Deck Power Level Thread

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 438
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 1 week ago

Pre Game conversations are a big part of EDH games, the RC and CaG are always talking about conversations about our decks before games so we can adjust our expectations, a commom thing is for us to rate our decks out fo 10. So talking about our decks is necessary. It's also notorious that we aren't good evaluators of our own creations, it's a well known meme that everyone thinks their deck is a 7.

So I propose we have a thread to evaluate our decks. We post our decks, be it threads or links, and a brief summary of the deck, play patterns, how we win and our own evaluation.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE A DIFFERENT GRADE ISN'T A ATTACK ON THE DECK NOR ATTACK ON THE BUILDER

Some metas are weaker than others, so we feel are decks are more powerful than the reality. Sometimes we build the deck to a specific %. Thats okay. We play with what we like, but having outside info might be helpfull. I'll start with what I tought, and appreciate inpur in format and all that. If more/less info or anything else could be changed.


Veyran, Voice of Duality viewtopic.php?t=36316

This is my Veyran deck. It's a traditional spellsinger deck in Izzet. The idea of the deck is to play a permanent like Guttersnipe and play a bunch of cheap spells like Opt , Brainstorm , Preordain and etc. Veyran, Voice of Duality will double the pings. Same with some token generators such as Young Pyromancer andTalrand, Sky Summoner . The deck can with spellslinger damage, like the previously mentioned Guttersnipe, sometimes tokens get out of control and lead us to a win and Veyran, Voice of Duality has a super-prowess ability built in that can take people out with commander damage that is often unexpected.

Power level : If a precon is a 5 I think this deck is arround a 6. It's stronger than a precon but not by thaaaat much. It has obvious weakness. Even if sometimes it can hang with higher power decks it's more rare. I think it having a lower average mana value makes it rare to have games where the deck doesn't flow. So the floor isn't low but the average game isn't super strong


Now I propose you guys answer me : Is it fair to tell someone I don't know this is a 6? Is it weaker, stronger? and why. I think it could be cool if we posted our decks and gave feedback/talked about it


User avatar
TheGildedGoose
HONK HONK
Posts: 647
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: any/all
Contact:

Post by TheGildedGoose » 1 week ago

In all seriousness, while I think this thread is a good idea at heart, I strongly disagree with the idea that a 1-10 scale is appropriate for determining power level. Especially not if a precon is a 5; if a starter deck with a terrible manabase and little focus is the halfway mark, what differentiates a 3 from a 2? A 2 from a 1? Conversely, if we accept a 10 as the top of the top cEDH commanders, how does that affect 7-9? The ends of the spectrum become more difficult to define until the very end

I think a more useful metric is to talk about what we don't want in our game. I have an ol' standby joke that "I want a good, clean fight. No combos before turn 4, no gratuitously long turns, and no whining." It's a little vague, in that it doesn't set a decent level of overall power of decks, but it does get across what makes a game of commander unfun for me, which is the more important aspect.

User avatar
Crazy Monkey
Arcane Themes
Posts: 406
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: New Mexico, US

Post by Crazy Monkey » 1 week ago

I have a similar experience and nitpick. I spent years feeling correct that most of my decks were 7/10, and I'm not sure it's a useful metric. I'd also disagree that placing 'precon' at 5 makes sense. Even if we use a more broad(?) scale, where "whatever cards in color I had on hand" is 1 precon is 3 and cEDH is 10, I don't know how to really quantify the difference between 6 and 8. I think that a range of 10 is too large, and the numbers obscure the intent a bit too much. In my playgroup, we've moved towards descriptors and qualifiers. Let me give some examples, and some decks as reference (all links in sig because I am lazy).

