Unless you devote an inordinate amount of space to answers, the odds of having appropriate removal at the appropriate time more than once or twice in a game isn't all that great, especially if the threat isn't a creature. For example, in my Baral deck, I run:
If you're looking to handle a threatening land in Commander, I think most people would agree those are the best tools for the job. That said, I often mull their removal because the odds of having one at the same time as my opponent plays a threatening target is pretty slim.
In my case, I run 43 instants and 14 sorceries, so my answers for everything else are pretty Johnny-on-the-spot, but Baral is a corner case in deck construction and can't be held as any sort of norm. Even here, I can't answer every threat every turn because of mana constraints.
I think it's important that every deck in a multiplayer game come ready to do their part to keep runaway decks in check.
If tutors were banned, my decks wouldn't change much. I value redundancy in Commander more than anything, and tutors just fill in the gaps. For example, my Baral deck has 43 instants and 14 sorceries - being the generally reviled counterspell.dec, it's 27 counterspells, 13 answers for things that resolve -- wipes and spot removal -- 4 Polymorph variation win conditions, 10 draw & filter, and 3 tutors that look for instants or sorceries. If tutors were banned, I'd add more card draw. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if my tutors hurt me more than they help me. My opponents know when I have my win condition in hand. But, a mystical tutor in my opening hand is effectively a turn 3 win, so it's worth it to live the dream.
edhrec.com is probably your best bet. Search for the commander in question and you'll get a list of the most used cards, a list of links to the decks used to come up with such complete with prices, and a separate average deck list.
Summoning a tidal wave is about as not-green a thing you could do anyway. I wouldn't run Tsunami because I don't run cards that feel like flavor mistakes.
Well, the 75% philosophy was fleshed out pretty much literally to define a casual ideal for Commander purposes. It was necessary to separate casual players from bad players, to set parameters for building casually while playing competitively that still requires the thought and care we like to think Magic decks deserve. Building a tuned 75% deck is casual. So is rummaging through your last four years of draft pools and shooting for the best. At my best, I think I've been a 75% player. I've always wanted to be more, but I have to be honest with myself. Even now, where my Baral list isn't wanting for much of anything -- reliably polymorphing into an eldrazi titan or two between turns four and six, but it's not a 100%. I wouldn't deserve to sit at the same table as Zur and his league of edh legends.
I just don't see a difference between the numbers and just telling people what kinds of decks you play.
Like Casual - Casual/Competitive - Competitive is basically what you are describing and there is no need for numbers to describe those to someone.
Very much incorrect, sir. Casual, competitive, and everything in between can mean something different to each person. Paring it down to numbers can give a better sense of perspective. I'll grant that even the numbers game can have different levels of meaning as well, but there's less chance of an outright misunderstanding due to personal definition.
Well we do have people claiming 75% decks should be on AT LEAST 15+ mana on T5 :
I'm assuming you don't play with a lot of ramp decks based on your apparent misconceptions about how fast things go with 75% ramp decks.. If my Gitrog deck isn't at 15+ mana by turn 5, that's pretty unusual. My record is 76 or so on turn 6 (off a t5 great aurora -> genesis wave for 17).
The whole percent system for gauging deck capability is fairly arbitrary at best, but when you know what a 100% AAA list can do, beating a whole table on turn 3 or 4 without nut-hands, it's not unreasonable to assume that a 75% deck, one that hasn't won by even turn 5, should have quite an advanced board/mana position a few turns after 100% decks have won. I think the decks people call 75% decks would more accurately be 50% decks, who probably only have a few ramp pieces out by turn five. Your decks that maybe have a Sol Ring and/or cast a Cultivate by said turn wouldn't really be 3/4 of the way towards being best of the best.
