The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon | Art by Jaime Jones

What Is Synergy in Commander?

Synergy is a variable EDHREC uses by taking how many decks a particular commander runs a given card in and subtracting how many decks of the commander’s identity run the card. For example, Miirym, Sentinel WyrmMiirym, Sentinel Wyrm is currently found in 81% of all The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon decks. MiirymMiirym is also run in 11% of all five color decks. 81%-11%=70% synergy.

This number can be used to determine how the majority of players build a given commander. Popular cards for The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon include Rivaz of the ClawRivaz of the Claw and Utvara HellkiteUtvara Hellkite, which are reflected in their high synergy scores of 51% and 52%, respectively.

On the other hand, powerful cards like Path to ExilePath to Exile have a low synergy score, or in this case a negative score of -1%. This isn't to say that Ur-DragonUr-Dragon decks don't run Path to ExilePath to Exile or that it's a bad choice to do so, rather Path to ExilePath to Exile is a less unique inclusion in Ur-DragonUr-Dragon decks.

Synergy is a handy number when determining if a particular card is unique for a commander. If I were to build an Elf deck and run Elvish MysticElvish Mystic, chances are it would have a relatively average synergy rating based on the vast majority of Elf decks all running Elvish MysticElvish Mystic as well.

What synergy doesn't determine, however, is how powerful or useful a card is. Just because meta data reports something like Arcane SignetArcane Signet currently being played in 7% of all colorless decks doesn't mean you should.

Similarly, I can still justify running Generous GiftGenerous Gift in my Edgar MarkovEdgar Markov deck despite its -12% synergy score, as this score simply means that it's not a unique and/or popular choice to do so.

Fact or Fiction | Art by Matt Cavotta

But… this isn't always what is meant when a player says something like “This new card would synergize really well in my Commander deck.” Synergy is colloquially used most often when describing how well a card “fits” into a deck.

I've often found myself and those that I play with searching for cards to cut and saying “This Murmuring MysticMurmuring Mystic doesn't synergize well with your Stella Lee, Wild CardStella Lee, Wild Card.” We aren't saying that Murmuring MysticMurmuring Mystic can't be effective in a Stella LeeStella Lee deck, rather Murmuring MysticMurmuring Mystic doesn't fit well with this Stella LeeStella Lee deck.

This Stella LeeStella Lee deck is running many low-cost instants and sorceries intending to curve into larger effects like Elemental EruptionElemental Eruption, which means that cards that don't support this theme don't synergize with it. Synergy in reality is used much less mathematically and more so as a term describing card interactions and deck intentions.

Imagine playing a Limited game and pulling a Phlage, Titan of Fire's FuryPhlage, Titan of Fire's Fury. The cycle of Landscape lands (Perilous LandscapePerilous Landscape) synergize well with PhlagePhlage. Or if you're piloting an Atraxa, Praetors' VoiceAtraxa, Praetors' Voice charge counters deck, Tendo Ice BridgeTendo Ice Bridge is a cute synergy. Building Morophon, the BoundlessMorophon, the Boundless as a monocolored typal deck? Fist of SunsFist of Suns does not synergize well with your deck.

Synergy as a Commander Deck's Thesis

Synergy is often meant in this sense, describing how coherent a deck is to its theme or goals. This coherency is often what leads to powerful engines, and thus a powerful deck.

Players may be quick to claim that the more synergetic a deck is, the more powerful the deck is, and therefore belongs to a higher Bracket. In fact, whole categories of the Brackets, like Mass Land Denial, are often the results of these synergies.

Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer works wonders with synergetic stax pieces like Static OrbStatic Orb and Winter OrbWinter Orb, or similarly explosive synergies like Satoru UmezawaSatoru Umezawa and Blightsteel ColossusBlightsteel Colossus. I mean, that’s why UrzaUrza is a Game Changer - it’s because UrzaUrza is too synergetic with powerful and/or undesirable playstyles… right?

Well, kind of. Clearly, these playstyles are undesirable in the social setting Commander provides. But is this because these cards are “too synergetic”? Is there some arbitrary limit to how synergetic a deck can be before it becomes too powerful?

I don't believe this is the case. Instead, I believe that there's a difference between an UrzaUrza deck synergizing with, say, 0/0 colorless Construct artifact creatures that have “This creature gets +1/+1 for each artifact you control” and an UrzaUrza deck exploiting stax pieces like TrinisphereTrinisphere.

It's not impossible for an UrzaUrza deck to synergize and exploit stax pieces, but these variables are non-mutually exclusive. An UrzaUrza deck, and by extension any deck, may do one or the other, neither, or both.

Urza, Lord High Artificer | Art by Grzegorz Rutkowski

This concept of exploitation is the important element when discussing whether a card or an interaction belongs in higher Brackets, if not banned altogether. As I talked about in my last article, to exploit a card is to artificially draw value from a card.

I can build an Anzrag, the Quake-MoleAnzrag, the Quake-Mole deck that is as synergetic as possible, whatever the synergy may be, and not excessively exploit Anzrag’sAnzrag’s triggered ability.

