I just read an easy way to classify power levels in an intuitive way: - Low: if you feel the need to ask if someone has a deck as weak as yours (Nissa tribal, random cards I had at home). - Mid: If you feel comfortable bringing the deck to most tables. You may need to bring out a stronger deck next time, but you are not gonna make anyone miserable (Upgraded precons, most well built decks with budget restrictions or fun non optimal inclusions). - High: if you feel the need to ask an unknown playgroup whether their decks are as powerful as yours (Optimized decks with little budget restrictions or decks with a very strong wincon). - Cedh: fast mana, best interaction and wincons. You wouldnt play this in a non competitive table. Works for me. Although you probably need an idea of the powerlevel in your local meta.

I like the Casual, Focused, Tuned and Competitive scale. Just 4 easily understandable categories

Guys... I’ve had the worst day in long time. Thanks for putting out a new episode today. I needed this distraction. Thankful for you boys.

Mana base should definitely be one of the criteria by which we judge power levels. Basics and tapped lands, untapped lands like shocks and battlebond, fetches, and duals, are 4 tiers of very clear power differences.

My problem with the 1-10 power-scale system is that everyone's deck is a 7. I really liked how Dana split it up. It's really similar to how I like to split it up (low power, mid power, high power, cEDH) and I agree that the names gives you a much better idea than a number. The guys at the Command Zone when presenting this even admit that the point isn't to match the number but get it in the ball-park. Just giving it a name rather than a number I think does that a lot better.

PlayEDH has a scale that I really like, BattleCruiser for the lower stuff, then mid, high, and competitive

Two thoughts: 1. I don't think I'm going on a limb here when I say that thanks to the Internet and access to resources like EDHREC, nearly all playgroups will have a natural progression towards focused and optimised decks simply because building and playing EDH decks take time and money. 2. I like the turn estimate to gauge the power level (by what turn will your deck decide the game?) because it filters out the troll-y chaos decks that can't give an actual answer as well as the super-casual decks that don't really care when the deck can go online. Focused and optimised decks can win by turn 10, while cEDH post-Flash can reliably win by turn 4

Just want to point out that the "pregame conversation" is Rule 0. Sheldon went over it and cleared up misunderstandings as best as he could on his new series.

I think the popularity of power level 6 and 7 originates from a mix of the price of "gatekeeper cards", i.e cards that would instantly up the power ranking of a deck and would be an obvious inclusion if they didn't carry a 25$ or higher price tag, and people wanting to play cards, they know are not the best option available, but they have a strong emotional attachment to certain cards, or wanting to make kinda janky cards work. I try to put my foil Lightning Reaver in pretty much every deck i build, just because i like the card and if it works out, it is fun.

"What turn do you expect to win on?" *looks at his sharuum spin-the-wheels-in-place deck* "I don't"

Nice episode! Completely agree with this in terms of scrapping the confusing/ambiguous numbers thing and just having casual, focused, optimised and competitive as the categories. It makes things much clearer and it easier to call out those who purposely, or even accidentally, misled those about their deck’s power level. Simply because rather than a number we have a clear label on the tin!

Basically you're telling me we should flatten the curve?

The power level is one part of the discussion, how you play it is the other. I have always liked the 5-6 level because I can usually choose to play "down" when facing pre-cons/ beginners....so I try to have some way (e.g. tribal subtheme) to not have to play that game winning combo if it is clear that the table is underdeveloped and the folks are still engaged and having fun. That is why I steer clear of building cEDH decks.... i use modern for that fix...... : )

I would have a video idea for Joey: Everything artistocrats. So you as the master of necromancy take an unusual commander or color combination for a reanimator/artistocrats deck and try to build such a deck around it. It does not have to be a final brew, but some rough ideas, hidden gems and so on. How you could make such a deck possible. Some examples i could imagine for such a brew: Teshar as a non-combo aristocrats deck, mono-white reanimator, Gadruk aristocrats, and so on. Just throwing it out there ;)

A subjective scale is going to be flawed although quite useful. I think a count of the important measures of a strong deck should be part of the conversation - tutors or power 9s, infinite combos and "I win/you lose" combos

"How does your deck play?" A: "Oh, it's a weak combo deck." B: "Mine's trying to be a strong combo deck." C: "Well mine's a moderate tappout-control deck." D: "Mine's a moderate aggro deck." Z: "My EDH deck is trying to be [strength] [archetype] deck." But the focus on what you're trying to do at deckbuilding.

I absolutely will state when I'm running a deck 5 or Lower. For example I have a narsett group hug deck that's a 1 and several other 1s and 2s. Ty this discussion helped me better express my feelings ( :

Would like to see wizards of the coast include a pregame questions card along with the phases of game play card. Questions like these are great! 1. What is your commander and how does it synergize in your deck 2. What's your most powerful card or favorite card 3. By what turn does your deck unleash. Or, what turn do you expect to win. 4. How does your deck compare with a precon. 5. What are you after in a game (i.e. is your deck a) casual, b) focused, c) optimized, or d) competitive)? You could also rate each category on a 1-5 scale ... For example, my version of the Gavi nest warden cycling precon has a mixture of casual, focus, and optimization, with some competitiveness... I'd rate it a 3-3-2-1 out of the box it was probably something like 4-1-1-0 I think depending on how much focus or synergy is put into the cycling theme, the deck becomes slightly less casual and more focused and slightly more competitive. Also, with all the non-basic land upgrades my deck becomes more optimized which again makes it less casual and more competitive. Some of my themed/focused upgrades were more casual, however some of my land optimizations were competitive. Hope this sparks conversation and maybe more ideas on standardization of power levels.

I really enjoyed this episode! Especially that it was a more open discussion and to a lesser decree tied to stats of edhrec. I really appreciate episodes like this from time to time.👌

Great episode I rank my deck on a scale of, "13 - n" where N = "How many turns does it take to win against a goldfish" to determine average power level

I feel the power levels need to worked out a little more the 1-10 power scale doesn't work in the space of the real world. power levels should be more of something like: Casual: these are decks that are either pre-cons or decks that are designed in a less powerful consideration. these games will last 12+ turns Mid: these are decks that have been pre-cons that are slightly upgraded or decks that do not have optimized lines of play. these games will last 10-12 turns Optimized: These decks have known strategies but may not have a fully optimized list or strategies that are known as high power. These games will last 8-10 turns High Power: These decks will have optimized mana bases, removal, and lines of play. These games will last 6-8 turns cEDH: This is the top tier of power level and have the most efficient lines of play. Games will end in 2-5 turns.

Suggested categories in rank order: Shenanigans, Casual, Journyman, Streamlined, Optimized, Competitive

Here's what my playgroup uses: 1. Weak: The decks is mainly for fun, probably doesn't have rare lands, limited removal, most cards are "crap rare" strength. 2. Normal: The decks that you generally build which have decent cards and a strategy 3. Strong: Decks with global removal, infinite combos, combos that impact multiple players etc

My first deck was a 1 power... I played Noyan Dar and only used cards I owned... I had probably about 3 to 5 booster boxes of commons and uncommons, and maybe 3 rares that were in the right color Edit: I played that deck once and started playing commander again using friends decks Years later I started building decks, and buying cards for them

From my own experience Power level defines by mainly 1. How the deck win the game? What combo they choose to end the game? High power deck usually choose the combos that require less pieces to assemble, less mana to cast and also choose combos that hard to interact with. 2. Speed of the deck, what mana base cards they choose. But this won't thoroughly defines the power. I saw so many decks that fast but not that cutthroat. 3.Interaction cards and disruption they choose. Cards must match with their current meta they are playing with. 4.What general the deck running? Is that deck running general that creates card advantage, color identity advantage or strong gameplan? For example, Tymna&Thrasios/ Urza/First Sliver/ Sisay/ Zur definitely stronger than Kaalia/ Atraxa/ Maelstrom Wanderer/ Karlov/ Etc.

Hey guys great job on reporting on this. I really like that idea of combined power levels 1-3 or so, since as you pointed out there are so few decks and games that actually fire at that power level.

