How to Design A Commander Deck 

How i build a deck, step 1: throw something together on edhrec, step 2: i show my friend whos been playing for 15+ years, he is disgusted then fixes it. Step 3: Done

Great points here! I think each method has pitfalls. The first method, sideways has more in common with bottom up than top down. This is because both are heavily centered around a foundation of a theme and the commander is an afterthought. However, the theme in bottom up is based around the game and the theme in "sideways" building is based on flavor and fun, rather than the actual game. I would agree it is inherently weaker, but it's possible to make a great deck. The biggest pitfalls with bottom up are picking a weak theme, which might as well be "sideways" deck building or picking a random commander just because you like them and they help the colors. To me, the point of commander is having a Commander, so top down really makes sense as the preferred method, but one must make sure the deck plays without the commander. My scarecrows deck plays like table police when my commander is out, but functions as 5 color artifact combos without the Reaper King and it is perfectly fun and serviceable. But I agree it is nice to see more bottom up building, especially for people who are way too salty.

Top down or bottom up.... is it too much to ask for both? Select a Commander, make a decision about which theme works best with that commander. Then build 99 cards bottum-up on that theme in those colours. If you want some additional commander synergy just take a second pass through the 99 & see if there are any cards that could be cut in favour of something more synergistic: you'll have a much more critical eye when you actively have to cut a card to push extra commander synergy into the deck.

Bottom-up construction is something I've done a tiny bit of in the past, but moreso just to find a commander to play with. However, a few months ago I watched that Salubrious Snail video about making midrange decks, and it's kind of like a bottom-up deck design philosophy. The gist is that you look at your commander not as a card to build around but rather a card that will always be in your opening hand, using that to help cover any weakness your deck might have. Using this strategy, I made an Elfball deck online that can jam out a ton of mana pretty easily, but since they're all Elves, they tend to be pretty cheap and there aren't that many outlets. The commander I chose to fix that problem? Zacama. Had I looked at Zacama first and tried to build down from there, I don't think Elf Tribal would have been my first thought. It may not have even occurred to me. But it made for a cool concept!

step 1: 100 basic lands 20 of each color. step 2: replace one with sliver overlord. step 3: ??? step 4: win every time

Ha, I'm over halfway through making a Rule 0 metal deck! All the cards have names of metal bands/metal songs or a metal reference. I got Tezzeret, Master of Metal as the commander, then cards such as Deicide, Suffocation, Killswitch, Iron Maiden, Roots, Puppet Master, all the cards with Slayer in the title, Lord of the Pit and all creatures with Embalm. Cos they make White Zombies 🤘

I hadn't played for over 20 years and just got back into Magic last summer and started playing EDH. I have some decks I basically net decked, but trying to brew my own now so i found this very helpful. Thanks!

I never really thought about it that way. I realized I've always been a top-down player bc I like gimmicky commanders and playing around them. But sometimes I'd have games where my commander was destroyed and I had a really stale play experience after. This vid helped me re-evaluate my decks for sure, to atleast guarentee I can "do the thing" with my deck and have fun, regardless of winning/losing!

Good points, and definitely a valid way to build decks. In general, I have found that good commander decks use a little of both ways of thinking, and the bottom-up and top-down processes feed into each other. For example, I might pick a commander first, which lets me start finding synergy pieces. Then, I figure out the best synergy pieces that fit together, and that lets me establish a theme. That might make me reconsider my commander, or fight harder for the commander to work, which brings me back to examining the deck pieces.

I mean one thing about top down building is that it really lets you build with weird random cards you won’t see anywhere else which in my opinion is a good thing because you get to use a lot more unique stuff and it’s fun to do that and you can’t really see anywhere else

This is actually really solid advice. Great vid.

