to kill angus (maybe, but he's probably rocking plenty of counters, so maybe I'll just waste a spell without getting rid of him), and then hopefully he doesn't have backup like constant mists, so maybe I get an attack through. Then next turn, he'll recast Angus, and assuming he doesn't have greaves or whatever I'll be able to get in another attack, but then I have to use another removal spell to kill him again if I want to get in the rest of my damage, again with the possibility of counters or backup fogs.
That's a lot of work to just kill one player, and I'm really going to wish I'd held onto that removal when azami is sitting on the board and MoM resolves. Angus was going to be a problem that has to be handled at some point down the line if I'm going to win, certainly, but unless I know he's assembling a combo or about to screw me over, there's no reason to deal with him NOW. Once I've killed everyone else, I can afford to dedicate all my removal towards bringing down Angus without worrying that I'll need to use it on another player who is a more immediate problem.
That's how I would react to Angus, if I was playing an aggressive deck. Is he a problem that must be solved? Yes. But is he an URGENT problem? No.
Okay, if someone's playing Arcum or another dedicated combo deck, obviously you hate them out first. But outside of that, the biggest threat for the aggro player is the guy that prevents you from using the combat phase - and it's not like Angus does crap against combo either. Anyone who knows what he's doing and wants to use the combat phase will use their removal on a Fog-on-a-stick. It's just common sense. I use Spike Weaver in my decks, and it's an absolute lightning rod for removal. It doesn't matter my board position or how well I try to politick, people will remove it as fast as they can, period.
Angus does not stop you from using the combat phase. not at all. Something like peacekeeper does that, and peacekeeper draws a lot more hate, deservedly. Angus only stops you from attacking the person playing angus (if you want to deal damage). If a card is stopping your deck from doing what your deck does, then you remove that card ASAP. but if a card is merely preventing your deck from doing what you deck does TO ONE PERSON, you just do it to another person until an opportunity arises to use it against the first person.
(EDIT: why people would care so much about spike weaver I'm not sure, unless you're using it to make a combo with forgotten ancient, or if you're obviously the most powerful person at the table and spike weaver is stopping them from group-killing you before you assemble your combo or whatever. If you're just using it as a 3-time-fog when you're not particularly dangerous, though, I honestly have no idea. That style of play makes no logical sense to me, and I've never seen anyone play that way. Are you sure they're all mentally sound?)
If one player gets out a protected energy field against your niv-mizzet combo deck, do you drop everything until you can find a way to get rid of it? No, you continue assembling your combo, and if it's still around when you need to get rid of it you deal with it THEN. Your goal is to kill everyone, and fighting through one person's defenses is a lot easier when they're the last person alive.
I disagree with this list. I think we should do it again. Having the top 3 generals of each color is a very essential and fundamental thread for EDH/Commander, and we should get it right due to its importance and relevance.
I disagree with this list. I think we should do it again. Having the top 3 generals of each color is a very essential and fundamental thread for EDH/Commander, and we should get it right due to its importance and relevance.
That's all very well and good, but what makes you think it would turn out differently?
I mean, I could just do my own list which would obviously be flawless in every way, but that's not very democratic
I guess it could be done like the top-50 thread, with one person listening to arguments from everyone else. I dunno if I want to do that, necessarily, it sounds like a lot of work, but I'd certainly contribute my own opinions if someone else wanted to.
Everyone plays a little differently, but when I'm making my threat assessment, I'm going to put immediate dangers over defensive problems. Say I'm playing Rith, and I see a guy playing Angus. Now, I COULD use my stp to kill angus (maybe, but he's probably rocking plenty of counters, so maybe I'll just waste a spell without getting rid of him), and then hopefully he doesn't have backup like constant mists, so maybe I get an attack through. Then next turn, he'll recast Angus, and assuming he doesn't have greaves or whatever I'll be able to get in another attack, but then I have to use another removal spell to kill him again if I want to get in the rest of my damage, again with the possibility of counters or backup fogs.
That's a lot of work to just kill one player, and I'm really going to wish I'd held onto that removal when azami is sitting on the board and MoM resolves. Angus was going to be a problem that has to be handled at some point down the line if I'm going to win, certainly, but unless I know he's assembling a combo or about to screw me over, there's no reason to deal with him NOW. Once I've killed everyone else, I can afford to dedicate all my removal towards bringing down Angus without worrying that I'll need to use it on another player who is a more immediate problem.
No, see, the correct play is to attack through the protection. Use your removal on Angus, then swing. If they have counters or other fogs, you exhaust them of resources before killing them. Waiting's not going to help, and in fact, it'll be even harder since you've just let the control player turtle up and build resources. The last thing an aggro player wants to do is go into the endgame with a control player who had all game to set up. Thinking it will be "easier" to handle them later in the game is a fool's errand. This is How to Beat Control 101. There are exceptions of course, but this is the general rule of thumb.
Yes, you kill the Azamis and Arcums first, obviously. But after that, you target the control player. And if Azami combos out anyway, it's not like Angus did anything to stop her. You can't put all the responsibility on aggro to stop combo decks when control needs to use their disruption on them.
Spike Weaver is never used as a three-time fog. If that's how you see it used, it's being used wrong.