Maybe you could create a formula to help people determine power level... Let's say these are the inputs 1. Number if combos in the deck 2. Number of top 10 cards from EDHREC in the list (this could be larger or smaller) 3. Number of Mana accelerants in the deck 4. Deck average converted Mana cost 5. Commander's ranking on EDHREC All of these rated 1-5, and plotted on a pentagram graph This would by no means be a perfect way of collecting data and may in fact skew EDHREC towards competitive play but you see how with these inputs or similar ones it should be possible to get a much closer estimate of power level depending on what you consider powerful. Some strategies may be more or less 'powerful' on paper than in reality but it could still be a useful tool.

I’ve always felt like I’m in a weird spot because my deck is an extremely optimized Mayael list.. but it’s also Mayael. So the power level is limited by the strategy.

I agree with the assesment that numbers just aren't good enough. I remember playing over Discord and pulling out my Golos Tribal deck and I consider that deck just around a 5 or 6 its a silly Timmy deck where I seek basically every possible way to cheat dragons out and never hard cast a dragon, but thats it. Its just stompy its has nearly zero interaction it just seeks to pop out dragons. But the guy I played agaisnt brought out Anafenza and claimed it was a 7. But it just came down to his deck didn't have alot of mass removal so my deck felt reeeeeally strong when I could pop out 2 to 3 dragons a turn and he could only maybe kill one at a time. I got called out in that game for being too strong but in my meta with my friends we are board wipe happy and that deck can really stumble if I get board wipe too many times. Even the words casual and competitve can get misconstrued. Someone who has a pub stomper deck might think its competitive and bring it to a cEDH table and get completely obliterated. I think discussion is the most important thing you can do to really wring out how strong your deck is and while numbers and categories can be helpful for large scale events like Command Fest they aren't practical for smaller gatherings.

I agree with droping the numbers entirely and instead use descriptors as Jank, Casual, Focused, Optimized and Competitive to assess powerlevel.

I think there are three power levels. Cedh: I am trying to win. Optimized: i am trying to win politely. Casual: I don't care about winning.

This is probably the best ranking system I've seen

I really like this new scale, it seems to fit better with what I've experienced as I continue to make decks and play with local pods. Months ago a friend and I tried rating our decks according to the old Command Zone system (how many turns does it take to win uninterrupted) and came to the conclusion that we had similarly powered decks. After playing together for a few months I think he's won something close to 75% of games at our LGS and I'm

Everytime someone asks me what the power level of my deck is I say, I have no idea. It's build mostly out of cards I had at the house. Then they target me first because my commanders a sliver or kirrik :(

i want propose an algorithm to evaluate the power level of a commander based on the decklist, it uses category that EDHREC already has,imo it can be used to all the intermediate category (casual,focused and optimized). if your deck contains more dual untap lands than dual tap land(+1) if your deck contain combo (+#combo) if your commander is a piece of a combo(+2) if your commander allow you to:ramp, make card advantage or tutor (+3) if your commander use a suboptimal theme (-1,-2,-3 depending how deleterious it is) (+#tutors/2)rounded down (+#0manarock/2)rounded down (+#staplesfactor/2)roundedup the steples factor is the number of staples card based on a list that contains for example the 30 or 40 most powerfull cards. for example this is a list that i thought :rhystic study,Consecrated Sphinx,Craterhoof Behemoth, Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite,Linvala, Keeper of Silence, Oracle of Mul Daya, Seedborn Muse, Serra Ascendant, smothering tithe , Cyclonic Rift, Force of Will, Mana Drain, Pact of Negation, Gaea's Cradle, Maze of Ith, Strip Mine, Blood Moon, Exploration ,Grave Pact, Land Tax, Leyline of Anticipation, Luminarch Ascension, Necropotence, Sneak Attack, Sylvan Library, Doubling Season, expropriate, torment of the hailfire, tooth and nail, extra tun spell, toxic deluge, wheel of fortune, grim monolith, Sensei's Divining Top, Sword of Feast and Famine,sorin markov. Obviously you can change the categories, add or remove them, or change their importance. change the card list of staples. Sorry if there are mistakes , but english is not my first language.

ok, to add to this: ive recently brewed a "spell thief" deck, that revolves around stealing the cards of opponents with things like psychic intrusion. ofc i've focused it somewhat and it can "win" with it's own resources. but if i hadn't optimized it, and went full in on (i shall play as many things that my opponents own) it would essentially be a 2 on the old scale. its essentially using limited resources but can yoink a combo from an enemy deck to win with that, but in a vacum, it would have 0 wincons.