I love it when you come accross a video that perfectly explains the problems you've been having in deck building! Great vid :)

Ive taken a blend as of recent with my deck building. My last deck was built with the idea “i want to make a companion deck that utilizes partner commanders, thus i can say i have a 3 commander commander deck”. From there, i took that idea, and came to the conclusion that i want my deck to generate a ton of mana, that way I could cast my companion whenever i desired. This lead me to use one of the green companions, and ultimantly i felt keruga to be the most fun pick for the deck. Theme in mind, rather than looking for deck pieces, i went looking for commanders, and stumbled upon erinis and a blue background. Thus, my simic self mill/ landfall deck all in service of my hippo overlord was born. And the deck is so bonkers good. Underplayed commanders mean you can monilith the commander a bit, since no one is going to remove a commander who has done nothing for 4 turns when a prosper deck is across the table… but my deck is so crazy that by turn 7 i tend to run out of basic lands in my deck (all 19)

for me, there is a 4th option. i call it "snatch and adjust". this is where you net deck/copy what is shown to work for a legendary creature/planswalker that you want to build, then adjust to the power of you play group and/or game store. this option isnt the best way to go at it, but it does allow you to start the deck building aspect of mtg with a head start.

I like the the new avatar and also, building bottom up decks! It makes for a more interesting deckbuilding process, for one thing.

My favourite decks are goofy tribal decks that always start by going on scryfall to just search up that goofy theme, so this really resonated with how I brew

This was great insight - I was so focused on glorifying my Commander that I forget the other 99 cards are on the main stage most of the time! Thanks :)

I've honestly done a bit of all three (mostly the latter two). Top down works really well for commanders that essentially BEG to be the crux of the deck and just by design are essentially needed to make the deck function just by what they do (Prosper for example, or Tawnos Solemn Survivor) but it's almost a requirement that a lot more of the deck is going to need to consist of a solid protection suite to keep your commander alive or reduce the impact of the tax (flicker/blinks, fake your death effects in black, hexproof/indestructible effects, command beacon/netherborn altar effects, etc). The bottom up tends to be a lot more self sufficient but also tend to be a bit more vague and nebulous in terms of optimal ways to pilot the deck, which can be a bit of a downside for newer players or if you want an extremely streamlined play pattern.

Love the skitarii look of the new avatar, great video as always!

this video helped me out a ton with one of my recent decks! I was doing top to bottom, but playtesting was going awful, so I recently rebuilt it bottom to top and now its more consistent and honestly better.

This is a pretty nice video. And I do like the sprites, I came here pretty much because I spotted the skitarii.

Most of my decks tend to be a mixture of top down and bottom up. I see commanders that sing to me, which provides the general theme of the deck. The rest of the deck is built with this thought of "If my commander is in play, this is going to be sweet! But if it's not in play, it is still perfectly functional and workable." I have a deck around Preston the Vanisher where I am running a lot of white creatures with various etb abilities, along with ways to blink them. If Preston is in play, each blink etb essentially becomes 2 etbs and I get a free body. If Preston is not in play, I still get the same expected value. Which means most of my commanders tend to be payoff commanders. The deck works just fine without and gets a supercharge when it's in play. Even if it gets removed, I can still bounce back and have a functional deck.

Bottom up might result in a more effective deck, but it also results in the most common version of the theme you've chosen, and the commander you pick will often end up barely related to the rest of the deck. At that point, you're not really playing "commander", you're just playing 99 card singleton with a bonus card. Yes, Distorting Wake is bad even in a Hinata deck, but it feels much more like a Hinata card than the alternative multibounce options do, and in turn makes it feel more like you're playing with/against a "Hinata deck", as opposed to a standard WUR deck that happens to sometimes have Hinata out. The goal of any game is to have fun, and unless you're the kind of person who just enjoys winning, the most fun you're going to have is going to come from finding the right balance point between commander-centric synergy, broader thematic/subthematic synergy, and basic power level. The strongest possible deck is rarely the most fun possible deck. The right power level is the power level that allows you to win a reasonable proportion of the time while sacrificing the minimum deck identity.

I appreciate the consistency of bottom up design, but I'm rarely inspired to build a new deck until I see a commander that I jive with enough to take the time to build. I'm willing to accept the feast or famine gameplay, but I do try to ensure there are still ways to win even if my commander becomes unavailable.

Yes, but sometimes that's just the risk I am willing to take. Part of the fun of running different commanders is getting the opportunity to run cards that are generally bad in other decks. Like, there's probably numerous better artifact/enchantment destruction spells I could be running over Seal of Primordium in my Muldrotha deck, but it's really cool to get good value out of a random card I had that I would have otherwise never used. It does suck that my deck's power level takes a hit whenever the commander isn't out, but that's why I've got to treat it like is something worth keeping out. If my commander's getting pinged off the table so many times that I can't summon it anymore, then it's clearly my fault for not playing in a way that allows me to protect what I consider a important part of my strategy.

I love your new avatar! Also, Great video! I find myself doing bottom-up deck more often now with my local commander league.

Love the advice and the new sprite!

I don't think I've ever built a deck that was commander first until very recently. I built a Kardur deck because I found Eater of Days, and the idea of just, jamming Kardur, then dropping eater of days and leaving the table for a couple rounds made me laugh so hard that I built it. Did a demon subtheme, and now I have a demon deck that makes me overwhelmingly happy and pulls off some nasty Shenans, and my commander functions mostly as a "the board is getting weird, why don't you all fight about it" card. It's almost a teferi's protection if you time it right.

Totally agree! ❤ I have a Dynaheir deck that is built around artifact shinenigans. The only reason I play dynaheir is to make my artificers tap instantly but the deck can play perfectly without! (It's a secret osgir deck).

Lovin the new look!

I would note that for bottom up, you can design the deck such that the comander fixes some problem with the deck, like with the comanders for card draw, you could put a lot less draw in the deck and focus on what you want to do

One issue is sometimes you dont really have a choice between top down and bottom up. If we wanted to build werewolves bottom up, for example, you have the freedom to decide to use some of the black werewolves but are stuck trying to figure out how to manipulate the transformations. Your options for this off the top of my head are Waxing Moon, Moon Mist, The Celestus, Immerwolf, and Tovolar, Dire Overlord. You COULD run any jund wolf themed legend in the command zone, but it seems pretty obvious the real correct choice is Tovolar, and at that point the building process just turns on its head and becomes top down as you cut the black werewolves and look for ways to protect Tovolar.

aye, new avatar looking clean man! great upload as always

Perfect timing on this video! I've been struggling with a deck I've been working on a human tribal that's a mix between voltron and token creatures acting as cannon fodder blockers while my big powerful (highly synergistic) creatures swing for massive damage.its been a real pain in the ass but it's getting there. Efit: subbed btw

While I definitely agree that bottom up decks are more consistent, as I’ve been making more of those style decks recently, I also find they lack that “wow” factor specifically unique to commander decks. Your deck does a thing well and it does it great, that’s cool. But so is seeing some random draft shaft card that does nothing on its own suddenly win somebody the game because the group was focused on other scarier threats then their commander at the table.

Nice video ! Personnally I have my own way of making my commander decks. It's not optimal but it gives a lot of punch. And I'll give the name of the sledge strategy juste because it's fun. You start as a top down commander (you go down the hill with your sludge) when you build it, you take your commander then you put every cards that work with it in your deck. Then you select your cards so that you get around 63-64 nonland (generally with around 10 ramp, 10 draws, 2-3 boardwipe that all work with the commander). Every good cards that were cut are put aside. Then you start doing bottom up (you take your sludge to the top), by taking every cards you've put in the deck and think "does this work with another card in the deck, like at least 2 or 3, if my commander wasn't there". Then once you're finished cutting cards, you do the top down all over again (with less cards to add of course) Edit : if there is not enough cards that work with each other, the method doesn't work and you're commander is too useful for the strategy. In this case I put a lot of protection for my commander or ways to get it back since he's that much of the center of the strategy

I think that top-down works, so long as you are willing to dedicate slots to commander protection. I run a Niv deck, and that can be rough because people see him hit the board, and you usually dont get to untap before he's gone. However, he is the engine that drives that deck. So, to make sure he stays on the board, I have a good 6-7 slots dedicated to just cards that will keep him on the there, and i dont play him until i get a card in hand that i can use for protection. I have an anhelo deck that runs similarly, although tbf in that case, Anhelo just makes my big scary spells bigger and scarier, so its less crucial that he hits the board, and he doesnt have the same infamy as Niv. Keeping in mind the way people perceive certain cards and commanders, even when deckbuilding, is really important, and i think it can make a top-down style work.

Sorta also a Top Down design, but starting at a different point is when you build around a secret Commander in the 99. Usually a card that isn't allowed to be in the Command Zone normally and then you chose cards around that and how to get your secret commander into play reliably and keep it there.

I've tried all 3, and I can say that Bottom-Up works best, it's just definitely the one that requires the most work.