No, see, the correct play is to attack through the protection. Use your removal on Angus, then swing. If they have counters or other fogs, you exhaust them of resources before killing them. Waiting's not going to help, and in fact, it'll be even harder since you've just let the control player turtle up and build resources. The last thing an aggro player wants to do is go into the endgame with a control player who had all game to set up. Thinking it will be "easier" to handle them later in the game is a fool's errand. This is How to Beat Control 101. There are exceptions of course, but this is the general rule of thumb.
Yes, you kill the Azamis and Arcums first, obviously. But after that, you target the control player. And if Azami combos out anyway, it's not like Angus did anything to stop her. You can't put all the responsibility on aggro to stop combo decks when control needs to use their disruption on them.
Spike Weaver is never used as a three-time fog. If that's how you see it used, it's being used wrong.
So you recommend completely dedicating your resources for the possibility of killing a single player?
If I'm an aggro player, I want to do as much damage as I can, as fast as I can, before long-game strategies render me ineffective (hard to do in EDH, which is why aggro is crap, but that's neither here nor there). If you spend a ton of time and resources getting through angus's backup fogs and counters and removal, you've left yourself completely open to the other aggro players in the meantime, and you've let all the control and combo players build towards their late-game power while exhausting your resources.
Now, there's no doubt you want to kill the combo and control players before they get too hard to stop, but since you have to kill ALL of them, it makes sense to kill the easiest target first, so as few of them as possible will live for very long. If I see someone playing erayo, I can probably assume he'll be an easy target early-on, but he'll be unstoppable once he's gotten going. So he's a great target to kill ASAP. If I see angus, I know he'll probably be a problem late-game, but he's also pretty well-defended early-on as well. If I spend a bunch of time and resources killing him, that will give erayo enough time to get his defense together.
Just looking at it with numbers, let's say it'll take 2 turns to kill one control player, and 5 turns to kill angus. You could kill angus first, giving angus 5 turns and the other guy 7, which means you're facing 2 control decks at relatively late-game power. If you kill the other control deck first, you can knock that one out easy, and although angus will be around until turn 7, you only have to be fighting one control deck on turn 3.
That's obviously very simplified, but that's basically the logic I would employ. Take out the easy targets first before they become difficult targets. Angus is a difficult target immediately.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus combo decks, the combo decks present the bigger threat, so you'd kill them first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus aggro decks, the aggro decks may well be threatening to kill you RIGHT NOW, so you'd want to kill them (or at least defend yourself) first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus other control decks, they'll ALL be problematic later on, but the others can be handled more easily now while angus will be a hassle and give the others time to build up, so you'd want to kill the other first.
That's how I'd break it down. On which of those three comparisons do you disagree?
(EDIT: as far as spike weaver, you may as well tell me how you're using it, since I personally don't, and I don't feel like guessing. Recursion, adding counters...? My best guess as to why it's drawing hate is that you're playing it when you're already a major threat to the table, which is why they have to kill it to break down your defenses. Spike weaver and Angus don't have any "redirection effect" when you're already the biggest threat to the table. I'm not talking about angus in that context.)
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus combo decks, the combo decks present the bigger threat, so you'd kill them first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus aggro decks, the aggro decks may well be threatening to kill you RIGHT NOW, so you'd want to kill them (or at least defend yourself) first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus other control decks, they'll ALL be problematic later on, but the others can be handled more easily now while angus will be a hassle and give the others time to build up, so you'd want to kill the other first.
That's how I'd break it down. On which of those three comparisons do you disagree?
I disagree with all of them. In the first scenario, neither will be able to outrace combo since Angus is pretty much a sitting duck to anything not involving the combat step, so it won't matter who aggro targets.
In the second scenario, why would two creature heavy decks try gunning for each other, most likely killing their own creatures in the process through blockers when all another guy has for defense is a fog that can't be used on every opponent? That's exactly what the control deck wants to happen - to see the aggro decks beat up on each other and take each other out.
In the third, that's a pretty big assumption to make that other control decks are easier to handle. Use spot removal, send guys through. Not really tough defense there. If Angus has counters/backup, it's better to expend them immediately then let them build up. With multiple control decks, that's the one scenario in which it's hard to say who the aggro deck goes for first, but saying Angus is the toughest to get through is very wrong. Mono-white, mono-black, and G/B are all color combinations for control that I'd take over Angus any day. In any case, I don't think aggro stands a chance against multiple control decks, so once aggro's out of the picture, Angus's fogs really won't make much of a difference anymore.
(EDIT: as far as spike weaver, you may as well tell me how you're using it, since I personally don't, and I don't feel like guessing. Recursion, adding counters...? My best guess as to why it's drawing hate is that you're playing it when you're already a major threat to the table, which is why they have to kill it to break down your defenses. Spike weaver and Angus don't have any "redirection effect" when you're already the biggest threat to the table. I'm not talking about angus in that context.)
Bounce, flicker, adding counters, recursion, all of the above. It's really not hard to do. No one uses Eternal Witness as just a Regrowth either.
People remove it ASAP regardless of board position, because it's the smart play if they want to use the combat step. I've had it killed immediately despite no other board presence and being extremely mana screwed. If your playgroup ignores it and just targets someone else, they're doing it wrong, and just playing into the hands of the control player.