19:00 I feel it. I have a Derevi deck and literally every time I play it, I say "hey, it's not hardcore counterstax. It's just a bunch of Investigate cards!

CEDH: Wins on turns 1-4. Through any means. Casual: Wins turns 6-8. Banned-0 Mana rocks, 0 Mana counters Partially welcome- Stax, infinite combo, land destruction, two card combo, tutors. Jank: Wins turns 10+

Power level is such a difficult thing to nail down. Appreciate the discussion.

I do like the idea of explaining what the goal of your deck is (or isn't) before playing when your on the Focus/Optimized group; especially when playing against new players. Here is my take on some of those categories: * *Casual* * Pre-game discussion tend to matter less as casual deck tends to have less interaction with other decks. I think a bare description of the deck is enough: it's a precon, a design-theme deck (lady's looking left, avenger theme)... That information + the commander should be plenty enough to enjoy a good game. * *Focus* * Focus deck are deck with a general idea / play-theme (tribal, +1c, superfriend...). They are designed to play a 8-12 turn games; with board-wipes, and way to bounce back from one. Between focus and optimized, this is probably the category which requires the most pre-game talk. If one deck is graveyard base, and it's facing a (mill+graveyard hate) the game is not going to be fun for the graveyard base deck. A good brief description of the deck strategy is very welcome here. Kind of what they do at the beginning of each episode of CommanderVS. If your deck has expensive cards like: Mana Crypt, Mana Drain etc... let you group know about it. I would divide the focus category into the following sub-categories: - First time(s) playing the deck -- Can't really tell how good/bad it's gonna be; you may need time to think about your move... trying a new deck idea... etc... - General focus deck: Not too many cards out of the spectrum of what the deck wants to do; a bit tuned up, but you're not really focusing your effort to make it better... But the deck was play-tested a few times and the strategy is known to work. (This category also includes decks which haven't been updated for the past 2+ years... I.e: not really tuned to the new power-level) - Refined focus deck: Deck you really love, and keep improving, re-tuning it after every game. * *Optimized* * I except somewhat less talk that in the focus category, rather: what the average power level of your cards? Even an "average cost ( one-mana-land cost excluded )". Optimized decks are refined-focus decks with consistent way to "pop": it could be through infinite loop... self-decking, ... But can also be through fast damage burst style often after a infinite mana-loop. They tend to have fewer board-wipes and more spot-removal, spot interaction to prevent other decks from combo-ing off. This category is for decks with "one-turn win" out of nowhere if not stopped. Two sub-categories: - Fairly optimized: Mostly limited by the cost of cards... built to win. - Highly optimized: The only thing which prevent this deck from being competitive is that commander/theme is not good enough yet to be consider competitive level. * *Competitive* * Obviously you don't want to mention the goal of your deck granted it's often gonna be quite obvious :D The commander(s) itself(themselves) will define the power level of your deck in that category.

i think the scale is fine, the descriptions are just flat out wrong. it should be... 1-2 = you put random cards together in your commander's colors 3-4 = you made a runnable deck that follows the typical framework of a commander deck 5-6 = you made a deck that follows the typical framework of a commander deck while somewhat focusing on 1 or more themes, mechanics, or flavors with few to none of the top level cards 7-8 = you made a deck that maximizes on how a deck runs while focusing on a specific theme or set of mechanics with *some* or *most* of the top level cards available 9-10 = you made a deck that maximizes on how a deck runs while focusing on a specific theme or set of mechanics with *only* the best cards available with the intention to win as quickly and as easily as possible I'm not a competitive player when it comes to MTG so especially lemme know your thoughts on 9-10 1-2 you can call these "Welcome to Commander" decks 3-4 you can call these "Silly/Jank" decks (I don't wanna call this "casual" cuz commander is a format that's casual by nature and most of the community does not play cEDH) 5-6 should stay being called "Focused" decks 7-8 you can call these "Amped" decks (cuz they're not really optimized, cEDH decks are optimized) 9-10 should stay being called "Competitive/Optimized" (whichever you prefer) *If you liked my idea, message me on my youtube channel for gaming consultations. I charge $1 million per idea/feedback* :P