Mana creatures, big creatures, and targeted removal spells that fit this particular synergy can be as powerful as possible on their own, but I'm only exploiting AnzragAnzrag when I decide to do something like force him to be blocked, artificially creating an environment where AnzragAnzrag is most valuable.

Activate Anzrag’sAnzrag’s ability and cast Terrifying PresenceTerrifying Presence? That’s exploiting AnzragAnzrag. Xenagos, God of RevelsXenagos, God of Revels making AnzragAnzrag arbitrarily large each combat? Exploiting. I have exploited AnzragAnzrag by artificially creating an environment he could not create himself.

It's not enough to claim that ramping into AnzragAnzrag on turn three is exploiting him, as that would also mean that anything else I ramp into ahead of my curve would be exploited. A special nod to Syndrome - once everything becomes exploited, is anything actually exploited?

No, to exploit something is to artificially draw a meaningful amount of value out of something. Where synergizing would mark how cohesive or “self-referential” a deck is, exploiting would determine how strong an deck is compared to its opponents. This concept of exploiting is not limited to just the commander of a deck, whereas the colloquial concept of synergy is much more focused on a commander deck as a whole.

For example, I pilot a Kozilek, the Great DistortionKozilek, the Great Distortion artifact deck with multiple ways of looping various things infinitely to win the game. Despite artifacts being synergetic with KozilekKozilek, he's not at all necessary for many of these exploited interactions, such as the classic Basalt MonolithBasalt Monolith and Rings of BrighthearthRings of Brighthearth.

My KozilekKozilek deck reflects many instances of how to exploit cards. Some other examples can include Yosei, the Morning StarYosei, the Morning Star being looped with Nim DeathmantleNim Deathmantle and Ashnod's AltarAshnod's Altar (provided you have a spare ) or a Tatyova, Benthic DruidTatyova, Benthic Druid Landfall deck running multiple "You may play an additional land" effects.

These differ from examples of synergies like Hashaton, Scarab's FistHashaton, Scarab's Fist running The Scarab GodThe Scarab God for both its "embalming" abilities and its in-universe thematic relevance, or Shadowfax, Lord of HorsesShadowfax, Lord of Horses running Vanquisher's BannerVanquisher's Banner partly for its anthem effect/card draw and for the flavor of Horses riding into battle with banners.

Synergy is demonstrably more relative to a player's playstyle and their deck's intentions, whereas exploiting is a bit more quantifiable and concrete. It's unreasonable for a player to claim that running Niv-Mizzet, ParunNiv-Mizzet, Parun and Niv-Mizzet, the FiremindNiv-Mizzet, the Firemind in the same deck is only synergetic, especially for Bracket 2.

Exploiting Is the Bridge Between Commander Brackets

This is where the crux of the discussion lies; the concept of exploitation suggests that there is an objective means of ranking cards and their power. Perhaps this objective scale cannot help us make claims like "Swords to PlowsharesSwords to Plowshares is 12% more powerful than Path to ExilePath to Exile," but this understanding allows us to create a spectrum to compare cards relative to each other.

Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle is objectively game changing due to how it's played, specifically when the majority of decks that it's in also run Tainted PactTainted Pact. It is thus both a two-card infinite combo (despite not technically being infinite) and meta warping, but it's not nearly as powerful when found in a Svyelun of Sea and SkySvyelun of Sea and Sky Merfolk typal deck.

GravecrawlerGravecrawler would be pretty comfortable in Bracket 2 (such as in a modern Zombie precon), but it becomes unsuitable when next to cards like Phyrexian AltarPhyrexian Altar and any form of complimentary triggered ability (ETB/LTB, Whenever you cast X spell..., Whenever Y enters or leaves your graveyard..., etc.).

When players try to explain their deck's goals, it may prove persuasive to discuss how the deck intends to play the game. A player that earnestly explains before the game that their deck runs Krark-Clan IronworksKrark-Clan Ironworks to sacrifice their Junk tokens from Duchess, Wayward TavernkeepDuchess, Wayward Tavernkeep is both informing their opponents of a strong card being present and that they're not going to exploit "KCIKCI" as their opponents may fear. This doesn't mean the opponents aren't justified in removing a value engine, rather it simply acts as a justification for KCIKCI being present in Bracket 2.

Like everything in Magic, take these considerations with a grain of salt. Try these concepts out as much as you'd like (and please share what you've seen!), but by no means feel obligated to use these perspectives as rigid foundations.

Exploitation is meant to be a better way to explain why you can run cards in a Bracket that many players may instinctively object to. I hope that if this concept can be worked on a bit more and proven worthwhile then I can incorporate it into my next larger discussion surrounding Game Changers and if they can be predicted.

For example, I will 100% argue that Ugin, Eye of the StormsUgin, Eye of the Storms ought to be a Game Changer due to both how powerful it is naturally as well as how exploited it can be. But this argument is best saved for another time after the concept of exploitation can be refined a bit more.

What do you think? Would you be willing to test this theory of mine out for yourself? Do you think that this is possibly a difference without a distinction? Show me where to go next! I not only would love to continue discussing this concept, but to also hear if you have similar or conflicting perspectives. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!