pie chart

The EDH Multiverse - A Model of the EDH Landscape

Commander / EDH* Casual Competitive Primer

Beebles


Welcome to an overview model of the EDH format

This is my latest attempt at modelling the EDH landscape. It is a summary of many ideas already out there in the community presented in one visual overview, as well as a reimagination of the EDH power level guide. Hopefully it can help EDH players in navigating the many different interpretations of our format and serve as a reference for future EDH guide attempts.

The project has led to 2 different guides. The main chart below is meant for use outside of play, while the simplified variant (explained in chapter 3.1) is meant for aligning on EDH games during pregame talks. In this primer you can browse the guides, read more about the main uses, get more information about the different model elements and check out the playmat version.


The current version is 1.16

MTG EDH Power Level Chart

This guide was made for and with help from the community, so I did not want to reserve all rights. To that end I have applied a Creative Commons license. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


1. About this guide

Trying to win and trying to prevent others from winning are two fundamental drivers in the game. In EDH, the extent to which these drivers are pursued will lead to different experiences that different players prefer. Some may even forgo these aims entirely and create decks that do something very different instead. This guide describes how the EDH experience can differ using those two drivers as the defining aspects.

In this section you can read more about the ideas that went into making the guide and what are its main uses.

EDH has a characteristic that I view as being both a great strength and a weakness: it can be played in many different ways. By focusing on the social aspect of the game EDH has become a format of many possibilities, opening up many new ways to enjoy Magic. This is great in that there is something in EDH for everyone. And everyone should be able to find an EDH game they will enjoy, regardless of budget, skill or time.

At the same time these many possibilities have created many different preferences and ideologies among the EDH player base. One could say it has become somewhat of a format multiverse, leading to considerable differences in expectations between different playgroups (or players within the same playgroup) and arguably even to different sub-formats. It's a Myriad Landscape. This can cause challenges in translatability and accessibility of EDH, especially in a more casual setting and for newer players.

The solution to this challenge in my opinion is not one party forcing their preferences upon another. I see more chances of success in acknowledging that there are different EDH interpretations to play in, and that all of them are viable as long as everyone at the table is on board. And instead of conforming to just one, we can be open to switching between EDH interpretations across games. Like a planeswalker moving from one plane to the next, so that every player can get their preferred deck out for a spin and get the experience they are looking for. As long as EDH means different things to different people, we can prepare ourselves to play in EDH interpretations that are different from our own.

With the main chart I don’t seek to assist in the pre-game alignment process directly. I don't think it's appropriate for that. Instead I wanted to take a step back and describe the overall EDH landscape by creating an overview of the different ways one could interpret EDH. To make a bit more sense of our EDH Multiverse. Consider it a game theory resource. It is a tool you can use if you find it useful. I see these main uses for the model:

  • Increasing format understanding by creating an overview of the main different possible interpretations of EDH
  • Presenting players concepts and words to help them express what kind of EDH they want to play
  • Understanding the root cause of tensions in certain playgroups
  • Facilitating conversations in regular playgroups about the different ways they want to play EDH
  • Gauging for what format interpretations your decks might be suitable
  • Understanding how your suite of EDH decks can be changed to increase its overall format coverage

I believe the simplified variant is a better fit for helping you have effective pre-game talks. Check chapter 3.1 if that's what you're looking for.

The model was born from the realization that most EDH guides leave out a dimension of the format that I find vital to understanding it: how far players want to go in stopping each other from winning. Playgroups that avoid cards like Armageddon, Mindslicer, Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger or Rest in Peace don’t do so because they are overpowered for their meta. They do so because the effect that these specific interaction pieces have on the experience doesn’t match with the type of gameplay that the group is looking for. It's for social reasons, not power reasons. I think interaction impact can help to better understand the format, as well as what makes Casual EDH and cEDH different.

Restraint - The casual challenge

The history of the EDH format is an interesting story. Although now enjoyed at all levels of competitiveness, EDH was created with the intent to be played casually. As an alternative to competitive formats. Instead of trying to build the most powerful decks possible, in EDH you could build and play decks that were toned down in power to give room for a larger card pool, more variance and an alternative experience.

To facilitate that experience, restraint has to be applied in the deck building process. Restraint in how good your deck is at winning: after all, if you can win way faster than the rest of the table, they might get the experience that they did not really have a chance to participate. The classic pubstomper scenario. The same is true however for your deck's ability to stop others from winning: after all, if you are way better at shutting down your opponents than them, they might also get the experience that they did not really have a chance to participate. Neither tend to be a recipe for an entertaining game. At least not for the majority of the table. Ideally, both aspects of the deck you choose to play are appropriate given the expectations of all the players at the table.

Most other guides out there focus on mapping "Power level" alone. With this guide I propose that understanding the expected range of "Interaction Impact" is equally important for knowing what your playgroup is OK with, especially in a casual setting. This is because, at least in my experience, showing restraint on both of these areas defines what it means to play casual EDH:

To build your decks so you can play your game and try to win in an expressive way,
but never at the cost of the other players feeling they've lost their ability to do the same.

Now where those boundaries lie exactly will differ from playgroup to playgroup, but that balancing act of finding a shared ballbark with the people you are playing with is what casual EDH means to me. It's about respecting the time of the other players at the table by refraining from building decks that will make you have fun at the expense of the fun of others. It's about the intent to ensure everyone will enjoy the game you’re about to play.

That is where the casual challenge lies: if you’re not going to play at the maximum power of the format, then how much restraint are you going to apply to make it fun for everyone? How far can we go until players feel that things are going too fast? And how far can we go until players feel they have lost too much agency over their game actions? This is something you'll have to talk about with the people you are playing with before you start, which is something not seen in any other format. In that sense, EDH is more akin to a game framework than an actual format: you have to interpret it first before playing. Finding the shared ballpark takes some effort, and because of the many possible outcomes it's challenging at times to get on the same page or to not run into some feelbad situations every now and then. In my opinion, it makes Casual EDH best suited for playing with a fixed playgroup, because it gives you a lot more time to know where everyone's at and to craft one or more casual EDH interpretations that everyone can get behind.

When playing casually, the concept of Interaction Impact can help players express what level of restraint they prefer in the trying-to-stop-each-other-from-winning department. Just like the concept of Power Levels can help them express what level of restraint they prefer in the trying-to-win department.

Unambiguity - The competitive advantage

This balancing act is less of a challenge when playing EDH competitively. In cEDH, at least in my understanding, the expectations tend to be very clear and consistent:

Play to win, without compromise.
Anything that is legal in the format is tolerated.

That is the opposite of applying restraint. As a result, there is little room for ambiguity in that EDH interpretation, which for some is one of the main draws of cEDH. That is not to say there is no room for expression in cEDH, or that cEDH players don't respect the time of their fellow players. Although cEDH players are more competitive in mindset, cEDH is also about a social experience and enjoying a game of multiplayer Magic together. It's still EDH. It's just a different ballpark to play in that provides a different experience. And because the cEDH ballpark is free of restraint, aligning on what that experience should look like takes less effort compared to casual EDH, as it's relatively hard to have different expectations for the competitive interpretation of the format. This absence of restraint in cEDH also means the concept of Interaction Impact will likely be less relevant to you the more competitively you prefer to play.

Which EDH interpretation is correct?

So on the one end we have the casual mindset, seeking a specific experience by applying restraint when building a deck to both its power to win and its power to stop others from winning. On the other end we have the competitive mindset, seeking a specific experience by not applying such restraint in their deckbuilding, but instead exploring how far the format can pushed competitively. Which one is correct?

In trying to answer this question we could look at how the format was intended to be played. Its creators made EDH as an alternative to competitive play. That is the game they designed and it’s that experience that the Commander Rules Committee has committed most of their resources towards. They know the format is easily broken and advise players not to in their Commander Philosophy Document. They aren’t committed to balancing the format, because that is not relevant for the game experience they set out to develop and maintain. And even if they wanted to, it would probably not be possible anyway.

This may lead people to believe that Casual EDH is the only one correct way to play the format. Or that the casual way is more correct than cEDH because it’s closer to the way it was originally intended to be played. Personally I don’t think that's how this stuff works. For example: the electric guitar wasn’t intended to be played in the ways that Jimi Hendrix ended up using it, but those ways surely proved to be entertaining for a lot of people.

Perhaps a more fitting comparison is Mario Kart 64. That video game, like EDH, was designed to be played as a local multiplayer game. A party racing game you enjoy with 3 of your friends casually with some beers and banther. And the majority of players probably play it in that way. However, because it's so easily broken it accidentally also ended up becoming one of the most entertaining speedrun games ever made. Its speedrun community still thrives, despite the game never getting a speedrun game mode, in-game leaderboards, or bug fixes from the game developer.