I'm curious how totally accurate the numbers are on a whole. As this is an event, how much of the people that brought decks that were on average stronger than the other decks they have. A super interesting video, and I'd love to see this looked into more!

love this video i need more of this

a very enlightening commentary on the data. the part about stigma was especially poignant. hopefully the community and luminaries recognize the weaknesses of the numerical system and normalize a simpler, more useful system, so we can enjoy games with each other more.

I think it would be nice to code power levels associated to individual cards on EDHREC. Then after you build a deck, it will average out a power level for you. Also could recognize combo cards, or win cons and rate those appropriately. An example would be a basic land costing 0, but a dual land cost 3, a shock cost 2, or a tap land cost 1 point. A divination would maybe be a 0 or a 1, but cyclonic rift would be a 9. Obviously this needs to be refined, but I think having a power level suggested after building a deck would be great. You could even code it to suggest cards to cut or add to raise or lower power levels.

@edhrecast is there a way to find out for each commander, which cards are most unique to it? For instance, Urban Burgeoning is played in only. 2.49% of Omnath Locus of Mana decks. So it doesn't even show up on the Omnath page. However, Omnath is the second from the top commander for Urban Burgeoning (after Estrid) I'd be very interested to know what other cards, for instance, have Omnath as one of their top commanders, even though they aren't one of his top cards.

Can anyone tell me where the art used in the background at 7:08 to 7:30 is from? I'd like to put it in my Minotaur deck, assuming it's a mtg card lol.

if you narrowed the categories down to four, I'll do you one better, take each category and slap an upper, middle, and a lower next to it. but I absolutely agree, that's only the first, conversation still need to be had.

Let's just have the categories that everyone understands: Just for fun Casual Focused Optimized Competitive

5-6 is the way I play commander I think can be fun playing with other players with interaction and a fair enviroment in commander .

A little late to comment here. However I think it is worth the discussion to bring up that skill and knowledge also have a big effect on certain power levels with decks. For example the meta i play in is pretty much all cedh decks. Thats how I was introduced to the format and really was quite difficult to adapt to. That being said my first deck was an Atla deck that was very underpowered to my counter parts but understanding the interactions that occurred in the game allowed me to win sometimes. I now play najeela to bring my win percentage up with the other decks around but I don't know the interactions nearly as well as my first deck which brings by most accounts a really strong cedh deck to little more than what my less optimized Naya deck can pull off.

Maybe something like this could work Casual - For Fun Focused - Has good synergy cards without any unli combos Optimized - Has unli combos with few high power cards + some tutors Competitive - Pushed to the limits, has 3-4 turn combos + multiple cheap tutors

With the release of Pramikon, Sky Rampart, my brother built an entirely walls deck. Only creatures were walls. Just because. It was horrible and he knew it but it was funny. Def 1-2 lol

When i heard the words nominal and ordinal i flashed back to college cementing the perception that joey is some type of huge math nerd. The only time math should show up in magic if someone decides to run gisella when people are trying to assign damage. (pro tip you can run fiery emancipation in that deck for more math!)

Very good conversation Very good points For some casual focused decks i do express this deck gets there turn 10 for example. Or this group hug deck happens to run duals and timetwister but its casual. Or my Azusa its strong but no infinite combos etc. Every deck is unique. A bit of info provides a welcoming challenge bc you cant dismiss your deck nor place yourself in position of Arch Enemy that tends to happen amongst groups time & time again.

Issue I have with the number scale and the other suggestions is I feel like there’s a wider range of disparity in the 6-7, 6-8 range than the scales I’ve seen allow.

I'm trying to build Cazur Ukkima atm. Is there a way to have a look at the mentioned +1+1 themed deck? :)

For that power level scale. Many of my decks are focused and have plenty of infinite/game winning combos. But then my Thassa deck that I have is just going to sit there and steal everything. Nobody else at the table gets to have their cards for more then a turn and it's mono blue so I have plenty of disruption/protection. There's no infinite or game winning combo. I just slowly generate value by robbing others of their cards. Most would consider this (5-6 on the list) stronger then my other (7-8 on the list) decks. My Feather deck as well. As long as my commander sticks on the board, I have so many protection spells and board clearing spells that will just come back to my hand every turn that the deck ends up really hard to deal with. There is no infinite or game winning combo other then maintaining card advantage. While I think it's better then nothing to go by, I do think that considering the speed that it takes to put together your infinite/winning combo is more important then it being there in the first place.

Seeing that EDHRec already has a salt card list how about amend the list with other flavors like sweet and try to come up with decks that actually are tasty? Or provide a wholesome meal? (bread and butter, fish-n-chips, pretzels and beer, meat and potatoes, pasta and tomato)

casual player here that's been playing since 95. I usually say my decks are 7s but by CF #'s I should be 5-6. I like Sheldon's what turn do u win by standard but it doesn't work well for control decks. I personally like to discuss the cards that aren't in my decks prior to playing. Telling people that I don't play tutors, sol ring, mana crypt etc. tells a lot about a deck. Another way is to guess cards in other decks to gauge power level. If I see prosh at the table and guess food chain/ asnod's alter, the answer will say a lot. Another good discussion is to discuss combos in your decks that may or may not be in them, ie in my karn deck I let people know i'm not playing mychosynth lattice,or in my kiki deck I'm not playing zealous conscripts. Probably the best way to more accurately depict level is to have a list with ten different categories rather than 5

@Joseph, will you build 41 new partners commanders half decks for your smash up style format?

my mind went right to a SABCD format with s being the cedh level(and to get more complicated something like A+, A, A-.....too complicated), but that does nothing to address the problem just relabels it. the simplified version suggested on the video was good, but what we need is a way to grade our decks. say you start with a number say 50 then add or subtract points based on content. a combo is +1 for each one in your deck. infinite combo +5(as an example) more points if different cards can start your combo. land base will give points if better options used. "power cards" would add points. tutors would add points. synergy, etc. cards can also subtract points say you want to use a card you like but it adds nothing to the deck. Greater minds then mine would have to come up with the system. the point system if it could be made to work and could be used by anyone with just a little help could work. a 1-100 scale and say if 65-74 was a C level deck a 66 would be a low C and a 70 would be a solid C. the main problem besides being to complicated would be someone would have to give a point value to common elements. how many points for a mana crypt and should it be the same in every deck. in one deck it could be great, another really just there, and in another broken. you would have to practically write a manual for deck evaluation. i keep seeing it something like building a role playing character an extra point of dex, 5 points in str... rambling now i just want a character sheet for my decks figure out what the 6 stats are for a deck and a method to rate the catagories. a 16 in "DEX" means a lot of instants or counterspells. now i am really off somewhere and have to stop.

My meta has an established scale that we use: Casual (includes jank and decks with pet cards), Focused (no pet cards, very synergistic, but on a budget with an informal cap around $200), Optimized (no budget cap, peak efficiency for every card slot, up to 2 infinite combos as secondary win-cons), and cEDH (no restrictions.) I love this system because if we have a new player they can play BOTH casual and focused at our table because we have decks that are at the same level as decks almost everyone can build on a budget. Super inclusive and it makes it so new players don't feel like they're forcing us to play "down to their level" that some people feel when using the 1-10 scale. I'm with you guys (no more #s!!!)

In terms of the person who is intentionally lying/vague about their deck's power level - it's important to recognise that the purpose of the scale is to prevent people accidentally pairing up against decks that are very different power levels to them and produce fun games of EDH. The person lying isn't interested in that in the first place. The only way to prevent playing with people who intentionally lie about their deck's power level in order to stomp people is simply to not play with them again (or perhaps warn them the first time if you want to keep playing with them).

I really just think having a scale is a trap. I like the “What turn do you try winning and/or locking your opponents out?”

