Why Stax is Ineffective in cEDH

I'm Ken Baumann, and I'm going to explain how and why stax as a strategy is ineffective in cEDH. Let's waste no time. Here are the archetype's problems:

Stax Win Conditions

Stax decks often rely on inefficient win conditions that require combat, or on putting together three or more cards such that opponents can't take meaningful game actions. Dealing 63 commander damage, 120 damage, or casting and protecting three or more disruptive nonland permanents is much more difficult, not to mention vulnerable to opponents' lucky topdecks, than casting an A+B combo that wins the game efficiently.

Stax Colors

The highest density of efficient stax pieces exists in white and green, but these colors feature fewer efficient combos than Grixis. Using colors with lower average card quality encourages a brewer to eschew efficiency for redundancy (i.e., adding cards that effectively overlap), which in turn narrows your deck's strategy and reduces your deck's ability to pivot. As a result, stax decks are by nature less flexible than their more proactive counterparts in terms of pursuing winning combos and are worse at accommodating different pod compositions.

Utility

Quadrant theory is a framework with which we can evaluate a card's utility during different phases of the game. Stax pieces are usually most effective (i.g., game-winning, not not-game-losing) when cast ASAP by the player in the pod's first seat. They are most effective in this context because they disrupt all opponents equally and thus do not inadvertently help one opponent while harming the other two. The problem is that you have no control over whether or not you will be in that seat.

Let's use an example: the window in which a Drannith Magistrate is equally disruptive is vanishingly small in a format defined by low-MV commanders, since one player is likely to rush out their commander, and thus have an active game-winning plan, before the Drannith comes down. Another example: Null Rod effects generally help Thrasios decks outpace the table by putting lands into play.

Let's add a third example for good measure: Rule of Law effects favor players with bounce spells alongside passive advantage engines. Unlike spot removal or an unconditional counterspell, stax pieces lose their utility and efficacy rapidly all the while suffering acutely from the problem of turn order.

Stax Time Constraints

To be fair, stax decks aren't the only lists that lengthen games. Storm decks (e.g., Krark Sakashima) and engine decks (e.g., Tymna Kraum) can also slow the rate of play via numerous triggers, opportunities for political decision-making, and inefficient, color-pie-restricted win conditions, but stax decks slow the game down by design.

In tournament settings with timed elimination rounds, slowing the game down increases the probability that a game ends in a draw, and draws historically have garnered players one or zero points. This reduces their chance of making it past the cut from timed Swiss rounds to untimed rounds, thus stax decks struggle to make it past the top cut.

Stax and the cEDH Meta

There is a phenomenon in cEDH that I'll call the Archetype Loop. When a pod features two turbo decks (e.g., Rograkh Silas), one of those decks will likely win the game. The same is true of the presence of multiple stax decks in a pod. A positive feedback loop is formed wherein one deck's cards and play patterns typically create advantages for another deck of the same kind, like Rograkh Silas feeding another Rog Si deck cards by not paying for Mystic Remora triggers, or stax players adding redundant disruptive permanents to the game.

The problem this poses for stax is related to their imperative to win games. As long as turbo and midrange decks feature greater flexibility in their gameplans and more efficient win conditions, they will be more popular than stax decks (at least in cEDH tournaments). That means the Archetype Loop is likely to reduce a stax deck's probability of winning.

Resources

Accruing resources nonlinearly is the name of the game in cEDH, but stax effects are designed to prevent nonlinear events (e.g. drawing one or more cards per turn, or using artifacts to outpace the one land per turn rule, etc.). The problem is that these pieces often prohibit their controllers, too. This is a fatal flaw, because in order to defeat three opponents, you often need to outpace them in accruing resources.

In other words, the stax player often needs to 1v3 the table in order to close out the game in their favor, but their cards prevent them from accruing the cards, mana, and board presence required to do so, and winning a 1v3 is difficult in a social game wherein the 3v1 can socialize and coordinate.

Emotions

We tend to remember negative experiences more vividly and more often than positive ones, and, to be maximally clear: being told you can't do something is more often than not a negative experience. As a result, stax is viewed by many as a source of frustration and fatigue, and this is true despite the fact that turbo and midrange decks historically win more often than stax decks; opponents playing turbo and midrange decks more often cause the negative experience of losing the game, but people forget this fact.

Worse still, when compared to the experience of losing to a turbo deck (maybe via one well-timed counterspell), the negative experience of losing to a stax deck is often a much longer experience.

Stax's Strengths

Now, there are obvious benefits to playing stax cards. Let's consider Grafdigger's Cage. For , the card shuts down Underworld Breach wins, Reanimate effects, and to-field creature tutors, like Eldritch Evolution. That is an incredible rate; you won't find a 1-MV instant that efficient. The efficiency of stax pieces can shore up both a deck's strengths and weaknesses.

That said, we should balance our desire for expertly disrupting our opponents with the concept of a minimum effective dose. I'll explain the concept. When treating an illness with medicine, the best strategy is to create a positive outcome (e.g., clearing up pneumonia) with as small an input as possible (e.g., a low dose of antibiotics). This is because lower doses typically reduce the chance of negative side effects; more generally, fewer or less inputs are more easily accommodated by a complex system.

We can and should use this concept while designing decks, particularly in a proactive, combo-oriented format, so if you'd like to slow down your opponents or consolidate your advantage, a M.E.D. of stax can help. A tangible example of this concept at work: over time, Tymna Tana stax (a.k.a. Blood Pod) has progressively cut stax pieces for more proactive and flexible cards so that the deck can more consistently jam through an open window their win.

The Truth About Stax

I'll be blunt: when it comes to trying to win, playing a dedicated stax deck isn't optimal. That said, ≥99% of cEDH decks are not strictly optimal in this way; we can't all just play Tymna Kraum and/or Rog Si. Personal expression is vital. But if you find yourself losing more games than you should after rushing out that Drannith Magistrate, I hope these arguments can help you understand your experience and plan what comes next!