If EDH is the Mario Kart of Magic, then the cEDH player base is its speedrun community. The game wasn't designed to be played like that and its developers haven't committed many resources to support that way to play, but that doesn’t make it wrong to do so.

The game of Commander is a form of entertainment. You are playing it correctly when you and the people you are playing it with are having a good time.

These are assessment tools, not measurement tools

The guides aren't suitable for objective measurements. Instead, they are meant as tools to facilitate subjective assessment of decks and types of play. In my opinion, a system that will allow you to assign a number to your deck that you can take everywhere and have it be understood without any explanation is an unrealistic dream scenario, and definitely not the goal of this project. Because of this I advise players not to communicate a power level number in a vacuum when aligning on games, especially with strangers. I recommend aligning on games using expressions of power instead.

The 4 example format interpretations are a suggestion

The 4 boxes defining “~cEDH”, ‘~High Power Casual EDH”, “~Casual EDH” and “~Tolerant Casual EDH” are meant as a suggestion and starting point. And not as the correct definitions of these sub-formats. Instead, the user is encouraged to define their own preferred format interpretations by drawing their own lines.

All interpretations are considered viable

The guides are built from the principle that there is no correct or incorrect way to play Commander. Only a more or less appropriate way given the expectations of the players at the table.


2. Explanation of model elements

In this section you can read explanations about the different components included in the guides and what they represent.

The y-axis asks players to consider what range of "Power Level" (or "Winning Power") of decks is preferred when they play. Power level is defined here as "How far does a deck go to win?". The main metrics to consider are win speed and consistency: at what turn range a deck can consistently threaten a win without help. Five main categories are presented for distinguishing different power levels and for identifying what range you find enjoyable. These categories should align with the main power level assessment tools and concepts already out there. They are based on:

  • Main driver: This scale expresses how far your deck goes in trying to win. Is your deck built mainly to “win the game” or to “do my thing”. Most decks will have a mix of those two drivers, but the balance between them tends to shift as the power levels change.
  • How fast can it threaten a win: This metric has been proposed by many content creators (the Command Zone for example). In this model it represents at what turn range your deck can reliably threaten a win independently (so without help from the other players) most of the time. This doesn’t mean it always does so in real games (for example: because it’s not always the best play to threaten the win when you can and other players will also chip away at your opponents). Instead this metric only looks at the built-in winning capabilities of a deck, and not how other players may assist in that capability. Also note that when a deck can threaten a win will often vary greatly. Some decks may do so between turns 7 and 9 most of the time, but incidentily also earlier or later. However, "Precon X once won a game at turn Y" still does not mean it will do so most of the time. So try to gather information from many games to gauge this metric.
  • What decks it can control: A limitation of when a deck can threaten a win is that it does not work well for control decks. To address that limitation, each power level category in this model also includes control decks that can reliably win by controlling the decks at that power level. For example, a cEDH Stax deck may never threaten a win between turns 1-4, but it is still very much built to win games at that power level of play and therefore fits the highest power level tier.

Note that this model does not advocate any specific Power Level. It just describes that decks can have different power levels and that different playgroups may seek to play within different Power ballparks.

The x-axis asks players to consider what range of "Interaction Impact” (or "Stopping Power") of decks is tolerated, especially when playing at tables that are not competitive. Interaction Impact is defined here as "How far does a deck go to stop others from winning". The main metric to consider is the deck's effect on opponents' agency: to what degree a deck impacts the ability of the other players to play their game. Five different categories are presented for distinguishing different levels of play, and for identifying what range you find enjoyable. These categories are based on:

  • Main driver: This scale expresses how far your deck goes in stopping other players from playing their game. Is your deck built mainly to allow others to do their thing and “see what happens” or is it created to “control the game”? Most decks will have a mix of those two drivers, but the balance between them tends to shift as the impact levels change.
  • The impact of the interaction: How much impact does your deck have on the ability of the other players to play their game? This is the main way to assess Interaction Impact, ranging from not impacting that ability at all to completely shutting your opponents down. Five levels of impact are described in the different tiers to express how this impact can differ.
  • The amount of interaction: If the interaction impact of your deck is not evident, looking at the amount of interaction slots can also inform what level of Interaction Impact your deck might be. But this is just a secondary/guiding metric and not a 1-1 mapping. You can put entire games to a standstill with just a few interaction pieces of the highest impact or run 30+ interaction pieces of low impact, so weighing both the count and the impact of interaction on the other players is advised when assessing a deck’s overall Interaction Impact.

Note that this model does not advocate a specific Interaction Impact. It just describes that decks can have different levels of Interaction Impact and that different playgroups may seek to play within different Interaction ballparks.

What is considered interaction?

In this model, interaction is defined as any card that can stop or hinder an opponent’s action (apart from declaring blockers). It includes single target removal, board wipes, counter- and redirection spells. But it also includes protection spells, resource denial pieces, silver bullets, or any other effect that stops or hinders what an opponent is trying to do.

Four example format interpretations

The model includes 4 boxes that represent 4 example format interpretations. Each box shows what range of power level and interaction impact are expected. As stated before they are meant as a suggestion, and not as the correct definitions of these sub-formats. The user is encouraged to draw their own lines and define their own format interpretations to make decks in. Also, the boxes indicate what ranges of play are expected within each one. Not what deck characteristics are required to play in that format interpretation (for example, you could still join a cEDH game with a 7 if you wanted to and the rest of the table is ok with that).

  • cEHD: the expected Power Level of decks is between 8 and 10 and all levels of Interaction Impact are tolerated.
  • High power casual EDH: the expected Power Level of decks is between 6 and 8 and Interaction Impact is tolerated up to level 8. Decks are restrained from running the most powerful win strategies and do not aim to lock down other players. So strategies such as full on stax, hand hate and land destruction are avoided. However, efficient and free interaction, taxing effects, denying access to the commander through something like Drannith Magistrate, and silver bullets such as Rest in Peace and Torpor Orb are usually still fine.
  • Casual EDH: the expected Power Level of decks is between 1 and 5 and Interaction Impact is tolerated up to level 6. Decks are restrained from being too far optimized and do not include cards that would prevent others from game actions. Silver bullets, such as Rest in Peace and Torpor Orb are avoided in this interpretation, and are replaced for alternatives that leave the other players with more agency over their actions, such as Scavenging Ooze and Strict Proctor. However, most forms of interaction are is still very much tolerated and embraced, such as single target removal, board wipes, counterspells, protection pieces and destroying specific powerful lands.
  • Tolerant Casual EDH: not meant as a true format interpretation. Decks that fall in this ballpark, such as a Taniwha + Sunder deck, or a non-cEDH Tergrid, God of Fright   deck, may require additional alignment before playing.

Again, these are just 4 examples. One of the uses of this model is to define your own ballparks to play in with your regular playgroup, with the boundaries of the box showing where decks are starting to become unfit for that interpretation and will start to raise some objections from fellow players.

Note that it isn't vital in that use case for you to know exactly where your decks are located on the map, as long as they fit somewhere within the ballpark that you end up agreeing upon with your playgroup. If you're not sure about that, then talk about it to figure out what the group thinks and if everyone's ok with playing against your deck in that specific preset.

Four model extremes

A term is included in each of the 4 corners of the model to indicate the 4 extremes of the different axes combinations:

  • Glass cannons (high power, low interaction): what is meant here with glass cannons are decks that put all their eggs in one basket and go for a quick win while not including many spots for interaction. An extreme example of such a deck is the Maralen of the Mornsong Ad Nauseam variant with 80+ lands, or (at a lower power level) a Purphoros, God of the Forge deck that only includes ramp, draw, token makers and protection spells, and 0 removal.
  • Stax (high power, high interaction): competitive Stax decks are a clear example of decks that play to win by completely preventing others from playing their game. They are different from the next category in that Stax decks are very much built to win games.
  • “Nobody Wins” decks or Troll decks (low power, high interaction): extreme examples of decks with a high interaction impact but with no ability to win are decks that try to end games in a tie (for example through the Ajani's Chosen + Enchanted Evening combo or through Divine Intervention) or certain chaos decks that seek to completely remove everyone’s ability to play the game, including the chaos deck player (for example, through Possibility Storm + Rule of Law).
  • Total Jank (low power, low interaction): decks that neither have any power to win or any power to stop others from winning have little to no impact on gameplay, which is what is understood here with a Total Jank deck. That does not mean they can't succeed in achieving alternative goals.