I definitely agree with all the conclusions from this. Way too many decks are concentrated in the 6-7 range to be able to make any conclusions about a deck's power. I've also thought that the turn clock idea doesn't always work well because almost all my decks regardless of power level can win around turn 7 "when completely unopposed." You can play significantly different, not just faster, if you know no one will block your swings or remove/counter your cards.

I opened I VIP box I got today and the box topper were garbage: crop rotation and council's judgment. But I got a foil mana crypt which is like 250 dollars so :pog:

A friend has a potentially power 1 deck: Absolutely only cards from Ixalan. Including lands (yes, tap). It's super cool. But super slow.

@ 12:36 Hey, what card art is that from?

I feel like there are a lot of people who want to say that MtG is a safe place for them, and so when people sit down to ask what is the power level, no one wants to admit that they're a 2 or 4 or whatever because they don't want to be associated with a "low" number. A lot of players I bump into as a woman want to show their knowledge of MtG through various ways, their foiled decks, or even saying "I'm so skilled that I'm not a lowly 4, I'm totally a 6!" when it may not be the case. Having some vulnerability and starting the discussion off like "I'm more than willing to start a game with 2 or a 3" is really good but also having the conversation with the rest of the MtG community about how to not treat those numbers with scorn is due as well. A lot of the time that's how we see other decks either flop or win, so if we want to accept other people from other parts of the community, then it's going to be a long and painful process.

10:55 I think Dana has it down. I feel this should be the standard oh how we talk power levels!

I never really thought about power level, and all mine are pretty much the same - pretty much in the middle. Some good cards, if I have them, but I try and stick more towards a theme than trying to win. For example, I have a zombie deck, and it has the Rooftop Storm + Gravecrawler combo that can go infinite. It's there, but really only because all the cards that work with it are good cards. It also has Mikaeus, but not Triskelion or Ballista (because they aren't zombies). The whole "play a bunch of tutors to get all your combo pieces and win" style is really boring to me.

My one playgroup that I loved before covid. You could only use precon with a value cap of 200$ total from card kingdom prices. We use to use tcg mid but folks have been screwing with those nbers. I love it because taking a precon and basic can add one card or about 10 to 20. Depending on how you spent budget and value of the deck. Seriously some of the older ones your budget smaller.

An example of a deck that doesn't really fare well in the power level discussion: Siona auras is not a super strong deck, but it sometimes wins as early as turn three without even trying (with the Shielded by Faith combo). I have no idea how I would rate Siona's strength--5 with a possibility of 9?

Sheldon Menery talks alot about When a deck does its thing more than what and how. The earlier turn your deck pop off/win, the better the deck is.

somebody link me that adeliz deck!

when it comes to power level numbers, joey isn't here for it 😕

The focused/optimized line is WAY too blurry. I have a kambal deck that is very focused and runs cheap removal options but runs no tutors, no expensive land and is slightly budget. It can still do serious work and will feel like a 7 or an 8 to someone who either doesn't pack enough removal or doesn't expect much removal. Then I have an aminatou deck that is also very focused but runs tutors, fetchlands, combos. It'll still win on similar turns, it can just win through more interaction and can infinite a lot more often. Then I have a cEDH deck that is slower and more controlling but runs a shitton of interaction, tutors, staxy stuff. Also wins on similar turns. Turn winning isn't good as a judge imo (bloodpod, a cedh deck, usually wins around turn 8 and that's kinda in the optimized category in terms of speed). You need to say how easy it is for you to assemble a disgusting board/hand state. Kambal? Not likely to actually do that. Ami? Very likely able to do that but cards are sometimes more expensive and has a higher curve, but can still easily assemble an infinite if not interacted with. cEDH deck? Super low curve, insanely huge draw capability and many ways to slow down the game asymmetrically. Yet they all win around the same turn, and they all can win with an infinite. Consistency is the best indicator of power level imo. Above all else. Not "what turn does your deck typically win on?" because that's inconsistent and relies on what your opponents are doing. A better question is "how easily does your deck assemble a game-winning setup if interacted with and how fast if not interacted with?" That's again, hard to number but IMO is the ONLY difference between the power levels of well-constructed decks from the 4-10 range.