Personally, I use both Bottom up and Top down methods while building. I start with choosing a commander and a theme (the theme doesn't necessarily have to fit the commander), then build the deck around that theme and over time make changes to the list to better synergize with the commander without over relying on it. I've been playing with tribal Merfolk for almost a decade now, with most of that time having Sygg, River Guide as the commander. Over time, I decided to add green to the deck, swapping out Sygg with Tuvasa (when she came out) and increased the enchantment count, molding the deck to having themes of tokens, enchantments, and tribal merfolk all in one.

Fantastic video, a massive helping hand! :)

Well thought out video, subscribed

Think it's worth mentioning as an extension of bottom up design - you can further refine your cards by picking a strategy as well. Like if you're building auras you can go for an aggro strategy with lots of pumps and keywords, or a more midrange strategy with lots of repeatable auras (rancor etc) to trigger enchantresses over and over. Great vid!

I thought about this as it applied to my own deck, I have a deck that’s both sideways and top-down helmed by isshin called Daddies tribal (because there are a lotta hunky men that care about combat triggers). I also have a “Steal opponents things deck” helmed by Lazav that’s both bottom-up and top-down, since it focuses on getting Lazav out fast so I can steal as many things as possible with them, but still functions without them. But then I realized I have a third category. This may be a variation on bottom-up, but I have two decks where my commander is basically a sorcery, so there isn’t much of an issue with getting them out. Dargo/Jeska, and Codie, Vociferous Codex. I play my commander and then immediately sacrifice them to combo off, the commander is the wincon that can’t really be stopped as long as I find the right opening.

I use a different method entirely. I start by chosing a commander that I really like, then determine a set of rules for building the deck and build from the bottom up using that set of rules. Good example of this would be my Delney deck. I set a rule when building the deck that I would not run a single creature with over 2 power, no +1/+1 counters, no combo tutoring, and no Anthems that would increase creature's power. I wanted it to lean into a flicker/blink theme, without relying on ETB triggers. I then built a strong mono-white blink deck within these rules, and even without every trigger being doubled, it still holds up well.

This was a great video! I tend to do all 3 of these at different times. Sometimes a mix of both in the same deck. For example right now I'm building Tom Bombadil Sagas and Polukranos Hydras. Both of these are both top down and bottom up in a way. I'm building a theme around my commander's payoff. But the theme can exist on its own. But sometimes I just like to have a theme. So like I also have a 4 color Aragorn deck that is historic tribal but the theme is "weird or hard to pronounce card names." I'm also building a 5c "Universes Beyond" tribal deck that could care less if the commanders are on the field.

I try a hybrid method. I often start with a commander, but I try to build my decks so they can function fine without the Commander. For example, in my Krenko Goblin deck, I found that Krenko was a 'kill on sight' commander, so I built my deck where Krenko simply augmented the deck instead of being absolutely essential.

Great video. I love building top down for obvious reasons, but the strongest decks are without a doubt the bottom up. It's a fine balance.

I made a "Where Will You Be When Diarrhea Strikes?" EDH deck. Norin, The Wary + lots of explosions. And poison counters.

Definitely love to build this way

I'm definitely going to try this method. I started making a list of my favorite cards, and landed on esper enchantments. Zur the enchanter is too big a removal target, but Zur2 can protect my enchantments, and the deck doesn't fold if he gets removed. I like this idea a lot.

My favorite sideways deck is a niche deck based around the idea of ghosts possessing items, so it's a vehicle heavy deck with a moderate spirit tribal subtheme. Unfortunately the best commander I could find was Kaikar, which thoroughly does not fit thematically lol

An interesting take Salubrious Snail had on top-down approach was picking a commander with the intent of it as an always-available fix to a structural weakness in the deck. iirc he built a Glissa Sunslayer deck that used her primarily as a strong defensive threat (with mild combo synergies) to hold down the board and focus on curving into mana-heavy late game bombs. It had little to do with Glissa’s abilities, and treated her more like a card you could always rely on drawing.

Top down has the weakness that your commander is centric and all the weaknesses that come along with that. Bottom Up has the weakness that your commander isn't as synergy heavy and so it will never be as rawly powerful as a deck built around it's commander that just doesn't have it's plan disrupted. Sideways won't build you a good deck, but it will be unique and probably will be a good time at the table. I particularly like restrictions like time/border etc. The strongest way to build a deck is often to identify a fundamental problem with a strategy you enjoy, and then choose a commander that is the solution to that problem, then include a small number of cards that work alright without your commander, but are high synergy. So, bottom up, then top down to finish. A good example of this is the progression of Najeela in cEDH. It started out very top down with lots of single card combo enablers like Nature's Will, Druid's Repository, Bear Umbra etc, and now it's a 5c midrange stax deck which only plays 2 najeela synergy cards. It arrived there because Najeela solves the natural weakness of the 5c midrange Stax deck, which is not having a good path to winning in the mid game. For me, I combined all three methods when I wanted to build a clue deck. It started with sideways construction when I added basically all the cards that said "investigate" on them. Then bottom-uply, I decided that Esper made the most sense for the deck, and I added my interaction suite, tutors etc. Then top-downly, I decided on Marneus Calgar as the commander because of how he works with Investigate x times, and then added in some cards that go well with him, like Lotho, Corrupt Sheriff, and Revel in Riches.

These are great tips for beginning players like myself I really enjoyed the advice

Since the commander is effectively a guranteed card in hand you can use it to shore up a weakness or free up deck slots. For example Piru is a boardwipe so you can avoid running (m)any others or use it to cover a weakness to burn decks.

Never seen one of your videos before this one, but I really do like the spritework.

when i realised that my sideways deck, revolves too much around my commander and rebuild it Bottom up, the Commander just makes the deck work even better, is still part of the equasion but not the prime threat, therefore can be snuk under the other parts of the deck that now work well on their own. :D very cool videos thank you for the Imput :)

I try to "approch the middle" rather than waiting for a solid theme or building around a commander, I take a few similar themes that could even coexist and a few commander options that support one or more of my themes/ goals for the deck. I then see which cards I already own and use that to narrow down my theme and commander options. Usually my approach somewhat resembles a bottom up build but just a different way to do it. I've also noticed building around the commander entirely can cause problems, my Niv Mizzet Parun spellslinger tends to be pretty quiet until it suddenly detonates and everyone dies through (surprisingly) non infinite combos. meanwhile my Oloro deck which just uses the commander as free insurance to play slower/ more controlling is a fairly well rounded deck with a little extra health and card draw then it would otherwise have had.

The first topic, i want to make a Pathfinder deck by making D&D deck and include things including "find" and/or "path". Like Find The Path or Pathfinder Acejaw

Bottom to top is a great way for newbies to construct better decks. I agree. I have a 5C "Detectives tribal" with Ramos as the Commander. He is a good card by itself, and the fact that he can remove counters to give you mana to use the clues or other things is amazing.

My issue with building bottom up is it always feels like I'm just making another "goodstuff" deck and just looking for a goodstuff commander to wrap it up. Ironically there are so many solid goodstuff commanders that you could hit it from either end. You had Delney there for a bit, you could end up with a Delney deck either going top down or bottom up. The thing is, I live for commanders that truly change how the game is played, making cards you'd never see become amazing. My favorite commanders are Shirei, Ghyrson Starn, Magus Lucia Kane, and Be'lakor. The former two especially utilize cards you'd never see anywhere else and you would never ever consider when making bottom up lists. I like running unique cards that are boosted by weird synergies and the only way to do that is top down. Yes, it's more fragile, but playing Lightning Coils in my Shirei deck and everyone going, "I've never seen that card before" is the biggest deck building draw for me. Otherwise I'd just run something like Loot with a broad goodstuff build behind him as a generic draw engine.

4:00 The point of edh was to use the unplayable card you had sitting in your binders and trow in one big casual deck to have some games in between modern/standard turnament

i tend to go somewhere between top down and bottom up, where i start with some regular cards i like and find other cards that work well with them, then find a commander that supports or is supported by those cards, then finish the deck with cards that work well with the commander

I built two of my favorite decks, Hogaak and Niv Mixzet Reborn, as a combination of both top down and bottom up. Hogaak was:"Big, likes big graveyard, like lots of bodies" so I built a combination of go wide/go tall centered around graveyard synergy. My Niv Mizzet Riborn deck was built with a limit on non 2 color cards, it has 6 support artifacts, 36/37 lands, and every other card is a 2 color card, with a minimum of 4/5 of each pair. Both decks play just fine without their commander, but go over the top with them.

I like a mix of top and bottom, one of my favorite decks, Jon Irenicus Shattered One, started with me seeing I had a lot of black/blue control cards. I found a cool/fun comander in those colors, then went top down, looking for creatures that have fun interactions with Jon. Now I give my friends ridiculous fun cards and still control the flow of the game.

I sometimes use the bottom up method, but I usually find myself doing the top down method while keeping away from a lot of the effects that rely on my commander. I will add some of the payoff is great, but not too many. A good ideology while building is add cards that are good on their own and great with your commander out.

I like building sideways, but my decks also have more power in pods because of a slow build-up followed by explosive growth. Pods means there's a good chance that people are too busy attacking each other to pay attention to me mostly minding me own business.

I think the approach you would take depends largely on power level. Bottom up makes for stronger, more resilient decks, but it would probably fail to take you towards very unique and gimmicky commander. In a lower-level pod, having a worse deck that just does "the funny thing" and needs the commander in play for that is perfectly fine ! (I'm currently building Borborygmos Enraged, the way I do it is I just throw together whatever cards I have that support the gameplan "ramp to 8 and draw a lot" but realistically I don't think anyone would get to "I wanna throw lands at people's faces" when building a bottom-up deck

A deck i really want to play around with is the Infinite Armory- equipment artifacts and cards that synergize off having equipment or allow you to get the armory out.

Yeah, I like to build sort of sideways and bottom up, essentially I find pet cards or pet mechanics that I simply just like, and then I work on the rest of 99 to be synergistic and playable with those pet cards, making the best use so that they are not total bricks, then add on top a commander that can facilitate the game plan. My worst deck is a deck that was only half built by me, it's an overhauled precon deck that I tortured to make it barely function when put together. Now ofc, building top down is completely fine... if you bring enough protection to make sure your commander sticks, or they are easy to bring back Or, for example, your commander is very hard to completely remove. e.g. Yuriko, Avacyn, etc.

Whenever I build a top down commander deck, the first thing I do is add some protection to counteract the whole non game situation

Top down building works fine if the payoff of the commander is something that already wins the game. If you’re a Karametra deck and the deck is a pile of the most terrifying green/white creatures ever printer. You don’t need your commander to win even with every card in the deck being selected with Karametra in mind.

Funny thing. I had a Painbow deck, my first deck ever. Obviously running five-colors in a deck that doesn’t naturally control the both but wants big creatures on your field sounds nice but it was relatively slow. As I learned and bought other decks, I learned not to value to end goal without first stabilizing (ramp, solid, consistent boardstate, and ways to not get too overwhelmed before “popping off”) long story short it is now a prismatic bridge deck, that does the big creature thing but with a safer mid range strat. lol so it was not so much too down or otherwise more of a in and out strategy that focused on the original theme. Its my first born love lol

Basically you described why blue farm is such a strong cedh deck. It is a strong 98 card pile that is supported by tymna and kraum. Basically you can build anything in sans green around tymna kraum and the deck won't brick

I did a hybrid of this. My Armix|Rebbec deck started as top-down (pulled a Rebbec and started evil laughing) then tried to build around Artifact synergy. Eventually settled on Armix because he is solid as a removal tool and plus the challenge of "Artifacts, No Blue" means I get to run weird tools

The first time o built my atraxa grand unifier deck, i build around her. But after several iterations, now i have other creatures to blink in the deck, and more mana sinks for my ramp. That's a different approach that i like, evolving your deck with the time passing.

I preferred when I was able to use top down deck building in EDH, which was the point of the format, and use 60 card casual for bottom up design ideas. I think EDH swallowing all casual play has forced it to become all things for all people and be the home for all deck ideas and all play has meant that it necessarily has to have its identity as a format watered down to be the home for deck ideas that were better suited for 60 card casual. Which I think deck ideas that originate bottom up and aren't concerned with the commander much are examples of.

I am and will forever be a Sideways deck builder. My favorite one was my "Murica" Ruhan of the Fomori deck.

Funny you mentioned Goad, bottom up ended up being how I designed my Eisika Goad deck and it’s a powerhouse that really surprises people and also never casts her Prismatic Bridge side for once

My gruul deck is my first venture into bottom-up design and it's been a blast so far! I wanted a gruul stompy deck that makes ridiculously huge creatures by doubling power multiple times and attacking with them. I've made a bunch of different gruul decks with a bunch of different commanders at the helm, but there are so many cool ones that it was tough to choose just one. So, what did I do? I made a deck that supports all of them! Minsc&Boo is the current commander at the helm, but the deck is designed to be able to work with a bunch of stompy gruul legends at the helm (Xenagos, Ruby, Tana, Etali, Halana&Alena, etc) without changing the core strategy of the deck. M&B just happen to be generally strong and do a lot of things that the deck wants, so it's the "default", if you wanna see it that way.

I built a deck from the Bottom Up I call, "You'll just die tired", where I started with Creatures like Malignus, Ferocidon, Cosmotronic Wave, Call in a Professional, Skullcrack, and Questing Beast, with Haste Enablers sprinkle effective almost universal removal, than picked Ruric Thar as the Commander, so yes my is a lot ruder with him out, but I still can easily win without him on the board.

I opened a Hinata in the prerelease and I built the deck and played it exactly one time and put it away forever. I don't know how I would rebuild it, but it was definitely a learning experience for me.

Unique outside the phone !!!🤟

Honestly I've been a primarily top down deck builder, and I find that sometimes it's just necessary. Like if I wanted to build a burn deck, throwing a ton of burn spells in before picking your commander would probably just mean cutting a lot of them once you did decide on your commander. The archetype only really has a few options in commander, and there's a good amount of variation between them. Imodane wants high damage single target spells that target creatures, where something like Ojer Axonil wants low damage, low cost effects that damage players. This might just be a quirk of the archetype, but I really feel like knowing what commander you'll be building around would help in such a case. I think both top down and bottom up have their use cases, but the former is more prone to monolith commanders, as they've been referred to recently. I'm admittedly rather guilty of this myself, so I see avoiding it as a huge advantage of bottom up.

The problem with bottom-up design is it is sort of the antithesis of a commander deck. The biggest thing that gets people into commander, in my opinion, is personality. The fact that you can choose a commander allows people to express their intentions, preferences, and skill level from the get-go. The combination of limitations creates an environment where it feels rewarding to play cards you like, rather than cards that are necessarily conductive to winning a game. In edh, I am allowed, or actually encouraged, to play cards that don't increase my odds of winning, because they either do something interesting, or they draw less attention from my opponents. If I have a One With Nothing in my closet, I'm not throwing it away, I'm asking what commander best synergizes with an effect like that. And this is the way commander changes the equation. Cards will now always be compared to the legendary creatures that can alter the gameplay value of those cards. If I wanted to play canadian highlander, I would play canadian highlander. Why would I just build a deck with a theme just to get stuck with commander options that are bad or not very exciting. On the other hand, If I picked a more common strategy, I would have a million commander options, and every option makes the deck feel lazy and unoriginal. I remember, back when I was newer at the game, I wanted to build an axebane guardian combo deck. I had a few conditions, which were plenty of defenders, freed from the real, sword of the paruns, and budget tutors such as diabolic tutor. Eventually, I added cards like oriq loremage and necrotic ooze, to build the combo out of the graveyard if needed, and final parting as anoth budget turor that can pivot depending on the gamestate to fuel either line of play. The problem was, and still is, that there are no commnders that mesh well with this strategy. The best I found was adding in assault formation, ikra shidiki, and thrasios, to benefit from high toughness and infinite mana. However, it ended up just being a jumble of cards. There were no good synergies, and I was left a pile if cards that didn't actually really interact with the command zone at all except in rare circumstances. And that might seem specific, but thus is the root of every issue plaguing decks built bottom-up. You aren't actually playing commander. You are playing canadian highlander with a companion.

What i sorta do is "hmm what do i want to build around" (ill use my poisonous food deck for this example) "ooo i have this card that that gives -1 -1 counters and i have a bunch a cards that interact with it, I'll use that, hmm i also want to do food as well though... well since my commander (hapatra) is only supporting my deck and isnt exclusively doing everything i'll do -1 -1 counters and food, that way i can keep my life high and bounce -1 -1 counters its a win win" so choose the commander, then choose the theme, then choose another interesting idea that helps support the deck and put them all together

I generally overcome the problem of the commander dying adding counterspells or onetime instant speed protections like tamiyo's safeskeeping or undying evil and trying focusing on keep the commander alive as much as possible. The bottom up design is really great and everyone has to try doing a commander in that way at least once but I think it kinda ruins the point of building the deck around the commander you choose.

I like to go middle-out. Often this is from brewing or playing with cards on Arena, or looking at a pre-con and thinking about what cards I actually like in it. Maybe it's not a Legendary (or even a creature), or maybe it is but it's too limited as a Commander, or it works really well with cards not in it's Identity. So, if I really wanted to play with that card and cards like it... what Commander would help or influence that idea further (or just enable the colors, at the least)? What other cards would suit? What other themes and sub-themes work alongside? It's fun because it's very flexible and helps you see combinations, even cards that you've never seen or considered before.

I know this sounds dumb, but the way I build a deck "When I can afford building a deck" is by rolling dice, I roll 2 D6 1s are colorless and the rest are the colors in order of wubrg on colorless it's a mono color deck. For 3/4 I roll 4 dice and either pick three or take them all. Then just, look for some goofy cards to build around.

I have a mixture of all 3 methods on ky decks and they do make for interesting experiences, usually i go for top down decks when i have a commander that i can confidently recast several times, or if they enable a type of combo or interaction that would give me either the win or leave me on a advantageous position. I have a personal issues with bottom up decks as i tend to gravitate to more good stuff decks when i build them, don't get me wrong they sure are consistent and can make for amazing games but maybe i just prefer a more variance on risk/reward. I'm not a super competitive player and i find myself with less time to play than before so lately I've been up to create decks that can make create an experience more then just outright win and sometimes sideways builds can really help on that. It is really a matter of what everyone wants to make a top down if you want a somewhat easy plan or know your playgroup enough to know what you can get away with, bottom down if you want to make sure the game is consistent and sideways to indulge in your funniest ideas

My way of building a deck is pure chaos. I have piles with a loose theme sitting on a desk for months until I find a good commander, and commanders sitting in a binder until I find a good pile. I take my decks apart and put them back together with different commanders. I was trying to build two wubrg decks at the same time, looked at both commanders and realised one of them would fit better in the 99 of the other, and then I had to merge the two somehow. My Krenko Goblin deck started picking up Soviet themes such as Russian language Mountains and then became a Zada deck because her ability screams communism. Ghalta leads my Elves. My Elves can typically fend for themselves, but they just make it so easy to cast Ghalta. I build a mono Black deck, it turned purple! Thanks Innistrad Double Feature, I didn't know that was an option.

Literally you described my Queen Marchesa “combat math is hard” deck haha. It even has Dihada in the 99, and I’ve often thought of swapping them. 😂

I've definitely done all three approaches, and when it's top down, you have to consider a plan B that's not just stylish footwear. Shirei is so weird and fun, that I couldn't bear to scrap it. So I made a plan around what the deck loves to do and sneaky ways to protect him: Blessing of Leeches, Gift of Doom, Mithril Coat... and more funky payoffs like Crowded Crypt. It's a blast. And it's a good example. Look at most Arcades decks, they run several plan Bs so you can still attack. Bottom up is often more consistent, I agree. Another approach to that is to make the commander the one thing the deck doesn't do. I messed with the Kasla precon, and she's perfect for a token deck as a big beatstick to force damage through.

lmao I just looked up “partner” and balled from there, now I’m just wrapping up a Tana/Akroma deck, which hypothetically should be pretty solid

1:20 not gonna lie, this has become a lot simpler with UB. Pretty easy to make a LOTR or 40k themed deck and still have synergy

I actually have a bottom up deck. Mono Black, theme is sacrifice for value and it has about 10 or more options for a commander, doesn't matter who the commander is, the theme stays the same Razaketh Mikaeus Sheoldred Sidisi K'rrik Kokusho Kuon ect

That Mardu goad deck should play Isshin, Two Heavens As One. A lot of goad cards trigger on attack, both your cards and your opponents' cards. Source: I built that deck.

i would say i build all three ways but i try to go with "whats interesting?" singel cards like Heartless Summoning, hole mechanics like goat or whatever peaks your interest. for me its: putting as many petcards as possible, cause thats how the decks feel more like me. also some decks are just fun to build and goldfish but not to play.

I actually told my roommate this last night. He built a Rakdos, Lord of Riots demon sub theme deck. His problem became if Rakdos wasn't on the board, all of his creatures became too expensive to cast without the cost reduction from Rakdos. I suggested his next steps for the deck should be adjusting the deck in such a way that it's still playable without Rakdos on the board.