TimetwisterTimetwister | Art by Mark Tedin

Before we can get to the meat and potatoes of the article, I'd like to start with a little history lesson.

Magic: The Gathering was created by Richard Garfield on August 5, 1993. Magic was the first trading card game. Their first set, known as Alpha, had a total of 295 cards. In that set there were cards known at the "Power Nine," which included:

• Black LotusBlack Lotus
• Mox PearlMox Pearl
• Mox SapphireMox Sapphire
• Mox JetMox Jet
• Mox RubyMox Ruby
• Mox EmeraldMox Emerald
• Ancestral RecallAncestral Recall
• Time WalkTime Walk
• TimetwisterTimetwister

Notably all except TimetwisterTimetwister are banned in Commander. However, all of the original dual lands, such as TundraTundra, Underground SeaUnderground Sea, and Volcanic IslandVolcanic Island are some of the best lands in the format. Totally not banned.

The format Commander started with Adam Stanley, around 1996, in Alaska. It was called EDH, or Elder Dragon Highlander. You could only play as one of the Elder Dragons available at the time, such as Nicol Bolas, Chromium, or Arcades. The title came from the phrase, "There can only be one" from the 1986 Highlander movie.

Sheldon Menery was first introduced to EDH in 2002, while stationed at an Air Force Base. He took it and ran with it, writing an article in 2004 for Star City Games, even developing the format even more. This article was huge in bringing the format into the light.

Over twenty billion Magic cards were produced in the period from 2008 to 2016, its greatest peak in popularity. This is notably during the rise of Commander.

Scott Larabee pushed Wizards of the Coast to a commercial launch of the format in 2011. The name was changed due to it's connection to Highlander. 2011 was the birth of Commander as a recognized format by WOTC, followed by its own product line of preconstructed Commander decks.

Why am I giving you a history lesson of Magic and Commander? I always think there's something to say about whether something is bad for Magic or something is ruining the format, in relation to the format's initial starting.

What Do We Mean By Deck Optimization?

There are a lot of different ways to optimize a Commander deck.

Curve

We want a good curve of spells. This means we can reasonably have spells of various costs that go from 1 through to 7-10 mana cost (depending on the mana cost cap of your deck) over the course of the game. This also depends on what your deck best needs from a curve. If most of your spells are 4-5 mana you might have a weak early game, but a strong mid and late game.

Higher cost spells are usually more impactful, so having a ton of those - depending on how you get them into play - might slow down your early and mid game. The value will be most useful in the late game.

Tons of low cost spells usually means fast early game and likely a weaker mid and late game depending on draw and ramp. All that to say, it depends on what your commander wants. Some decks want high or low curves because of different effective ways to cheat out big creatures, or recurring low-cost spells to storm out, respectively.

Matching curve with play pattern is important. This one thing alone isn't what makes a deck optimized though.

Mana Base and Ramp

A strong mana base and ramp is the next thing on the list. It's often neglected. Early games are usually dominated by a desire to build up more, bigger explosive turns later on.

CultivateCultivate, Nature's LoreNature's Lore, Keeper of the AccordKeeper of the Accord, and Archaeomancer's MapArchaeomancer's Map are different forms of land ramp. The goal with these cards is to give you an edge later for higher-cost spells.

Land ramp isn't readily available for all colors. Artifact ramp, like Arcane SignetArcane Signet, Talisman of ImpulseTalisman of Impulse, or Everflowing ChaliceEverflowing Chalice are some examples that can help out. They're a little vulnerable to removal but it's worth it.

A strong mana base is likely trying to play fetchable Triomes like Ziatora's Proving GroundZiatora's Proving Ground or fetchable duals like Breeding PoolBreeding Pool and Shadowy BackstreetShadowy Backstreet. This secures your color availability. Running fewer basic lands is usually a good way to guarantee the colors you need.

Obviously the more you optimize this way the more susceptible to Magus of the MoonMagus of the Moon or Blood MoonBlood Moon. Price of ProgressPrice of Progress isn't nothing in a Solphim, Mayhem DominusSolphim, Mayhem Dominus deck.

Guaranteeing mana is available when needed is huge, but running fetch lands, like Marsh FlatsMarsh Flats, thin out lands out of your deck by using one land to grab exactly the land you need. That means fewer lands you'll draw over the course of the game.

This is why you should almost always draw and discard with Land TaxLand Tax. It removes all those pesky lands out of your way.

Card Advantage

Depending on how many cards you play a turn, you'll slowly lose cards; drawing only one a turn puts you behind. Having a card advantage engine that's synergistic is ideal. It's more likely for players to remove a single piece, like Rhystic StudyRhystic Study than a weird set of interactions that gives you card advantage.

The harder to understand the card advantage the better. The Harnefel side of Birgi, God of StorytellingBirgi, God of Storytelling in a Prosper, Tome-BoundProsper, Tome-Bound deck can be huge card advantage and harder to see and disrupt. I mean, Prosper himself is just card advantage, exiling a card each turn.

Sometimes a Rhystic StudyRhystic Study is just objectively better though if no one has removal.

Any reasonable card advantage in your deck is a must though. You want to refill your hand any way you can. Seeing more things in your deck gives you better interaction points and options moving forward. With one card in hand, you have very few options. Red struggles with this as well, but cards like Valakut AwakeningValakut Awakening and Brass's Tunnel-GrinderBrass's Tunnel-Grinder can assist.

Seeing more cards is mostly better, though losing others isn't perfect - but it's something.

Removal and Board Wipes

Every deck can't be straight gasoline and matches. You need breaks and fire extinguishers. Versatile and low-cost removal is usually best. Generous GiftGenerous Gift, Beast WithinBeast Within, and Chaos WarpChaos Warp are all-stars here, being able to snag a pesky land as well.

For creature removal, a Path to ExilePath to Exile or Swords to PlowsharesSwords to Plowshares are good options, and maybe even a DispatchDispatch in an artifact-heavy deck. PongifyPongify and Rapid HybridizationRapid Hybridization aren't bad either.

For board wipes, Austere CommandAustere Command and FarewellFarewell are all-stars. They're a good cost and versatile. You want options that a Blasphemous ActBlasphemous Act or Blasphemous EdictBlasphemous Edict might not give you - even though those board wipes are very effective against creature strategies.

You may want to be able to get rid of creatures and potentially all the enchantments from the Anikthea, Hand of ErebosAnikthea, Hand of Erebos deck - FarewellFarewell is better here. Sometimes destroying all the artifacts from the Mendicant Core, GuidelightMendicant Core, Guidelight deck might be the move here, too.

Synergy

This is big Unknown. This is the very thing that the Bracket System struggles to account for in specifics. The way cards interact with each other to give an advantage is synergy. A Verity CircleVerity Circle in a Hylda of the Icy CrownHylda of the Icy Crown is a strong synergy. ReanimateReanimate in my Dihada, Binder of WillsDihada, Binder of Wills deck is huge because her -3 ability puts creatures in the graveyard that ReanimateReanimate can get around paying mana to bring back.

Playing fetch lands in Zimone, Mystery UnravelerZimone, Mystery Unraveler gets you manifest dreads on other players' turns or two landfall triggers on your own turn.

All of these synergies push the game plan of your deck: eliminating players or being the winner. It's hard to explain how to optimize this without knowing which commander you're building and spooking around EDHREC.com to see what other players are doing. This is why it's hard to account for this in terms of power. But we should be trying to optimize this if we want our decks to be strong.

Well, that's if that's what we want.

Is Deck Optimization Ruining Deck Building in Commander?

From what I've gathered online, the sentiment here is: Due to the fact that everyone is trying to play the most tuned, the most optimized version of their decks, there is some lack of creativity in the deck building process.

Lots of people are including the same cards across many decks. Every deck straightforwardly buys into the archetypes set by sites like EDHREC to build decks so there isn't an off meta way to build decks, no unique flavor.

First, I want to acknowledge that this is precisely what is happening in our Commander community. I think it is absolutely accurate, but I hesitate to agree that it's an indication of something bad.

New Players

The rise of Commander as a format has coincided with the introduction of new players to the format. It's fun, unique, social. You get to construct your own deck. Most players need help with this undertaking. For a 100-card singleton deck, with 30,000 available cards over the last 30 years, it's hard to know what to include. I think players need guidance.

The rise of similar building strategies is a sign of early builders, which is a majority of players in the format, at least recently. A lot of players have played less than a couple of years. The skill of deckbuilding - and going against the grain - requires experience and knowledge which you just don't have early on.

It's not bad for these players to lean on sites like EDHREC.

Motivation

Additionally, for the enfranchised players who like playing the tried and true cards that work across a lot of decks, while I would say it is homogenous, I struggle to see how this necessarily ruins deckbuilding. What is the goal of deckbuilding? Is it to build something unique or to build something consistent?

Depending on our answers to this, we might feel different about the question of deckbuilding. Players who seek out consistency might think deckbuilding is getting better, more tuned. That's not to say the other side isn't frustrated by the homogeny.

Conclusion

I brought up some historical context in the beginning of this article to point out something crucial: This card game has had many evolutions and many parents. No one thing or perspective builds up Commander; all of them do.

I mention that to point out that when we say something is bad for this game, we should be careful. Change isn't inherently bad. It's maybe good in a lot of ways.

In summation, I think there isn't really an answer here. Everyone wants different things, and have always wanted different things, for this game. That doesn't ruin it for everyone.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Tell me what you think. I'm @strixhavendropout at Blue Sky

Read More: