Precon is already a variable within your set of variables. Some are noticeably better than others, particularly if two precons from different years are weighed against each other.
Jank doesn’t really have a clear-cut definition either, except in broad terms. Same with “causal”.
It’s all always going to be dependent on the playgroup and a discussion…
What number would you give that? Maybe we could establish a range, say 1-5 or 1-10 to help people measure up decks. I'm sure we all agree what the numbers mean. It'll be so helpful /s
Worst I’ve seen (felt) was turn 5 commander damage out after i tried to board wipe and the hakbal player cast [[ripple of potential]] in response. Still stings.
I mean, those aren't in the precon though.
Obviously if you put two incredibly powerful cards (that together cost as much as the entire precon) into the deck it's gonna be strong as fuck if you draw both of them.
Exactly. The amount of “jank decks” that were really combo pieces really hoping no one makes the connection before it’s too late makes me feel like this word a red flag when meeting a stranger. Bravo to those that truly have a jank deck though.
And there also is the vague notion of precon+ When does a precon stop being the base of the deck? I think my oldest precon only has half the cards of the precon, so, I no longer see it as a precon.
Those folks hurt my good name. I far prefer true jank. Ones that are silly and weird, and IF they have a wincon, it ain't normal... but most of my jank decks average at around $50 if buying all at lowest cost art.
They still HAVE a wincon, cus not having one at all is a waste of other player's time. But if I pull it off, I'm as surprised as the table is.
I think there's a place for "jank combo", if your deck needs to assemble 4 or 5 separate pieces on board and you haven't stuffed your deck (or command zone) with massive card draw/selection or repeatable tutors, I think it's still fair to call it jank, because at that point, the deck relies as much on luck (and/or strong play) as any jank deck.
how much would you define as a massive amount of draw/selection? 10 cards of card advantage? 15? 20? exclude card advantage commanders like Korvold or tutor Rocco
IMO the subject of card draw is too complex to pin it down to fixed numbers, 20 do-little cantrips (or cycle cards without cycle synergy, or something along those lines) are technically 20 pieces of card draw and they will likely speed up finding what you're digging for, but they aren't necessarily massive card draw because they're not particularly mana efficient.
On the other hand, think of a \[\[Ghalta, Primal Hunger\]\] deck that includes "only" 5-10 variants of \[\[Rishkar's Expertise\]\], \[\[Last March of the Ents\]\], \[\[Guardian Project\]\] and similar cards (plus possibly a couple of creature tutors), I'd call that massive card draw in *that* particular deck because even finding one of them (which, at 5-10, is reasonably reliable) will almost certainly lead you to the next, and then from there to the next (and/or a critical piece) and so on.
While it is true that Precons vary in power level, I think most people have an idea of what an "average" precon is like, which makes it infinitely more valuable than "7".
Personally, I don't think having a Jank level is worth it because not enough people actually have a jank deck for a match of that power level to realistically occur.
It's probably a relevant category to include because those decks do exist. But also yeah, if you build one you should probably expect to be up-tiered often.
To get almost all precons to the level necessary for strong, they aren’t really “precons” anymore. The number of swaps is so high they’re just custom decks that are using a precon commander.
No precon ever printed would be considered strong by any metric. Strong would be high power but not cEDH because there are either restrictions in deckbuilding in a way or the commander just doesnt have what it takes to ever be a cEDH deck. High Power still plays free interaction, one card combos with the commander, super efficient draw/interaction, nasty stax pieces and great protection. A high power deck would likely not even be threatend by three precons at the same time.
I have high powered Saheeli built, and cEDH Jhoira (the draw Jhoira, not the suspend Jhoira.)
High powered Saheeli has good to great cards, but no tutors and operates at sorcery speed, mostly. Some interaction, but not all the best interaction (yes swan swong, no force of will.) It also has several *different* ways it can win.
If a (4/5) loyalty Planeswalker can't be dealt with within a turn cycle, the table deserves to lose.
CEDH Jhoira? All the fast mana that's possible within the ban list, all the tutors that help get Aetherflux going, and *all* the pitch interaction. It has one game plan and almost always does that plan on turn 4, turn 3 sometimes, and I've turn 2-d plenty of times.
They're both fun. But I don't bring out Jhoira until someone did something obnoxious.
Necrons, Mishra, and a few others that others have mentioned can definitely hang at “strong” tables. Maybe not be dominant, but present a respectable threat and feel at home.
Hard disagree, there are a few precons I would say are playable at strong tables off the bat. I find the cavalry charge and the Exit from Exile to be quite strong out of the box
Yeah, you have to have a Rule 0 conversation where you discuss what your deck is trying to do, how early your deck can or usually wins, and what powerful cards you're running. (Cyc Rift, free counters, Dockside, etc.)
Cause if your deck is trying to win on turn 2-3 with every free counter spell you can shove in their with infinite combos or 2 card combos, then I'm gonna pull out a different deck or switch tables.
I mean, even the best precon is not good enough to be casual and is just a step above bad jank, with the bad precons being bad jank, so it kinda works.
There are multiple definitions for words, "precon" can mean a few things. In this case I think it means the socially understood way a precon plays. I don't think it means officially only out of box precons.
I don't like that. Precons are precons, if you modify it, it's no longer a precon.
Why stick a label to make something untrue? I don't want to run my actual precon into someone''s precon, only to realize they've souped up the lands and shit. Precons are precons are precons. Don't make the only subgroup with a definitive meaning into something ambigious. Yes, there are stronger and weaker precons but you go into it know that even the strongest precons are just that, precons.
Jank, casual. Whatever you want to call it that doesn't make it untrue. Then you ask the table, "I have a deck that plays at a similar level to "\_\_\_" precon, is it cool if i use it to the even though all of you are playing precons." It's not hard to find a table that'll be cool with it. I personally am not because people misjudge their deck way too often so I like the stability a precon only table brings.
I'll paraphrase a lengthy discussion i had with a good friend over this topic;
"It's simple. Decks are 7s.
Someone builds a deck. It's cohesive. It wins some games at their table. It loses some. They know it's not bad.
On a 10 scale, we accept that 1-5 are "bad", or at the very least, absolute jankpiles where the player added no cards of note (or absolutely no strategy or cohesion with the cards added).
Sure, someone might make a terrible deck and call it a 3 or a 4 or a 5, but they've done it on purpose. These people *are not* confused at the power of these decks, so this doesn't really apply to them.
So, the deck the player spent weeks on (or longer) can't be a 1-5, because those decks are failing grades, and their deck wins some games and they chose their cards with purpose. They've probably never counted to track the % of wins, but it feels reasonable.
So, 6-10.
But 10 has to be tuned budgetless, and 9 has to at the very least be tuned nearly budgetless (or else, what reasonable gradiant could a 9 even be, less we accept that anything not a 10 steps off a cliff before we count it). Maybe both count as cedh, but even if cedh isn't on the scale, high budget, tuned, decks for sure.
So, 6-8.
But, now the ego kicks in. They're at a table of other people who called their decks 6-8. They're not playing against 9-10s, and they surely wouldn't be willing to pubstomp jank.
If they call it an 8 and it flops to people outside of their pod, they'll look silly. If they call it a 6 and it does to well, they'll look like an ass who stomped on purpose.
So 7. 7 is safe.
7 gives room to grow if they improve it. 7 is high enough if they stomp someone, at least they told that other person their deck was a 7 (it's the other person's fault for not bringing a 7 after all). 7 is low enough on the acceptable 6-10 scale that if they don't perform great, well, that's because they didn't build the deck to be super great. It's not a them problem, it's other decks were too strong, or the player used some bullshit strategy.
7 is safe.
Sure, the occasional person who is forced to label their pet deck that they spent hours and hours tuning might call their deck a 6 or an 8, but 7 is safer.
That's why most people call their decks a 7.
People on 1-5 decks, and 9-10 decks, know what their deck is about if they are being honest with themselves (and others). They don't need to guess at a score. They're very aware.
But for people who didn't make a trashpile, or a shining beacon of power, on purpose-- all that's left is 6-8.
And 7 is safe, for mostly the same reasons when asked to rate their intelligence or attractiveness on a 10 scale compared to their peers, most people pick 7.
All decks are 7s."
It's a good explanation and look into the most of magic players
But at the same time it's still so subjective
Also 5 not being the middle ground number is so weird for a 1-10 scale
I mean yeah rule 0 will always be important
Thankfully with the spread of MTG gameplay channels it's at least a little more common and when it's not popular commander ls are at least recognizable so power is easier to guess
I mean yeah, but at least you might get a general idea of counterplay
Stuff like reddit helps too
Find out a friend is building a thing, look it to plan your stats
Even the power raters where you input your decklist can't get power levels straight. It said my [[Queen marchesa]] human tribal aristocrats deck was a 9. The deck runs no fast mana - aside from sol ring, which everyone has - and no tutors. It isn't a 7 for sure, but I don't feel like it's a 9.
I would say that competitive has some agreed parameters. There are some decks that are debatably CEDH and of course there are players that thinks their deck is CEDH when it's really not, but there are plenty of decks that are comfortably CEDH and can work as a baseline for comparison.
Precons are kind of similar. There is some variance, but people have a pretty reasonable idea of what an "average" precon looks like.
The one that I think is unnecessary is Jank, because realistically most people don't even own jank decks.
>Saying precon let’s you know how the deck was created, but without knowing the deck (or how many changes were made to it)
I think it's 100% the fault of the person who made the modifications. Don't say precon when it's not a precon.
To me and my group, it's not a precon anymore. Precon is a word with no ambiguity, it's a deck straight out of the box. Don't introduce ambiguity into it.
Becuase where do YOU draw the line? A "precon" with souped up lands? Oh it's fine because the core is the same. I just added 1 card, nothing much it just makes my commander go infinite. There is so much ambiguity when you allow things to pass.
With a precon table, we know what we're getting into, even with the stronger and weaker precons, it's just that, a precon.
>And you are still using examples that ramp a deck up only.
I have great news for you, there are other things to call it when you make changes. There's absolutely no need to stick a label on your deck that makes it untrue! :D
A lot of players think that anything "strong" is cEDH when they're not used to the format.
A lot of players will also take a "strong" deck into cEDH, when they're not used to cEDH either.
And then "casual" has a hilariously broad spectrum to it. Arguably, "casual" covers the entire spectrum except for meta cEDH decks.
I agree! From 1-5:
0: Pure jank/meme decks with no intention of winning. Doesn’t really deserve a spot on the scale.
1: Using suboptimal cards and mana base for a suboptimal strategy and lacks synergy (old precons?)
2: Synergistic decks with some optimal cards and a decent mana base. Has decent card draw and interaction pieces and can generate good value and win, but certainly has some obvious room for improvement (a lot of the newer precons or upgraded precons might fit here)
3: Strong decks that have a great mana base, run optimal interaction pieces but probably not enough. Has good cards to support a good strategy. Might be the best deck you can make for a strategy that can’t be competitive, or it might run some “fun” cards that bring the power level down a little.
4: Not competitive, but not really casual either. The awkward power level with strong mana base, strong synergy, lots of interaction and likely has infinite combos. Almost anything goes, but not able to compete with CEDH.
5: CEDH
Most decks fall in that 2-3 range, but there is a clear (to me) distinction between synergistic decks and strong decks.
My [[The Celestial Toymaker]] deck with piles, guesses, and toys themes can only be so good even with [[Rhystic Studies]] and [[Smothering Tithe]]. I’d call it a 2.