I like the idea of a modular banned list, and I think its ideal end goal if adopted officially, would be moving the more debated existing bans to modules instead of the core. I've always been a proponent of a fairly minimal banned list. If you divided the existing banned list into no debate necessary instabans, and heavily deliberated but we think we made the right decision bans, you could put the latter into optional modules. The only thing I'd ask is that modules not be considered added by default - I'd like the expected LGS ban list to be the minimal one.
So the base of your idea, no local rules, has less cards banned than are banned now? You think thats the best for casual gameplay?
I think a format that puts so much stock in house rules should largely rely on them as the default answer to a problem. Commander is full of players adding additional cards to the banlist -- no mld, no stax, no "fast" combo, etc. If the format goes in a direction where this sort of thing is organized for us, it would be no problem at all to reduce the always-on banlist to only the cards whose ban required (almost?) no debate. All the bans that took a whole lot of back and forth, and all the cards on the shortlist of potentially safe unbans could be transferred to these modules that would be optional by definition rather than active by definition.
I like the idea of a modular banned list, and I think its ideal end goal if adopted officially, would be moving the more debated existing bans to modules instead of the core. I've always been a proponent of a fairly minimal banned list. If you divided the existing banned list into no debate necessary instabans, and heavily deliberated but we think we made the right decision bans, you could put the latter into optional modules. The only thing I'd ask is that modules not be considered added by default - I'd like the expected LGS ban list to be the minimal one.
Winning in commander is easiest when you circumvent normal restrictions on what power you should have on a given turn. Of the offerings in the original post, and honestly, in the entire pool of Rakdos legendaries, only Rakdos, Lord of Riots has the built in cheating mechanism that I've come to value in a deck. I currently play a take on Baral Polymorph that's legal for traditional commander, and it operates on a similar premise to what Rakdos would, albeit on more of a early game aggro/combo rush instead of the midrange/control that I imagine Rakdos would operate on. I think you'll have fun powering out high cost colorless creatures on the back of Pestilence or Pyrohemia.
Consider it a learning experience to play every turn like mass removal is right around the corner. The worst thing about Commander are the "unofficial rules" prohibiting everything except ramp -- the simultaneous disapproval of decks that play solitaire effectively, and entitlement to effectively play solitaire oneself because removal is unfun.
I just messaged a link to this card to a friend of mine, saying how much it missed the mark. It's like it was designed to fail. Rule #1 of Voltron is Hexproof.
Baral, Chief of Compliance is always happy to see it. I agree with ISB that it's really best when you're casting your commander really early before playing your deck.
If you're looking to handle a threatening land in Commander, I think most people would agree those are the best tools for the job. That said, I often mull their removal because the odds of having one at the same time as my opponent plays a threatening target is pretty slim.
In my case, I run 43 instants and 14 sorceries, so my answers for everything else are pretty Johnny-on-the-spot, but Baral is a corner case in deck construction and can't be held as any sort of norm. Even here, I can't answer every threat every turn because of mana constraints.
I think it's important that every deck in a multiplayer game come ready to do their part to keep runaway decks in check.
The whole percent system for gauging deck capability is fairly arbitrary at best, but when you know what a 100% AAA list can do, beating a whole table on turn 3 or 4 without nut-hands, it's not unreasonable to assume that a 75% deck, one that hasn't won by even turn 5, should have quite an advanced board/mana position a few turns after 100% decks have won. I think the decks people call 75% decks would more accurately be 50% decks, who probably only have a few ramp pieces out by turn five. Your decks that maybe have a Sol Ring and/or cast a Cultivate by said turn wouldn't really be 3/4 of the way towards being best of the best.
I think a format that puts so much stock in house rules should largely rely on them as the default answer to a problem. Commander is full of players adding additional cards to the banlist -- no mld, no stax, no "fast" combo, etc. If the format goes in a direction where this sort of thing is organized for us, it would be no problem at all to reduce the always-on banlist to only the cards whose ban required (almost?) no debate. All the bans that took a whole lot of back and forth, and all the cards on the shortlist of potentially safe unbans could be transferred to these modules that would be optional by definition rather than active by definition.