Recently I stumbled upon an artifact of the “beforetimes” - a paper decklist of a Commander deck I still own. This got me thinking, “is the deck I own still the same deck?” and “what defines a deck’s identity?”. Let’s see what we can learn about deck identity through the evolution of my Abzan Humans deck. The one pictured below (and linked here) is the first draft from December 2017. The next reasonable update I have is “Revision 1” on TappedOut that is dated sometime in 2019. Following that, there’s the version that is immortalized in a 5-min Deck Tech by Channel Fireball from June 2020, which is very close to “Revision 13” on TappedOut. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll refer to this version as the Ikoria update. Then the final version I’ll include is the deck as it was after updates from C21 and Strixhaven. To really dig into what defines identity we’ll need some ways to explore this concept, and we’ll review the cards themselves, the strategy of the deck and finally how the deck plays.
So how did this deck come to be? Well just over three and a half years ago I met a work colleague who played, and I found myself back in Magic playing Commander. Initially I wanted to play Golgari scales and add White to play some goodies like Abzan Charm, Cathar’s Crusade and Gavony Township. Wanting to build something unique, I added the Humans tribe with my partner Commanders: Reyhan, Last of the Abzan and Ravos, Soultender. From this brainchild arose the Abzan Human Counter Depot; Humans go in, and +1/+1 counters come out. But Humans are resilient, and sometimes stubborn, so they keep coming back. Naturally the initial concept had a strong reanimator theme to play to this resilience and a majority of the functional effects like draw and removal were met using on-theme Humans, which added quite a bit of synergy. I fell in love with the value engine this deck presents, and continue to tinker with it to this day, refreshing the list as new cards are released. This really begs the question though, is the deck as it stands today the same deck that was conceived?
Let’s start by looking at the cards that were in the deck at various points. Across the entire lifecycle there have been 210 non-land cards vying for about 62 slots in the deck, that’s a lot of cards to have existed in the deck. Each of the decks had some unique cards summarized below, which make up about one third of the cards that have been in the deck. Most of these 210 cards have only been in the deck temporarily, with a mere 11 cards existing in every version. The biggest shake up to the list came with Revision 1, where 32 non-land cards got dropped. Some examples included Unruly Mob, Death’s Presence, and Grapple with the Past. These changes made way for some cards that are strategy linchpins such as Cartel Aristocrat, Meren of Clan Nel Toth, and Saffi Eriksdotter. In fact 10 of the 32 changes that came with Revision 1 still exist in the deck today, with 7 of those being Humans. Some of these changes included functional ones, like adding more lands (turns out 28 lands is too few for more casual Commander games). The difference in timing was also around a year or two, so these changes likely came through via tweaks versus a proper deck overhaul.
With the Ikoria update, more than half of the non-land cards changed again, with only a handful of cards that didn’t make it through to the following version. Ikoria featured a strong human theme and it was the first year Wizard’s launched set-aligned Commander decks (C20). Between the time points of these deck lists there were some updates made along the way coming with set releases including the addition of Pir, Imaginative Rascal and Teysa Karlov which acts as functional Branching Evolution with Reyhan. Somehow in earlier versions of the list I had missed Juniper Order Ranger and the Ruthless Regiment commander deck introduced me to Dearly Departed which I somehow passed by in my hours of scouring Scryfall. A few of these changes were also re-adds from the initial list, with the most notable being Renegade Rallier, which can be used with Cartel Aristocrat, Saffi Eriksdotter and Juniper Order Ranger to generate infinite +1/+1 counters when Reyhan is in play. Coming to the “last” version, I say “last” as MH2 and AFR/AFC changes are currently in the works (tweaking never really ends), about a third of the non-land cards changed. The amount of change decreased as did the total number of unique cards, meaning that cards that have been added as the deck continued to develop have been harder to cut. Of the ones that did make it in during this version include some high-synergy all stars like Pyre of Heroes, Luminarch Aspirant, Fain, the Broker and Spiteful Squad. Across all of these changes though, the core strategy remained sacrificing Humans with +1/+1 counters to place them on others. So while the cards in a deck make it, I don’t think they are core to a deck’s identity.
Deck Tech:
If the cards themselves don’t define a deck’s identity, then what does? What about the strategy itself? While not quite as much of a secret as Riley Knight calls out in the summary above, the strategy is made up of four primary components: placing +1/+1 counters, using Humans as a tribe, sacrificing the Humans with counters to place them on others, and finally having those sacrificed creatures come back. Of course we need to hit functional effects, like card draw, removal and ramp, but we’ll leave those aspects for the next section. Looking across the four versions of the deck, to what extent do each hit on the components of the strategy? To frame the analysis we can use a target of 14 for each of the components in the strategy (for more on why 14 check out this article) and grade each version based on how strongly the strategy components are supported. Looking at the figure below we see that some of the versions are more “true” to strategy than others. Notably the initial list has an unfair advantage with the most non-land slots in the deck list. Across the versions the only component that is successfully represented is the Human tribe, with each having a healthy amount. We also see that the Initial version and the most recent STX/C21 perform the strongest, with Revision 1 missing the mark on most of the core strategy. As this deck has evolved over time, the different components of the strategy have been expressed to different extents, but in the deck’s current form it is as true to the strategy as it was at initial conception, just with a change in emphasis on growing counters through sacrifice at the cost of recursion. If we were to use strategy alone to define deck identity then only the initial and STX/C21 versions would constitute the same deck, but it’s been in the same sleeves for all of these years and it still “feels” like the same deck. Ultimately, I don’t think strategy alone defines deck identity as both Revision 1 and the Ikoria update were still the same deck.
If deck identity is not defined by the individual components or strategy alone, then maybe identity lies within how a deck plays. If you’ve read any of my other content, you’ll know that hitting functional effects provides a strong core for deck building. These functional effects directly translate to how a deck plays, shaping the way a deck accelerates, interacts and potentially closes within a game of Commander. Using Humans as a core component means that the Human counter factory has a lot of synergy across functional effects, which contributes to how the deck feels when played. Synergy itself is harder to quantify without a lot of stats, and across four versions of the deck it would prove challenging, so we’ll focus this analysis on the functional effects with some context sprinkled in. In terms of functional effects across the four versions, draw is the only effect that has adequate strength. Looking at the Revision 1 and STX/C21 versions, there is a larger number of tutors, which add considerable consistency. Even though these decks are leveraging creature tutors, they still act as functional wildcards since there are creatures that meet our ramping needs like Diligent Farmhand, card draw with Grim Haruspex / Species Specialist, removal with Skirsdag Flayer, or one of the core strategy pieces. Recursion meets the same need as tutors when the game goes late, and the two together provide a good amount of tenacity and reliability across multiple games. On interaction, this deck runs intentionally less than advised, as the deck’s focus is more on “doing the thing” than winning the game (there are some wincons, but not many of note beyond Champion of Lambholt and Akroma’s Will). Finally rounding out functional effects is the ramp category, which this deck is notably light on as well. Once again with some of these ramp effects being creatures (including one of the greatest catch up one drops Weathered Wayfarer and a lasagna tier Veteran Explorer), being a little light here is passable. Once again looking at the versions holistically, when considering playstyle, all four are aiming at doing the same thing. Hitting targets for draw and intentionally below target for both removal and ramp. Now we’re getting somewhere in terms of deck identity.
Across the different versions of this deck almost all of the individual components changed, the strategy components were somewhat consistent and the playstyle was stable. Overall there were 210 non-Lands vying for one of 62 total slots, and only 11 cards remained consistent over the deck’s evolution. In terms of strategy, only the Human tribal component was consistent across the four versions, with counter placement showing strongly in three versions and sacrifice/recursion both only adequately supported in one version each. Reviewing playstyle, all four versions aimed at the same targets of strong card draw and intentionally weak removal and ramp, leveraging tutors and recursion to smooth out density all while keeping the emphasis on “doing the thing” over winning. So is this the same deck?
Despite many changes in card selection, the cards selected continued to work towards the same strategy and foster a consistent playstyle. Based on this analysis, the playstyle of a deck in combination with the strategy provides the glue that holds individual card selection together. So I’d say this deck is the same deck as it started out as many years ago, although the flavour has changed as cards have filtered through it has the same core. Much akin to identity for ourselves, who we are is much more than just the collection of experiences we have. A common thread binds our experiences together, the same way a deck’s strategy and playstyle binds cards together, to create an identity that is much more the sum of its parts.
I hope you found this article insightful and that it’s inspired you to further define your own deck’s identity. If you want to share any thoughts, the best way to reach me is on Twitter, but you can also find me hanging out in the Chimera Discord or at Chimera on Tuesdays for in-person play. We’re always looking to grow the community, and we have a diverse player base in terms of both power level and experience (if you’re new to Commander we’d love to help you learn how to play). Hope to see you at our next Commander night and happy brewing!
- Bryan Smith
