2015 was a great year for me in a lot of ways. With just under a week to go until 2016 rolls around, I want to take the opportunity to look back at the year that was and see what we learned. I drafted quite a few decks, made quite a few lists, discovered a lot of new quirks about this deck-building approach that surprised even me, and in general, I had a great time playing Commander, meeting new people, and doing a lot of podcast guest appearances. I hope you had as much fun this year as I did, and I hope 2016 is even better. So what did we learn about 75% Commander deck-building this year?

My article about how we can apply lesson from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War to deck-building was a personal favorite to write. A few of the lessons from that work—about the importance of using the enemy’s resources against him or her and about being unpredictable—resonated with me, and we learned a bit we can apply to deck-building in the future. This is one to catch up on now if you missed it, but that may just reflect my bias since I so thoroughly enjoyed writing it.

In a two-part series about stepping up your playgroup’s game (part one and part two), we discussed a common pitfall some people unfamiliar with 75% deck-building can fall into: that you should weaken your deck until it seems “fair” to your playgroup to make a deck 75%. I don’t agree with that approach at all. I see a lot of people who have that opinion, but I feel they made that up. The truth is that you can’t start with a deck that works and weaken it—the best way to build 75% is start with a concept that works and build with a goal in mind, attenuating the power level by making it less consistent by eschewing tutors and massive card-draw rather than by making it less powerful. If the power level is too great for your group and even scaling cards aren’t helping you get there, you may need to help make their decks better. I give a little advice about how to do that. Don’t step your own game down—it’s condescending, and you won’t have as much fun.

An article that starts out with me talking about why I prefer saying “EDH” to “Commander” ended up going to a surprising place when I reexamined one of our 8 Simple Rules (It wouldn’t hurt to revisit that article either; it was our 2014 retrospective, and it’s the article I wish people linked when someone asks about 75%) that guide us in our building process—specifically, it’s the tenet that it’s better to punish our opponents for doing things than to prevent them from doing them. Is a deck with cards like Gaddock Teeg violating that guideline to such an extent that we need to avoid those cards? I say no, but the community didn’t all agree. There’s real nuance to this argument, and any time we break our own rules, it’s worth looking back over.

My article about Grand Prix Las Vegas doesn’t have a ton to do with 75%, but it’s a good reminder that you should go to things and meet new people. Eat at new restaurants. Sightsee. This is a social game, so go out there and socialize.

“75% Doesn’t Mean Terrible” was one I didn’t like feeling that I had to write. I revisited an old deck and kicked it in the butt a little, hoping I could perk it up and still end up with a deck that felt 75%. I was surprised at how much I could improve without feeling that the deck was a different kind of deck. I know it’s really tough to build 75%—it’s harder than building casual or building “full power” because there’s a lot of nuance that goes into building a deck that still works, and it’s good to be reminded a 75% deck still needs to be good enough to beat the best of the best, and you should never feel that you’re done with a deck. Even 75% decks can be improved, and you needn’t worry about them not being 75% anymore. If you built the deck with 75% in mind from the start, some improvement to synergy and power level won’t “ruin” the deck if you follow the rules you set for yourself.

Taking a look at a deck someone builds after reading my articles and trying to digest them tells me a lot about whether my instructions are complete enough that people who don’t know all of my thoughts can follow them. This “audit” went pretty well, if you ask me, and it tells me we may be onto something with this wacky 75% thing I have written about for almost two years.

There’s not a ton to say about this one, but this was the first time I attempted mill in a 75% deck, and it went okay.

Is 75% a budget philosophy? No, it’s really not, but that doesn’t mean restricting our card pool on the basis of money cost isn’t an interesting way to limit yourself. Looking at how a deck limited to a certain dollar amount would turn out is a fun way to remind ourselves that it’s not a budget ethos but that it might not be so bad if it were.

Finally, the concept of tutoring was reexamined, and I like where we ended up. Breaking (bending?) another one of my rules was a very rewarding exercise, and showing how following the intentionality of the suggestions rather than the strict construction of those rules can bear unexpected fruit made this one of the most delightful articles in the series to date for me to write.

Every time I write about 75% Commander, I learn a little something new. I gave this series a name, but so many other people already do a lot of the things I suggest that I feel as though it’s almost one of the many mindsets different Commander players have rather than something someone invented. 2016 promises more surprises, a lot of new Commanders, more polls, questions, and suggestions from you, and maybe a few new subseries like the Heat Index articles. Thanks for following me, dear readers, and have a happy holiday season, a wonderful New Year’s, and we’ll meet back here soon. Until then!