Talrand drake tribal! (I have one of those) :)

the indian have invented the number zero btw it was a great invention in math it did a revolution because people doesnt had the concept of void, none or null representation in math (it was a long long time ago)

Here’s my groups conversation... “ you guys wanna play commander?” *proceeds to play commander* 🤷‍♂️

I would still say to keep 9s and 10s seperate, they are low, but when you sit down at a table the difference between a nine and a ten is massive, it is the difference between turn 0-3 infinate mana win and turn 2-5 infinite mana wins

Maybe use the numbers but use them within each category? Like, my Karador is Focused but it is a 9 within that descriptor. It doesn't have any "infinite combos" and it has win conditions like Living Death but not "lots" of "game ending combos". At the same time it is more controlling and wins most of the time. Would say my Riku deck is Optimized but a 5 in that as it has quite a few but tuned down to not be obnoxious or oppressive. Wins a little less than 50/50.

The problem is that there is a distinct difference in the power level of the cards and the skill level of the player. E.g. a higher skilled player with a "level 8" deck can win against a lower skilled player with a "level 10" deck. There is no skill factor to this. Most people compare decks with their skill level in mind.

The power level is tough I find it is about your play group. I would find it's helpful to have a power level for your Commander and a power level for your deck. It be helpful like say my commander golos is a 10 but the deck power level is 7 or my commander is anje Falken ralth at a power level of 7 but my deck is a 5.

I think EDHREC would benefit from an additional filter for “power level”. Budget kind of does that but not entirely. Many commanders have a broad spectrum of power levels and I may be looking to build a casual build vs a higher one. Then I could filter and see cards / decks that fit within those parameters. Especially for newer players / deck builders.

I think the 4 categories is great. I feel most video games with different difficulty levels have 4.

Lot’s of infinite/fame ending combos on the higher powered scale? lol, people use few game ending combos in high-tier lists. What’s in abundance are the high quality tutors. Those are the ones that add consistency. Stuffing too much unli combos is actually detrimental in the higher levels.

I would split it up this way cedh aka highly competitive level optimized focused casual jank aka a pile of cards you almost randomly put together

Never stop the dad jokes. Please

My favorite power level is between 7 to 10

My Meren is a solid 6.

Can I run mana crypt in a casual deck?

I know this is 2 years old but here’s your problem. Almost EVERYONE at your local shop (here in SD it’s insane) is going to undervalue their deck. Stacks, burn, duels etc. I use the Atarka scale. Person shows up with “low power deck” if you knock them out with basic atarka you’ll see real quick how powerful the deck was because of how mad they get and immediately go towards their turn 2 killer.

I don't like the "What turn do you expect to win on?" as a judge of power. There are lots of decks that don't win quickly but can disrupt their opponents enough that they are very powerful.

Pfft Joey dropping on us NOMINAL and ORDINAL scales into a video on wizard cards. Stop giving me flashbacks to high school statistics...

Can you do roon of the hidden relm as your new upping the average

Good discussion. I'm like "this deck could be built as mean and evil and full of stacks, and it is." 😈 calm down, I warn people and make sure were all into it first, also have Sea Monster tribal n stuff for other games.

1: nothing but commons besides your commander, 2: nothing but uncommon a besides your commander. The only way I can look at those lol

I had the thought awhile ago that it would be nice if every card in the game had a power level associated with it, kind of like the points system used in Canadian Highlander. It would be like if you put the Salt Score feature on every card but people voted 1 to 4 (Casual to Competitive). Then you could add up the points of your whole deck and get a value for its power level. Now on the other hand, the whole point of this scale, as you said, is to quickly establish what level everyone is on. Some new players would have no idea what you're talking about with the numbers. For that I think that power level is more about your intent with the deck than the actual cards. Do you want to have fun and play something silly, or do you want to play the best possible game? For that, I agree with you guys, lets ditch the numbers and just call them Casual, Focused, Optimized, and Competitive. Being able to vote which category a card typically goes into might still be a cool feature, but I'd just show something like number of votes or percent for each category.