English-language Forums > Commander Discussion
Commander Powertable
Judaspriester:
Hey,
I've promissed that I'll post the power table I wrote together with dexflux some time ago. Here it is.
The following table seeks to rank the power level of individual Commander/EDH decks to better the playing conditions and level the playing field between decks.
Capabilities of each deck are categorized in between 0 to 5 in the following categories:
Manabase ☆☆☆☆☆
Tutors ☆☆☆☆☆
Acceleration ☆☆☆☆☆
Interaction ☆☆☆☆☆
Mana Curve ☆☆☆☆☆
Combo Potential ☆☆☆☆☆
Utility ☆☆☆☆☆
Card Power ☆☆☆☆☆
Synergy ☆☆☆☆☆
The categories are defined as followed:
Manabase (how consistent the deck potentially is regarding mana accessibility)
☆☆☆☆☆ - only basics and taplands/gainlands
★☆☆☆☆ - basics/taplands/utility lands
★★☆☆☆ - basics/taplands/few untapped nonbasics
★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
★★★★☆ - shock/fetch manabase + unfetchable nonbasics
★★★★★ - full suite of ABUR duals/shocks/fetches/powerful nonbasics
Tutors (how consistent the deck potentially is regarding card accessibility)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no tutors
★☆☆☆☆ - few high cmc tutors (e.g. Diabolic Tutor)
★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor)
★★★☆☆ - many low cmc tutors (e.g. Vampiric, Mystical, Enlightened)
★★★★☆ - many low cmc tutors + other (repeatable) tutor cards (e.g. low cmc tutors + Sidisi, Rune-Scarred Demon, etc)
★★★★★ - full suite of low cmc and/or deck relevant tutors
Acceleration (how fast the deck can generate large amounts of mana)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no ramp
★☆☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/no rocks
★★☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/Sol Ring/signets
★★★☆☆ - nonbasic land ramp/higher density of rocks
★★★★☆ - mono green ramp or Urborg+Coffers
★★★★★ - full suite of rocks and ramp (e.g. Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Serra's Sanctum, etc)
Interaction (how well the deck can interact with the board and other players)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no interaction
★☆☆☆☆ - very low interaction (e.g. two spell removal/counter suite)
★★☆☆☆ - low interaction (e.g. basic removal/counter suite + few boardwipes)
★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes)
★★★★☆ - high interaction (e.g. extensive removal/counter suite + boardwipe suite)
★★★★★ - full control suite
Mana Curve (mana cost effiency)
☆☆☆☆☆ - extremely high average cmc (cmc >- 5)
★☆☆☆☆ - high average cmc (cmc <- 4.5)
★★☆☆☆ - medium average cmc (cmc <- 4)
★★★☆☆ - low average cmc (cmc <- 3.5)
★★★★☆ - very low average cmc (cmc <- 3)
★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5)
Combo Potential (potential to win on the spot via combo and/or lock)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no (infinite) combos
★☆☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo without redundancy and/or consistency
★★☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo with redundancy (and potentially consistency)
★★★☆☆ - typical combo wins without redundancy and/or consistency (e.g. Kiki-Jiki combos)
★★★★☆ - typical combo wins with redundancy (and potentially consistency)
★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection)
Utility (access to utility effects)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no utility
★☆☆☆☆ - few utility cards (e.g. Bojuka Bog and Ghitu Encampment)
★★☆☆☆ - high power utility at high cost (e.g. card draw on lands for 5 mana)
★★★☆☆ - moderate and high power utility at moderate cost
★★★★☆ - high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith)
★★★★★ - abundant high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith)
Card Power (amount of individually powerful cards / average card power level)
☆☆☆☆☆ - very low individual card power (e.g. only commons or cards that are usually dead in hand)
★☆☆☆☆ - low individual card power
★★☆☆☆ - medium individual card power (e.g. most bulk rare cards)
★★★☆☆ - high individual card power (e.g. most planeswalkers)
★★★★☆ - very high individual card power (e.g. Parallel Lives, planeswalkers, Atraxa)
★★★★★ - extremely high individual card power (e.g. Wurmcoil Engine, Ulamog, Doubling Season)
Synergy (synergistic value of possible card combinations)
☆☆☆☆☆ - essentially just a bunch of cards with no effects
★☆☆☆☆ - the barest minimum of synergy - cards interact with each other at all
★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter)
★★★☆☆ - less harmless (e.g. repeated blinking of Mulldrifter, Deadeye Navigator synergies)
★★★★☆ - dangerous (e.g. Brago blinking the board for five triggers or more per turn)
★★★★★ - extremely dangerous (e.g. Doubling Season into planeswalkers)
I've also added a pdf with a printable summary. If I haven't make any mistakes here, the size should fit with the normal card size, so you can put the summary in the deck box.