Low power: This is (old) precon level and lower. The strategy is either very slow and not very interactive or the cards aren't very cohesive. This is often precons from before 2018 or so and decks built with cards on hand. These decks will often be neither very proactive nor interactive outside of some uncommon situations, with few tutors. The example deck of mine is Zedruu the Greathearted, because it's gameplan is just. that. bad.
Low-Mid Power: This is upgraded (old) precon level, or precons after 2019. These decks have a cohesive plan, but have large gaps in what they can do or deal with. Maybe a couple of tutors and maybe some convoluted 5 card combos, without a critical mass of interaction or just unable to interact with certain things. These decks might threaten either a win or enough resources to eventually win starting around turn 7+. The example deck of mine is Kytheon, Hero of Akros // Gideon, Battle-Forged: Gideon Tribal and combat control.
Mid power: Starting here, a deck should really be able to deal with most situations, even if it only runs 1 card to do so (or just player removal). May run a combo, but it has many points of interaction that all colors should be able to interact with. These decks will contain consistent engines for cards, mana, etc. A win may happen as soon as turn 6, and it should start being more resilient to opponent's interaction. The example deck of mine is Torbran, Thane of Red Fell burn, or Malcolm, Keen-Eyed Navigator+Vial Smasher the Fierce backgrounds tribal.
Mid-High power: These decks can start to run efficient combos and/or interaction. They're often somehow limited by theme and don't run best-in-slot cards. They can start to run more than just Sol Ring, but not the full cEDH suite. Winning may be as soon as turn 4 with a god hand, and interaction is therefore needed by then. This is where I've targeted Osgir, the Reconstructor (which may still be too high) or Talrand, Sky Summoner control.
High Power: Due to either speed or interaction, this deck is active and threatening to its opponents by turn 2, and should start consistently threatening a win or a strong engine around turn 4. This is where I place Zada, Hedron Grinder for speed or Tasigur, the Golden Fang for control.
High to cEDH: These are the most interactive or consistent decks in High power, and are able to meaningfully impact a game of cEDH where wins can be attempted starting on turn 1 and have minimum timing and options for interaction. These are often no holds barred for a strong gameplan that's just not efficient, resilient, or consistent enough for a full cEDH rating. This is where I place Unesh, Criosphinx Sovereign, which is arguably my strongest deck.
cEDH: Absolute no holds barred optimization for winning specifically. Little room for thematic choices, card selection is very much best in slot. I don't enjoy building here, and do not have one.

These could be translated on a 1-7 scale, but I've found that keeping them more human-legible has helped introduce these important turn -1 conversations to unfamiliar players.
Commander Decks


Kemba | Kytheon | Talrand | Unesh | Teferi | Geth | primer Zada | Krenko | Torbran | Patron Orochi | Ghalta | Gargos | Medomai | Lavinia | The Count | Xenagos | Nikya | Jaheira, Artisan | Trostani | Athreos | Jarad | Kydele & Thrasios | Nin | Krark & Sakashima | Feather | Osgir | Gisela | Roon | Chulane | Sydri | Ertai | Mairsil | Vial & Malcolm | Prosh | Marath | Marisi | Marchesa | Syr Gwyn | Riku | Riku | Animar | Ghave | Tasigur | Muldrotha | Rayami | Zedruu | Yidris | Kynaios & Tiro | Saskia | Tymna & Kydele | Atraxa | Akiri & Silas | Sisay | Ur Dragon | Golos | Horde | Najeela | Genju | Traxos

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 381
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 week ago

duducrash wrote:
1 week ago
Power level : If a precon is a 5 I think this deck is arround a 6. It's stronger than a precon but not by thaaaat much. It has obvious weakness. Even if sometimes it can hang with higher power decks it's more rare. I think it having a lower average mana value makes it rare to have games where the deck doesn't flow. So the floor isn't low but the average game isn't super strong
I'm not sure I have ever heard anybody suggest a five for a pre-con before. Maybe start with a stable metric and pick 1-3 precons and have people rate those to get a starting metric?
TheGildedGoose wrote:
1 week ago
In all seriousness, while I think this thread is a good idea at heart, I strongly disagree with the idea that a 1-10 scale is appropriate for determining power level. Especially not if a precon is a 5; if a starter deck with a terrible manabase and little focus is the halfway mark, what differentiates a 3 from a 2? A 2 from a 1? Conversely, if we accept a 10 as the top of the top cEDH commanders, how does that affect 7-9? The ends of the spectrum become more difficult to define until the very end
There was an interesting thread in this direction, where I proposed an X-Y axis (so it's still easily reduced to a "number" for discussion - when all parties are used to the system). Granted the whole thing is useless in pick-up games or wider discussion, unless content creators start talking about it and the ideas become mainstream.

Part of the idea (reproduced here) was a guideline until the ideas were internalized. The idea was to start at the top and the first "yes" answer gave you your "number."
Spoiler
Show
QD Matrix:

Construction
5 - This deck, if unchallenged, will win/achieve dominance in 5 turns or less at least 75% of the time
5 - This deck always uses the most effective/efficient version of a creature/spell/effect with no "wasted" slots
5 - This deck has highly efficient interaction with significant compactness/backup/redundancy
4 - This deck shifts plans to win when advantageous and will have multiple lines of play available in at least 75% of games
4 - This deck usually uses the most effective/efficient version of a creature spell/effect, some consideration for theme/pet cards
4 - This deck, if unchallenged, will win/achieve dominance in 8 turns or less at least 50% of the time
3 - This deck has significant interaction/synergy, with some back-up/redundancy for its strategy
3 - This deck usually uses the most effective/efficient version of a creature spell/effect, based on synergy and theme
3 - Precon with less than half of the cards replaced/upgraded
2 - This deck uses some "goodstuff" cards, when/if they meet the theme/deck strategy and has synergy in some lines of play
2 - This deck can shift plans to win and has some back-up/redundancy, but doesn't generally push advantage
2 - Precon with 0-10 card replacements
1 - This deck usually uses the most thematically appropriate cards, regardless of individual card power/synergy
1 - This deck stays "on-theme" without regard for back-up/redundancy

Social:
5 - I prefer games where any legal spell/effect/strategy is an acceptable line of play ("anything goes")
5 - I want games to end as soon as possible (to shuffle up again), no matter who wins. Don't pull punches for any reason.
5 - I expect all players to play with a high comprehension/adherence to threat assessment, sequencing and/or table politics
4 - I prefer games with few concessions to social impact, with a high level of play
4 - I want games with good interaction that can end quickly, but don't drag the game unnecessarily
4 - I want all play-styles to be welcome but some "in the moment" consideration given to board state/struggling players (e.g. avoid LD on the player who already missed land drops)
3 - I want games that allow generally tight play, but allow for teaching/helping new/struggling players
3 - I want games where it is difficult for any one player to dominate quickly, but don't drag the game unnecessarily
3 - I want games that consider the social impact of strategies before the game begins
2 - I prefer longer games with a lot of interaction and opportunity for each player to "lead" at some point
2 - I enjoy improving threat assessment/sequencing, but don't expect high level of play from all players
2 - Social considerations for what is acceptable and "fun" supersede desire to win
1 - I prefer games to go at least 15 turns so there is plenty of time to enjoy the game and for each payer to contribute
1 - Socialization and enjoyment are more important that who wins, I just want to "do my thing"
1 - Little regard for threat assessment/sequencing, beyond immediate "threats"

**Not sure how to get the image in the linked post to also post here
Really, my post was just meant to get discussions going - but then the OP popped smoke and the thread kinda died. As usual.
TheGildedGoose wrote:
1 week ago
I think a more useful metric is to talk about what we don't want in our game. I have an ol' standby joke that "I want a good, clean fight. No combos before turn 4, no gratuitously long turns, and no whining." It's a little vague, in that it doesn't set a decent level of overall power of decks, but it does get across what makes a game of commander unfun for me, which is the more important aspect.
Very much this - though I would add no infinites and "use threat assessment" in there somewhere. . .
Crazy Monkey wrote:
1 week ago
Low-Mid Power: This is upgraded (old) precon level, or precons after 2019. These decks have a cohesive plan, but have large gaps in what they can do or deal with. Maybe a couple of tutors and maybe some convoluted 5 card combos, without a critical mass of interaction or just unable to interact with certain things. These decks might threaten either a win or enough resources to eventually win starting around turn 7+
If a T7 win is low-mid power for your group, then this scale would need negative definitions for most of my decks
Last edited by Treamayne 1 week ago, edited 1 time in total.
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1256
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 1 week ago

I reckon Millicent's an actual 7, it's a combat swarm deck that can get real out of hand, but doesn't explode the way Krenko or Elfball does. In exchange, she never really dies until she's dead; wraths'll slow her down, but she'll build back in 2-3 turns if the table lets her.

Zabaz and Feather are both 8s, they can hold their own against more powerful decks if the powerful decks underestimate them, are remarkably resilient, and can go for multiple forms of combo (or combo-like) kills. That said, they're both still combat decks at heart and tend to go for general damage first. They're also Boros, which used to count for something.

Syrix is probably something like a 6. It turns out when you slow down aristos so you're no longer doing 6 loops on your own turn, but trying to get one loop on everyone's turn, you're real open to disruption. The deck also durdles like hell, so I tend to play it when everyone else is durdling around too. That's not exactly a high-power set, but a lot of folks online always talk about pulling out stopwatches on those kind of games, so I don't know where it'd be in y'all's schema. For me it's fun figuring out what silly loops to assemble this turn out of whatever's scattered across various zones, and watching the weird stuff my opponents are doing gradually coalesce. Durdling when you're just doing the same thing over and over gets dull to watch, but someone figuring out what zany Eggs win they can McGuyver together out of some filler artifacts I've never heard of is interesting. To me at least.

User avatar
Crazy Monkey
Arcane Themes
Posts: 406
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: New Mexico, US

Post by Crazy Monkey » 1 week ago

Treamayne wrote:
1 week ago
Crazy Monkey wrote:
1 week ago
Low-Mid Power: This is upgraded (old) precon level, or precons after 2019. These decks have a cohesive plan, but have large gaps in what they can do or deal with. Maybe a couple of tutors and maybe some convoluted 5 card combos, without a critical mass of interaction or just unable to interact with certain things. These decks might threaten either a win or enough resources to eventually win starting around turn 7+
If a T7 win is low-mid power for your group, then this scale would need negative definitions for most of my decks
I'll modify my assertion somewhat. I intended to say that decks in that range can win that early, not that it's the average winning turn. It's the turn by which you should be interacting in order to not die. This may be as simple as an aggro deck swinging for lethal on you, but not ending the game. It's the decks which plan to play minimal ramp and land a 6 mana commander on curve and starts running away with the game. It's an Arjun, the Shifting Flame deck that wins with Psychosis Crawler and doesn't ramp or play efficient interaction.

I will admit that most of the games in my group happen at mid power and up. The Low and Mid-Low come up to play when there's a new player.
Commander Decks


Kemba | Kytheon | Talrand | Unesh | Teferi | Geth | primer Zada | Krenko | Torbran | Patron Orochi | Ghalta | Gargos | Medomai | Lavinia | The Count | Xenagos | Nikya | Jaheira, Artisan | Trostani | Athreos | Jarad | Kydele & Thrasios | Nin | Krark & Sakashima | Feather | Osgir | Gisela | Roon | Chulane | Sydri | Ertai | Mairsil | Vial & Malcolm | Prosh | Marath | Marisi | Marchesa | Syr Gwyn | Riku | Riku | Animar | Ghave | Tasigur | Muldrotha | Rayami | Zedruu | Yidris | Kynaios & Tiro | Saskia | Tymna & Kydele | Atraxa | Akiri & Silas | Sisay | Ur Dragon | Golos | Horde | Najeela | Genju | Traxos

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 438
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 1 week ago

I agree that 1-10 isnt the best. Specially because no deck is a 1-4 in those scales, its a 5-10 scale I guess. Objective scales aren't great imho but descriptions of the deck (what I used to do) dont help much because explaining your deck leaves out how optimized the deck is, a bad storm deck and a good storm deck sound similar on concept but play much different on the table.

I think if we were to look at stats alone, on average a deck with average mana value closer to the ground should be stronger, it is one objective aspect I totally get. Its not a hard rule but it works more often than not.

I think "what turn you win"=power level got big when people were quarantined. Yeah, my deck can totally win t5 if nothing happens at all. My decks that have a higher win % are resilient decks that can not die, estabilize the board and then win. I think its weird and doesnt take other players into consideration.

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 104
Joined: 2 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 week ago

While potentially hi-jacking the thread, might this be an interesting frame of reference?

Code: Select all

https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/the-edh-multiverse-a-model-of-the-edh-landscape/
(I put it in code because otherwise it fruitlessly tries to find a decklist.)

Image

It avoids the problem of a 7 and defines actually useful axes. It also fields questions which better indicate deck strength than a number with a subjective description (albeit that I have no clue at what turn my decks could win).
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

User avatar
Rumpy5897
Tuner of Jank
Posts: 1704
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rumpy5897 » 1 week ago

I recently joined a Feather Discord to try to get some qualified opinions on the densities of win conditions and mana engines in my deck. While there, I saw someone else post a list and call it "a seven". A good laugh was had, albeit only by yours truly.

I've often participated in various power level discussions over the years as I feel it's quite important to match decks up right, but it's also somewhat hard and impractical to do in depth stuff on the fly. Plus how would one even correct for interaction density, resilience and whatnot in a meaningful fashion? Ultimately the attempts boiled down to interesting thought experiments with no real world application.

A reasonable real world heuristic is to take the most impactful metric, the turn you typically win. Correct this somehow for control decks, which win later but impact the game early. It's not ideal, but it's an approximation that can actually be carried out in discussion. No 7/10, no stars out of five, removes personal bias and puts an objective number on it. That "a seven" Feather deck turned out to be aiming for T3-5 wins :P
 
EDH Primers (click me!)
Deck is Kill Club
Show

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 381
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 week ago

Gentle Giant wrote:
1 week ago
While potentially hi-jacking the thread, might this be an interesting frame of reference?
Seems similar to that I was proposing; but both more and less developed.
- More developed in it's concepts and presentation
- Less developed in that the X axis of social considerations is limited to the deck's "interaction" without consideration for playstyle preferences*, threat assessment, social dynamics, etc.

From the other thread:
Treamayne wrote:
2 years ago
In a social game, is "skill" really the ability to play a (competitively) perfect game? Or is it simply the player's familiarity and comfort with multi-player format dynamics, threat assessment, time/board management, and board-state situational awareness. It's just an introspective look at how a player feels "this game."
*Note: Playstyle preferences seems both the most difficult to define, and one of the more important concepts. To me it's tolerance/preference for things like Kingmaking, alliances, "kill the weakest," holding grudges, etc. For example: I've seen people ragequit over a single Ghirapur Orrery (called it kingmaking) or because I used Phyrexian Splicer to give player A's creature flying to attack player B's planeswalker (alliances - "your teaming up against me;" my response "no, it's threat assessment").
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
materpillar
the caterpillar
Posts: 863
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Ohio

Post by materpillar » 1 week ago

duducrash wrote:
1 week ago
I agree that 1-10 isnt the best. Specially because no deck is a 1-4 in those scales, its a 5-10 scale I guess. Objective scales aren't great imho but descriptions of the deck (what I used to do) dont help much because explaining your deck leaves out how optimized the deck is, a bad storm deck and a good storm deck sound similar on concept but play much different on the table.

I think if we were to look at stats alone, on average a deck with average mana value closer to the ground should be stronger, it is one objective aspect I totally get. Its not a hard rule but it works more often than not.

I think "what turn you win"=power level got big when people were quarantined. Yeah, my deck can totally win t5 if nothing happens at all. My decks that have a higher win % are resilient decks that can not die, estabilize the board and then win. I think its weird and doesnt take other players into consideration.
I'm on the more casual side of things, so my rule 0 powerlevel question of choice is "How spicy are we feeling boys (and girls)? I've got everything from 'bad card tribal' to 'will aggressively murder pre-cons.'"

I've found I can get a pretty good feel of how try-hard people are by how they respond to that question. People are pretty good about verbalizing what they're aiming for with their deck. For example, they don't have to say their deck is "low" power or weak they can just say they're aiming for a more chill time or something similar. Obviously, this system is far from perfect, but I've found it gets everyone on the same page really really well. If someone says they're bringing a really spicy boy, and they combo out Turn 4. That's pretty expected. No one says they're looking for a chill, mild game and then combo out on Turn 4 with counterspell backup. Also, since it is a really random question they usually have to think about their deck and its play patterns in regards to what other people are bringing instead of just regurgitating whatever 1-10 number they've memorized.

The spicy question doesn't always result in balanced powerlevel but it does a pretty good job of balancing expectations so that if the powerlevel is somewhat askew that there isn't usually bad feelings about it.

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 438
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 1 week ago

materpillar wrote:
1 week ago
. example, they don't have to say their deck is "low" power or weak they can just say they're aiming for a more chill time


I think this is one of the biggest problems is this. Sometimes you pick a strategy and love your deck and feel like its pretty okay, but it doesnt hang with more explosive decks so people dont want to call their decks weaker like its a personal offense

User avatar
materpillar
the caterpillar
Posts: 863
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Ohio

Post by materpillar » 1 week ago

duducrash wrote:
1 week ago
I think this is one of the biggest problems is this. Sometimes you pick a strategy and love your deck and feel like its pretty okay, but it doesnt hang with more explosive decks so people dont want to call their decks weaker like its a personal offense
That's why I've found asking people how spicy their decks are works better than a pure powerlevel assessment.. People tend towards talking about their explosive decks as spicier than their non-explosive decks. I've noticed people have an easier time saying their deck "isn't spicy" as opposed to "weak". Human psychology is weird.

Also, since it's a more random question people tend to elaborate on why they think their deck is spicy or not as opposed to just saying their deck is "strong" or "a 7".

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 5066
Joined: 3 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 week ago

I will take just one moment to restate a point I have made before. All of these angles are valid but there is actually one metric that has a roughly 90-95% accuracy of determining if your deck will play well with others and that is the average cmc of non land cards.

There are outliers that hork this system up like gimmick decks (see @materpillar with the high cmc tribal and others with mono 1 drop decks) but these can easily be assessed as exceptions that prove the rule. (There is one big "gotcha" here and that is ramp tribal decks can way out punch their curves especially if their commander can then mana into cards; usually this can be viewed as an outlie and I suspect a small refinement of the metric to have a weighted curve that chops some of the top end. )

Check the average cmc. If you're within +/- 10% you'll probably be playing the same game of magic. I've found this almost disturbingly accurate when I know the cmcs.

If you compare budget (average nonland price less outliers like Timetwister) and cmc it gets even closer. Deck power levels won't be exact but you'll be within a good game distance almost always.

All this other stuff inevitably ends in nit picking and overnormalization. Power levels don't need to be exact for good games just closeish.

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3119
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 1 week ago

I think the best way to manage this in real time is to talk about what your deck does. Its been a while since I actually played because young child, but I like how its managed on a couple of the channels, IHYD and CGB. They talk about what their deck does and in the case of the former settle on whatever options everyone is happy with. In the case of the latter they're a group of friends so its less of an issue. Nonetheless the idea of talking g about 'whats the worst possible thing you can do' seems like a good yardstick to me.

For myself I personally stopped caring a long time ago, and I strongly recommend not caring so much. I'll play a deck usually that punches uphill if I can because I like being the underdog, and I mostly don't care if someone bring their a game. I take it as a challenge. I'll play combo, stax, mld, whatever you like. The only thing I don't like is a board lock with no wincon (get rekt Teeg).
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 175
Joined: 3 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 week ago

If we do end up using the 1-10 scale, I'd put the precons, bad and good, at 0 & 1, respectively, 10 for cEDH, and use 2-9 for the business end of the scale. I don't think any real thought space needs to be devoted to ranking anything worse. Does it matter if ladies facing left is a negative two and baby's first commander deck built solely from draft leftovers is a negative three as far as a balanced match goes? Putting all the real work space in the actual space the sort of people trying to gauge their power level inhabit seems the way to go.
Baeloth Barrityl, Entertainer --&-- Raised by Giants: A different take on the Voltron concept. Big mana Gruul.

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 438
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 1 week ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 week ago
If we do end up using the 1-10 scale, I'd put the precons, bad and good, at 0 & 1, respectively, 10 for cEDH, and use 2-9 for the business end of the scale. I don't think any real thought space needs to be devoted to ranking anything worse. Does it matter if ladies facing left is a negative two and baby's first commander deck built solely from draft leftovers is a negative three as far as a balanced match goes? Putting all the real work space in the actual space the sort of people trying to gauge their power level inhabit seems the way to go.
The point where I tend to agree with others is, can you give a good, objective answer that most will agree? For example the deck I posted in the op?

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3119
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 1 week ago

duducrash wrote:
1 week ago
BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 week ago
If we do end up using the 1-10 scale, I'd put the precons, bad and good, at 0 & 1, respectively, 10 for cEDH, and use 2-9 for the business end of the scale. I don't think any real thought space needs to be devoted to ranking anything worse. Does it matter if ladies facing left is a negative two and baby's first commander deck built solely from draft leftovers is a negative three as far as a balanced match goes? Putting all the real work space in the actual space the sort of people trying to gauge their power level inhabit seems the way to go.
The point where I tend to agree with others is, can you give a good, objective answer that most will agree? For example the deck I posted in the op?
In my opinion no. The reason being the games where its going to matter you're going to find someone will go out of their way to take umbrage.

That deck is definitely a 7, but I think numerical scale doesn't necessarily allow for variation of archetypes, because it's not that simple. Different archetypes compete better against others and that skews numbers. And there's the whole subjective thing that some people actively dislike specific archetypes. One persons 10 is another person's 5 or 6.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 5066
Joined: 3 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 week ago

The deck is $200 with an aggressive average cmc if 2.45, most expensive card around $20.

It's a 5 or 6 in my book. Stronger than a precon but loses to tryhards like me (who roll out 7s and 8s and claim that other peoples 6s are 7s and my 8s are 7s).

Which is incidentally where the myth of all decks are 7s come from. Most people underrate their decks by 1 and overrate other peoples by 1.

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 175
Joined: 3 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 week ago

We could probably fill in the gaps on a 1-10:
10 - Best known commanders in the format, flawlessly constructed without any constraints.
9 - Best known commanders, slightly less than flawlessly constructed (financial constraints perhaps)
8 - Eminently playable commander (perhaps a known value engine) constructed without any constraints.
7 - Eminently playable commander, constructed with thematic or minor financial constraints (maybe no ABUR lands)
6 - Commander perhaps more gimmicky than good, but still offers much to build around, No constraints.
5 - Pattern becoming apparent - thematic or financial constraints.
4 - Precons that are generally thought of as good.
3 - Bad precons
2 - Intentionally poor novelty decks built for absurd reasons.
1 - Rubber banded, unsleeved trash from someone with no collection who doesn't know how to play.

Under this metric, the OP deck is probably a 5 and my own deck is a 5. I can live with that. I imagine tiers 7-10 require your commander to be a vetted, known quantity and affirmatively nominated to said positions. T&T for example, as a known 10/9, and Korvold as a known 7/8. 5 & 6 would represent the broadest swath of commander decks - a default state that you have to make deliberate choices to leave.
Baeloth Barrityl, Entertainer --&-- Raised by Giants: A different take on the Voltron concept. Big mana Gruul.

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 381
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 week ago

Interesting post, with one question:
BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 week ago
Under this metric, the OP deck is probably a 5 and my own deck is a 5. I can live with that. I imagine tiers 7-10 require your commander to be a vetted, known quantity and affirmatively nominated to said positions.
And how would generals be removed from the metaphorical list. E.g.: a decade ago, this list was probably Uril, Zur, Animar, etc. would you say all of them are still included. If not, why? Would it just be popularity (I don't see Uril much anymore) or capacity to (ab)use with more recent sets?
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
Crazy Monkey
Arcane Themes
Posts: 406
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: New Mexico, US

Post by Crazy Monkey » 1 week ago

Jumping back in with a reflective comment that this thread got me thinking about.

So I didn't realize that my social deck power level assessment had atrophied until this thread. Partially because my local group is consistent and spans such an array of mechanical power, we play all strategies but what strategy each deck runs is left unsaid in our power discussions. E.g., we have some midpower decks that run heavy control towards stax, but because the pilot is known for cEDH stax, we can tell the difference. I hadn't noticed this drop out of our pregame discussions, and in this group I am less certain that this axis is important as it would be for pickup games with unknown players.