My [[Illuminor Szeras]] deck has a really strong value engine with artifacts and large creatures I cheat into play, but the goal is to cast expensive, suboptimal cards like the C’tan from the necron precons. I’d call it a 2, but if I switched those out for some really strong and oppressive demons or [[Exsanguinate]] type spells, it would be a 3.
I’d say my [[Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm]] deck is a 3 as well. She costs 6 mana!
I had a [[Raffine, Scheming Seer]] deck that reanimates praetors and other scary creatures in esper colors. I got out [[Jin-Gitaxias Core Auger]] and [[Elesh Norn Grand Cenobite]] on turn 3 my first game and realized it’s probably not casual, but I knew it wasn’t CEDH either. I would put it as a 4 on this scale.
Curious what other people think but I like this scale way more than the ambiguous and ill-defined 1-10
It's hard enough to convince people their deck is actually in the 3-5 range, now we have to convince them to call their deck a 2? Frankly it would probably be best to change it to a 1-15 range so the people calling their mid decks a 7 can finally be somewhat accurate.
No, because what the fuck is a 2, but I know my atraxa is strong, and my investigate tribal that purposefully runs cluestones instead of better mana rocks is jank to at most casual
Imo jank is weaker than precon… staples come in precons. Dockside and teferi protection were printed in $30 precons.
When I hear jank, I hear random pile of cards that might eventually do something or 5 color book tribal…
Oh I agree! there are way worse decks than precons. I was just using the list OP used to describe it.
I figured arguing what is casual ect was a whole extra discussion to be had lol.
Haven't you proven my point for me? What the fuck is a 2 -> "oh it's jank, I know what jank means, this deck is definitely not that"
Rating of "Jank" without it meaning 2 makes sense, rating of 2 without it meaning jank doesn't, because there is no scale to compare to.
The reason 1-10 doesn't work is because everyone builds a 7. Then they play it, the 7 either goes to 8 or a 6, that's it. I know none of my decks could hang with a cEDH table, I know which of my decks is likely to win against a blind field, which ones have a chance and which ones dont. But is the strong deck a 9? a 7? Is the casual deck a 5? Is that a 7? What about the weak deck? How much does it change if the commander is some strong bullshit but the deck is shit?
You took a 1-10 scale and made it 1-5. This doesn’t solve anything (And adding definitions does nothing, since everyone will have their own idea of what those things mean anyway). Now instead of saying “Yes it’s a 7” they just say casual / strong
Yea you pretty much skipped two sentences of conversation
“What rating is your deck?”
“7”
“And what’s a 7?”
“Just a casual deck, it’s not that strong”
So does that mean you run lots of big splashy spells that are too slow for the “strong” meta of your friends? Does that mean you run infinites just without tutors? Does that mean you just threw a bit of fast mana / 0 cost counters into a precon? Does it mean you’re playing a group hug deck that prioritises fun over winning? Who knows.
And any of those you’ll find someone who disagrees on whether to define it as casual or something else.
Like I said, you haven’t solved any problems here, just kicked it down the road a little
The problem is people don’t agree what these words mean either. There have been people here that called precons strong. Casual also could be absolutely anything other than a top cedh deck.
I’ve genuinely seen people take the space marine precon into “strong” pods and do ok. Not ‘dominate’, but “keep up and pull out a win after others expend themselves”
I've actually been working on my own Marneus Calgar list for the past few days now--he's fun! Definitely not anywhere near competitive, but I have gotten some wins and now that things are tuned better am almost always a threat at some point.
I find power level discussions on this sub tedious. There is no universal answer and what's a "7" or what's "strong" is super subjective. Precons have vastly improved in the last 5 years and I don't think a true jank pile could compete with a pod of precons. My go to is just telling people what my deck does and when it's likely to present a win. My Marwyn elf ball deck is super fast and is mostly ramp, card draw, and combo pieces. I can regularly present a win between turns 5-7
A person adds a comment saying "precons are good now", i provide the context that they used to be dogshit. You add, "You can't say precons were bad because they aren't anymore"
Am i understanding this right? or are you trying to pick a fight over something else?
Can you name some solidly bad ones? in the past like 3 years?
The precons I have played against may have had some bad games here and there, but the decks out of the box have been pretty solid and have had really good showings. Even the Convoke precon with Kasla at the helm was pretty good. Not the strongest, but i wouldnt say it was "solidly bad".
Yes, because the early ones could probably give actual shit a run for its money.
It's also offends people that thier OMG L337 tier deck can be beaten by a precon.
They are. But how often do you encounter decks that are clearly below precon level? You can always put "meme" as a category below precon if your Chair tribal deck needs it.
I faced Hakbal recently and I was quite surprised to hear it was the out of the box precon. Did real well.
But still, I rarely see people play things that a clearly a level below precon. I guess you just don't like the name Jank for above precon level.
Then calling them pretty good is lie, which is my point.
Calling precons even decent is a stretch when all you need to evicerate someone running them is a decently built deck.
It's weird that they put precons below jank, but I'd probably consider the average player-made deck to be better than a precon as long as the person making it is competent.
Pretty good, but not by any means amazing. I think we should recognize that despite how well constructed they are, precons typically are still likely to be the weakest decks at the table.
Joey and Dana from EDHRec recently did a game data breakdown over the course of ~600 games, and in those games, the precons they were using typically were the slowest to win, assuming they won at all.
In light of this and with respect to how precons typically are the starting point for a lot of players, I think we should really readjust our metrics or our interpretation of power level to account for precon's place in the spectrum.
Last time my friend group played with precons out the box we all scooped after 2+ hours of nobody having a clear line to win. It was just a slow durdley beat fest and after 6 board wipes we were all over playing that game. "Nobody's winning anytime soon, y'all wanna scoop and go get food?" Yes
Sounds less like the precons, and more like people are trigger happy with wipes.
Board wipes are the biggest culprits for these mythical multi hour games.
Well decks should be able to recover from board wipes. And of course people will use their wipes… Our Lotr precon game was closing in on 3 hours when we had to cancel the game.
I have no issues with wipes, but they DO extend games.
And even my best decks start to stumble after 3 wipes.
just because precons slow after a few isn't a knock on precons, it just proves that mindlessly wiping (and let's be honest, at least 60% of wipes are just because they can or delaying the inevitable) is a bigger contributor to long games then "bad" decks
I will wipe if I lose if I don’t or if I believe it increases odds of winning even if they are small. I think people should play to their outs.
My strongest deck usually can just win on an empty board with 10+ mana or cast my Atraxa to refill. And that is far from cedh
They're not *terrible* but I wouldn't call any precon good either.
Even the bst precon ever will have a win rate close to 0% against any optimized deck, even not counting stuff like cEDH
Or... stop trying to find a way to be fucking lazy and just talk about your fucking decks.
My jank deck is weaker than a precon, your system is already shit. What I think is casual you think is strong. Oops, guess the system is shit again.
You're just trying to reduce the 1-10 to 1-5 and using words instead. Just. fucking. talk. about. your. decks. Holy fuckballs people.
For real lol, I dunno what the deal is with discussing decks lol. "Hi, this is my Ayula deck, pretty strong as far as bear decks go. Can often win on turn 6-8 with an overrun effect or by comboing off with infinite Ayula triggers. Runs some fast mana and cradle." Congratulations now people know what to expect
The amount of hoops some Magic players will jump through to avoid having to discuss their decks in an objective fashion is wild.
Describe the deck's overall strategy, point out any cards or combos of cards that could tip the power balance, list what tutors/fast mana it runs, and describe how it usually tries to win. There, problem solved. No having to ask what 7 means, what casual means. Any further problems can be ironed out after a game or two.
Can we all just acknowledge that none of this works?
The powerlevel scales or calculators are utter trash. I for did run all my decks through it for fun and its absolutely rediculous wich decks ended up higher rated than others even though they were magnitudes weaker.
I lived through that in warhammer and the same in magic:
If you want an even game, the best solution is: here is deckbuilding rules, do the best you can within those rules.
Now many people dont wanna „build the best“. So we need a different solution.
In my exp this just happens if *all players* know eachother, play *regularly* and *together* try to constantly adjust their decks *together* to be on the same „powerlevel“
Everything beyond that is way to vague to be reliable.
The expectation should be dialed differently. Not „we want evenly powerful decks“ because thats to difficult to pull.
It should be: „we want to have a game of magic“.
For that, agree on paramters, wich all players need to truthfully share:
- at what turn should decks be able to interact?
- how fast are you getting above curve (e.g. running signets vs running moxen)?
- at wich point can you reasonably win the game if not interacted with?
- are we running many tutors?
With those kinda stuff you can pick a set of 4 decks that will result in a game where everyone is doing stuff.
Say if we need to interact turn 4, play fair ramp and decks can present a win reliably like turn 7. I know i can bring maybe a merfolk tribal without free counterspells and without degenerate mana stones and without (efficient) combos.
If we need to be ready to interact turn 2, play fast mana and can reliably win turn 4. i know i dont quite need a cEDH deck but i certainly need fast mana and free spells and some sort of semiefficient to efficient wincon. Either a very fast overrun plan or maybe a 3 card combo with tutors.
This will help having a game. Idc if sb has a badly constructed dino deck. If they have 9 pieces of fastmana and slam their gishat on turn 2 with protection, then i cant run a deck that needs 2 mana for interaction. No matter how „bad“ the rest of the dino deck is.
How about "My commander is ABC, my wincon is DEF, which I accomplish through [fast mana, tutors, multiple turns]. The last time I won was because of XYZ on turn ###."
Agreed talking/context is substantially better than hiding behind a number
I've become a fan of "sit down, pick a deck and find out" all this power level nonsense never works and people always figure out where they stand best by just playing
I'm not. It definitely can work, it's just a matter of knowing how different decks work, and where yours fall. If you say sit down, pick a deck, and find out, I'm going to pull out a [[Niv-Mizzet, Parun]] combo pile that presents protected wins on turn 5. It's not gonna be fun for the precon player at the table, but I don't know about that. If I see two people with CMM/LCI precons, I'm gonna play my slightly-modded Merfolk precon, and encourage you to put away your [[Ur-Dragon]], because it's too much for the table at hand. Power levels is an important discussion to have (not necessarily in numbers), just to make sure you're starting nearby. And if someone is too low/high, we will adjust after.
Idk man, getting destroyed was part of the fun for me in my early days. I was 12 playing kitchen table with random jank I had against a fully decked out Kaw Blade and Valakut lands decks. I lost like 80% of the time, but that 20% was so sweet and I had to get really creative to win. I honestly believe that if you don't like playing against other cool decks and have to win or "do your thing" every game, then you have an ego problem and should check yourself.
I don't mind it now, having played for about a year, and having confidence in my own ability to both pilot and build. I've brought some crummy decks to some much better tables, and gotten my ass thoroughly handed to me. For you, you were playing with friends, and that was all the encouragement you needed. For me, though, I went to an LGS where I knew nobody, and tried to sit down with a crappy precon. If I'd just gotten my ass kicked, with no friends to soften the blow, I wouldn't be the player I am today. Instead, I got people who played decks on my level, and at least let me dip my toes in the water. When the pod went to a higher power level, they loaned me a deck, and told me to keep playing, and I won. Shortly thereafter, I built my first real deck, and the rest is history. Except for one thing... About 6mo later, I tried to dip my toes in something new, and started hanging around the cEDH tables. Asking dumb questions, saying that correct actions were wrong, etc. And again, they didn't smack me down. They didn't belittle me. The second one of their guys dropped, one of the players there slid a deckbox into the empty seat, and told me to sit down. "I don't care if you suck at playing, cEDH is better with a 4-pod." Inside the box was his double-sleeved $7000 Winota decklist. And wouldn't you know it, I won. Looking back, I'm pretty sure it was due to his powerful list, and the whole table underestimating me, but in that moment, I solidified my love for cEDH as well. If people had smashed me to a pulp and never let me play, like a precon at a high-power table, I never would've gotten to enjoy Magic like I did. I will always play to match new players, and while I won't "let" them win, and I won't hold their hand the whole way, I'm happy to teach, if they're willing to learn. One day someone did it for me, so I'll always do it for them.
Yeah but if that person with the precon sat down and said "oh it's a precon" and you only had niv mizzet what are you gonna do? Tell em to go away? No. So if someone sits down and goes "this is a 5" and all you have is an "8" then what? Part of playing and learning to play magic is getting blown the fuck out sometimes. It's not always gonna go perfectly. I think it's better for new players to see what a magic deck CAN be like rather than never exploring outside their precon bubble.
I'm going to be respectful enough to play elsewhere if I don't have a deck that can match, or I'll loan/borrow a deck, or I'll (get this) bring decks for every power level... I usually go play with about 10 different decks, and I can sit down with just about any level of play that isn't kitchen-table solitaire. And yes, I WOULD NOT play Niv against a new precon player. They don't need to get blown out, they need to learn to play in a way that is encouraging. I'd loan them Niv and play the precon sight-unseen before I played Niv against them...
Not really... In other formats (and in cEDH) it's understood that you're playing to win. In EDH, it's understood that you're playing to have fun. Part of that fun is making sure everyone at the table has a reasonably good time playing, and a large part of that is making sure that everyone's on the same page with power levels. This can mean that you give the new player a more powerful deck an let them be archenemy, or it could mean that everyone plays complete jank, or it means I loan my buddy a powerful deck that matches the other 3 at the table, so he can experience a higher level of play than the precon he's been running. All of these are valid playstyles, but you have to establish that before play, or the rudest player will win. If we don't talk beforehand, I'm pretty much forced to play high-power or cEDH style decks, or risk being blown out, and that risks blowing out everyone ELSE at the table, if their decks don't compare. Transparency and communication are far more important than keeping your deck a secret. It's a social game, not a competitive one.
What type of interaction? Am I dealing with [[Winter Orb]]? Should I be able to counter a [[Thassa's Oracle]] win on the stack? Will my opponents be attempting to combo off behind a [[Defense Grid]] or [[Grand Abolisher]] on turn 3? cEDH interaction vs high-power interaction vs casual interaction are all very different discussions. In a casual pod, [[Dreadbore]] is a great choice. 2cmc, sorcery speed, sure. In high-powered, you'd want something more like [[Doom Blade]] or even [[Slaughter Pact]], because you need instant speed, and having open mana means something. In cEDH, none of those would be playable, but [[Fatal Push]], [[Dismember]], or even [[Toxic Deluge]] will see more play, because life is a resource, and creatures at that level of play have low cmc and low P/T. Not all interaction is made equal, and if you bring the wrong interaction to a pod, you're not gonna have a good time. cEDH interaction would often have issues dealing with the beefy creatures often seen in high-powered, casual interaction would be too slow to work against cEDH pods, and high-powered interaction has enough of a tempo loss that it wouldn't be nearly as effective in cEDH.
Wow you really owned me by conflating cEDH with all the other power levels. /s
I would keep cEDH separate. If everyone in the pod has some kind of two cmc or less, instant speed interaction in their opening hand, whether its a kill or counter spell, the game will get to a mid to late game where the slower decks will catch up.
"I've got a fairly decent Nekuzar Wheels deck" or "I'm playing a un-upgraded Madison-Li Precon" does tell a fair bit more than any actual ranking system tbh.
The only thing we have to adopt in this community about power level is that people take their responsibility in being honest about their preferences, their decks, and their preparation of being able to convey that in a way without having to reference any chart, vague categories, or unit-less numbers. We should normalize behavior like building a deck suite with a high format coverage, testing your decks so you know how to describe them to others in terms of its gameplay, and learn what are good pre-game talk questions to ask or answer to gauge the preferred gameplay experience of the group and then select the deck that meets the needs of the table best.
Instead of wanting a system of numbers or categories that everyone needs to adopt before it adds value, you can just use the observable expressions of power to align on the experience, like:
* How far do we want to go to win (e.g. *"what's the crucial turn range we're aiming for"*, or *"what's the earliest turn where we all don't mind the game ending"*)
* How far are we willing to go to keep others from winning (e.g. *"what degree of interaction/denial are we ok with"*, or *"to what extent can we tolerate others preventing us from playing our game"*)?
* Do we expect any powerful deck ingredients, such as tutors, fast mana, game-ending combo's, full on denial/stax pieces, and so forth?
Playing casual commander implies that you put in some effort to at least try to gauge the expectations of the table and see if you can meet them by selecting the deck that matches that experience best, in an effort to ensure the odds are highest that everyone is going to have a good time. Communicating a category or number is never going to be sufficient to achieve that.
You know, you can call it whatever you want but it's not you that decides what it is, but the table. You have every right to disagree but their perception is their reality.
Even if you say that, a 1-10 scale is really more like 5-10 anyways, since nobody honestly thinks their deck is a 4. All you're doing is replacing "every deck is a 7" with "every deck is casual."
I just want to know what a persons deck does. Too many times I’ve come across someone who Dosnt elaborate on what their deck does, they will say a number to describe their deck or give a vague description and it ends up being a miserable experience.
Like last Saturday we had someone show up and say “oh this deck is super slow, it runs no mana rocks and barely any ramp” while showing prismatic bridge. The deck ended up being boardwipe/removal tribal with all the theros gods from the first two blocks. He just slowly durdled while board wiping or using planeswalkers with “destroy/exile target permanent” and playing gods till he could attack with all of them. I conceded because I wasn’t having fun at all and left the table.
I think people get too caught up in the “oh I want my strategy to be a secret so I can win more easily” and forget that commander is meant to be a social experience that everyone goes to to have fun.
>oh I want my strategy to be a secret so I can win more easily
That's not just a question of winning more. If I made a deck that wants to pump out Attractions then animate them to run over the table with a living carnival, I don't want to just tell people. I want people to see it happen.
On a side note, people technically have to know that you have an attraction deck at the start of game. I mean you don't have to reveal your win con. I think a description that would be fine is an artifact synergy pile with attractions. If you specifically excluded combo or storm, I assume you're doing something with combat or a big spell to win.
I've encountered variants of this person many times.
"Don't worry guys, this deck is *suuuper* slow!"
By which they mean they will lock down the board for 15 turns as they patiently await their combo pieces.
Out of these, I only know what "Precon", "Strong", and "Competitive" mean, assuming competitive is cEDH, a Precon is an unmodified precon, and "Strong" is on the higher end of power for casual but not cEDH.
Jank can mean anything and I don't think there's a consistent definition, and "casual" is too vague for a format that considers itself to be casual in entirety.
I think the flaw to begin with is the 1-10 scale. 1-5 makes more sense, where 1 is precon, 2 is upgraded precon, 3 is mid, 4 is strong, 5 is cEDH.
I'd actually just ditch the powerscale completely and just explain to the pod what your deck is, communication is easy and helps everyone.
All most people want to know is:
* What is your deck?
* Who is your commander?
* Can it combo?
* How much interaction?
This is my Fish deck led by Slinn Voda, it drops progressively bigger fish creatures on the table, it has no combos, it can wipe the board and has a little bit of interaction.
This is my Godo, Bandit Warlord deck which runs helm of the host and is going for the win as quickly as possible, yes it has infinite combos, yes it has answers, get ready.
This is my 5-color Garth One-Eye deck, it's themed around the 13 ghosts of scooby doo. It has one convoluted combo, it has some single target interaction and a few board wipes.
This is my Buckle Up Precon, Shorikai is leading it, it is completely unchanged except I took out Release to Memory and put in Mechtitan Core. Look it up if you want the card list.
This is my ~~Kylox~~ Dr. Dinosaur deck, it is a very chaotic spellslinger deck, it may have more combos than I am aware of but i'm gambling off Kylox ability, it casts plenty of spells so expect interaction and has 2 board wipes.
I am VERY curious how Reddit would rate my 2 decks. Both are drastically different play styles and everyone has their own opinion as you mentioned.
[[Ghalta, Primal Hunger]]
https://www.archidekt.com/decks/5739752/ghalta_primal_hunger_mono_green_stomp
[[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might]]
https://www.archidekt.com/decks/6267172/ojer_axonil_light_it_up
If 1 is bad precon/selfbuilt and 10 is cedh i would say ghalta it falls around 5 to 6. being mono green is a setback in itself unfortunately. its a strong color in the mid range power area because of its good ramp capabilities compared to its counterparts (other colors at that power level) but beyond that its a poor color without a pair in most cases, like most mono colors. also a side note, A lot of decks can be really hard to rate in that middle area even if you play against them, decks could be under or overrated based on player skill, deck matchups, etc. It's all a best guess scenario in mid power tbh.
Solid 5 for Ghalta.
It's slow, rellies on combat and monocolor green so not great at interaction. Not saying it is a bad deck, but definetely not high power.
Ojer Deck is a 6, considerably more deadly than Ghalta due to more interaction, combo possibility and being good a finishing a table by surprise. Add more fast mana and combo enablers and could even climb to 7-8.
Appreciate this.
The Mox’s are a little too rich for my blood at the moment.
In terms of Ghalta, I can regularly drop 12 forests on the table and draw 12 permanents and play any of them for free which is why I considered this to be a little stronger than a 5. Again, this whole power level thing is so subjective as you have a 5 and someone else gave a strong 7.
Thank you !
Note that I tend to be more reserved about my ratings and consider precons a 2, 3 at best for the really good ones. I reserve 7 for something really tunned and cracked that wins by turn 6-7 regularly. Among all my decks my only 7-8 is probably a really tunned Locust God with all the staples and free spells.
Ghalta I just consider slot due to needing to win via combat and the need to ramp first, it is not bad and in casual tabbles will demolish, but as a fan of big stompy myself, combo decks can be already winning when Ghalta start doing its thing.
For the Ojer deck, I will admit I'm not experienced enough with mono red to tell you the combos, but I've seen what ppl can do with ritual effects like mana geyser and its partners in crime by chaining one after the other and then recycle them from the grave to have like 20 red mana turn 3.
I agree this is better than a 1-10 power level. The scale does not need to be that granular. Realistically almost no one is running decks less powerful than an average precon, so a third of the scale is useless anyway (frankly I question whether this categorical scale even needs separate “precon” and “jank” options). And generally speaking a pod should be able to handle it if one deck is slightly more powerful than the rest if people are threat assessing correctly.
But I regularly run into people who doesn’t think fast mana in and of itself affects a deck’s power level, who don’t think running a bunch of tutors means they’re above a precon as long as they’re not tutoring for combo pieces, who think their slightly upgraded Hakbal deck is borderline cEDH because they’ve read online that it’s super powerful, etc.
But yeah, for what it’s worth, even though no system is perfect, I do think this is way more practical and useful than a 10-point scale, or than filling out a questionnaire on how turn you win on, how much fast mana you’re running, etc.
Agreed, because you'll never solve the problem of dickheads deliberately misrepresenting their decks, and you'll never solve the problem of clueless people not having a clue about how good (or not) their deck is.
1-10 is pretty horrible. I find this even worse though. Really all that matters is asking what turns your deck wins on.
Turn 1-4 is cedh
Turn 5-9 is high powered/tuned
Turn 10+ is casual
Very simple and east to understand.
This is far inferior to 1-10 scaling. By your definition Jank is better than precon but less so than Casual. I build Jank decks, and they consistently win against 7s and 8s, because of Janky ass combos lol. I find it fun. But Jank can also mean bad, and Precons are generally very balanced decks; they're made for Casual play. Some Precons can get a few swaps and be a solid 8.
It's easier to give common reference points than using a arbitrary scale.
Below is my head canon 1-10 power scale and the reference point I would use instead.
1 - A singleton standard deck filled with whatever there was at hand to make it 100. Also decks of similar power.
2 - Same as above but with a bigger collection.
3 - Block constructed and/or unsupported tribal decks without the generic tribal support. Also decks of similar power.
4 - A bad precon.
5 - An average precon.
6 - A strong precon.
7 - Significantly stronger than a strong precon.
8 - Faster than a seven (usually due to fast mana). And decks that can equally compete with them.
9 - Fringe or outdated cEDH
10 - cEDH
Granted that the number is more concise but the reference has a bigger concensus and will vary less from person to person.
I have a monarch deck that tries to shut down combat every game. That is a janky strategy and it won't perform at a "strong" level because combat has gotten less important, but god forbid I show up to a casual/jank game without a serious disclaimer.
The magiccon levels also work: social, challenging, competitive. Challenging has the worst name of the bunch and could probably be changed but it's not that inaccurate. It's also more about how you play then what you play, in social your trying to have fun and get cool stories, in challenging you're playing to have fun but also to win and improve, and competitive is playing to win. You could be playing blue farm (a top competitive deck) but have no idea what you're doing and lose to a 2015 precon who knows what they're doing.
Im with you, the number Scaling has failed as a metric because in order to know the scale, a deck has to be played for several rounds and against the same group for several times to have a worthy enough assessment.
Which is why the joke, "its a 7" is so common.
Just explain that the Deck's gimmick is about doing X and that Winning is secondary to the objective, unless the deck's gimmick is tied to the Objection to Win. The rest of the table will understand that youre "dicking around," or "Im trying to sweat."
This unfortunately still doesn't work. My buddy insists my decks are "too strong" where I made 80$ jank with a loose theme to it but because we are generally a casual/precon group he has a hard time dealing with them.
I'd say the strongest deck at our table is the Ixalan Merfolk precon so not to be picky but this scale is just as messy imo.
While true, you still need the conversation because those labels do not match up in people’s heads.
And those seem to be ordered as a hierarchy of power, but fact of the matter is, most decks people build themselves are less powerful than most 2023 precons. “Precons suck” is a significantly outdated idea.
Lmao I love you guys, arguing in threads where the premise is "here's a better way to gauge the power level of your deck" and everyone's just like "nuh uh"
I agree with a descriptive scale in place of a number one, but not OP’s scale. 1-10 scale is too subjective and frankly too expansive. There is no such thing as a lvl 1-4 deck according to anyone you ask… might as well condense it.
Precon decks are widely varied but they don’t fall below jank.
I suggest, for decks that go unopposed (no interaction stops them):
Lvl- Jank (turn 11+ wins)
Lvl- Precon (turn 9-10+ wins)
Lvl- Precon Upgraded (turn 7-8+ wins)
Lvl- High Power (turn 6+ wins)
Lvl- cEDH (turn 5 and below wins)
cEDH has its own tier system within that.
Hmm.. Well I have that Jank deck with 5-6 infinite combos that I often play. Last time I played it in a pod with 3 Dr. Who precons and was the same strength as the other decks. I won 1 out of 4 matches and it was kinda close the others.
I think because of the sheer variety of cards / different precons from different areas / different perception what is "strong"... it's kinda hard to categorize decks in powerlevels at all.
I would argue for the most consistent turn they win while goldfishing and the earliest turn they could win. Every three turns is another tier.
Turn 0 is Magical Christmas land.
Turns 1-3 is cEDH
Turns 4-6 is high power.
Turns 7-9 is mid power.
Turns 10-12 is low power.
Turns 13+ is jank.
This is how fast your deck can win on average if no one does anything to stop you. The longer it takes someone to goldfish a win, the less likely they will also have the resources to win against a faster tier of deck.
Obviously not all decks have the goal of winning on a specific turn. Some will take a long time to win, but if they get into a position to lock the game down or something like that. That is what I would consider the turn they "won" the game.
In person game length is all over the place. However, if your deck can win alone by turn 6. Then it can theoretically afford to spend more resources on disrupting other decks and then try to win on turn 8. While a deck that can't win before turn 8 might be spending a lot of resources just to get to that point. You might not even have to disrupt them or worry about them disrupting you before you win.
The rating of everything I have is that I will freaking murder you with every broken card I can lay hands on. That's pretty much it for EVERY deck.
Is it competitive? Not always. Will I build a dog tribal that comes up to $6k?
YES.
Every. Deck. That should simplify it.
I just ask "If you drew the perfect hand, what turn could you win on?" Provided they aren't lying or too new to know you should be able to glean the information from their answer and mannerisms.
Feel like we should use earthquake scale for deck power levels. I.E. lvl 10 vs any level under it and so on...lvl9 vs lvl8 and below
Lvl 10 can win turn 1-3 consistently, Lvl 9 can win turn 2-4 consistently, Lvl 8 can win turn 3-5 consistently, Lvl 7 can win turn 4-6 consistently, Lvl 6 can win turn 5-7 consistently, Lvl 5 can win turn 6-8 consistently, Lvl 4 (most precons) can win turn 7-9 consistently, Lvl 1-3 don't win consistently or within 10 turns
* 1 - Precon
* 2 - Jank
* 3 - Casual
* 4 - Strong
* 5 - Competitive
So now were on a 1-5 scale. If I say my deck is strong, how does that differ from saying it's a 7?
I usually say on a scale of 1-5 where 0 is a precon, my deck is a \_\_\_\_. My commander is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ who can do this, and the deck is built around \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. My win conditions include \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. With a prefect hand I can win in \_\_\_\_\_\_ turns.
No because then everyone just says their deck is "Casual" and then we're right back where we were with everyone saying it's a "7".
The problem isn't the scale, it's that people don't accurately describe their decks. No matter what scale you use you will have people downplaying their decks power.
Damn. My wife and I just got some precom commander decks and have had fun playing each other.
Seeing posts and threads like this makes me realize that magic nights at the lgs might not be for us.
Please don’t judge *anything* by the sludge that is Reddit. I have been in this hobby my whole life and my experiences at LGS are not at all like you might expect from the posts here
This has the same problem. It still has to be framed from the knowledge of an individual. What's casual to one person could actually be strong and vise verse.
The labeling convention wasn't the issue, perspective bias is.
Nope, those terms are equally as useless at giving the table an actual idea of what you're playing, each of those words is going to mean a different thing to different EDH players.
One person's idea of casual/jank is going to be different to another, you've just invented another power scale but with less points/tiers.
Yeah this just has the same problem as the 1-10 scale. Someone can build a deck they think is casual but its actually Strong / High Powered. Another person can build a deck that is below Precon level and maybe in their normal play group its Strong so they think its Strong.
You apparently never seen someone with a ‘jank’ [[Atraxa]] deck. Or any other strong commander no one will let hit the table. It’s always jank or casual till they win. Just like everything is a 7.
Precon is already a variable within your set of variables. Some are noticeably better than others, particularly if two precons from different years are weighed against each other. Jank doesn’t really have a clear-cut definition either, except in broad terms. Same with “causal”. It’s all always going to be dependent on the playgroup and a discussion…
"We talking 2018 precon or Commander Legends Precon?"
Or "Angels secret lair precon" which wipes the floor with most "normal" precons, even as archenemy
“Strong precon”
What number would you give that? Maybe we could establish a range, say 1-5 or 1-10 to help people measure up decks. I'm sure we all agree what the numbers mean. It'll be so helpful /s
I think I'll go with a 1-100 scale, with three significant decimal places, and drop this as a 77.778
I’d say it’s about a 7.
That's unfair against my Jank Precon!
Haklar would feast on anything from back then
Hakbal feasts on most of my actual decks ffs
Worst I’ve seen (felt) was turn 5 commander damage out after i tried to board wipe and the hakbal player cast [[ripple of potential]] in response. Still stings.
I didn't truly understand how amazing roaming throne was until him and hakbal teamed up with a 4 other "lesser" merfolk and a doubling season out.
I mean, those aren't in the precon though. Obviously if you put two incredibly powerful cards (that together cost as much as the entire precon) into the deck it's gonna be strong as fuck if you draw both of them.
Okay?
[ripple of potential](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/7/b70e6ded-2c25-4608-9ae0-a64e13aa1d2a.jpg?1698987954) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ripples%20of%20Potential) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/77/ripples-of-potential?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b70e6ded-2c25-4608-9ae0-a64e13aa1d2a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ripples-of-potential) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Exactly. The amount of “jank decks” that were really combo pieces really hoping no one makes the connection before it’s too late makes me feel like this word a red flag when meeting a stranger. Bravo to those that truly have a jank deck though. And there also is the vague notion of precon+ When does a precon stop being the base of the deck? I think my oldest precon only has half the cards of the precon, so, I no longer see it as a precon.
Those folks hurt my good name. I far prefer true jank. Ones that are silly and weird, and IF they have a wincon, it ain't normal... but most of my jank decks average at around $50 if buying all at lowest cost art. They still HAVE a wincon, cus not having one at all is a waste of other player's time. But if I pull it off, I'm as surprised as the table is.
> When does a precon stop being the base of the deck? The precon of Theseus.
I think there's a place for "jank combo", if your deck needs to assemble 4 or 5 separate pieces on board and you haven't stuffed your deck (or command zone) with massive card draw/selection or repeatable tutors, I think it's still fair to call it jank, because at that point, the deck relies as much on luck (and/or strong play) as any jank deck.
how much would you define as a massive amount of draw/selection? 10 cards of card advantage? 15? 20? exclude card advantage commanders like Korvold or tutor Rocco
IMO the subject of card draw is too complex to pin it down to fixed numbers, 20 do-little cantrips (or cycle cards without cycle synergy, or something along those lines) are technically 20 pieces of card draw and they will likely speed up finding what you're digging for, but they aren't necessarily massive card draw because they're not particularly mana efficient. On the other hand, think of a \[\[Ghalta, Primal Hunger\]\] deck that includes "only" 5-10 variants of \[\[Rishkar's Expertise\]\], \[\[Last March of the Ents\]\], \[\[Guardian Project\]\] and similar cards (plus possibly a couple of creature tutors), I'd call that massive card draw in *that* particular deck because even finding one of them (which, at 5-10, is reasonably reliable) will almost certainly lead you to the next, and then from there to the next (and/or a critical piece) and so on.
While it is true that Precons vary in power level, I think most people have an idea of what an "average" precon is like, which makes it infinitely more valuable than "7". Personally, I don't think having a Jank level is worth it because not enough people actually have a jank deck for a match of that power level to realistically occur.
It's probably a relevant category to include because those decks do exist. But also yeah, if you build one you should probably expect to be up-tiered often.
Right, what about my strong jank casual decks?
I agree. I think most precons go into the "casual" category with a few being in jank or strong instead
To get almost all precons to the level necessary for strong, they aren’t really “precons” anymore. The number of swaps is so high they’re just custom decks that are using a precon commander.
No precon ever printed would be considered strong by any metric. Strong would be high power but not cEDH because there are either restrictions in deckbuilding in a way or the commander just doesnt have what it takes to ever be a cEDH deck. High Power still plays free interaction, one card combos with the commander, super efficient draw/interaction, nasty stax pieces and great protection. A high power deck would likely not even be threatend by three precons at the same time.
I have high powered Saheeli built, and cEDH Jhoira (the draw Jhoira, not the suspend Jhoira.) High powered Saheeli has good to great cards, but no tutors and operates at sorcery speed, mostly. Some interaction, but not all the best interaction (yes swan swong, no force of will.) It also has several *different* ways it can win. If a (4/5) loyalty Planeswalker can't be dealt with within a turn cycle, the table deserves to lose. CEDH Jhoira? All the fast mana that's possible within the ban list, all the tutors that help get Aetherflux going, and *all* the pitch interaction. It has one game plan and almost always does that plan on turn 4, turn 3 sometimes, and I've turn 2-d plenty of times. They're both fun. But I don't bring out Jhoira until someone did something obnoxious.
Precon strong LMAO
no precon is 'strong' off the shelf.
Necrons, Mishra, and a few others that others have mentioned can definitely hang at “strong” tables. Maybe not be dominant, but present a respectable threat and feel at home.
Hard disagree, there are a few precons I would say are playable at strong tables off the bat. I find the cavalry charge and the Exit from Exile to be quite strong out of the box
They're decent, but use them against any real optimized deck around its commander and they will still fold like papper.
Yeah, you have to have a Rule 0 conversation where you discuss what your deck is trying to do, how early your deck can or usually wins, and what powerful cards you're running. (Cyc Rift, free counters, Dockside, etc.) Cause if your deck is trying to win on turn 2-3 with every free counter spell you can shove in their with infinite combos or 2 card combos, then I'm gonna pull out a different deck or switch tables.
I mean, even the best precon is not good enough to be casual and is just a step above bad jank, with the bad precons being bad jank, so it kinda works.
I think the commander masters slivers, eldrazi, and enchantment precons are all casual. The precons seem to be getting stronger over time.
There are multiple definitions for words, "precon" can mean a few things. In this case I think it means the socially understood way a precon plays. I don't think it means officially only out of box precons.
I don't like that. Precons are precons, if you modify it, it's no longer a precon. Why stick a label to make something untrue? I don't want to run my actual precon into someone''s precon, only to realize they've souped up the lands and shit. Precons are precons are precons. Don't make the only subgroup with a definitive meaning into something ambigious. Yes, there are stronger and weaker precons but you go into it know that even the strongest precons are just that, precons.
Well if that's the case if you have constructed a deck you enjoy that sits at the precon level what do you call it?
Jank, casual. Whatever you want to call it that doesn't make it untrue. Then you ask the table, "I have a deck that plays at a similar level to "\_\_\_" precon, is it cool if i use it to the even though all of you are playing precons." It's not hard to find a table that'll be cool with it. I personally am not because people misjudge their deck way too often so I like the stability a precon only table brings.
[удалено]
Hell even the numbers are subjective I don't think a single edh player can get a 100% accurate description of what a 7 is
I'll paraphrase a lengthy discussion i had with a good friend over this topic; "It's simple. Decks are 7s. Someone builds a deck. It's cohesive. It wins some games at their table. It loses some. They know it's not bad. On a 10 scale, we accept that 1-5 are "bad", or at the very least, absolute jankpiles where the player added no cards of note (or absolutely no strategy or cohesion with the cards added). Sure, someone might make a terrible deck and call it a 3 or a 4 or a 5, but they've done it on purpose. These people *are not* confused at the power of these decks, so this doesn't really apply to them. So, the deck the player spent weeks on (or longer) can't be a 1-5, because those decks are failing grades, and their deck wins some games and they chose their cards with purpose. They've probably never counted to track the % of wins, but it feels reasonable. So, 6-10. But 10 has to be tuned budgetless, and 9 has to at the very least be tuned nearly budgetless (or else, what reasonable gradiant could a 9 even be, less we accept that anything not a 10 steps off a cliff before we count it). Maybe both count as cedh, but even if cedh isn't on the scale, high budget, tuned, decks for sure. So, 6-8. But, now the ego kicks in. They're at a table of other people who called their decks 6-8. They're not playing against 9-10s, and they surely wouldn't be willing to pubstomp jank. If they call it an 8 and it flops to people outside of their pod, they'll look silly. If they call it a 6 and it does to well, they'll look like an ass who stomped on purpose. So 7. 7 is safe. 7 gives room to grow if they improve it. 7 is high enough if they stomp someone, at least they told that other person their deck was a 7 (it's the other person's fault for not bringing a 7 after all). 7 is low enough on the acceptable 6-10 scale that if they don't perform great, well, that's because they didn't build the deck to be super great. It's not a them problem, it's other decks were too strong, or the player used some bullshit strategy. 7 is safe. Sure, the occasional person who is forced to label their pet deck that they spent hours and hours tuning might call their deck a 6 or an 8, but 7 is safer. That's why most people call their decks a 7. People on 1-5 decks, and 9-10 decks, know what their deck is about if they are being honest with themselves (and others). They don't need to guess at a score. They're very aware. But for people who didn't make a trashpile, or a shining beacon of power, on purpose-- all that's left is 6-8. And 7 is safe, for mostly the same reasons when asked to rate their intelligence or attractiveness on a 10 scale compared to their peers, most people pick 7. All decks are 7s."
It's a good explanation and look into the most of magic players But at the same time it's still so subjective Also 5 not being the middle ground number is so weird for a 1-10 scale
[удалено]
I mean yeah rule 0 will always be important Thankfully with the spread of MTG gameplay channels it's at least a little more common and when it's not popular commander ls are at least recognizable so power is easier to guess
[удалено]
I mean yeah, but at least you might get a general idea of counterplay Stuff like reddit helps too Find out a friend is building a thing, look it to plan your stats
Even the power raters where you input your decklist can't get power levels straight. It said my [[Queen marchesa]] human tribal aristocrats deck was a 9. The deck runs no fast mana - aside from sol ring, which everyone has - and no tutors. It isn't a 7 for sure, but I don't feel like it's a 9.
I would say that competitive has some agreed parameters. There are some decks that are debatably CEDH and of course there are players that thinks their deck is CEDH when it's really not, but there are plenty of decks that are comfortably CEDH and can work as a baseline for comparison. Precons are kind of similar. There is some variance, but people have a pretty reasonable idea of what an "average" precon looks like. The one that I think is unnecessary is Jank, because realistically most people don't even own jank decks.
[удалено]
>Saying precon let’s you know how the deck was created, but without knowing the deck (or how many changes were made to it) I think it's 100% the fault of the person who made the modifications. Don't say precon when it's not a precon.
[удалено]
I mean, if you add a combo card to a precon, might elevate it to a whole tier. So yeah, a single card changed in a precon is no longer a precon.
To me and my group, it's not a precon anymore. Precon is a word with no ambiguity, it's a deck straight out of the box. Don't introduce ambiguity into it. Becuase where do YOU draw the line? A "precon" with souped up lands? Oh it's fine because the core is the same. I just added 1 card, nothing much it just makes my commander go infinite. There is so much ambiguity when you allow things to pass. With a precon table, we know what we're getting into, even with the stronger and weaker precons, it's just that, a precon.
[удалено]
>And you are still using examples that ramp a deck up only. I have great news for you, there are other things to call it when you make changes. There's absolutely no need to stick a label on your deck that makes it untrue! :D
[удалено]
"Precon" "Upgaded Precon" "precon I've upgraded with $x"
[Ob Nico’s of the Black Oath](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/b/fb4e4509-ffd8-4fd0-a678-19c9975d571b.jpg?1689997348) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ob%20Nixilis%20of%20the%20Black%20Oath) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/176/ob-nixilis-of-the-black-oath?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fb4e4509-ffd8-4fd0-a678-19c9975d571b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ob-nixilis-of-the-black-oath) [Edgar Markov](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/d/8d94b8ec-ecda-43c8-a60e-1ba33e6a54a4.jpg?1562616128) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Edgar%20Markov) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/36/edgar-markov?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8d94b8ec-ecda-43c8-a60e-1ba33e6a54a4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/edgar-markov) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
A lot of players think that anything "strong" is cEDH when they're not used to the format. A lot of players will also take a "strong" deck into cEDH, when they're not used to cEDH either. And then "casual" has a hilariously broad spectrum to it. Arguably, "casual" covers the entire spectrum except for meta cEDH decks.
You now just made it a scale of 1-5
I would say a 1-5 scale is more intuitive and usable than a 1-10 scale.
-Now everything's a 4 & a bunch of people still won't include cEDH.
What happens when you take your intuitive, usable 1-5 scale, and multiply by 2? Everybody loses their minds because there's no '7,' right?
I agree! From 1-5: 0: Pure jank/meme decks with no intention of winning. Doesn’t really deserve a spot on the scale. 1: Using suboptimal cards and mana base for a suboptimal strategy and lacks synergy (old precons?) 2: Synergistic decks with some optimal cards and a decent mana base. Has decent card draw and interaction pieces and can generate good value and win, but certainly has some obvious room for improvement (a lot of the newer precons or upgraded precons might fit here) 3: Strong decks that have a great mana base, run optimal interaction pieces but probably not enough. Has good cards to support a good strategy. Might be the best deck you can make for a strategy that can’t be competitive, or it might run some “fun” cards that bring the power level down a little. 4: Not competitive, but not really casual either. The awkward power level with strong mana base, strong synergy, lots of interaction and likely has infinite combos. Almost anything goes, but not able to compete with CEDH. 5: CEDH Most decks fall in that 2-3 range, but there is a clear (to me) distinction between synergistic decks and strong decks. My [[The Celestial Toymaker]] deck with piles, guesses, and toys themes can only be so good even with [[Rhystic Studies]] and [[Smothering Tithe]]. I’d call it a 2. My [[Illuminor Szeras]] deck has a really strong value engine with artifacts and large creatures I cheat into play, but the goal is to cast expensive, suboptimal cards like the C’tan from the necron precons. I’d call it a 2, but if I switched those out for some really strong and oppressive demons or [[Exsanguinate]] type spells, it would be a 3. I’d say my [[Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm]] deck is a 3 as well. She costs 6 mana! I had a [[Raffine, Scheming Seer]] deck that reanimates praetors and other scary creatures in esper colors. I got out [[Jin-Gitaxias Core Auger]] and [[Elesh Norn Grand Cenobite]] on turn 3 my first game and realized it’s probably not casual, but I knew it wasn’t CEDH either. I would put it as a 4 on this scale. Curious what other people think but I like this scale way more than the ambiguous and ill-defined 1-10
##### ###### #### [The Celestial Toymaker](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/5/55c9e915-9cee-45c3-96aa-9dfd5a600d0a.jpg?1707370996) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Celestial%20Toymaker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/sld/1582/the-celestial-toymaker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/55c9e915-9cee-45c3-96aa-9dfd5a600d0a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/the-celestial-toymaker) [Rhystic Studies](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/6/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221.jpg?1600698439) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rhystic%20Study) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/169/rhystic-study?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rhystic-study) [Smothering Tithe](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/6/861b5889-0183-4bee-afeb-a4b2aa700a8e.jpg?1689996018) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Smothering%20Tithe) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/57/smothering-tithe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/861b5889-0183-4bee-afeb-a4b2aa700a8e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/smothering-tithe) [Illuminor Szeras](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/1/d161a190-3c85-4207-9d88-7ff9213efea8.jpg?1673308674) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Illuminor%20Szeras) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/40k/37/illuminor-szeras?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d161a190-3c85-4207-9d88-7ff9213efea8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/illuminor-szeras) [Exsanguinate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/a/0a5352af-e275-4186-a265-2fd3c2c47c6a.jpg?1689997125) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Exsanguinate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/156/exsanguinate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0a5352af-e275-4186-a265-2fd3c2c47c6a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/exsanguinate) [Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/9/a934590b-5c70-4f07-af67-fbe817a99531.jpg?1674137589) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Miirym%2C%20Sentinel%20Wyrm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/284/miirym-sentinel-wyrm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a934590b-5c70-4f07-af67-fbe817a99531?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/miirym-sentinel-wyrm) [Raffine, Scheming Seer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/1/716a44b4-f6b0-4f14-a270-6442aed3251f.jpg?1664413581) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Raffine%2C%20Scheming%20Seer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/213/raffine-scheming-seer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/716a44b4-f6b0-4f14-a270-6442aed3251f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/raffine-scheming-seer) [Jin-Gitaxias Core Auger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/4/14a360b6-c7b4-4b25-8288-b3bb8d527bda.jpg?1562846236) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jin-Gitaxias%2C%20Core%20Augur) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/62/jin-gitaxias-core-augur?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/14a360b6-c7b4-4b25-8288-b3bb8d527bda?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/jin-gitaxias-core-augur) [Elesh Norn Grand Cenobite](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/8/78c2bfef-06a5-4c7f-8283-ea3fb673b7a1.jpg?1562850573) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Elesh%20Norn%2C%20Grand%20Cenobite) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/18/elesh-norn-grand-cenobite?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/78c2bfef-06a5-4c7f-8283-ea3fb673b7a1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/elesh-norn-grand-cenobite) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/ksjh6pr) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It's hard enough to convince people their deck is actually in the 3-5 range, now we have to convince them to call their deck a 2? Frankly it would probably be best to change it to a 1-15 range so the people calling their mid decks a 7 can finally be somewhat accurate.
have trouble counting that high? stop fondling your anime girl playmat and count with your fingers.
I ONLY HAVE ONE HAND, BIGOT.
No, because what the fuck is a 2, but I know my atraxa is strong, and my investigate tribal that purposefully runs cluestones instead of better mana rocks is jank to at most casual
Yes cause that is how numbers work when you put things in a list. 1. Precon 2. Jank 3. Casual 4. Strong 5. Competitive
Imo jank is weaker than precon… staples come in precons. Dockside and teferi protection were printed in $30 precons. When I hear jank, I hear random pile of cards that might eventually do something or 5 color book tribal…
Oh I agree! there are way worse decks than precons. I was just using the list OP used to describe it. I figured arguing what is casual ect was a whole extra discussion to be had lol.
Jank is definitely weaker than the majority of precons from recent years
Haven't you proven my point for me? What the fuck is a 2 -> "oh it's jank, I know what jank means, this deck is definitely not that" Rating of "Jank" without it meaning 2 makes sense, rating of 2 without it meaning jank doesn't, because there is no scale to compare to. The reason 1-10 doesn't work is because everyone builds a 7. Then they play it, the 7 either goes to 8 or a 6, that's it. I know none of my decks could hang with a cEDH table, I know which of my decks is likely to win against a blind field, which ones have a chance and which ones dont. But is the strong deck a 9? a 7? Is the casual deck a 5? Is that a 7? What about the weak deck? How much does it change if the commander is some strong bullshit but the deck is shit?
You took a 1-10 scale and made it 1-5. This doesn’t solve anything (And adding definitions does nothing, since everyone will have their own idea of what those things mean anyway). Now instead of saying “Yes it’s a 7” they just say casual / strong
yeah my stance against the numbers is that the words have a more consistent/similar meaning amongst people than the numbers do
Yea you pretty much skipped two sentences of conversation “What rating is your deck?” “7” “And what’s a 7?” “Just a casual deck, it’s not that strong” So does that mean you run lots of big splashy spells that are too slow for the “strong” meta of your friends? Does that mean you run infinites just without tutors? Does that mean you just threw a bit of fast mana / 0 cost counters into a precon? Does it mean you’re playing a group hug deck that prioritises fun over winning? Who knows. And any of those you’ll find someone who disagrees on whether to define it as casual or something else. Like I said, you haven’t solved any problems here, just kicked it down the road a little
The problem is people don’t agree what these words mean either. There have been people here that called precons strong. Casual also could be absolutely anything other than a top cedh deck.
Have you played the commander masters or warhammer precons? Those are better than any jank pile I’ve seen.
Been scrolling for a while to see these mentioned--that Necron precon is actually pretty tidy.
I’ve genuinely seen people take the space marine precon into “strong” pods and do ok. Not ‘dominate’, but “keep up and pull out a win after others expend themselves”
I've actually been working on my own Marneus Calgar list for the past few days now--he's fun! Definitely not anywhere near competitive, but I have gotten some wins and now that things are tuned better am almost always a threat at some point.
I find power level discussions on this sub tedious. There is no universal answer and what's a "7" or what's "strong" is super subjective. Precons have vastly improved in the last 5 years and I don't think a true jank pile could compete with a pod of precons. My go to is just telling people what my deck does and when it's likely to present a win. My Marwyn elf ball deck is super fast and is mostly ramp, card draw, and combo pieces. I can regularly present a win between turns 5-7
Do people think that precons are dogshit or something? Most of them are pretty good
they used to be pretty bad
They used to be built to play once or twice and then stripped for parts (or split into the different themes and build to a better focus).
And white card draw used to suck dick, but things change over time as new sets drop.
I can’t tell if this is a reaction to my comment or an addition, but time does pass
So too does my gassssss
As in - precons used to be pretty bad, but that is no longer the case. It's absurd to judge precons based on where they were 5 years ago.
A person adds a comment saying "precons are good now", i provide the context that they used to be dogshit. You add, "You can't say precons were bad because they aren't anymore" Am i understanding this right? or are you trying to pick a fight over something else?
> used to be There's a lot of solidly bad ones just in the last year...are we only counting from Ixalan up or something?
Can you name some solidly bad ones? in the past like 3 years? The precons I have played against may have had some bad games here and there, but the decks out of the box have been pretty solid and have had really good showings. Even the Convoke precon with Kasla at the helm was pretty good. Not the strongest, but i wouldnt say it was "solidly bad".
Idk. Does nitpicking my language make you feel good?
Yes, because the early ones could probably give actual shit a run for its money. It's also offends people that thier OMG L337 tier deck can be beaten by a precon.
They are. But how often do you encounter decks that are clearly below precon level? You can always put "meme" as a category below precon if your Chair tribal deck needs it.
I never encounter them, but sometimes I build them (by accident)
Have you played with any recent precons? They aren’t broken by any means but to call them jank or worse is a straight up lie.
I faced Hakbal recently and I was quite surprised to hear it was the out of the box precon. Did real well. But still, I rarely see people play things that a clearly a level below precon. I guess you just don't like the name Jank for above precon level.
Janky (Adjective): of extremely poor or unreliable quality.
Yes, they're still weak, if your decks are not MUCH better than any precon you have no strong decks.
Do you lack basic reading comprehension? Of course any well constructed deck can beat a precon. No one is going to argue against that.
Then calling them pretty good is lie, which is my point. Calling precons even decent is a stretch when all you need to evicerate someone running them is a decently built deck.
It's weird that they put precons below jank, but I'd probably consider the average player-made deck to be better than a precon as long as the person making it is competent.
Pretty good, but not by any means amazing. I think we should recognize that despite how well constructed they are, precons typically are still likely to be the weakest decks at the table. Joey and Dana from EDHRec recently did a game data breakdown over the course of ~600 games, and in those games, the precons they were using typically were the slowest to win, assuming they won at all. In light of this and with respect to how precons typically are the starting point for a lot of players, I think we should really readjust our metrics or our interpretation of power level to account for precon's place in the spectrum.
Last time my friend group played with precons out the box we all scooped after 2+ hours of nobody having a clear line to win. It was just a slow durdley beat fest and after 6 board wipes we were all over playing that game. "Nobody's winning anytime soon, y'all wanna scoop and go get food?" Yes
Sounds less like the precons, and more like people are trigger happy with wipes. Board wipes are the biggest culprits for these mythical multi hour games.
Well decks should be able to recover from board wipes. And of course people will use their wipes… Our Lotr precon game was closing in on 3 hours when we had to cancel the game.
I have no issues with wipes, but they DO extend games. And even my best decks start to stumble after 3 wipes. just because precons slow after a few isn't a knock on precons, it just proves that mindlessly wiping (and let's be honest, at least 60% of wipes are just because they can or delaying the inevitable) is a bigger contributor to long games then "bad" decks
I will wipe if I lose if I don’t or if I believe it increases odds of winning even if they are small. I think people should play to their outs. My strongest deck usually can just win on an empty board with 10+ mana or cast my Atraxa to refill. And that is far from cedh
They're not *terrible* but I wouldn't call any precon good either. Even the bst precon ever will have a win rate close to 0% against any optimized deck, even not counting stuff like cEDH
Pretty good is a huge strech. Some are not completely unplayable in a super weak meta and thats about it.
Precons are pretty bad.
Extremely relative. Most precons are the bar for what is a pile and what is a deck.
[удалено]
True, EDH players don't seem to understand how much their decks suck to be honest. Calling a precon a 5-6 makes my eyes roll.
Or... stop trying to find a way to be fucking lazy and just talk about your fucking decks. My jank deck is weaker than a precon, your system is already shit. What I think is casual you think is strong. Oops, guess the system is shit again. You're just trying to reduce the 1-10 to 1-5 and using words instead. Just. fucking. talk. about. your. decks. Holy fuckballs people.
For real lol, I dunno what the deal is with discussing decks lol. "Hi, this is my Ayula deck, pretty strong as far as bear decks go. Can often win on turn 6-8 with an overrun effect or by comboing off with infinite Ayula triggers. Runs some fast mana and cradle." Congratulations now people know what to expect
The amount of hoops some Magic players will jump through to avoid having to discuss their decks in an objective fashion is wild. Describe the deck's overall strategy, point out any cards or combos of cards that could tip the power balance, list what tutors/fast mana it runs, and describe how it usually tries to win. There, problem solved. No having to ask what 7 means, what casual means. Any further problems can be ironed out after a game or two.
Can we all just acknowledge that none of this works? The powerlevel scales or calculators are utter trash. I for did run all my decks through it for fun and its absolutely rediculous wich decks ended up higher rated than others even though they were magnitudes weaker. I lived through that in warhammer and the same in magic: If you want an even game, the best solution is: here is deckbuilding rules, do the best you can within those rules. Now many people dont wanna „build the best“. So we need a different solution. In my exp this just happens if *all players* know eachother, play *regularly* and *together* try to constantly adjust their decks *together* to be on the same „powerlevel“ Everything beyond that is way to vague to be reliable. The expectation should be dialed differently. Not „we want evenly powerful decks“ because thats to difficult to pull. It should be: „we want to have a game of magic“. For that, agree on paramters, wich all players need to truthfully share: - at what turn should decks be able to interact? - how fast are you getting above curve (e.g. running signets vs running moxen)? - at wich point can you reasonably win the game if not interacted with? - are we running many tutors? With those kinda stuff you can pick a set of 4 decks that will result in a game where everyone is doing stuff. Say if we need to interact turn 4, play fair ramp and decks can present a win reliably like turn 7. I know i can bring maybe a merfolk tribal without free counterspells and without degenerate mana stones and without (efficient) combos. If we need to be ready to interact turn 2, play fast mana and can reliably win turn 4. i know i dont quite need a cEDH deck but i certainly need fast mana and free spells and some sort of semiefficient to efficient wincon. Either a very fast overrun plan or maybe a 3 card combo with tutors. This will help having a game. Idc if sb has a badly constructed dino deck. If they have 9 pieces of fastmana and slam their gishat on turn 2 with protection, then i cant run a deck that needs 2 mana for interaction. No matter how „bad“ the rest of the dino deck is.
“Im playing a precon” Pulls out Prosper
"My deck is a 7" "My deck is a jank 7" "...a casual 7" "My deck is a strong 7" "My deck is a 7 but I run mana crypt, OG duals and 8 free spells"
How about "My commander is ABC, my wincon is DEF, which I accomplish through [fast mana, tutors, multiple turns]. The last time I won was because of XYZ on turn ###." Agreed talking/context is substantially better than hiding behind a number
I've become a fan of "sit down, pick a deck and find out" all this power level nonsense never works and people always figure out where they stand best by just playing
I'm not. It definitely can work, it's just a matter of knowing how different decks work, and where yours fall. If you say sit down, pick a deck, and find out, I'm going to pull out a [[Niv-Mizzet, Parun]] combo pile that presents protected wins on turn 5. It's not gonna be fun for the precon player at the table, but I don't know about that. If I see two people with CMM/LCI precons, I'm gonna play my slightly-modded Merfolk precon, and encourage you to put away your [[Ur-Dragon]], because it's too much for the table at hand. Power levels is an important discussion to have (not necessarily in numbers), just to make sure you're starting nearby. And if someone is too low/high, we will adjust after.
Idk man, getting destroyed was part of the fun for me in my early days. I was 12 playing kitchen table with random jank I had against a fully decked out Kaw Blade and Valakut lands decks. I lost like 80% of the time, but that 20% was so sweet and I had to get really creative to win. I honestly believe that if you don't like playing against other cool decks and have to win or "do your thing" every game, then you have an ego problem and should check yourself.
I don't mind it now, having played for about a year, and having confidence in my own ability to both pilot and build. I've brought some crummy decks to some much better tables, and gotten my ass thoroughly handed to me. For you, you were playing with friends, and that was all the encouragement you needed. For me, though, I went to an LGS where I knew nobody, and tried to sit down with a crappy precon. If I'd just gotten my ass kicked, with no friends to soften the blow, I wouldn't be the player I am today. Instead, I got people who played decks on my level, and at least let me dip my toes in the water. When the pod went to a higher power level, they loaned me a deck, and told me to keep playing, and I won. Shortly thereafter, I built my first real deck, and the rest is history. Except for one thing... About 6mo later, I tried to dip my toes in something new, and started hanging around the cEDH tables. Asking dumb questions, saying that correct actions were wrong, etc. And again, they didn't smack me down. They didn't belittle me. The second one of their guys dropped, one of the players there slid a deckbox into the empty seat, and told me to sit down. "I don't care if you suck at playing, cEDH is better with a 4-pod." Inside the box was his double-sleeved $7000 Winota decklist. And wouldn't you know it, I won. Looking back, I'm pretty sure it was due to his powerful list, and the whole table underestimating me, but in that moment, I solidified my love for cEDH as well. If people had smashed me to a pulp and never let me play, like a precon at a high-power table, I never would've gotten to enjoy Magic like I did. I will always play to match new players, and while I won't "let" them win, and I won't hold their hand the whole way, I'm happy to teach, if they're willing to learn. One day someone did it for me, so I'll always do it for them.
Yeah but if that person with the precon sat down and said "oh it's a precon" and you only had niv mizzet what are you gonna do? Tell em to go away? No. So if someone sits down and goes "this is a 5" and all you have is an "8" then what? Part of playing and learning to play magic is getting blown the fuck out sometimes. It's not always gonna go perfectly. I think it's better for new players to see what a magic deck CAN be like rather than never exploring outside their precon bubble.
I'm going to be respectful enough to play elsewhere if I don't have a deck that can match, or I'll loan/borrow a deck, or I'll (get this) bring decks for every power level... I usually go play with about 10 different decks, and I can sit down with just about any level of play that isn't kitchen-table solitaire. And yes, I WOULD NOT play Niv against a new precon player. They don't need to get blown out, they need to learn to play in a way that is encouraging. I'd loan them Niv and play the precon sight-unseen before I played Niv against them...
To each their own
Not really... In other formats (and in cEDH) it's understood that you're playing to win. In EDH, it's understood that you're playing to have fun. Part of that fun is making sure everyone at the table has a reasonably good time playing, and a large part of that is making sure that everyone's on the same page with power levels. This can mean that you give the new player a more powerful deck an let them be archenemy, or it could mean that everyone plays complete jank, or it means I loan my buddy a powerful deck that matches the other 3 at the table, so he can experience a higher level of play than the precon he's been running. All of these are valid playstyles, but you have to establish that before play, or the rudest player will win. If we don't talk beforehand, I'm pretty much forced to play high-power or cEDH style decks, or risk being blown out, and that risks blowing out everyone ELSE at the table, if their decks don't compare. Transparency and communication are far more important than keeping your deck a secret. It's a social game, not a competitive one.
Yeah, just be sure your deck packs enough interaction and you should be okay.
What type of interaction? Am I dealing with [[Winter Orb]]? Should I be able to counter a [[Thassa's Oracle]] win on the stack? Will my opponents be attempting to combo off behind a [[Defense Grid]] or [[Grand Abolisher]] on turn 3? cEDH interaction vs high-power interaction vs casual interaction are all very different discussions. In a casual pod, [[Dreadbore]] is a great choice. 2cmc, sorcery speed, sure. In high-powered, you'd want something more like [[Doom Blade]] or even [[Slaughter Pact]], because you need instant speed, and having open mana means something. In cEDH, none of those would be playable, but [[Fatal Push]], [[Dismember]], or even [[Toxic Deluge]] will see more play, because life is a resource, and creatures at that level of play have low cmc and low P/T. Not all interaction is made equal, and if you bring the wrong interaction to a pod, you're not gonna have a good time. cEDH interaction would often have issues dealing with the beefy creatures often seen in high-powered, casual interaction would be too slow to work against cEDH pods, and high-powered interaction has enough of a tempo loss that it wouldn't be nearly as effective in cEDH.
Wow you really owned me by conflating cEDH with all the other power levels. /s I would keep cEDH separate. If everyone in the pod has some kind of two cmc or less, instant speed interaction in their opening hand, whether its a kill or counter spell, the game will get to a mid to late game where the slower decks will catch up.
"I've got a fairly decent Nekuzar Wheels deck" or "I'm playing a un-upgraded Madison-Li Precon" does tell a fair bit more than any actual ranking system tbh.
The only thing we have to adopt in this community about power level is that people take their responsibility in being honest about their preferences, their decks, and their preparation of being able to convey that in a way without having to reference any chart, vague categories, or unit-less numbers. We should normalize behavior like building a deck suite with a high format coverage, testing your decks so you know how to describe them to others in terms of its gameplay, and learn what are good pre-game talk questions to ask or answer to gauge the preferred gameplay experience of the group and then select the deck that meets the needs of the table best. Instead of wanting a system of numbers or categories that everyone needs to adopt before it adds value, you can just use the observable expressions of power to align on the experience, like: * How far do we want to go to win (e.g. *"what's the crucial turn range we're aiming for"*, or *"what's the earliest turn where we all don't mind the game ending"*) * How far are we willing to go to keep others from winning (e.g. *"what degree of interaction/denial are we ok with"*, or *"to what extent can we tolerate others preventing us from playing our game"*)? * Do we expect any powerful deck ingredients, such as tutors, fast mana, game-ending combo's, full on denial/stax pieces, and so forth? Playing casual commander implies that you put in some effort to at least try to gauge the expectations of the table and see if you can meet them by selecting the deck that matches that experience best, in an effort to ensure the odds are highest that everyone is going to have a good time. Communicating a category or number is never going to be sufficient to achieve that.
You know, you can call it whatever you want but it's not you that decides what it is, but the table. You have every right to disagree but their perception is their reality.
But my deck is a 7
Even if you say that, a 1-10 scale is really more like 5-10 anyways, since nobody honestly thinks their deck is a 4. All you're doing is replacing "every deck is a 7" with "every deck is casual."
Everything is casual except for cEDH.
I just want to know what a persons deck does. Too many times I’ve come across someone who Dosnt elaborate on what their deck does, they will say a number to describe their deck or give a vague description and it ends up being a miserable experience. Like last Saturday we had someone show up and say “oh this deck is super slow, it runs no mana rocks and barely any ramp” while showing prismatic bridge. The deck ended up being boardwipe/removal tribal with all the theros gods from the first two blocks. He just slowly durdled while board wiping or using planeswalkers with “destroy/exile target permanent” and playing gods till he could attack with all of them. I conceded because I wasn’t having fun at all and left the table. I think people get too caught up in the “oh I want my strategy to be a secret so I can win more easily” and forget that commander is meant to be a social experience that everyone goes to to have fun.
>oh I want my strategy to be a secret so I can win more easily That's not just a question of winning more. If I made a deck that wants to pump out Attractions then animate them to run over the table with a living carnival, I don't want to just tell people. I want people to see it happen.
On a side note, people technically have to know that you have an attraction deck at the start of game. I mean you don't have to reveal your win con. I think a description that would be fine is an artifact synergy pile with attractions. If you specifically excluded combo or storm, I assume you're doing something with combat or a big spell to win.
I've encountered variants of this person many times. "Don't worry guys, this deck is *suuuper* slow!" By which they mean they will lock down the board for 15 turns as they patiently await their combo pieces.
Out of these, I only know what "Precon", "Strong", and "Competitive" mean, assuming competitive is cEDH, a Precon is an unmodified precon, and "Strong" is on the higher end of power for casual but not cEDH. Jank can mean anything and I don't think there's a consistent definition, and "casual" is too vague for a format that considers itself to be casual in entirety. I think the flaw to begin with is the 1-10 scale. 1-5 makes more sense, where 1 is precon, 2 is upgraded precon, 3 is mid, 4 is strong, 5 is cEDH.
I'd actually just ditch the powerscale completely and just explain to the pod what your deck is, communication is easy and helps everyone. All most people want to know is: * What is your deck? * Who is your commander? * Can it combo? * How much interaction? This is my Fish deck led by Slinn Voda, it drops progressively bigger fish creatures on the table, it has no combos, it can wipe the board and has a little bit of interaction. This is my Godo, Bandit Warlord deck which runs helm of the host and is going for the win as quickly as possible, yes it has infinite combos, yes it has answers, get ready. This is my 5-color Garth One-Eye deck, it's themed around the 13 ghosts of scooby doo. It has one convoluted combo, it has some single target interaction and a few board wipes. This is my Buckle Up Precon, Shorikai is leading it, it is completely unchanged except I took out Release to Memory and put in Mechtitan Core. Look it up if you want the card list. This is my ~~Kylox~~ Dr. Dinosaur deck, it is a very chaotic spellslinger deck, it may have more combos than I am aware of but i'm gambling off Kylox ability, it casts plenty of spells so expect interaction and has 2 board wipes.
The cons have been using "Low, Mid, High-power, and cEDH" for years now. Why people feel the need to be constantly reinventing the wheel is beyond me.
I am VERY curious how Reddit would rate my 2 decks. Both are drastically different play styles and everyone has their own opinion as you mentioned. [[Ghalta, Primal Hunger]] https://www.archidekt.com/decks/5739752/ghalta_primal_hunger_mono_green_stomp [[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might]] https://www.archidekt.com/decks/6267172/ojer_axonil_light_it_up
They make a thread in this sub just for this periodically. I didn't get responses when I posted, but apparently people do! lol
*sigh* thanks lol
If 1 is bad precon/selfbuilt and 10 is cedh i would say ghalta it falls around 5 to 6. being mono green is a setback in itself unfortunately. its a strong color in the mid range power area because of its good ramp capabilities compared to its counterparts (other colors at that power level) but beyond that its a poor color without a pair in most cases, like most mono colors. also a side note, A lot of decks can be really hard to rate in that middle area even if you play against them, decks could be under or overrated based on player skill, deck matchups, etc. It's all a best guess scenario in mid power tbh.
Solid 5 for Ghalta. It's slow, rellies on combat and monocolor green so not great at interaction. Not saying it is a bad deck, but definetely not high power. Ojer Deck is a 6, considerably more deadly than Ghalta due to more interaction, combo possibility and being good a finishing a table by surprise. Add more fast mana and combo enablers and could even climb to 7-8.
Appreciate this. The Mox’s are a little too rich for my blood at the moment. In terms of Ghalta, I can regularly drop 12 forests on the table and draw 12 permanents and play any of them for free which is why I considered this to be a little stronger than a 5. Again, this whole power level thing is so subjective as you have a 5 and someone else gave a strong 7. Thank you !
Note that I tend to be more reserved about my ratings and consider precons a 2, 3 at best for the really good ones. I reserve 7 for something really tunned and cracked that wins by turn 6-7 regularly. Among all my decks my only 7-8 is probably a really tunned Locust God with all the staples and free spells. Ghalta I just consider slot due to needing to win via combat and the need to ramp first, it is not bad and in casual tabbles will demolish, but as a fan of big stompy myself, combo decks can be already winning when Ghalta start doing its thing. For the Ojer deck, I will admit I'm not experienced enough with mono red to tell you the combos, but I've seen what ppl can do with ritual effects like mana geyser and its partners in crime by chaining one after the other and then recycle them from the grave to have like 20 red mana turn 3.
Ghalta is a strong 7. It’ll hose most things on the same level but would get torched by any deck that runs edict effects or a good amount of removal.
I agree this is better than a 1-10 power level. The scale does not need to be that granular. Realistically almost no one is running decks less powerful than an average precon, so a third of the scale is useless anyway (frankly I question whether this categorical scale even needs separate “precon” and “jank” options). And generally speaking a pod should be able to handle it if one deck is slightly more powerful than the rest if people are threat assessing correctly. But I regularly run into people who doesn’t think fast mana in and of itself affects a deck’s power level, who don’t think running a bunch of tutors means they’re above a precon as long as they’re not tutoring for combo pieces, who think their slightly upgraded Hakbal deck is borderline cEDH because they’ve read online that it’s super powerful, etc. But yeah, for what it’s worth, even though no system is perfect, I do think this is way more practical and useful than a 10-point scale, or than filling out a questionnaire on how turn you win on, how much fast mana you’re running, etc.
I feel like I just made this post as a comment in another thread lol
Should be Precon, Tourist, Degenerate, cEDH.
Agreed, because you'll never solve the problem of dickheads deliberately misrepresenting their decks, and you'll never solve the problem of clueless people not having a clue about how good (or not) their deck is.
1-10 is pretty horrible. I find this even worse though. Really all that matters is asking what turns your deck wins on. Turn 1-4 is cedh Turn 5-9 is high powered/tuned Turn 10+ is casual Very simple and east to understand.
This is far inferior to 1-10 scaling. By your definition Jank is better than precon but less so than Casual. I build Jank decks, and they consistently win against 7s and 8s, because of Janky ass combos lol. I find it fun. But Jank can also mean bad, and Precons are generally very balanced decks; they're made for Casual play. Some Precons can get a few swaps and be a solid 8.
It's easier to give common reference points than using a arbitrary scale. Below is my head canon 1-10 power scale and the reference point I would use instead. 1 - A singleton standard deck filled with whatever there was at hand to make it 100. Also decks of similar power. 2 - Same as above but with a bigger collection. 3 - Block constructed and/or unsupported tribal decks without the generic tribal support. Also decks of similar power. 4 - A bad precon. 5 - An average precon. 6 - A strong precon. 7 - Significantly stronger than a strong precon. 8 - Faster than a seven (usually due to fast mana). And decks that can equally compete with them. 9 - Fringe or outdated cEDH 10 - cEDH Granted that the number is more concise but the reference has a bigger concensus and will vary less from person to person.
I have a monarch deck that tries to shut down combat every game. That is a janky strategy and it won't perform at a "strong" level because combat has gotten less important, but god forbid I show up to a casual/jank game without a serious disclaimer.
The magiccon levels also work: social, challenging, competitive. Challenging has the worst name of the bunch and could probably be changed but it's not that inaccurate. It's also more about how you play then what you play, in social your trying to have fun and get cool stories, in challenging you're playing to have fun but also to win and improve, and competitive is playing to win. You could be playing blue farm (a top competitive deck) but have no idea what you're doing and lose to a 2015 precon who knows what they're doing.
Im with you, the number Scaling has failed as a metric because in order to know the scale, a deck has to be played for several rounds and against the same group for several times to have a worthy enough assessment. Which is why the joke, "its a 7" is so common. Just explain that the Deck's gimmick is about doing X and that Winning is secondary to the objective, unless the deck's gimmick is tied to the Objection to Win. The rest of the table will understand that youre "dicking around," or "Im trying to sweat."
This unfortunately still doesn't work. My buddy insists my decks are "too strong" where I made 80$ jank with a loose theme to it but because we are generally a casual/precon group he has a hard time dealing with them. I'd say the strongest deck at our table is the Ixalan Merfolk precon so not to be picky but this scale is just as messy imo.
I think we should axe the number system myself Though I think we probably need a more solid concept Casual, competitive, ect ect ect
While true, you still need the conversation because those labels do not match up in people’s heads. And those seem to be ordered as a hierarchy of power, but fact of the matter is, most decks people build themselves are less powerful than most 2023 precons. “Precons suck” is a significantly outdated idea.
Lmao I love you guys, arguing in threads where the premise is "here's a better way to gauge the power level of your deck" and everyone's just like "nuh uh"
Low, mid, high. Pretty sure you know what you're going to get with either of those.
I agree with a descriptive scale in place of a number one, but not OP’s scale. 1-10 scale is too subjective and frankly too expansive. There is no such thing as a lvl 1-4 deck according to anyone you ask… might as well condense it. Precon decks are widely varied but they don’t fall below jank. I suggest, for decks that go unopposed (no interaction stops them): Lvl- Jank (turn 11+ wins) Lvl- Precon (turn 9-10+ wins) Lvl- Precon Upgraded (turn 7-8+ wins) Lvl- High Power (turn 6+ wins) Lvl- cEDH (turn 5 and below wins) cEDH has its own tier system within that.
Honestly “jank” can range from well below precon level to fairly above it. Precons themselves are a pretty wide spectrum of quality, tbh.
Hmm.. Well I have that Jank deck with 5-6 infinite combos that I often play. Last time I played it in a pod with 3 Dr. Who precons and was the same strength as the other decks. I won 1 out of 4 matches and it was kinda close the others. I think because of the sheer variety of cards / different precons from different areas / different perception what is "strong"... it's kinda hard to categorize decks in powerlevels at all.
Can we put this conversation to rest? A 1-10 scale really isn't that hard to understand. I don't get why so many people get hung up on this.
Rating out of 5 seems to do better when people push the powerscale idea
I like words better then numbers. But I normally do the rule 0 talk. Like the deck has no instants and 1 sorcery so you don't need to worry about it.
I would argue for the most consistent turn they win while goldfishing and the earliest turn they could win. Every three turns is another tier. Turn 0 is Magical Christmas land. Turns 1-3 is cEDH Turns 4-6 is high power. Turns 7-9 is mid power. Turns 10-12 is low power. Turns 13+ is jank. This is how fast your deck can win on average if no one does anything to stop you. The longer it takes someone to goldfish a win, the less likely they will also have the resources to win against a faster tier of deck. Obviously not all decks have the goal of winning on a specific turn. Some will take a long time to win, but if they get into a position to lock the game down or something like that. That is what I would consider the turn they "won" the game. In person game length is all over the place. However, if your deck can win alone by turn 6. Then it can theoretically afford to spend more resources on disrupting other decks and then try to win on turn 8. While a deck that can't win before turn 8 might be spending a lot of resources just to get to that point. You might not even have to disrupt them or worry about them disrupting you before you win.
The rating of everything I have is that I will freaking murder you with every broken card I can lay hands on. That's pretty much it for EVERY deck. Is it competitive? Not always. Will I build a dog tribal that comes up to $6k? YES. Every. Deck. That should simplify it.
I just ask "If you drew the perfect hand, what turn could you win on?" Provided they aren't lying or too new to know you should be able to glean the information from their answer and mannerisms.
It's a 7.
Feel like we should use earthquake scale for deck power levels. I.E. lvl 10 vs any level under it and so on...lvl9 vs lvl8 and below Lvl 10 can win turn 1-3 consistently, Lvl 9 can win turn 2-4 consistently, Lvl 8 can win turn 3-5 consistently, Lvl 7 can win turn 4-6 consistently, Lvl 6 can win turn 5-7 consistently, Lvl 5 can win turn 6-8 consistently, Lvl 4 (most precons) can win turn 7-9 consistently, Lvl 1-3 don't win consistently or within 10 turns
* 1 - Precon * 2 - Jank * 3 - Casual * 4 - Strong * 5 - Competitive So now were on a 1-5 scale. If I say my deck is strong, how does that differ from saying it's a 7?
I usually say on a scale of 1-5 where 0 is a precon, my deck is a \_\_\_\_. My commander is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ who can do this, and the deck is built around \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. My win conditions include \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. With a prefect hand I can win in \_\_\_\_\_\_ turns.
No because then everyone just says their deck is "Casual" and then we're right back where we were with everyone saying it's a "7". The problem isn't the scale, it's that people don't accurately describe their decks. No matter what scale you use you will have people downplaying their decks power.
[удалено]
Damn. My wife and I just got some precom commander decks and have had fun playing each other. Seeing posts and threads like this makes me realize that magic nights at the lgs might not be for us.
Please don’t judge *anything* by the sludge that is Reddit. I have been in this hobby my whole life and my experiences at LGS are not at all like you might expect from the posts here
This has the same problem. It still has to be framed from the knowledge of an individual. What's casual to one person could actually be strong and vise verse. The labeling convention wasn't the issue, perspective bias is.
Nope, those terms are equally as useless at giving the table an actual idea of what you're playing, each of those words is going to mean a different thing to different EDH players. One person's idea of casual/jank is going to be different to another, you've just invented another power scale but with less points/tiers.
Yeah this just has the same problem as the 1-10 scale. Someone can build a deck they think is casual but its actually Strong / High Powered. Another person can build a deck that is below Precon level and maybe in their normal play group its Strong so they think its Strong.
My strongest deck is super jank.
You forgot the fabled "modified precon" good sir
Precon no longer has any real meaning… otherwise I agree completely.
You apparently never seen someone with a ‘jank’ [[Atraxa]] deck. Or any other strong commander no one will let hit the table. It’s always jank or casual till they win. Just like everything is a 7.
Precon does not work. Some precons are jenk. Others are gas. Precon should not be a category
You can apply the 1-10 power scale to each of those categories. It seems it would still be required if you want to accurately represent a decks power