Sneak AttackSneak Attack | art by Tyler Jacobson

When I started Magic, I avoided attacking, like a lot of players. The more I played the more comfortable I became with finding good attacks. Then I played even longer and circled back around to what this article is about: I think attacking might be the hardest thing to optimize, build around efficiently, and protect against in Commander.

The History of Combat

I will focus on talking about the history of how combat evolved, unbiased and unblemished. We'll eventually break down the nuance and implications of these changes later on.

Combat in Magic is broken up into four distinct eras where a new ruling changed how we play the game.

1993-1999

In Alpha, combat didn't have its own step. There was a step called, "Main," where "You may do several things during the main phase. In no particular order:"

1. "You may put any one land from your hand into play. Mana from this land may be used during the current turn."
2. "You may make one attack against your rival with any or all of your creatures in play except those that came into play this turn. Newly summoned creatures cannot be used until the next turn."
3. "You may cast any spells in your hand, provided you have enough mana. You can cast spells before and after taking other actions."

You can read more about the Alpha rules here. So, there wasn't a distinction between Main Phase and the Combat Step. This changes in 1999.

1999-2009

There were a lot of changes at the beginning of this era, but it mainly ironed out the formal structure of turns. The stack was introduced, the term interrupt was obsolete, and triggered abilities were a formal term.

Most importantly for this article, the Combat Step was its own step. They morphed Main into two Main Phases with Combat slotted in the middle. Effects that happened during Main—according to a card—now triggered in the first Main Phase.

2010-2024

This is the big one! The changes in this era were guided by the following concept: "We opened up everything about how we make Magic cards to scrutiny in an attempt to make... the game as a whole, more accessible."

The changes to Magic in 2010:

• Mulligans were simultaneous
• Terminology was ironed out, like the difference between "cast" and "play"
• Mana Pools would empty between phases as well as the end of the turn
• Mana burn was eliminated
• The owner of a token goes from being based on the person who created it to the person whose battlefield the card is on
• Lifelink and Deathtouch were reimagined as static abilities
• Combat damage no longer used the stack

For the purposes on this article, we'll focus on Combat. The way damage worked before was if a player assigned lethal to a creature, a round of priority would happen to attempt to save a creature from dying.

This was eliminated. Static abilities or instant speed interaction needed to happen before the damage step.

2024-Now

I think Tolarian Community College has a great video about this change, explaining it more clearly than the article. I'll attempt to articulate as best I can the change.

Previously, attackers would assign the order of damage. Lethal damage had to be assigned to one creature to spill over any damage to the one next in order.

Now, "[they've] removed a complex concept known as "combat damage assignment order" from the game. This means that now, in the Combat damage step, an attacking creature's controller can divide that creature's combat damage as they choose among all the creatures blocking it."

So, you don't need to assign damage in any order or amount, and in terms of lethality. You just assign damage in the damage step any way you want.

What Does It Mean?

What I've noticed about these changes is that in the past, attackers had very little advantage and the rules have changed to try to favor them more, balance things.

Even in 2024, I think the goal of the changes has likely been to streamline gameplay more than make it more fair, but ultimately attacking didn't have much support.

Maybe you don't agree with this? Let's hear a little more about the weaknesses of attacking from someone else.

Gavin Verhey And Combat

Before we can dissect the core of my argument about attacking, I want to point to someone who has kicked off my thinking on this: Gavin Verhey.

In an article titled, "Cutting through Combat" from July of 2016, Verhey said, "Being the defender in a big combat inherently gives you an advantage." This is both just the tip of the iceberg and the looming wide depth of its base—at least for me the longer I dug into it.

I'm going to sort of interpret a bit more about Gavin's analysis:

• The person who attacks, the attacker, has to reveal some of their intentions and desire first before the blocker makes a decision. With the way the stack and many other elements of Magic work, reacting to something is always better than doing something first. It gives you more opportunity for an opponent to overextend resources and information and take advantage of that.
• The defender gets to decide first what they're willing to take and give up. They get the option of damage or lost resources, which an attacker doesn't get to decide after the fact. And because of how the stack works, the blocker always gets to make the final say—if they have an answer—to blocking decisions.
• And the last, most fundamental, thing Verhey mentions is blockers can tag team together to kill a powerful attacker, but an attacker can't tag team a powerful blocker.

In synthesizing a lot of these things, I sort of understood why so many players are scared of attacking. It's hard to attack with advantage and Magic is all about doing the optimal and efficient thing to gain the most amount of advantage over your opponent.

Why do we even bother with attacking at all? Attacking is how we win Commander most of the time and typically the most common card type in a deck is a creature (or a permanent or spell that makes permanents that can go to combat).

It sounds so antithetical to how bad combat can be. Part of combat, from what I've seen, is in trying to make attacking good, when typically it's not.

Pathbreaker IbexPathbreaker Ibex, Moonshaker CavalryMoonshaker Cavalry, Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth, and Akroma's WillAkroma's Will are all cards that completely close out a game by the overwhelming power of attacking.

However, these cards make most of the typical weaknesses in attacking—or the strengths of being a blocker—not matter. They often eliminate players' ability to mitigate damage.

We play cards to make attacking good, but on its own it's not better than blocking. However, similar to the cards mentioned above, there are ways to make attacking good.

How do I substantiate my initial claim that this strategy is hard to build around, optimize, and play efficiently?

