My new power scale
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Dec. 16, 2021, 8:20 a.m. by shadow63
Most comannder players rate decks on a scale of 1-10 and it's ok but I think it could be improved by having it be 1-6. On the old scale precons where roughly considered a 5 anything below that was jank. That's half the scale just for jank decks that very few people play. The way the new scale would work is.
1 would be anything weaker then a precon
2 would be around the precon level
3 4 and 5 would cover the vast majority of decks
6 would be for cedh.
Most decks on the 10 scale fall between 6 and 8. While 9 and 10 are for cedh. So with my scale you have the same range of ratings for most decks. Jank gets trimmed down so it doesn't take up half the scale and everything is still represented.
Numbers don't mean much, honestly. I much prefer descriptors for "tiers."
- Battlecruiser
- Low Power
- Mid Power
- High Power
- cEDH
December 16, 2021 10:40 a.m.
That seems confusing. I have a high-power battlecruiser deck: The Hoard of the Dragon Queen
December 16, 2021 11:42 a.m.
Creating/using metrics as a means to measure something is a tricky prospect. You want enough data presented in such a way to give as much information possible without redundancy or overdoing things. If decks were ranked 1-100, you’d get a far more specific idea of exactly how powerful it may be, but at the cost of giving too much context. Conversely, only using a 1-5 scale doesn’t provide enough data. Ranking a deck 1-10 seems like the sweet spot.
December 16, 2021 12:12 p.m.
That deck has far too much interaction and value generation for it to be battlecruiser. I would just call it high-power. Maybe mid-power depending on how fast it is consistently.
December 16, 2021 12:22 p.m.
The problem then is that nobody agrees on what battlecruiser magic means. I thought it mean we're battling it out with huge, splashy creatures, which is what my Tiamat deck does. It is very consistent, and usually wins around turn 5.
Maybe that's not a helpful descriptor, and something like "jank," which is a term with more consensus around its meaning, would be better.
- Jank
- Low Power / Precon
- Mid Power / Upgraded Precon
- High Power
- cEDH
December 16, 2021 12:37 p.m.
I mean, any scale that works with your playgroup is a good way to go : ) The 1-10 scale is kind of a quick and easy way to describe your deck to someone new, and really, whatever way anyone can use to best sum up there deck will always be useful.
Usually I like to think of decks in terms of how they want to win under optimal conditions. I always think that that lends itself to making better matchups. So, I haven't thought it out entirely, but it's something like: Turn 1-4 combo win- cEDH Turn 5-8 combo win- optimized EDH Turn <10 combat damage- EDH Turn 10+ anything goes- Always decent No distinct win con- Casual to it's core
Mostly I like to think of it this way because it does take a little guesswork out of a scale system. Like, a deck that combos out at turn 7 is probably more powerful than a deck that does combat damage at turn 7 just because with tutors and things it is usually more reliable to hit combo.
But, like anything, it's all just commanders, spells, and wiggle room : )
December 16, 2021 12:56 p.m.
The real problem with trying to determine power level is that no one can agree on a number or a descriptor. Battlecruiser is beating each other with combat with very little interaction. Jank is something like chair tribal where there is no synergy in the cards chosen which all have art of someone sitting in a chair. Your Tiamat deck wins through combat, but if it's doing it by turn 5 it's definitely high power and not battlecruiser.
December 16, 2021 12:57 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #10
Saying what your deck does and how consistently theoretically you can pull it off using hypergeometric calculations would be a much better gauge than a number.
December 16, 2021 3:34 p.m. Edited.
TypicalTimmy says... #11
A Tier 4 deck would crush a Precon.
A Precon with some adjustments would crush a Precon.
A CEDH deck ran by a new player who never played EDH before would be destroyed by a Precon.
A Precon against a deck that is mana flooded with horrible draws could win.
Tier lists mean nothing. It's about how you play, and who you are up against.
I've seen Golos fail. Naj fail. Edgar fail. Marchesa fail. Oloro fail. If someone knows what they are up against, it isn't difficult to hold interactions for the proper spells or permanents. Generally speaking, the higher up the tier list you go, the more of a glass cannon it becomes because it relies on combo wincons. Take out the combo, and the deck collapses.
