Ezuri, Renegade LeaderEzuri, Renegade Leader | Art by Karl Kopinski

The first time I bought a Teferi's ProtectionTeferi's Protection—the first card I owned that cost more than $15 on its own—was for my Giada, Font of HopeGiada, Font of Hope deck. Previously, I didn't like Angels as a Kindred deck because of how expensive the commanders were and how most of them were limited to mono-white ramp. It wasn't until I got my hands on a commander that was low cost enough that aided the game plan of all Angels that I built one.

Ultimately, Giada ended up being my most expensive deck. It ran Avacyn, Angel of HopeAvacyn, Angel of Hope; Angel of JubilationAngel of Jubilation; Akroma, Vision of IxidorAkroma, Vision of Ixidor; Battle Angels of TyrBattle Angels of Tyr; Land TaxLand Tax; and Akroma's WillAkroma's Will. It was a spicy-priced deck. At the time when I was running it, I only spent $100 a month on decks. It took me three or four months to put it together.

I was proud of it. It was strong. However, back then, I was a little bit of a baby player. I didn't understand the stack, combat logistics and strategy, or even how to protect my board. I enjoyed it though. It was mainly because I didn't have to totally understand all of that to play and win.

That particular thought puzzled me a little. I wondered why I took this deck apart. It's been nearly two years since I played it. I shied away from Kindred decks in general too as I looked for weirder ways to play Commander. I wondered again if the ease of play was the reason I enjoyed it in the past, but not something I wanted now. Were Kindred decks my comfort zone? Are they all of ours?

What is a Kindred Commander Deck?

What do I mean by Kindred decks for the sake of this article? When I talk about Kindred decks in this scenario, first, I'm talking about decks that focus on one creature type, or many specific creature types—I see you Kenessos, Priest of ThassaKenessos, Priest of Thassa and Kiora, Sovereign of the DeepKiora, Sovereign of the Deep players. Second, the deck has no additional strategy, beyond the creature type itself, as the primary build-around..

The distinction I'm making here is that Kenessos for example might focus on top-deck manipulation with the benefits of getting Leviathans and Krakens for free. The deck revolves around top-deck manipulation more than cards that synergize around the particular creature type. The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon is a deck that is slamming Dragons left and right and trying to buff and enhance playing Dragons. The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon deck is what I mean by a Kindred deck for the purposes of this article.

I want to draw this distinction between a strategy that surrounds just casting a creature type and buffing them versus a strategy that needs a creature type to do something else. These two types of decks are very different in how we approach building and playing. The former I think is our comfort zone.

My Slight Pet Peeve with Kindred Decks

Maybe I have a little bit of a personal dislike for Kindred decks that I need to air out before I try to convince you of anything else. I wrote an article over a year ago, called "Why I Don't Play Kindred Commander Decks Anymore." The article focused on the problem with these kinds of decks. I discuss how, in the more obscure Kindred decks, we end up playing a bunch of unplayable cards in a particular creature type, trying to fill out a deck. It makes your strategy rely heavily on your commander and becomes far less functional if you lose it.

But what about the big creature types like Zombie, Dragon, Angel, or Goblin? They should be worth playing, right? I find that the play patterns are a little boring. I wrote: "Play creature, get benefit, play creature, get benefit, swing with massive boards. It is reliant on combat and is very easy to disrupt. The play pattern is just so rote to me. It blends a lot of Kindred type decks together. Why play an Angel deck over a Zombie deck, if the play patterns are so similar?"

What I missed when discussing in this article is that not everyone enjoys the same aspects of playing Commander. I'm motivated by the mental strategy and resource management of the game. When play patterns are rote and direct, and telegraphed, my mind goes into autopilot and I slowly lose interest. But maybe what a player enjoys is being able to see creatures they like do the thing. Maybe what is fascinating about a deck like Hakbal of the Surging SoulHakbal of the Surging Soul is its power and defined strategy. I shouldn't knock it. It's valid, but I worry that sometimes we choose this option because we haven't dabbled with others; or that we might be too scared to. Maybe this hurdle is with our comfort zone.

What's Our Comfort Zone and Is It Bad?

Harvard Summer School stated: "The idea of comfort zones is rooted in research conducted by psychologists Robert M. Yerkes and John Dillingham Dodson in 1908. They developed the Yerkes–Dodson Law, which states that performance increases as stress increases, and performance decreases as stress decreases. However, at a certain point, high levels of stress inhibit performance."

In relation to the kinds of Kindred decks I want to talk about, the appeal of these decks is that they're simple. Hakbal and Ur-Dragon typically reward you for doing one simple thing: playing a card that has the same creature type as the rest of the creatures in your deck. You're playing Herald's HornHerald's Horn, Banner of KinshipBanner of Kinship, and Urza's IncubatorUrza's Incubator because these cards benefit any strategy that does that one thing.

Ultimately, it's low stress on the mind in terms of building and playing. It's what I loved so much about Giada. I know that this concept of decks that basically play themselves, navigate the board state themselves, aren't unique to Kindred decks. There are many strategies that basically play themselves—+1/+1 counter decks for example—but I find that Kindred decks are the most popular. A lot of people are building and enjoying the ease of a deck like this.

Let's get back to the Yerkes-Dodson Law. Getting out of our comfort zone, or pushing more stress into our gameplay, should increase our performance. Maybe we don't care about our performance? Maybe we just want to have fun? I would argue there are things we can improve about ourselves, by getting out of our comfort zone, that will enhance our fun. According to Harvard Summer School, some of the benefits of leaving your comfort zone include: boosting your self-confidence, expanding your world view and experiences, and building resilience.

Getting that courage to ask someone to play Commander with you is a skill you can gain by pushing that stress. You could learn new ways you enjoy playing decks by experimenting with the boundaries of what you think you'll enjoy. It's why I've eventually ventured mostly away from Kindred decks. Lastly, it can even help with that emotional investment, the emotional responses to how games go. It could build a resilience to bad feelings.

I can feel I haven't convinced you. It's hard to get away from our comfort zone—and/or you might just not agree that Kindred decks are our comfort zone—and I completely understand that. It can be anxiety inducing, playing something more difficult to pilot. It might be embarrassing learning all your triggers, managing your board state with something more intensive. As Harvard Summer School says: "we’re wired for survival, and naturally shy away from those perceived threats as much as we can."

But I say, give it a try. See what a strategy beyond a Kindred deck feels like and then get back to me. I'm not saying you plunge right into to a Bracket 4 Zimone, Mystery UnravelerZimone, Mystery Unraveler, trigger-hell Landfall deck. Take a slight step in that direction. Play a deck like Kenessos or Clement, the WorrywortClement, the Worrywort, a deck that encourages Kindred synergy, but has a subtheme that you can tinker around with. Let me know how it feels to push that boundary for a while.

Conclusion

I want to stress that I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with playing these kinds of Kindred decks, necessarily. I still have two Kindred decks in my arsenal that I rather like. One is the type of Kindred deck that remains in the comfort zone. Kiora, Sovereign of the DeepKiora, Sovereign of the Deep is that deck. I mostly just ramp and slam big Octopus or Leviathan creatures. What I like about this deck is how weird cast triggers get. Everything in the deck cares about cast triggers, but the play pattern is really simple. Slam a Sea Creature and get another spell for free then overrun the board.

The second is Ulalek, Fused AtrocityUlalek, Fused Atrocity. This one is not the kind of Kindred deck that I think remains in the comfort zone, but is a Kindred deck. My goal is to use Eldrazi spells to copy the stack as many times as I can and win through that. It uses Eldrazi for copying spells and mostly that's all the creature type has to do with the deck. It can, however, often be a deck that casts an Eldrazi, copies it, and then overruns the board. So it's not exactly free from scrutiny.

I bring this up to let you know that I'm not saying someone plays any Kindred decks because of a lack of effort, or even necessarily a lack of skill. I just want to suggest that a lot of us use Kindred decks like these as a crutch. We're sometimes unwilling to try something with different play patterns because of fear and/or inexperience. I just want to encourage newer players to get out of that way of building. It could be really fun to play something different. Anyway, that's what I think. What do you think? I'm @strixhavendropout on everything.