Johnny, Combo PlayerJohnny, Combo Player | Art by Kensuke Okabayashi

Like many other articles before, what drew me to this topic was a conversation with my partner, discussing something we'd seen on Blue Sky.

Which commanders are viable to build was the topic. There were a lot of Final Fantasy legends that players were really excited to build that surprised both of us. People were building anything. It started to bring up this idea of playable and not playable decks, which brought up motivation for deck building.

Color First or Mechanic First

When we sit down to build a Commander deck, what motivates our deck building? For some players it's colors that informs choices. We've all played against players who never cast their commander. Its usually, though not always, a way to further a power seeking desire. You get to play the best cards in a certain color.

cEDH functions this way, sometimes; most decks with certain colors are running a lot of the same cards.

However, sometimes the desire is to play a mechanically specific strategy in certain colors. Perhaps someone wants to play Grixis () Reanimator and is struggling to find a good commander that mechanically benefits from this strategy. They might play any Grixis value engine. This allows players to have all the colors they need to pursue the strategy with or without the commander, but the 99 might not be just the best Grixis cards.

Lastly, and most commonly, players are motivated by the mechanical uniqueness of a commander. They're seeing a card like Mirko, Obsessive TheoristMirko, Obsessive Theorist and running cards like Umbral Collar ZealotUmbral Collar Zealot and Doom WhispererDoom Whisperer in the deck. They want to surveil and make Mirko bigger for better reanimation targets.

It's all synergistic. The mechanic informs the building.

Which Is the best?

This is tough, because my instinct is to say mechanic forward has to be the answer. It's a matter of pride for me. There's a reason it's the most popular building type. It's the lifeblood of Commander.

What brings players into this game is seeing something they like, whether it's character or mechanic, and building around that. It's the challenge of trying to creatively include and exclude cards in your deck.

But then I felt really split because I'm a little hypocritical. I don't know necessarily if this is about what's best. Part of what we love about Commander is the freedom to build decks whatever way we want. If we want to play all the best Grixis cards in a deck - while I'd suggest playing Standard or Modern first - then by golly you should be able to.

Even in my explanation of building a mechanic-forward deck, I have to discuss people who build a deck because of their favorite blorbo. This is definitely in the spirit of Commander but results in decks that are more in line with Bracket 1.

I've always had hesitancy with Bracket 1, though it's a legitimate way to the play Commander. I've said as much in previous articles about winning (read that here).

This brings up the duality of what goes into building and playing Magic, which I won't rehash again in this article. The nuts and bolts of it is simply everyone is motivated by different things and it's all valid and important.

However, it wouldn't be me if I didn't throw in a monkey wrench.

What Are the Pros and Cons of the Magic Player Archetypes

Most of us are familiar with the various articles written by Mark Rosewater discussing the archetypes of players, but if you're not, there are examples here, here, and here. These different archetypes inform how a player builds their decks and plays it.

Lets discuss how they manifest in a typical game and the pros and cons of these play patterns.

Dominant Three

Spike

"Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is." This is how Rosewater sees Spike. A Spike is likely to play Three Blind MiceThree Blind Mice and Doubling SeasonDoubling Season in an Anikthea, Hand of ErebosAnikthea, Hand of Erebos deck to make infinite Mice and swing out.

They likely wouldn't really like Commander because of how uncompetitive it is, how it lacks guaranteed plays, and the RNG of it, but for the sake of this article assume they're playing Commander.

The pros to a Spike player is that they'll push through to find the most efficient and meta-intensive way to build a deck. If you're looking for efficiency, they're who you should speak to.

They'll likely always build commanders that draw cards and give value in the command zone. Spike players will have great mana-to-mana cost ratios in their deck, constantly tuning them as new cards come out, fueling some of the most powerful things you can do in the format. They don't build anything but Bracket 4 or 5 (cEDH).

The cons are that they lack flavor. The lines are consistent and repetitive. They're limited by the commanders they'll build. They want to win more than let others go off.

Playing against them will be tough and brutal every time. There's no room for whimsy or fun plays. It's all business all the time. You won't find interesting, but you'll find innovative with a Spike player.

Tammy/Timmy

"Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells." This is how Rosewater sees Tammy.