Lastly, the main chart includes a section with 10 considerations for regular playgroups looking to further customize their experience through the use of house rules. They represent another dimension on how the EDH format can be interpreted differently.

What are house rules and how do they relate to pre-game and rule 0 agreements?

This is how I understand the differences between those EDH agreements.

  • Pre-game talk: agree on the kind of commander game you want to play with the people at the table.
  • Rule 0 talk: agree on what rules of commander you want to change with the people at the table.
  • House rules: rule 0 agreements that are always active for a regular playgroup.

3. Variants & versions

In this chapter you can find some variants of the guide, a change log, and a Spanish translation that's available of the model.

Many people have responded positively to the main chart. However others have found it too complex or dense. It made me want to create a variant that would be more legible, less complex and be better fit for helping people have effective pre-game talks. You can find that variant below.

This tool is for you, not for the table necessarily

With the below guide it’s not required that everyone at the table figures out where they are at. Only you need to use it to get on the same page with the other players at the table. By asking and answering the questions included you can gauge the expectations and act accordingly (Thanks to redditor Send_me_duck-pics for phrasing this so clearly).

The current version is 1.4

MTG EDH Power Level Alignment Guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

It's different from the main chart in the following ways:

  • It is meant for facilitating pre-game talks: That does not necessarily mean that you have to put the actual chart on the table during a pre-game talk. But unlike the main chart, this guide is made primarily to help the user have effective pre-game talks and help them express what they like and don't like to play against.
  • No 1-10 scales: Sharing a power level number is meaningless in my opinion for checking what EDH experience the table prefers, unless everyone knows and uses the same system. So when aligning with strangers I believe you’re better of not talking about those, but instead about things that are indicative of power, things that impact gameplay, and what your main drivers are for playing EDH.
  • Less descriptions: I cut over half of the descriptions for each tier, leaving only the necessary stuff for getting a sense of the ballpark you want to play in. This should make the model more legible.
  • Other questions to help align: Besides the two questions that the axes present, I added twelve other questions you could consider asking or answering to align on the experience before playing.
  • Strategies for solving mismatches in expectation: Another addition compared to the main chart are 6 strategies that might help players deal with situations where the table isn't on the same page regarding their ideal EDH experience.

Check out the initial community discussion about this variant in this reddit post.

I've experimented with a few other variants of the model by reusing model components. These attempts ultimately led to the variant in chapter 3.1. Note that not nearly as much time and thought have went these, so I'm sure a lot can be done to make them better. But have a look if you want something less complex or more traditional.

With this variant I tried to remove as many elements from the model as possible. This is the simplest I could get it while still having some use. It’s in line with what the crew of EDHrecast have suggested to do in one of their videos to make a 1-10 based power level guide better suited for quick alignment with strangers: remove the numbers and combine the jank and casual categories.

EDH Power Level Quick Scan

This one has a similar degree of information as the main chart but only shows the y-axis. This makes it more in line with traditional power level guides. It may be preferred by people who did not like the x-axis of the original model or who found that graphic too busy or dense.

EDH Power Level Scale

This one is similar to the previous one in setup, but only contains the x-axis of the original model. I reversed the number order from 1 to 10 so that you still read the descriptions in the intended order.

EDH Stopping Power Scale

I've been approached by the Chile-based crew of landfalltv to collaborate on a Spanish translation of the main chart. I was very happy to learn that they wanted to share it with their community. You can now find the translated guide and a Spanish rework of this primer on their website in this article. They also dedicated one of their Youtube videos to the guide. It was great to work together to make these translated versions a reality. Thanks again guys!

These are the changes I made to the model since posting it here on TappedOut.

EDH Multiverse

  • Version 1.9 came with a higher resolution than before, and had 1 or 2 minor text changes.
  • Version 1.10 has an improved “About this guide” section in the top right, and a few more minor text changes.
  • Version 1.10 also includes “alters” and “certain illegal cards, like unsets or X as commander” as considerations for house rules.
  • Version 1.11 now includes a reference to this page
  • In version 1.12 I changed "lock down" to "shut down" as a broader description of a high interaction impact
  • Version 1.13 has quite some text changes based on feedback from redditor Milskidasith. I adjusted the turn ranges slightly, updated texts in Mid and Casual and fixed wording in the lower Resistant box. I also changed "basic decks" into "casual decks"
  • Version 1.14 only has a few minor text changes.
  • Version 1.15 has new main drivers in the y axis: "Win the game" & "Do my thing" (as proposed by redditor Tap_Asleep)
  • Version 1.16 is now available under a Creative Commons license and is no longer using the MTG fonts due to copyright. Also, some text changes in the "About this Guide" section and some layout tweaks.

EDH Alignment Guide

  • Version 1.1 has new main drivers in the y axis: "Win the game" & "Do my thing"
  • Version 1.2 is now available under a Creative Commons license and is no longer using the MTG fonts due to copyright. Also, some text changes in the "About this Guide" section and some layout tweaks. I also adjusted some wording in the titles and subtitles of the guide.
  • Version 1.3 a typo fix
  • Version 1.4 has some improvements in the explanation text and uses less or different words for the 12 questions and 6 strategies. I also added arrows to the axes.

Get easy access to all variants from this image hosting folder.


4. Questions & answers

Here are answers to a few questions that might be relevant to some, but not all readers.

Although you don't need to place place these guides on the table during a pre-game talk for them to work, of course you could still use the guides like that if everyone at the table is ok with it. When they don't mind absorbing a 5x5 matrix for their enjoyment and they have understood the concepts in the guide, you could then use these 3 questions to align:

  1. How far do we want to go in trying to win?
  2. How far can we go in trying to stop each other from winning?
  3. Are there any objections to me playing X?

Just be aware that not everyone wants to digests models like this and that's a valid reaction. Forcing them to use these guides might not be that much different from forcing them to play EDH in your preferred way.

My personal approach to playing Casual EDH with strangers does not involve guides at all. Knowing the things presented in these models, I build and bring several decks that match different interpretations. Ranging from low power decks restrained in Interaction Impact that no one will ever have any objection with, to high power resistant decks that are appropriate for tables with a more competitive mindset. Then, after a short chat I just pick the deck that matches the table best and go with that experience. There will be a time and a place for those other decks later.

After first sharing the variant from chapter 3.1 I started receiving requests from players to make that guide available on a playmat. A great surprise for me! It was something I wasn't expecting. The guide is now available on a playmat via Inked Gaming. It took quite some back and forth to create something that would be legible when printed, but it’s finally ready. I hope you like it!

However, if you think you can do a better job ;), you have a lot of creative freedom with the guide yourself. I have made the most recent versions available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. By doing so I am no longer reserving all rights to the work. I made these guides for and with help from the community, so this move made a lot of sense to me.

"Isn’t Interaction Impact just a stand-in for some common pet peeves?"

I've seen several people react to the concept of Interaction Impact by saying that they have their doubts if it fits on the same tier as Power Levels. And they wonder if it isn't just a stand-in for people's distaste for things like Stax and MLD. I don't fully disagree with this. I just don't agree that it would be a bad thing and that it would make it very different from the Power Level scale. I could use the same reasoning to say that the Power Level scale is just a stand-in for people's distaste for high power or low power EDH, depending who you ask. In the end, both concepts serve the purpose of helping people to express what they prefer. They just cover a different aspect of the game experience.

"Isn’t Interaction Impact an arbitrary thing to add to power levels for assessing decks?"

Related to that response, some have also wondered why you would add interaction as a dimension to gauge the power of decks, but not other things like resilience, efficiency or consistency. The answer to that question is that this is mainly a desired game experience assessment tool, and not necessarily a deck power assessment tool. And with that end in mind, the extent to which people try to win and try to stop others from winning seem to be the two most relevant things to assess. But by all means let me know if you have a better concept than interaction impact to complement Power Levels given this objective.

"Isn’t a power level guide useless if it requires subjective assessment?"

This greatly depends on your views on what a power level tool is and what it should do. If your presumption is that it should allow the user to assign some objective truth about the power of their deck through a number, then probably yes. I personally don't believe this is feasible for our context. I think that being able to assign a power level number to your deck and have it be understood everywhere you go without further explanation is an unrealistic dream scenario. Be prepared to create a tool that approaches IQ-test levels of complexity to get that kind of result, requiring different tools to measure a multitude of expressions of power that are then combined into one statistically valid coefficient. I don't think this would be practical for EDH.