The table won't cover every problem, and there may still be strong and weak 3 star decks, but it should at least help to smooth out the matches.
CleanBelwas:
Hey man.
This is awesome. Seems really comprehensive and should yield consistent results for people. Really cool document.
One potential future improvement that could be made if you feel inclined would be to update from a 1-5 to a 1-6 rating system. Scoring within an even range is widely considered more useful as it forces people to lean one side or the other. On a 1-5 scale it is very easy for people to sit in the middle, but those people would then be encouraged to lean towards a 3 (slightly weaker) or 4 (slightly stronger) result.
I appreciate that there is a 0 option as it stands but there is an argument that anyone who wants to make use of this is probably not going to be a zero.
Just an idea if you fancy it. I've read quite a bit on the subject for work and pretty much everything I read recommends 1-6 so thought I'd pass on the idea.
Either way though, this is really good and I'll certainly be using it in my playgroup.
Cheers for doing the legwork and writing it all down in a coherent fashion
ApothecaryGeist:
@judaspriester - This is AWESOME!!! I already like this better than the 10 point scale that I have seen, which has always seemed completely subjective and arbitrary to me.
Just curious how your group uses this table. Do you calculate an overall ranking of your deck? (ex: my mana base is a zero, all other categories are a 5, therefore my deck is 4.5 stars)? Or do you discuss your deck on each category separately?
The first 5 categories seem very straight forward and simple, as objective qualities have been included in each category.
The last 4 categories, though, seem as subjective as the general 10 point list. How does your group overcome this subjectiveness?
Combo Potential: It is my experience, that unless the deck was built to be a 5, people claim they have no combo potential. They later discover all kinds of combo potential as they play the deck.
Utility: I'll be honest, I don't really know what this word means. I bet most other people really can't define it either. I've been playing Magic since Revised. I've been playing Commander REGULARLY since 2011. I don't know the difference between a "utility card" and a card that has an effect that is good for my deck. Where does utility end and interaction/card power/synergy begin?
Card Power: again, this is the entire problem with the 10 point scale. Different people and different playgroups evaluate cards differently. My playgroup may not think that Cyclonic Rift is a very big deal. But I may go to another playgroup that feels it is so powerful as to merit banning.
Synergy: It is easy to see the synergy difference between a 0 star and a 5 star deck. But what about evaluating between a 2 and a 3? Or a 3 and a 4? Again, very subjective.
Again, this chart is AWESOME!!! Don't take these questions as a complete criticism. I'm not trying to pee no your cornflakes here. I'm curious how your group(s) address these issues. I'm curious to use something like this with my group to help us all be on the same page.
Judaspriester:
Well, the point is that we invented this for our playgroup some time ago, but never really put the list to use.
For the points, we tried to add some examples, but I agree with you that it will be difficult sometimes to say this is 2 or 3 star in some categories. But with a scaling of 0-45 in total, a inaccuracy of 1-2 stars shouldn't be a that big deal.
about the subjective stuff, yeah, I agree with you that it can be difficult, but I think at least within an existing meta, it is possible to roughly describe these points. I've got alot of discussions with Deflux about these 4, but we finally decided to add them and then look what happends.
The idea for usage was to take the average of all categories and then try to match decks similar decks together.
In general, I don't think this table is enough to assure matches on a equal level. but its a foundation from where you can start to discuss how strong a deck is compared to another one.
Morganator 2.0:
Alright, let's try this out. I'll try to include a wide variety of decks.
Captain Sisay
This was definitely my strongest deck. I say "was" because without Paradox Engine, it's just a fancy stax deck. This deck could consistently win turn 4, and had an adaptive stax strategy to deal with the faster decks.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics. No taplands, but also no fetch lands. To be fair, this is true for all of my decks.