I remember the discussion last year on scale based on average MV and dollar value. I think this is probably the broadest universal method, but that it both encourages and suffers from power creep when there are impartial thresholds. As power creep raises the ceiling, does that mean that a criteria should update to follow it?
Commander Decks


Kemba | Kytheon | Talrand | Unesh | Teferi | Geth | primer Zada | Krenko | Torbran | Patron Orochi | Ghalta | Gargos | Medomai | Lavinia | The Count | Xenagos | Nikya | Jaheira, Artisan | Trostani | Athreos | Jarad | Kydele & Thrasios | Nin | Krark & Sakashima | Feather | Osgir | Gisela | Roon | Chulane | Sydri | Ertai | Mairsil | Vial & Malcolm | Prosh | Marath | Marisi | Marchesa | Syr Gwyn | Riku | Riku | Animar | Ghave | Tasigur | Muldrotha | Rayami | Zedruu | Yidris | Kynaios & Tiro | Saskia | Tymna & Kydele | Atraxa | Akiri & Silas | Sisay | Ur Dragon | Golos | Horde | Najeela | Genju | Traxos

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 175
Joined: 3 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 week ago

It'd be based around the sort of general community consensus that needn't be explicitly decreed by council. A lot of former bogeymen would probably fall into 5-6 at this point. 5-6 are the ranks for pub stompers and noob killers, which I'd imagine Zur now falls under. Under my list, which doesn't even exactly reinvent the wheel, the majority of 5 is the new 7. To be more than a 6 is an affirmative decision. To be worse than a 5 is no accident either. The average deck, of a deliberately not S tier commander, built with care, should be the halfway point.
Baeloth Barrityl, Entertainer --&-- Raised by Giants: A different take on the Voltron concept. Big mana Gruul.

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 104
Joined: 2 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 week ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 week ago
We could probably fill in the gaps on a 1-10:
10 - Best known commanders in the format, flawlessly constructed without any constraints.
9 - Best known commanders, slightly less than flawlessly constructed (financial constraints perhaps)
8 - Eminently playable commander (perhaps a known value engine) constructed without any constraints.
7 - Eminently playable commander, constructed with thematic or minor financial constraints (maybe no ABUR lands)
6 - Commander perhaps more gimmicky than good, but still offers much to build around, No constraints.
5 - Pattern becoming apparent - thematic or financial constraints.
4 - Precons that are generally thought of as good.
3 - Bad precons
2 - Intentionally poor novelty decks built for absurd reasons.
1 - Rubber banded, unsleeved trash from someone with no collection who doesn't know how to play.

Under this metric, the OP deck is probably a 5 and my own deck is a 5. I can live with that. I imagine tiers 7-10 require your commander to be a vetted, known quantity and affirmatively nominated to said positions. T&T for example, as a known 10/9, and Korvold as a known 7/8. 5 & 6 would represent the broadest swath of commander decks - a default state that you have to make deliberate choices to leave.
I'm sorry, but your ranking suffers from all the same subjectivity as the classic one. Aside from the popularity comment of @Treamayne, terms like 'eminently playable', 'flawlessly constructed', 'more gimmicky than good' all have different interpretations. That's the issue with a generic scale describing power level: it's never universal and never in a vacuum (as @toctheyounger also correctly states). You also implicitly denote that each commander itself has only one build: the elusive 'best one' or simply one approach to said commander. What happens if I play a Zur, or T&T without the cEDH approach?
And I'm pretty sure that a financially and/or thematically constrained Korvold would lose to a cutthroat gimmicky commander. (These are just examples to show that the scale is not linear and thus not a good indicator)

The 99 is much more important than the commander to determine deck strength.

Lastly, it feels as though this list was built starting at 10, knowing your deckbuilding style due to your comments on my Averna deck, I'm not surprised that you struggle to describe the levels below a precon. Why use denominators such as 'poor', 'absurd' and 'trash'? It's disrespectful, to say the least.
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”