A Timmy is likely to play Elvish PiperElvish Piper to put out Ghalta, Stampede TyrantGhalta, Stampede Tyrant and then every other big stupid creature in their hand. They want value and explosiveness. They don't care the cost.

The pros are that Tammy will always play obvious strategies. There is no bs or politicking or lies, just smash. They'll play flashy big spells that do crazy stuff. They love the spectacle and we can enjoy that as well. Some of the most memorable plays of the game will likely be something a Tammy has done.

The cons are endless. There's likely no removal coming from a Tammy; they're too busy doing their own thing. They might have removal if it's attached to a big blowout spell like a Ruinous UltimatumRuinous Ultimatum or Cyclonic RiftCyclonic Rift.

Tammy players are often blown out by complicated interactions on the stack that remove their expensive spells. They're often slow going to build up mana for their awesome big spells, but does it matter when you can slam a Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth?

Johnny/Jenny

"Johnny is the creative gamer to whom Magic is a form of self-expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style." I am a humble Jenny myself. What a player like this wants to play are synergistic plays.

Being able to reanimate a bunch of Angels with Shilgengar, Sire of FamineShilgengar, Sire of Famine and then play Thief of BloodThief of Blood to remove the finality counters is a fun synergy that a Johnny would like.

What are the pros and cons for this kind of player? I'm biased but this is sort of the middle ground between Spike and Tammy. They want a little bit of both worlds. They want big stupid spells that synergize well enough to do something competitive. It's not just about winning; it's about winning with a WOW!

That might be the problem here, though. Johnny players are always struggling with the best of both worlds. They don't have the explosiveness of a Tammy or the efficiency of a Spike.

However, that also inlays its strength. Jenny players also don't struggle with the problems of the other two archetypes. They won't have to wait to do something interesting and exciting when they have all the mana in the world. They're interesting and fun enough to do something exciting when they win.

Lesser Known Two

Vorthos

"Vorthos ... started collecting cards because he liked the art, then read some Magic novels, then saw his favorite characters appear on some cards and decided to learn to play." They're art over functionality, story over mechanic. They build with a love for the lore. They're likely playing every original pre-mending planeswalker card in a five-color Super Friends deck.

The pros of a player like this is that they're always going to play cards with some lore or story you haven't heard. You can listen to them go on and on about cool facts about the games and characters.

They're also someone who knows the art of every card, being able to tell you a ton about how a card got designed. They collect some of the prettiest versions of every card too.

The cons are likely that all their decks are Bracket 1s. They're not motivated by power but by story. They often become blood bags in games for value and triggers because of their lack of competitiveness. It's not actually a bad thing if that's the vibe. We all have a little of Vorthos in us. We all have pet cards.

Melanie/Melvin

"Melvin ... enjoys watching how all the pieces can be skillfully woven together." They're interested in the rules, how the game can get interesting in terms of mechanics.

This is slightly different from a Jenny. Mechanics is more surrounding how a card works with other things, synergistic or not. A Melvin is likely playing a Deadpool, Trading CardDeadpool, Trading Card as a commander because it makes for interesting interactions with the mechanics of the game. That or a mutate deck. They want to see how cards work together and how they're ruled.

The pros to players like this is they will know the rules. Weird interactions? They got your back. Melvin will do interesting things in their games like a Johnny without the desire to win holding them back. They'll want to do the interesting thing always.

Melanie will always have a creative way of interacting with cards you see every day. They love to push boundaries of what a card will do. I'm a little biased because I'm a Jenny/Melanie. I love a weird little interaction.

The cons are that the stacks will be complex. If Melanie has a response, it likely will have everyone taking out their phone to check the rulings on it. They aren't motivated by winning, so their decks might not even have a win-con. It's completely up in the air.

Conclusion

Circling back to the initial conversation with my partner, we disagree a bit about what makes a commander playable. He insists that some commanders have text on them that aren't enough of a value engine to be strong enough to be viable. I'm not sure that's what motivates players, in the end, to pick a commander.

I don't really have a big message here. I just think it's important to explore how each player might build and play. It's good to see the strengths and weaknesses of each type.

If there were some points I neglected, feel free to throw them in the comments or send me a message on Blue Sky. I'm @strixhavendropout.

Read More: