Yet another EDH'ish Blog

By Rachel Agnes

It is no secret that EDH is a very diverse format - probably the most diverse format out there. A deck builder can build almost any kind of deck imaginable - from the typical control, combo, aggro, and midrange decks; to decks like Stax, chaos, pillowfort, and anything in between. However, not all EDH decks are created equal - the possible disparity in power level between any two EDH decks is potentially as large as the difference between a bad draft deck and a tuned Vintage deck - and any sort of deck in between.

Most people tend to classify EDH decks as either “Casual” or “Competitve”, but the divide between the two is both subjective and blurry. However, a good way to classify EDH decks is needed in order to better communicate what kinds of decks you are playing to the rest of your pod or playgroup so everyone can have an enjoyable experience. It would also be good to have a metric for discussing certain cards or deck-archetypes. As such, I have decided to try creating my own classification system for EDH decks:

Type 1: Jank, Draft Chaff, and Gimmicks

Everyone was new to EDH at one time. Whether from inexperience or lack of funds, many players of EDH have decks that are barely functional - containing little more than draft chaff and starter-pack rares. Their curves are nonexistent, their decks are incoherent, and their cards are unsleeved. Some may  be monstrosities containing 65 random green creatures and 35 forests, or “troll decks” containing 5-drop removal spells and Divinations with literally zero win-con. Other decks of this type tend to be gimmicks or “theme decks”, created by a more enfranchised player as a form of self-expression. Decks like “Ladies Looking Left” or “Chair Tribal” or “Mono-Red Samurai” - full of a whole lot of flavor, but almost nothing else. Decks of this type are often composed entirely of cards most players would never give a second look at, and typically cannot stand up to anything much stronger than a precon, if that.

Type 2: Casual

As opposed to Type 1 decks, Type 2 decks tend to have some amount of selectivity in the cards they play. You probably aren’t going to see random French-Vanillas in a deck like this, and they typically tend to have some sort of strategy and coherence. This is actually where I would rate the precon decks that Wizards makes every year. I would also consider decks built with some sort of arbitrary restriction - EG “no rares” or “no cards over $2”, as well as builds of “grouphug” and “chaos” that just do not have a way to win to be in this category. These types of decks are typically not exactly “good”, still containing many suboptimal choices and often with abysmal mana-curves, but the decks still tend to have some bite to them. If there are any combos in these decks, they are horribly janky and inconsistent ones, requiring so many pieces to function that it feels fair.

Type 3: “75%”

The name of this type is based off the “75%” deckbuilding philosophy, that states that the way to build an EDH deck that can handle the most competitive of players while not being unfun for the most casual is to make one at 75% power. While such a deck is actually impossible to build (anything that wants to even attempt to have a chance at so much as participating in a game with the most competitive of decks has to run the sorts of cards that more casual players shun entirely), decks of this type can pretty happily sit at a table with anything from a “type-2” deck to a “type-4” deck. While not all 75% decks out there are of this type, and not all decks of this type are 75% decks, the types of decks that philosophy builds are exemplars of this power-level. These are probably the most common types of EDH decks out there, and if you are going into a new group or store blindly, your best bet is probably with one of these.

Type 4: Pubstomp

Y’know that guy who claims he is so amazing at EDH and that his deck is unbeatable? That guy that plays Kaalia or Jhoira or Rafiq, that you just can’t beat? Well, this is probably the kind of deck he plays. Type 4 is where the gloves come off and anything goes - MLD, combos, Stax, Infect, Extra Turns, and everything else under the sun. These decks are mean, and tend to crush more casual decks out there. If you asked the average player what the best decks in EDH are, they would probably list off decks of this type. And they would be dead wrong.

Type 5: CEDH

Here’s the problem. We made the Partner mechanic which required a lot of mechanical structure. That meant the cards were designed bottom up and not top down.

The cards had to be legendary because of the requirement to be commanders, so we had two options: Make up completely new characters or try to see if we could find existing characters that hadn’t yet gotten a card that made some sense with the existing designs.

Previous Commander products told us players really like when we reference existing characters, so we set out to try and match characters to the designed cards. This is tricky as you don’t have the fine control you have with top down designs.

Should we have saved any characters until we could have done them as top down designs? Maybe. There’s a strong case that Ludevic might have been one in that category.

But I imagine a parallel world where we chose to do less existing characters so we could save them for a future top down design, and people are complaining that we didn’t have enough “known” legendary characters.

“Why haven’t you done __________ ?” Is a very common question here. If we had saved Ludevic for a future time, that might be many years from now.

Designing Magic is hard because so many people want different things and trying to juggle them all so you make as many people as happy as you can is difficult.

I hear that many of you Imagined Ludevic as being a top down design and maybe with 20/20 hindsight, that would have been the correct call, but we didn’t have that hindsight when we’re making things.

Players had said they wanted a Ludevic card and we had an opportunity to make one, and we knew another chance was most likely years away, so we took the opportunity.