Half of EDH decks could completely ignore Angus altogether. The other half just needs to wait for him to be removed before swinging, and since Angus has no other impact on the board, there's not much else he can do about the threats already on the table.
Anyway it's kind of pointless arguing any further. You can disagree with the results, but clearly people voted Rafiq over Angus for a reason. Word of advice - be open minded about other generals, instead of trying to say general A is definitively better than general B, or General C is terrible. There are so many variables that are dependent on playgroup, meta, budget, card choices, etc. Don't let a personal grudge against a certain deck make you not see its merits and strengths. I'm not a fan of Rafiq either but saying it's "terrible" (Your words) is kind of extreme and really just seems like a personal vendetta than anything.
I disagree with all of them. In the first scenario, neither will be able to outrace combo since Angus is pretty much a sitting duck to anything not involving the combat step, so it won't matter who aggro targets.
In the second scenario, why would two creature heavy decks try gunning for each other, most likely killing their own creatures in the process through blockers when all another guy has for defense is a fog that can't be used on every opponent? That's exactly what the control deck wants to happen - to see the aggro decks beat up on each other and take each other out.
In the third, that's a pretty big assumption to make that other control decks are easier to handle. Use spot removal, send guys through. Not really tough defense there. If Angus has counters/backup, it's better to expend them immediately then let them build up. With multiple control decks, that's the one scenario in which it's hard to say who the aggro deck goes for first, but saying Angus is the toughest to get through is very wrong. Mono-white, mono-black, and G/B are all color combinations for control that I'd take over Angus any day. In any case, I don't think aggro stands a chance against multiple control decks, so once aggro's out of the picture, Angus's fogs really won't make much of a difference anymore.
1st scenario - that's sort of assuming angus is just your whole deck, and you don't have any other counters, removal, etc to deal with combo. Angus makes it so you don't have to worry about combat damage, so most of the rest of the deck can mostly be devoted to stopping other wincons (such as combo) and providing its own. Whereas if you had, say, ertai as your general, you'd have a good edge against combo but you'd need some defense.
aggro player goes after the combo player since he's faster, you have the control to keep the combo player from going out if the aggro player can't kill him fast enough (not through angus, but through other cards), combo player gets killed by aggro player and by that point you've got enough control to fend off aggro player and win. That's how I'd play it.
2nd scenario - What, so aggro decks all formed a secret "don't hurt each other" club when I wasn't looking? If I've got the biggest, baddest army on the board and another guy has an army almost as big, there's no "truce" BS going on until the control players are dead - when he's tapped out, I'm going to kill him while I've got the opportunity. Aggro players are threats to other aggro players, and more immediate ones that angus.
3rd scenario - Let's assume that you've got 2 control decks. They've both got counters. One has angus. If you go after angus, you've got to kill him, and you've got to fight through the counterspells to do that. If the other guy has counters but doesn't have angus, then his counters are meaningless against an attack. Angus sorta turns counterspells, greaves, and other creature-protection into a meaningful combat defense. Other blue control decks have to balance their defense between protection from combo (counterspells) and protection from aggro (maze of ith, removal, that sort of thing), whereas angus doesn't need much of the latter so long as he can protect himself with the former, which means you can focus your deck without losing your ability to hold off both types of assaults. In that regard, yes, the Angus deck is harder to kill.
Bounce, flicker, adding counters, recursion, all of the above. It's really not hard to do. No one uses Eternal Witness as just a Regrowth either.
People remove it ASAP regardless of board position, because it's the smart play if they want to use the combat step. I've had it killed immediately despite no other board presence and being extremely mana screwed. If your playgroup ignores it and just targets someone else, they're doing it wrong, and just playing into the hands of the control player.
honestly that just seems like a bad play. Why waste ammo on the person who's position sucks already? Attack, sure, but waste actual CA on? seems poor. There have got to be more important targets on the field than kicking a guy while he's down.
If they think you're likely to have it much better defended later on, then sure, it sort of makes sense. But your weaver, once stp'd, is gone forever, whereas angus can just come back immediately as a general. Unless they feel the need to kill you RIGHT NOW, why would they bother wasting a card to kill him when he'll just be right back in a turn or 2?
And of course, if you're playing Angus you're rolling with efficient protection. greaves, mommy, 8.5 etc go without saying. Depending on your deck, kira, devoted caretaker, and a lot more might be worth it. Is your aggro deck really going to throw 3 removal spells at angus, letting the first two get countered by kira and mommy, only to have the third countered by that counterspell sitting in your hand? yeesh. That's a rough freaking trade.
Half of EDH decks could completely ignore Angus altogether. The other half just needs to wait for him to be removed before swinging, and since Angus has no other impact on the board, there's not much else he can do about the threats already on the table.
That is true (sort of, in my meta I would say less than half, but we're a pretty combo-hating meta). But that's not the point - angus isn't a stop-everything kinda guy. He stops...let's say 1/2 of things. That means the entire rest of your deck can be dedicated to stopping the other half (which, coincidentally, can also protect angus to make sure he's always on the field).
Anyway it's kind of pointless arguing any further. You can disagree with the results, but clearly people voted Rafiq over Angus for a reason. Word of advice - be open minded about other generals, instead of trying to say general A is definitively better than general B, or General C is terrible. There are so many variables that are dependent on playgroup, meta, budget, card choices, etc. Don't let a personal grudge against a certain deck make you not see its merits and strengths. I'm not a fan of Rafiq either but saying it's "terrible" (Your words) is kind of extreme and really just seems like a personal vendetta than anything.
Oh please. He got 1 more vote. That's not exactly decisive, and the seasoned EDH veteran's vote counts for the same as the guy who just played his first game of magic yesterday in this poll, so it's not exactly authoritative either. Not to mention Angus is much harder to find, whereas Rafiq used to be a standard staple. There are 7 angus decks and 23 rafiq decks in the database. I daresay a lot more people have played with/against Rafiq, which translates to more votes. This poll is not even CLOSE to a reliable source, it was just an interesting experiment.
Also, if you get to use this poll as evidence that angus is worse than Rafiq, then I'm using it as evidence that Angus is better than Jenara. And so is Rafiq. And so it Phelddagrif.
So...do you think this thread is a reliable source?
And don't get all preachy about respecting the power of every general. You're the one who said:
Pheldy is cute, but that's about it. I've never seen him or Angus ever amount to anything useful in a game. Rubinea is just an expensive Merieke.
And Angus got about the same number of votes as Rafiq, and both of them outscored your general of choice. I'm not the only one who bashes the generals they think are subpar.
Now, am I really saying angus is objectively better? well...no. He's better imo. But these discussions are pretty boring and no one learns anything if we just agree to disagree.
aggro player goes after the combo player since he's faster, you have the control to keep the combo player from going out if the aggro player can't kill him fast enough (not through angus, but through other cards), combo player gets killed by aggro player and by that point you've got enough control to fend off aggro player and win. That's how I'd play it.
You're really not seeing the flaw in your thinking here? You're telling aggro they need to kill the combo player, only for you to swoop in and kill off the aggro players! Obviously you will win if this happens, because this isn't sound play from the aggro player. I'm not saying it's as simple as "target control first", there are just a lot of other factors to take into account, and it's certainly not as simple as what you want.
2nd scenario - What, so aggro decks all formed a secret "don't hurt each other" club when I wasn't looking? If I've got the biggest, baddest army on the board and another guy has an army almost as big, there's no "truce" BS going on until the control players are dead - when he's tapped out, I'm going to kill him while I've got the opportunity. Aggro players are threats to other aggro players, and more immediate ones that angus.
See above. Of course this is what you want. You don't always just attack the immediate threat. You have to look at potential threats as well. Not doing so is asking to lose.
3rd scenario - Let's assume that you've got 2 control decks. They've both got counters. One has angus. If you go after angus, you've got to kill him, and you've got to fight through the counterspells to do that. If the other guy has counters but doesn't have angus, then his counters are meaningless against an attack. Angus sorta turns counterspells, greaves, and other creature-protection into a meaningful combat defense. Other blue control decks have to balance their defense between protection from combo (counterspells) and protection from aggro (maze of ith, removal, that sort of thing), whereas angus doesn't need much of the latter so long as he can protect himself with the former, which means you can focus your deck without losing your ability to hold off both types of assaults. In that regard, yes, the Angus deck is harder to kill.
Control is not the same as counterspells. As I said, mono-black, mono-white, and B/G are all played, as well as a lot of other combinations. Also, taking out most of your anti-aggro because you have Angus is just asking to lose when someone kills said Angus. Yes, I know you run Constant Mists and other stuff, but you won't reliably have them every time Angus is killed.
Oh please. He got 1 more vote. That's not exactly decisive, and the seasoned EDH veteran's vote counts for the same as the guy who just played his first game of magic yesterday in this poll, so it's not exactly authoritative either. Not to mention Angus is much harder to find, whereas Rafiq used to be a standard staple. There are 7 angus decks and 23 rafiq decks in the database. I daresay a lot more people have played with/against Rafiq, which translates to more votes. This poll is not even CLOSE to a reliable source, it was just an interesting experiment.
Also, if you get to use this poll as evidence that angus is worse than Rafiq, then I'm using it as evidence that Angus is better than Jenara. And so is Rafiq. And so it Phelddagrif.
So...do you think this thread is a reliable source?
And don't get all preachy about respecting the power of every general. You're the one who said:
And Angus got about the same number of votes as Rafiq, and both of them outscored your general of choice. I'm not the only one who bashes the generals they think are subpar.
Now, am I really saying angus is objectively better? well...no. He's better imo. But these discussions are pretty boring and no one learns anything if we just agree to disagree.
No, the voting definitely isn't accurate, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you should respect the fact that a general that you dislike is probably a lot better than you think in other playgroups. I never thought Angus is any good, and I still don't, but I can at least respect that he works for other people, and I can at least respect his merits.
BTW, since you're bringing up how many more votes Angus got than Jenara, how how much more popular Rafiq is. There's also something to be said about the guy in charge of the voting telling everyone they're dumb for voting one way and they need to vote another, before the voting even takes place. Even done jokingly, it has the potential to cause a lot of tampering.
Really though I don't care about the votes, and while I disagree with a lot of them I don't care Rafiq won or whatever since it's just a vote. So I'm done arguing here since it's all pretty pointless.
I'm not going to write a long essay like you guys have done, but I agree with pretty much everything Telekinesis has said in the last few posts regarding who to attack. darcanegel, you seem like an experienced enough EDHer, but I'd hazard a guess that you don't play aggro all that often. Your threat assessments are way off and are a sure way to kill as many people as possible, but ultimately lose the game.
PS: I've played extensively against both Rafiq and Angus. Both can be very good decks but play so differently that you can't possibly compare them objectively. It depends far too much on what your opponents are playing.
You're really not seeing the flaw in your thinking here? You're telling aggro they need to kill the combo player, only for you to swoop in and kill off the aggro players! Obviously you will win if this happens, because this isn't sound play from the aggro player. I'm not saying it's as simple as "target control first", there are just a lot of other factors to take into account, and it's certainly not as simple as what you want.See above. Of course this is what you want. You don't always just attack the immediate threat. You have to look at potential threats as well. Not doing so is asking to lose.
I would say aggro is screwed either way. If he kills me first, combo can just wait until I'm dead, then go. If he kills combo first, I've POSSIBLY built up enough control to handle the aggro player, but possibly not.
Sure, if he goes after the combo player the odds are in my favor. But if he goes after me, I would say the odds are even worse against him.
Were I in his position, I'd take the route that gives me the best chance of winning. From my personal experience, most aggro players tend to go after the combo players first, too. But that's obviously a playstyle choice.
Control is not the same as counterspells. As I said, mono-black, mono-white, and B/G are all played, as well as a lot of other combinations. Also, taking out most of your anti-aggro because you have Angus is just asking to lose when someone kills said Angus. Yes, I know you run Constant Mists and other stuff, but you won't reliably have them every time Angus is killed.
I know, that's why I put the word "BLUE" before "control decks". Of course, blue still has other control, but when you're talking anti-combo you can't beat the utility of a counterspell.
My point is that, counterspells perform a double-function in Angus. They can stop combo, and they can stop aggro by protecting angus, because you're immune to aggro as long as angus is alive.
No, the voting definitely isn't accurate, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you should respect the fact that a general that you dislike is probably a lot better than you think in other playgroups. I never thought Angus is any good, and I still don't, but I can at least respect that he works for other people, and I can at least respect his merits.
BTW, since you're bringing up how many more votes Angus got than Jenara, how how much more popular Rafiq is. There's also something to be said about the guy in charge of the voting telling everyone they're dumb for voting one way and they need to vote another, before the voting even takes place. Even done jokingly, it has the potential to cause a lot of tampering.
Really though I don't care about the votes, and while I disagree with a lot of them I don't care Rafiq won or whatever since it's just a vote. So I'm done arguing here since it's all pretty pointless.
Respect his merits? You said "I've never seen [Angus] amount to anything useful in a game." I'm not sure what you consider "respect", but that is not what I would call respect. The only difference between me saying Rafiq is garbage and your comment is the emotional tone I was using to be dramatic.
As far as "tampering with votes" I'll admit that it's a possibility, although if I came into the thread and the poll taker was bashing my general of choice it wouldn't change my opinion one bit, nor should it for anyone who's played with that general for any length of time. Plus they'd have to scroll up and possibly go back a few pages to even find what I said, so I doubt that many people cared to check.
I have no idea what you mean by "how how much more popular rafiq is". I'm sure it's just a typo but I'm not sure what it's a typo for.
Obviously there are a lot of external factors on the poll, and although I'd still say Angus is at a disadvantage by his scarcity, it's all opinion and, as I said, the poll is absolutely in no way evidence of anything. I would say Jenara is better than Rafiq as well, even though Rafiq crushed her in the poll.
Here's my concession: IF you're playing in a very combo-heavy meta, where combat damage rarely matters and threat levels tend to be very high, THEN Rafiq is the better general. In a meta that isn't especially combo centric, then Rafiq is too big of a threat and draws hate by his existence, whereas Angus's ability to blend into the background becomes much more effective. What kind of meta your group is depends on which general you voted for, which is why 1/2 of votes went to Angus (+ phelddagrif) and 1/2 of votes went to Rafiq (+ Jenara).
You're making a lot of assumptions here. You make the assumption that all of your favorite generals can avoid drawing hate by politicking, why do you assume Rafiq will just randomly attack someone with no regard to the board state? Honestly, if Rafiq is attacking for just four damage a turn, all at the same person, they're just asking to lose. StP, it happens, so what? It's about as likely of that happening as the aggro player using his swords on Angus to get damage through.
Okay, if someone's playing Arcum or another dedicated combo deck, obviously you hate them out first. But outside of that, the biggest threat for the aggro player is the guy that prevents you from using the combat phase - and it's not like Angus does crap against combo either. Anyone who knows what he's doing and wants to use the combat phase will use their removal on a Fog-on-a-stick. It's just common sense. I use Spike Weaver in my decks, and it's an absolute lightning rod for removal. It doesn't matter my board position or how well I try to politick, people will remove it as fast as they can, period.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
Again, that list was OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. It's a ROUGH DRAFT. Mostly I was highlighting the features that Angus provides which rafiq does not. If I felt like it, I'm sure I could create a more all-inclusive list, but I'm busy with homework. You may wonder why I'm still on here when I have homework due tomorrow and it's midnight, and to you I say shhhhhhhhhhhhhhutyomouf.
This discussion SORT OF has to do with politics, but not entirely. I consider "politicking" to be making deals or convincing people to make a certain play by talking to them. I.e. "I'll attack him if you take out his defender" or "If you attack me, I'll kill your favorite creature" etc. Rattlesnake cards (such as merieke) can definitely be used politically in that way.
Angus doesn't generally need talking to work. People see him and they know attacking you is pointless, so they attack someone else. That's not politics so much as it is good decision making. I don't consider No Mercy a political card either, because it doesn't need any manipulation to work. Both angus and no mercy as deterrents, but not political. At least, in my view.
Everyone plays a little differently, but when I'm making my threat assessment, I'm going to put immediate dangers over defensive problems. Say I'm playing Rith, and I see a guy playing Angus. Now, I COULD use my stp to kill angus (maybe, but he's probably rocking plenty of counters, so maybe I'll just waste a spell without getting rid of him), and then hopefully he doesn't have backup like constant mists, so maybe I get an attack through. Then next turn, he'll recast Angus, and assuming he doesn't have greaves or whatever I'll be able to get in another attack, but then I have to use another removal spell to kill him again if I want to get in the rest of my damage, again with the possibility of counters or backup fogs.
That's a lot of work to just kill one player, and I'm really going to wish I'd held onto that removal when azami is sitting on the board and MoM resolves. Angus was going to be a problem that has to be handled at some point down the line if I'm going to win, certainly, but unless I know he's assembling a combo or about to screw me over, there's no reason to deal with him NOW. Once I've killed everyone else, I can afford to dedicate all my removal towards bringing down Angus without worrying that I'll need to use it on another player who is a more immediate problem.
That's how I would react to Angus, if I was playing an aggressive deck. Is he a problem that must be solved? Yes. But is he an URGENT problem? No.
Angus does not stop you from using the combat phase. not at all. Something like peacekeeper does that, and peacekeeper draws a lot more hate, deservedly. Angus only stops you from attacking the person playing angus (if you want to deal damage). If a card is stopping your deck from doing what your deck does, then you remove that card ASAP. but if a card is merely preventing your deck from doing what you deck does TO ONE PERSON, you just do it to another person until an opportunity arises to use it against the first person.
(EDIT: why people would care so much about spike weaver I'm not sure, unless you're using it to make a combo with forgotten ancient, or if you're obviously the most powerful person at the table and spike weaver is stopping them from group-killing you before you assemble your combo or whatever. If you're just using it as a 3-time-fog when you're not particularly dangerous, though, I honestly have no idea. That style of play makes no logical sense to me, and I've never seen anyone play that way. Are you sure they're all mentally sound?)
If one player gets out a protected energy field against your niv-mizzet combo deck, do you drop everything until you can find a way to get rid of it? No, you continue assembling your combo, and if it's still around when you need to get rid of it you deal with it THEN. Your goal is to kill everyone, and fighting through one person's defenses is a lot easier when they're the last person alive.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
That's all very well and good, but what makes you think it would turn out differently?
I mean, I could just do my own list which would obviously be flawless in every way, but that's not very democratic
I guess it could be done like the top-50 thread, with one person listening to arguments from everyone else. I dunno if I want to do that, necessarily, it sounds like a lot of work, but I'd certainly contribute my own opinions if someone else wanted to.
Out of curiosity, which do you disagree with?
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
Yes, you kill the Azamis and Arcums first, obviously. But after that, you target the control player. And if Azami combos out anyway, it's not like Angus did anything to stop her. You can't put all the responsibility on aggro to stop combo decks when control needs to use their disruption on them.
Spike Weaver is never used as a three-time fog. If that's how you see it used, it's being used wrong.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
So you recommend completely dedicating your resources for the possibility of killing a single player?
If I'm an aggro player, I want to do as much damage as I can, as fast as I can, before long-game strategies render me ineffective (hard to do in EDH, which is why aggro is crap, but that's neither here nor there). If you spend a ton of time and resources getting through angus's backup fogs and counters and removal, you've left yourself completely open to the other aggro players in the meantime, and you've let all the control and combo players build towards their late-game power while exhausting your resources.
Now, there's no doubt you want to kill the combo and control players before they get too hard to stop, but since you have to kill ALL of them, it makes sense to kill the easiest target first, so as few of them as possible will live for very long. If I see someone playing erayo, I can probably assume he'll be an easy target early-on, but he'll be unstoppable once he's gotten going. So he's a great target to kill ASAP. If I see angus, I know he'll probably be a problem late-game, but he's also pretty well-defended early-on as well. If I spend a bunch of time and resources killing him, that will give erayo enough time to get his defense together.
Just looking at it with numbers, let's say it'll take 2 turns to kill one control player, and 5 turns to kill angus. You could kill angus first, giving angus 5 turns and the other guy 7, which means you're facing 2 control decks at relatively late-game power. If you kill the other control deck first, you can knock that one out easy, and although angus will be around until turn 7, you only have to be fighting one control deck on turn 3.
That's obviously very simplified, but that's basically the logic I would employ. Take out the easy targets first before they become difficult targets. Angus is a difficult target immediately.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus combo decks, the combo decks present the bigger threat, so you'd kill them first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus aggro decks, the aggro decks may well be threatening to kill you RIGHT NOW, so you'd want to kill them (or at least defend yourself) first.
If you're an aggro deck looking at angus versus other control decks, they'll ALL be problematic later on, but the others can be handled more easily now while angus will be a hassle and give the others time to build up, so you'd want to kill the other first.
That's how I'd break it down. On which of those three comparisons do you disagree?
(EDIT: as far as spike weaver, you may as well tell me how you're using it, since I personally don't, and I don't feel like guessing. Recursion, adding counters...? My best guess as to why it's drawing hate is that you're playing it when you're already a major threat to the table, which is why they have to kill it to break down your defenses. Spike weaver and Angus don't have any "redirection effect" when you're already the biggest threat to the table. I'm not talking about angus in that context.)
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
In the second scenario, why would two creature heavy decks try gunning for each other, most likely killing their own creatures in the process through blockers when all another guy has for defense is a fog that can't be used on every opponent? That's exactly what the control deck wants to happen - to see the aggro decks beat up on each other and take each other out.
In the third, that's a pretty big assumption to make that other control decks are easier to handle. Use spot removal, send guys through. Not really tough defense there. If Angus has counters/backup, it's better to expend them immediately then let them build up. With multiple control decks, that's the one scenario in which it's hard to say who the aggro deck goes for first, but saying Angus is the toughest to get through is very wrong. Mono-white, mono-black, and G/B are all color combinations for control that I'd take over Angus any day. In any case, I don't think aggro stands a chance against multiple control decks, so once aggro's out of the picture, Angus's fogs really won't make much of a difference anymore.
Bounce, flicker, adding counters, recursion, all of the above. It's really not hard to do. No one uses Eternal Witness as just a Regrowth either.
People remove it ASAP regardless of board position, because it's the smart play if they want to use the combat step. I've had it killed immediately despite no other board presence and being extremely mana screwed. If your playgroup ignores it and just targets someone else, they're doing it wrong, and just playing into the hands of the control player.
Half of EDH decks could completely ignore Angus altogether. The other half just needs to wait for him to be removed before swinging, and since Angus has no other impact on the board, there's not much else he can do about the threats already on the table.
Anyway it's kind of pointless arguing any further. You can disagree with the results, but clearly people voted Rafiq over Angus for a reason. Word of advice - be open minded about other generals, instead of trying to say general A is definitively better than general B, or General C is terrible. There are so many variables that are dependent on playgroup, meta, budget, card choices, etc. Don't let a personal grudge against a certain deck make you not see its merits and strengths. I'm not a fan of Rafiq either but saying it's "terrible" (Your words) is kind of extreme and really just seems like a personal vendetta than anything.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
1st scenario - that's sort of assuming angus is just your whole deck, and you don't have any other counters, removal, etc to deal with combo. Angus makes it so you don't have to worry about combat damage, so most of the rest of the deck can mostly be devoted to stopping other wincons (such as combo) and providing its own. Whereas if you had, say, ertai as your general, you'd have a good edge against combo but you'd need some defense.
aggro player goes after the combo player since he's faster, you have the control to keep the combo player from going out if the aggro player can't kill him fast enough (not through angus, but through other cards), combo player gets killed by aggro player and by that point you've got enough control to fend off aggro player and win. That's how I'd play it.
2nd scenario - What, so aggro decks all formed a secret "don't hurt each other" club when I wasn't looking? If I've got the biggest, baddest army on the board and another guy has an army almost as big, there's no "truce" BS going on until the control players are dead - when he's tapped out, I'm going to kill him while I've got the opportunity. Aggro players are threats to other aggro players, and more immediate ones that angus.
3rd scenario - Let's assume that you've got 2 control decks. They've both got counters. One has angus. If you go after angus, you've got to kill him, and you've got to fight through the counterspells to do that. If the other guy has counters but doesn't have angus, then his counters are meaningless against an attack. Angus sorta turns counterspells, greaves, and other creature-protection into a meaningful combat defense. Other blue control decks have to balance their defense between protection from combo (counterspells) and protection from aggro (maze of ith, removal, that sort of thing), whereas angus doesn't need much of the latter so long as he can protect himself with the former, which means you can focus your deck without losing your ability to hold off both types of assaults. In that regard, yes, the Angus deck is harder to kill.
honestly that just seems like a bad play. Why waste ammo on the person who's position sucks already? Attack, sure, but waste actual CA on? seems poor. There have got to be more important targets on the field than kicking a guy while he's down.
If they think you're likely to have it much better defended later on, then sure, it sort of makes sense. But your weaver, once stp'd, is gone forever, whereas angus can just come back immediately as a general. Unless they feel the need to kill you RIGHT NOW, why would they bother wasting a card to kill him when he'll just be right back in a turn or 2?
And of course, if you're playing Angus you're rolling with efficient protection. greaves, mommy, 8.5 etc go without saying. Depending on your deck, kira, devoted caretaker, and a lot more might be worth it. Is your aggro deck really going to throw 3 removal spells at angus, letting the first two get countered by kira and mommy, only to have the third countered by that counterspell sitting in your hand? yeesh. That's a rough freaking trade.
That is true (sort of, in my meta I would say less than half, but we're a pretty combo-hating meta). But that's not the point - angus isn't a stop-everything kinda guy. He stops...let's say 1/2 of things. That means the entire rest of your deck can be dedicated to stopping the other half (which, coincidentally, can also protect angus to make sure he's always on the field).
Oh please. He got 1 more vote. That's not exactly decisive, and the seasoned EDH veteran's vote counts for the same as the guy who just played his first game of magic yesterday in this poll, so it's not exactly authoritative either. Not to mention Angus is much harder to find, whereas Rafiq used to be a standard staple. There are 7 angus decks and 23 rafiq decks in the database. I daresay a lot more people have played with/against Rafiq, which translates to more votes. This poll is not even CLOSE to a reliable source, it was just an interesting experiment.
Also, if you get to use this poll as evidence that angus is worse than Rafiq, then I'm using it as evidence that Angus is better than Jenara. And so is Rafiq. And so it Phelddagrif.
So...do you think this thread is a reliable source?
And don't get all preachy about respecting the power of every general. You're the one who said:
And Angus got about the same number of votes as Rafiq, and both of them outscored your general of choice. I'm not the only one who bashes the generals they think are subpar.
Now, am I really saying angus is objectively better? well...no. He's better imo. But these discussions are pretty boring and no one learns anything if we just agree to disagree.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
Control is not the same as counterspells. As I said, mono-black, mono-white, and B/G are all played, as well as a lot of other combinations. Also, taking out most of your anti-aggro because you have Angus is just asking to lose when someone kills said Angus. Yes, I know you run Constant Mists and other stuff, but you won't reliably have them every time Angus is killed.
No, the voting definitely isn't accurate, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you should respect the fact that a general that you dislike is probably a lot better than you think in other playgroups. I never thought Angus is any good, and I still don't, but I can at least respect that he works for other people, and I can at least respect his merits.
BTW, since you're bringing up how many more votes Angus got than Jenara, how how much more popular Rafiq is. There's also something to be said about the guy in charge of the voting telling everyone they're dumb for voting one way and they need to vote another, before the voting even takes place. Even done jokingly, it has the potential to cause a lot of tampering.
Really though I don't care about the votes, and while I disagree with a lot of them I don't care Rafiq won or whatever since it's just a vote. So I'm done arguing here since it's all pretty pointless.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
PS: I've played extensively against both Rafiq and Angus. Both can be very good decks but play so differently that you can't possibly compare them objectively. It depends far too much on what your opponents are playing.
I would say aggro is screwed either way. If he kills me first, combo can just wait until I'm dead, then go. If he kills combo first, I've POSSIBLY built up enough control to handle the aggro player, but possibly not.
Sure, if he goes after the combo player the odds are in my favor. But if he goes after me, I would say the odds are even worse against him.
Were I in his position, I'd take the route that gives me the best chance of winning. From my personal experience, most aggro players tend to go after the combo players first, too. But that's obviously a playstyle choice.
I know, that's why I put the word "BLUE" before "control decks". Of course, blue still has other control, but when you're talking anti-combo you can't beat the utility of a counterspell.
My point is that, counterspells perform a double-function in Angus. They can stop combo, and they can stop aggro by protecting angus, because you're immune to aggro as long as angus is alive.
Respect his merits? You said "I've never seen [Angus] amount to anything useful in a game." I'm not sure what you consider "respect", but that is not what I would call respect. The only difference between me saying Rafiq is garbage and your comment is the emotional tone I was using to be dramatic.
As far as "tampering with votes" I'll admit that it's a possibility, although if I came into the thread and the poll taker was bashing my general of choice it wouldn't change my opinion one bit, nor should it for anyone who's played with that general for any length of time. Plus they'd have to scroll up and possibly go back a few pages to even find what I said, so I doubt that many people cared to check.
I have no idea what you mean by "how how much more popular rafiq is". I'm sure it's just a typo but I'm not sure what it's a typo for.
Obviously there are a lot of external factors on the poll, and although I'd still say Angus is at a disadvantage by his scarcity, it's all opinion and, as I said, the poll is absolutely in no way evidence of anything. I would say Jenara is better than Rafiq as well, even though Rafiq crushed her in the poll.
Here's my concession: IF you're playing in a very combo-heavy meta, where combat damage rarely matters and threat levels tend to be very high, THEN Rafiq is the better general. In a meta that isn't especially combo centric, then Rafiq is too big of a threat and draws hate by his existence, whereas Angus's ability to blend into the background becomes much more effective. What kind of meta your group is depends on which general you voted for, which is why 1/2 of votes went to Angus (+ phelddagrif) and 1/2 of votes went to Rafiq (+ Jenara).
Does that sound like a fair analysis?
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR