The Six-to-Eight Problem and the Zero-to-Eleven Scale
The Rules Committee has long maintained that Commander players should have a pre-game conversation during which those players come to an agreement about a number of facets of the game. (1) One of these facets is how âpowerfulâ the decks each player will be piloting ought to be. Many prolific commentators have espoused utilizing a One-to-Ten Scale by which to measure a deckâs power level, with some commentators opining that a deck will have enough power to compete with decks ranked about two ranks above it, while not being so powerful as to obliterate a deck two stages below it. (2) Applied, a âsevenâ might be competitive at a table of âninesâ, but not so powerful as to be unable to play with a table of âfivesâ. An âeightâ, on the other hand, could contend with the most powerful decks in the format, âtensâ, but would leave a table of âfivesâ with almost no window to victory. (2)
Problematically, the advocates of the One-to-Ten Scale typically cannot provide more than heuristic guidelines on how to evaluate a deckâs numerical rank. There are simply too many decks in the format to place them all in an ordered row, too much nuance through Magicâs long history which can become lost in any foray into specific archetypes, and too many opinions on where the line between one number and the next ought to be drawn in the first place. Many players who would use those ranking systems that do exists are not familiar with the underlying theory of what makes for a powerful deck in Commander, are unfamiliar with a particular scale, or are familiar with an alternative numerical metric. Because of the ample opportunity for ignorance or confusion, many are equipped only to rank their deck according to their own played experience.
This reliance on the played experience in evaluating oneâs deckâs strength creates what I call âThe Six-to-Eight Scaleâ. Essentially, because no deck exists in a vacuum, there is one easy way to determine if a deck is powerful. It can perform as well as its peers, it can underperform, or it can overperform. If our scale is relying on heuristics anyway, this particular heuristic capitalizes on the core strength of heuristics generallyâease of applicationâand seemingly achieves results on par with many of the other heuristics proposed for categorizing a deck the One-to-Ten Scale.
Now let us see how we lose seven tenths of our scale. If we suppose, as many players familiar with the letter grading system might, that a âCâ, or 70 percent, is passing, any deck which sits at a comfortable power level, performing on par with its peers, should be a âsevenâ. A deck which fails utterly would get an âFâ, fifty percent. Since nobody would choose to live with a failure of a deck, any deck which underperforms but does not get culled is, at minimum, a âsixâ. Since most players play opposite opponents of a similar level of skill or dedication, their decks are unlikely to significantly overperform. That is, they will see their decks as leaving some opportunity for the underperforming decks in their metagame to win, but also capable of withstanding a âtenââthe most powerful decks in the formatâor at least the most powerful decks against which they have played. If they could not, they would not be âoverperformersâ.
Because no Commander player is equipped to envision their deckâs power level along the absolute continuum of legal combinations of cards which make up the format, our most convenient heuristic reduces the One-to-Ten Scale to just three points. Six, seven, and eight. When you sit down for a game with unfamiliar players at a Magicfest or your local game store, they each appeal to their played experience in whatever metagame they hail from, and they offer you a value ranging from six to eight. Because you have brought conceptions based on your own played experience, you offer a number in the same range. The difference is not in excess of two, and the One-to-Ten Scale is satisfied.
Except, of course, it is not. The metagame consisting of five new players who are building only from cards they drafted over the past six months is going to have a very different âsevenâ than the âsevenâ of longtime veterans who consider dual lands and Mana Crypt standard-issue.
This is why I propose a new system. This new âZero-to-Eleven Scaleâ will be based, as much as possible, on concrete metrics. It will be grounded in indicators of success into which cards can be broadly categorized. It is intended as a diagnostic tool to aid a deckâs owner in pre-game conversations but will rely very little on the played experience of the deckâs pilot. Some will require a measure of familiarity with the game, but where that is the case, I will attempt to highlight that need. Others are aided by data generated by simulated play (goldfishing), although an experience player may not need that data. This, too, will be explicitly noted. Several terms of art will appear below and will be defined as necessary. Each point will feature demonstrations of the metrics application using my own decks, but the examples I give are not exhaustive. Less mechanical use of the scale will produce more accurate results.
To use the guide below and place your deck on the Zero-to-Eleven Scale, simply go from one criterion to the next and determine, for each, whether the deck meets that criterion. Then, when you have read all eleven, count the number of criteria you have satisfied. That number is your deckâs power level on the Zero-to-Eleven scale, although it behooves you to bear in mind which points your deck has earned.
Before I begin, I will highlight some assumptions upon which this system rests.
First, the appearance of power can often substitute for power. Players who perceive you as doing something powerful will treat you as powerful regardless of the truth behind that appearance.
Second, this scale does not weigh particular powerful features over others, which means that two decks which meet five of them could have done so using completely disjoint sets of criteria. It is my belief that two such decks would nevertheless seem comparable, but I recognize that this point is the greatest weakness of my method. Nevertheless, I believe the need for an easily applicable scale which creates a greater variety in outputs outweighs this deficiency. If you are worried that these criteria are unequal, know that it is also my belief that this list is more useful when employed as a checklist of descriptions by which decks can be compared, anyway. In-depth pre-game conversations can be had about any or all of the topics which follow, and all of them will be more useful than fielding a subjective rating on the six-to-eight scale.
Third, this scale uses turn counts for certain metrics. These are meant to reflect fairly optimized play, and I believe they would be indicators of powerful activity in nearly any format in which they appeared.
Finally, this scale assumes that even if a deck is built to lose, it is piloted to win. If you are not interested in winning when you sit down to play, that pre-game conversation is more important to have than a conversation about deck power level for a variety of reasons, a point which may be explored in the future.
Without further ado, here is the Zero-to-Eleven Scale Checklist, which I urge you, gentle reader, to adopt:
 1. Is your Commander considered âpowerfulâ?
Most players know who to fear as soon as the contents of each command zone are revealed. Certain commanders simply lend themselves to more powerful decks. Nowadays, it seems like itâs hard to sit down at a pod where nobodyâs commander worries me. This is not to say there arenât very powerful decks which feature underwhelming commanders. There certainly are. But the plain fact is, nearly any Xira Arien deck would be made better by swapping her out for Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. For that reason, your deck will earn this point if the Commander has a reputation for being powerful.
This criterion lacks a concrete measure, resting fairly cleanly on the expertise of the player. It relies on perception and reputation, but there is ample opinion available online which can guide one to a conclusion, and most players you meet will not begrudge you asking their opinion, as well. If you just arenât sure, leave this a maybe and decide based on what the players you are sharing this calculation with believe. My Derevi, Empyrial Tactician deck, whose reputation, deserved or not, precedes it, earns this point. My partnerâs Surrak Dragonclaw deck does not.
2. Is your deck built around a supported strategy?
Most decks will earn this point. Essentially, your deck will earn this point if there are enough cards printed in the history of Magic to accomplish your mechanical route to victory. Rather than enumerate the many supported strategies in Magicâs history, I will instead offer a few examples of under-supported strategies.
Building around a unique non-legendary card is an example of failing to meet this criterion. Warp World is the only card in Magicâs history with an effect of its kind. For that reason, a Commander deck designed to cast Warp World to create a game-winning board state would fail to get this point. A Commander deck cannot include a second copy of the card, so any further consistency will need to be in the form of tutoring. Should the card be countered or exiled, any opportunity to recast it will require dedicated deck infrastructure. By virtue of your deckâs dependence on a card you will not see every game, the power level of your deck is naturally capped at a certain point. Distinguish this example, however, from a deck that uses Warp World not as its main win condition, but merely as a tool in some token-based strategy. In that event, the deck is built around tokens, not around Warp World. Because tokens are a well-supported strategy, that use of the card would not mean the deck fails to gain this point.
Another example can be found in art-themed decks. For most Magic artists, the cards they have illustrated do not share a cohesive plan, in a mechanical sense. The cards might be individually powerful, but without a cohesive plan, they are unlikely to be the equal of a deck with a mechanically-minded through-line. Even among artists whose style lends itself to certain kinds of cards, the artificial restriction placed on your selections will depower your deck enough to rob it of at least some potential. An enchantment-matters deck featuring only art by Rebecca Guay will be playable, but will be second-best to the enchantment-matters deck featuring any artist.
Of my decks, Patron of the Moon comes the closest to failing to earn this point. The limited number of Moonfolk and related effects left early drafts of the deck without a supported route to victory. However, opening the list up to an X spell theme and including mass mana production effects put the game-plan in firmly supported territory. By the same token, my partnerâs Eight-and-a-Half-Tails deck uses nearly every card which interacts with the color White. It is almost insufficient to create a meaningful amount of interactionâbut it is nevertheless sufficient due to the inherent synergy between the Sword of X and Y cycle (e.g. Sword of War and Peace) and a low CMC Voltron strategy. By avoiding âshellâ decks and decks where winning is a secondary concern, all eleven of our decks earn this point.
3. Does your deck decline to abide by the âsocial contractâ?
Most Commander players are familiar with the concept of the âsocial contractâ. There are a number of formulations, but when discussing individual card choices, the crux of the idea is that the Commander community has implicitly agreed to avoid certain âantisocialâ in-game actions. (3) Commonly cited examples include the use of mass mana denial, infinite and/or time-consuming combos, targeted blowouts, and STAX effects. (4) For the most part, the commonality shared by these kinds of cards is that they deny your opponent the ability to engage with the game in the way a player typically expects to be able toâby producing mana to resolve effects. If your deck features one or more breaches of the âsocial contractâ, it will earn this point.
It should come as no surprise that many of these effects, when applied strategically, can be very potent. Timely mana denial can turn an early lead into an inevitable victory. Infinite combos can end a game regardless of the state of affairs leading up to the game-ending sequence. An untimely Mindslaver can foreclose any possibility of recovery. STAX effects have been known to hand the only player prepared for the quagmire onboardâthe STAX player himselfâa soft lock on his opponents, who he can then defeat at his leisure.
Swearing off these kinds of effects comes at a cost to your decksâ power level. Properly utilized, each is an avenue to overwhelming advantages. If your deck features cards like Armageddon, Sunder, or Mindslaver, is built to win using an infinite combo, or is geared to play as a STAX deck, your deck will earn this point. My Muldrotha, the Gravetide deck earns this point by using infinite combos, Mindslaver locks, and Parallax Tide shenanigans. My Feather, the Redeemed deck, like many of its peers, relies on interactive removal and a combat-based win, and avoids this point.
4. Can your deck pull off an early kill?
Perception can often influence reality. In Commander, this is no less the case. If you can explain a reasonably straightforward line of play which leads to another player losing before theyâve taken their fifth turn, your deck earns this point. It can be through combat damage, an infinite combo, Commander damage, an alternate win-condition, or any other conceivable avenue. Note that there is no requirement that this line of play be consistent, only that it be straightforward. That is, you might play no tutors for your Commander-plus-other-card-infinite-combo, but if the combo can be pulled off by turn five, it will still create a dangerous possibility in the perceptions of your opponentsââdanger worthy of a one-point increase to the deck on this scale. Note also that this is one of the points that often reflects opponentsâ perceptions of a deckâs power, and is, at least in some cases, somewhat peripheral to the deckâs power level on an absolute scale.
This point is an indicator of power for various reasons at different levels of Commander play. In casual circles, a kill of this speed will be blisteringly fast. You might not win that game, but you will certainly create a strong impression in both the victim and any witnesses to the event. In more competitive circles, this point reflects the capacity to remain a danger to competitive decks. Even if your deck is lacking many other indicators of a powerful deck, the fact that your deck, with the right hand, could kill them before they kill you means that your opponentsâ must remain wary.
This point can, on occasion, be earned by decks which can create âsoft locksââboard states from which opponents are unlikely to win due to incapacity. Evaluating whether a deck can create locks which a majority of decks are unable to escape can be an exercise in heuristics, but an illustrative example might be the well-known combo of Lavinia, Azorius Renegade and Knowledge Pool.
My partnerâs Ezuri, Claw of Progress deck earns this point with the following line of play: ramp on turn one or two, Ezuri on turn three, Deranged Hermit on turn four, Sage of Hours on turn five. On the one hand, the combo can be interacted with; on the other, it must be interacted with. By contrast, my Kruphix, God of Horizons deck is geared toward a longer game of casting Eldrazi titans and other haymakers. It can apply overwhelming force by turn five, but that force will never be lethal without outside aid.
5. Does your deck have âperfectâ mana?
Color screw is second only to mana screw when it comes to taking the wind out of the sails of an otherwise exciting hand. Being unable to cast your spells all but guarantees defeat. (5) And while there are plenty of ways to fight color screw using cards of all rarities, clunky means like searching lands to hand and multi-colored lands which enter tapped can rob you of crucial tempo on the turns that matter mostâand deny you full range of motion should you need three of one color one turn, and three of another color the next. Recognizing the power of reliable, on-demand access to all of your deckâs colors, this point is awarded to any deck which essentially never has problems with the colors of its mana while remaining on-curve.