Honestly, the only deck I have personally been against that has consistently won was Oloro, because of Stax. Nobody ran enough interactions to win the war of attrition.
December 16, 2021 5:02 p.m. Edited.
RNR_Gaming says... #12
Though I do think this conversation will continue till the end of time. I'm finally at a point where I can walk over to a table or just observe from a far how things are going. Typically, if I see that people are playing pre-cons/tribal I won't even make an attempt to ask to play - if I hear complaints about the power of a commander/card I'll steer clear of that pod too. I'm sure the majority of people on this site know what kind of games of commander they want to play and the only struggle will be finding a consistent group of like minded people.
December 16, 2021 5:43 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #13
My issue, at it's core, is that people compare tier lists from online idealized builds and theoretical perfect plays.
You likely will never be against these decks in your local meta, and likely never have perfect plays.
Seldom do you open with a Sol Ring and a mana Crypt and an ancient tomb and a tutor and a jeweled Lotus and topdeck your wincon.
Theorycrafting is fine, but it isn't reality. That's why I don't follow tier lists. I've seen far too many multi-thousand decks crumble, and have seen $3 Commanders dominate.
It's about your build, your knowledge of the deck, your knowledge of the meta and your knowledge of the rules.
Want to know how I absolutely crushed an Edgar Markov deck in 1v1? A Commander, mind you, who is apparently banned in 1v1 for being "too powerful"?
Wraths. I ran wraths. You can't attack me with an army of vampires if you don't have an army of vampires.
And Naj? Tokens.
Oh you want to swing for 84? Block.
Every deck has a weakness. Play with that weakness to your advantage and you'll likely win.
December 16, 2021 6:02 p.m. Edited.
RNR_Gaming says... #14
TypicalTimmy - I feel most power scales are based on the perceived power and ceiling of a commander. An Urza, Lord High Artificer and Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy have a much higher ceiling than Admiral Beckett Brass. However, Beckett brass built as a turbo nauseam deck would likely come out on top most of the time vs a voltron Urza deck or a Colossal Dreadmaw tribal kinnan deck. So many factors.
December 16, 2021 6:27 p.m.
Metroid_Hybrid says... #16
The general topic of "power levels", in Commander in particular, has always annoyed me. Luckily the LGS that I played at really didn't stress the the subject that much. Considering that most have been playing mtg 5~10+ years, and therefore most of which were coming with all kinds of crazy combos & interactions. In contrast, there is/was a few young teens with their first & only deck that they've been playing with for the past year as well. At the end of the day, everybody is playing to win, but that is where the chaotic environment that is a 4 (or more) player free-for-all comes into play. In most cases whoever pulls ahead early and becomes the first credible threat (for whatever reason), and/or has the scariest tier-1 Commander, tends to get targeted by the rest of the table.
In the above scenario, this is how a "low-tier" Commander can (potentially) creep up from behind & clean up in the aftermath of near cEDH-level opponents A, B, and C duking it out for several turns. In retrospect, this was actually how I managed to win many of the games that I did. It's almost as if (for example) my old Liliana, Heretical Healer Flip deck would actually perform better with a slower-paced hand at a higher power table, than say... dropping an early Contamination against a table of heavily upgraded precons..
December 17, 2021 12:39 a.m.
I guess I wasn't aware a precon was a 5. I thought precons were like a 3, functional but not good. And not all precons are created equal right? The d&d ones were "full powered" but the ones from kaldheim were lower powered I thought? It seems a huge waste if anything below a 5 is jank. Usually if anyone asks for power level I say this is a for fun deck and/or this is a higher powered deck. I'm never really sure what number to call a deck and frankly there is always someone who says "it's about a 7" who either dominates or rage quits because their deck isn't anywhere near that power level.
December 17, 2021 1:03 p.m.
For a long time I've been extremely upfront with every stranger about what's in my deck and what I'm trying to do. Being cagey with strangers about what you know is in your deck and your plan is a recipe to end up in mismatched games. Even if you don't have tutors for a card or combo it will still impact your decision making and and the decision making of someone who looks at your hand or the top of your library and sees an undisclosed Dramatic Reversal or a Sanguine Bond.