Tutors: ★★★★☆ - many low cmc tutors + other (repeatable) tutor cards (e.g. low cmc tutors + Sidisi, Rune-Scarred Demon, etc) I only really needed Enlightened Tutor, Worldly Tutor, and a few others to get some more specific cards (Namely Scavenging Ooze and Containment Priest). Sisay could search for almost everything I'd need.
Acceleration: ★★★★★ - full suite of rocks and ramp (e.g. Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Serra's Sanctum, etc). Ramp was super important for this deck.
Interaction: ★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes). No boardwipes, but the removal I did have was top-notch.
Mana Curve: ★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5).
Combo Potential: ★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection). Assuming it was safe, consistent turn 4 wins. There was also Dosan the Falling Leaf and stuff like Apostle's Blessing to protect both Sisay and Paradox Engine.
Utility: ★★★☆☆ - moderate and high power utility at moderate cost. I'm not liking how utility is defined. I had a lot of high power utility, but it wasn't always low cost. Stuff like Linvala, Keeper of Silence and Karn, the Great Creator could shut down entire strategies. And when I needed the game to end (and didn't have Paradox Engine) I'd go for Iona, Shield of Emeria or Brisela, Voice of Nightmares.
Card Power: ★★★★★ - extremely high individual card power (e.g. Wurmcoil Engine, Ulamog, Doubling Season).
Synergy: ★☆☆☆☆ - the barest minimum of synergy - cards interact with each other at all.
Overall: 3.77 (★★★★☆, approximately). Seems a little low for what I expect to be my best deck.
Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
This deck almost entirely depended on Possibility Storm. As a result, it didn't have much of a backup plan, and had huge consistency problems. It was also self-destructive... because it revolved around Possibility Storm.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor).
Acceleration: ★★★☆☆ - nonbasic land ramp/higher density of rocks
Interaction: ★☆☆☆☆ - very low interaction (e.g. two spell removal/counter suite)
Mana Curve: ★★★★☆ - very low average cmc (cmc <- 3)
Combo Potential: ★☆☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo without redundancy and/or consistency
Utility: ★★☆☆☆ - high power utility at high cost (e.g. card draw on lands for 5 mana)
Card Power: ★★☆☆☆ - medium individual card power (e.g. most bulk rare cards)
Synergy: ★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter)
Overall: 2.55 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Fair assessment. This was one of my weaker decks.
The Scarab God
This deck is a little crazy. I've had some really weird plays with it, because of the interactions with both my creatures and my opponents' coming back from the graveyard.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor)
Acceleration: ★★☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/Sol Ring/signets. These colors don't have many good options. maybe I should finally test out Charmed Pendant.
Interaction: ★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes). Artifact removal is garbage. I'm stuck using Meteor Golem. Meteor Golem! That's Bojuka Bog level bad.
Mana Curve: ★★★☆☆ - low average cmc (cmc <- 3.5)
Combo Potential: ☆☆☆☆☆ - no (infinite) combos. However, I do sometimes steal other peoples combos. Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Combat Celebrant were already in my opponent's graveyard. What am I going to do? Not grab them?
Utility: ★★★★★ - abundant high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith)
Card Power: ★★★★☆ - very high individual card power (e.g. Parallel Lives, planeswalkers, Atraxa)
Synergy: ★★★☆☆ - less harmless (e.g. repeated blinking of Mulldrifter, Deadeye Navigator synergies)
Overall: 2.88 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Hmm... alright... I feel like it should be higher than this. While this deck lacks tutors, the card advantage is very high, mostly from various card draw effects, The Scarab God's scry trigger, and the copious amounts of graveyard recursion.
Edric, Spymaster of Trest
Currently my strongest deck (RIP Sisay). A very high interaction and heavy card draw deck. It wins by looping extra turn spells non-infinitely.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor).
Acceleration: [blank]. Not sure how to rate this. The deck doesn't really need ramp (low mana curve). I have a few elves and Sol Ring, but that's about it. Probably a ★★☆☆☆ rating.
Interaction: ★★★★★ - full control suite
Mana Curve: ★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5). I mean, just look at it.
Combo Potential: ★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection)
Utility: [blank]. I don't really know what else this deck needs besides removal and counterspells. I mean, it's got Null Rod. Probably a ★★★★☆.
Card Power: ★☆☆☆☆ - low individual card power. In any other deck, Faerie Miscreant would suck.
Synergy: ★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter). Is card draw off of Edric synergy?
Overall: 3.22 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Really need to find a better way of averaging the ratings.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version