Alternatively, if you assume that a power level tool merely exist to help people align on their (subjective) expectations about a game so that it can increase their odds of having a good time, then facilitating subjective assessment becomes its main purpose. Then the subjective expectations are the primary facts that the tool should help expose. And the power level tool becomes a means to make it easier for players to share and align on their subjective expectations of the game. At least enough for them to commit to that game experience upfront. In that use case it's still very valuable that the metrics used are unambiguous, and you still also need to assess your decks to a degree, but it doesn't have to be free of subjective interpretation in my experience. It just has to be clear enough for people to be able to, within a limited amount of time, get into the same ballpark.

"Nice try, but I still don't like this"

Of course there are people who don't agree with the perspective presented in these models, or who prefer to use other perspectives or guides over this one. Models are inherently limited, and EDH is such a complex game that attracts so many people that I doubt any model or guide is going to satisfy all players. My aim with this primer is to at least explain the reasoning behind this one so you can make up your own mind about it.

These models are tools. As with every tool its value depends on the one who uses it. If you can't imagine ever using a model like this just for playing a card game, then that's totally understandable. Perhaps one of the tools in the next chapter is a better fit for your needs.


5. Other EDH guides

Here are some other EDH guides that I came across during this project. I used some of them as a reference. The others I've added here because I think they may be of interest to you as well, depending on what you are looking for in an EDH guide.

These are three of the resources I used as a reference when making the EDH Multiverse model.

This guide was posted on reddit a while back by redditor emillang1000. This was one of the earlier guides I used as a reference. It has received some fair criticism, but it’s also a good starting point for a conversation. Check the original post on Reddit.

I thought this guide presented a lot of great ideas, but I also had some issues with it. Mainly with the judgmental tone chosen for describing the lower power levels. The guide failed to recognize that many players consciously choose to build weaker decks even if they could easily build more powerful ones. Simply because they enjoy playing at that power level. Also, it did not have a respectful place for iconic EDH jank decks such as Ladies Looking Left or the Chair deck. Those were things I wanted to change.

enter image description here

This is another power level guide that comes up often. For setup I attempted to keep my guide in line with this one and the one from the previous section.

enter image description here

An interesting reference for me to test if the concept of Interaction Impact was any good to help people explain what they don't like to play against was EDHrec's top 100 list of salty cards. I was interested to learn for how many of these 100 cards the reason for its high salt score could be attributed to a high power level, a high interaction impact, or something else. These were the numbers in my humble and brief evaluation:

  • About 22 cards can explained because of their high power level
  • About 66 cards can be explained because of their high interaction impact
  • About 12 cards seemed to have other reasons for being on the list, such as extra turn spells, cards that can be a nuisance such as Rhystic Study, and cards from the Walking Dead secret lair.

If you don't want to go about creating your own EDH interpretations and you'd rather conform to existing ones, have a look at the five format interpretations made by PlayEDH in this Google Doc. Their EDH interpretations are some of the most detailed I've come accross and are serving a lot of people every day to have fun with strangers playing EDH on spelltable.

Note that they describe their EDH tiers as "Power Levels". I think it's more appropriate to view them as EDH interpretations or sub-formats because they also include rule-0 adaptations. For example the inclusion of extra banned cards for most of the tiers.

I find this guide from the Professor an accessible way to align on the game experience and to have fun playing EDH. Check it out on Youtube.


6. Closing thoughts

I'd like to close this primer with a quote the Professor from the above video (in chapter 5.3): “There have been attempts to make that power scale better, or to use a different rating scale entirely. And while some of those have been better than others, I think they are all inferior to just having a discussion with the people you are about to play with.” I fully agree with this. In my opinion, guides like these should be used to help people express themselves in or be prepared for a pre-game conversation, and not to replace the conversation.


Thank you for taking an interest in this primer. I hope some of it was helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts! The model has already changed a lot for the better because of community feedback. Thanks to everyone who has already done so. I also thank the voices in the community who have brought attention to the guide, including the Professor at TCC, Landfalltv 🇨🇱, the CommanderCast podcast (starting at ±9:30), Nackt und Rosa 🇩🇪 and The Social Contract podcast.

Please let me know if you have ideas on how to improve this guide further. Any thoughts on where I could take this project next? Feedback is always welcome!

Upvote and support this EDH Guide!

GL & HF

Beebles

Suggestions

Updates Add

The guide is now available on a playmat via Inked Gaming. It took quite some back and forth to create something that would be legible when printed, but it’s finally ready. I hope you like it!

Comments