The good questions to answer for me about power:
-Are you running "classically" game-ending or deciding combos?
-Is your deck aiming to produce infinite mana or an infinite loop?
-Are you running the expensive, fast artifact mana? (Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Grim Monolith, et al.)
-What kind of stax or lock pieces are you running?
-What kind of free spells, particularly free counterspells, are you running?
Unless they take a page of Canadian Highlander and start assigning the most powerful cards a point value as a gauge for power, I'm always going to be skeptical about numeric ratings.
Maybe being so open about your deck goes against the spirit of having the most ruthless competitive game possible, but I don't think the problem is when everyone sits down thinking "I'm going to play the tightest game I can, like this is a Constructed tournament with money on the line," but when the first group meets people trying to have a more relaxed time. Or someone who thinks they're in a casual game without infinite combos getting blindsided by and dying to Kiki-Jiki+Zealous Conscripts. And I would rather be open and say "I've got Exquisite Blood and Sanguine Bond in this deck" than to have someone think they were in a bad game because they didn't think this would be that kind of game.
December 17, 2021 2:28 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #19
I'm glad that the general sentiment seems to be coming around to wanting to have a turn 0 discussion instead of using these 1-10 (or 1 to whatever) scales that I have never liked. Magic is a complex and nuanced enough game that a short qualitative analysis of a deck is going to be much better to make sure everyone is on the same page than trying to assign numerical values to decks.
December 17, 2021 7:21 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #20
Every time I see these discussions, it just sounds way too messy to possibly be fun outside of an insulated group. So much room for feelbads. I've seen so many people think a deck is an 8 because they've upgraded it over time, when it's not even close. I can't untake the CEDH-pill, my dudes. It just streamlines the social aspect so much.
December 18, 2021 2:37 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #21
I own cEDH decks, that run all the tutors, all the stax, all the interaction and/or all the fast mana and win with consistent combo lines.
I also own casual decks, that revolve around making huge amounts of mana, flood the battlefield with cards I like, show uncommon card synergies that look neat in a game, and just enough interaction to prevent others from winning until I'm ready to.
Of course there's subtle differences between the casual decks in how powerful the pieces are, how fast I can win a game, etc. But that's the main distinction I make. I ask usually for how long people are playing commander, how much they invested in their deck, and how long they want the game to last, and base my deck choice on those answers, more than on a power level, without spoiling the surprise of what my deck does. I do believe commander decks are ultimately the most personal way to express yourself as a magic player, and to spell out what I'm going to do before I just do that sounds like a boringly safe way to play. But I do care about everyone in the pod having some amount of fun, and I'm usually the person who brought the most decks, so I can adjust to the table I'm playing at.
Your mileage may vary, of course
December 18, 2021 3:12 a.m.
golgarigirl says... #22
One issue I have with 'Precon' nowadays is there is a vast discrepancy between the power levels in precons and the perception that they are weak based is based on older decks. Having played many precons out of the box over the years, the old Jeleva or Oloro precons were worlds weaker than the modern set. Playing with Prosper and Millicent, they are much more synergistic and have just flat stronger cards in them than the old precons did. They suffer a bit less from the 'three ways to build' philosophy/ rule the old decks used to, even though they still usually come with the old three commander options. Compare, if you will:
Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge, Nekusar, the Mindrazer, and Thraximundar in
Commander 2013 - Mind Seize Precon
Commander / EDH
306 VIEWS | IN 2 FOLDERS
to
Millicent, Restless Revenant, Geist of Saint Traft and Rhoda, Geist Avenger + Timin, Youthful Geist in
Spirit Squadron (PRECON)
Commander / EDH
244 VIEWS
Spirit Squadron out of the box has rolled half my playgroup's "power level 7" decks. Part is, yes, the matchup. But that never would have happened in 2013.
Cde0 says... #2
This is the scale I tend to use, more or less:
4 levels -
December 16, 2021 8:26 a.m.