Strategies That Laud Combat

When I think about all the things you can do in Commander—or Magic in general—Combat is one of the most efficient strategies to meaningfully reduce chunks in life totals.

Creatures can hit for six, seven, or even 11. Quick bursts of damage add up, and that is typically the window in which Combat is least impeded, most powerful. No blockers or bad blockers are the best time to eke out advantage.

In Commander, there are 120 points of damage you have to get over, assuming there isn't an Exquisite Blood or a Lifegain strategy at the table. Pressuring one player with damage or bad blocks leaves you open to three other players to punish you.

Time isn't on your side either. Other decks, like less combat-heavy decks are slowly gaining their own advantage. Combo, Burn, and Aristocrat players aren't combat focused and likely will try to bide their time for explosive turns. These explosive turns might make your incremental amount of damage mean very little. It's the Aggro to stabilization point.

Voltron

I know you're all thinking about the archetype that is very heavily Combat focused: Voltron. Decks like Cloud, Midgar MercenaryCloud, Midgar Mercenary and Tifa LockhartTifa Lockhart are very exceptional at combat. Commander damage is only 21, so only having to deal 63 damage is more viable.

However, how does this archetype stack up in preference and efficiency of winning? On EDHREC's Tag page, the first Voltron strategy is in 12th position in terms of popularity. It is under Equipment decks with 66,190 decks at the writing of this article.

Now, about its efficiency. I don't have a statistic that succinctly gives an answer on the effectiveness of the Voltron strategy per se, but I do have anecdotal evidence. I've very rarely in Bracket 4, seen a Voltron deck sink a win.

They're very good at eliminating a player, but usually that's as far as they can get. Getting ganged up on as a Voltron player means death.

Usually you're all in on one silver bullet that is very vulnerable to removal. Combat, factoring in summoning sickness and the nature of removal as you change phases, can make these strategies stall out. The interaction points are too wide.

I've found that it doesn't stack up to decks that win on turn five. How many combat strategies are even cEDH viable? CEDH being the pinnacle of how efficiently a player can win in Commander.

Combat Centric Decks

Fire Lord AzulaFire Lord Azula and Gwenom, RemorselessGwenom, Remorseless are slightly lower, less meta cEDH decks, but are very powerful. They struggle with the same weaknesses of combat. A SnapSnap as you change phases is enough to turn off a whole turn with Gwenom or Azula.

And these are decks that don't even care about combat per se, but use Combat as a way to win the game another way. This feels like an indication of the weaknesses of building around combat.

I can't ignore the old MVP: Winota, Joiner of ForcesWinota, Joiner of Forces. Winota is a cEDH viable enough deck using combat to win. A lot of Stax is involved too but with combos like Rionya, Fire DancerRionya, Fire Dancer and Combat CelebrantCombat Celebrant for infinite combat phases and infinite creature tokens with haste, it does win.

However, currently in EDHTop16, Winota has an 18.54% conversion rate with 21 top cuts in the last 6 months. Kraum, Ludevic's OpusKraum, Ludevic's Opus/Tymna the WeaverTymna the Weaver has a conversion rate of 23.85% and has 352 top cuts. I don't know if Winota is holding her own against the true meta of modern cEDH.

Winota might be the best deck to win through combat in Commander, but combat loses to combo at high level Commander. Are there any good enough benefits to attacking?

Is Attacking The Worst Game Action in Commander?

Yeah, maybe it seems crazy to suggest this. When thinking about all the game actions you can do: play a land, cast a spell/activate an ability, draw a card, attack, and block, they sort of have an hierarchy. Draw a card and play a land are at the top of the best things you can do.

Drawing cards allows you to take game actions and the more you draw the more options you get. Playing lands gives you the fuel to do that. Lands are the most protected permanent type and they're typically hard or at least controversial to remove from play.

Casting spells is how to implement the best things in the game. It's how you make attackers, counter spells, and generally interact with the game at all. It's how you win. Without casting spells, your cards in hand and lands you've played mean nothing.

Then comes the only optional portion of the game: attacking and blocking. You can absolutely win a game of Commander without attacking or blocking once. I doubt you could do it without drawing a card, playing a land, or casting a spell.

Something being optional doesn't inherently mean it's bad, but it does mean it's superfluous. Optimization usually gets rid of the superfluous though. It brings into question if optional-ness here is bad. We've also mentioned that between attacking and blocking, attackers are at a disadvantage. So attacking...is it the worst?

Conclusion

I want to synthesize all the loose threads in this article. Historically, the history of combat has favored the blocker. Along with what Gavin Verhey has said, we can understand that the position in a combat interaction has an advantage; blockers typically having that advantage. Attacking might be the least necessary aspect of playing Magic to win, versus card draw and playing lands.

And in the world of the most powerful decks in Commander, cEDH has shown us how combat focused strategies—whether through damage or combo in the combat step—don't do well.

Attack triggers are reusable but at the cost of having to survive all the pitfalls and interaction points of combat. It's why Voltron struggles to win. Targeted removal just gets there.

With all of this combined, it makes me wonder if attacking might be the worst possible game action you can do in Commander. Not necessarily for all situations or against all decks, should it be something you avoid, but there are conceivably no worse game actions you can take. Those are my thoughts. What are yours? I'm @strixhavendropout on everything.