Decks earning this point will next-to-never be delayed a turn by a land that enters tapped, will be able to produce three of one color one turn and four of a different color the next, and will generally take as a given that they will be able to cast their spells on-curve. At its most advanced level, a deckbuilder will likely have calculated their mana needs on a turn-by-turn basis and will have selected their mana base to meet those specific demands. (6) In decks with many colors, this will often be accomplished using fetch-, shock- and dual-lands. In mono-colored decks, simply ensuring that your utility lands are not so numerous as to impede your curve will suffice. It can often be difficult to evaluate this point without a lot of experience with your deck, or even more experience with Magic generally, so evaluating this point will typically rely on the played or goldfished experience of your deck.
My partnerâs Eight-and-a-Half-Tails deck earns this point by being mono-White and using few mana sources incapable of producing White mana. Her Jodah, Archmage Eternal deck, which relies on karoos and tri-lands, will often meet its color needs at the cost of falling behind the curve because of lands which enter the battlefield tapped, and fails to earn this point.
6. Does your deck aggressively ramp?
It is supposed that the victor of a game of Commander can be predicted by identifying who spent the most mana in that game. (7) Thus, any deck which is more likely than not to have a turn before their sixth where they produce effects worth more two or more mana than the than the turn count will earn this point.
I am aware that is a very dense sentence, so allow me to parse it by explaining why each clause is worded with such particularity. First, âis more likely than notâŠâ means that the deck will aggressively ramp in the manner described below at least fifty percent of the time. Hypergeometric calculators can be useful in ascertaining whether a deck meets this criterion. For example, hypergeometric calculation informs us that a ninety-nine card deck featuring thirteen spells which ramp for a single mana will feature two or more such cards in a twelve card sample forty-nine percent of the time. Thus, a deck with twelve spells which ramp by one and a Sol Ring probably earns this point.
ââŠto have a turn before their sixthâŠâ simply means that any of turns one through five might be the turn on which your deck is geared for action. Some decks are more concerned with an early Commander than sustained mana production; these will attempt to exploit fast mana to consistently land their commander two or more turns early. Others will attempt to build a lead in the development phase, which they can then exploit in turns six and beyond. The former strategy hopes to effectively close out the game early, while the latter will be poised to dominate the late-game. Successfully pursuing either avenue is likely to increase a deckâs win-rate.
Finally, the clause ââŠwhere they produce effects worth more two or more mana than the than the turn count âŠâ, appears to issue the demand to produce four mana on turn two, or five mana on turn three, or six on turn four, and so on. That is nearly accurate. However, the requirement is somewhat more nuanced. Tapping a Swamp to cast Dark Ritual results in the addition of four mana, but only three mana worth of effect will be producedâthe effect of whatever is cast using the three Black mana derived from Dark Ritual itself. Relatedly, some decks will opt not to produce more mana, but rather to produce effects at a discount. Sapphire Medallion et al. are a perfectly valid means of working toward this goalâgiven that the mana savings is more likely than not to put the controller two turns ahead. Cards which offer a means to reduce their own cost should be evaluated with that in mind, but will need to be evaluated heuristically on a card-by-card basis. Obviously, a card like Tasigur, the Golden Fang should not cost a single Black manaâyou are probably getting an actual savings of two or more mana if you cast him at that price. By contrast, Emry, Lurker of the Loch costing a single Blue might only be an actual savings of one or so from the retail price of her effects, when you get down to brass tacks. You are encouraged to use your best judgment on this point.
Hypergeometric calculators are also useful for assessing this point. (8) For quick reference, a deck with thirteen spells which put a player ahead single mana (e.g. most mana rocks) has a forty-nine-point-one percent chance to draw five of those cards in the first twelve draws from their deckâthe number of cards a player will typically have drawn by the end of their fifth turn.
Because this point begs for unconventional solutions, I will present multiple examples. My partnerâs Jodah, Archamage Eternal deck earns this point in an unconventional wayâit is more likely than not to cast Jodah on turn four, then cast a spell with CMC seven or greater on turn five. This potentially thirteen mana worth of effect comes before turn twelve, and the test is satisfied. Similarly, my Derevi, Empyrial Tactician deck features many, many permanents that tap for two or more mana. By untapping any one of these the turn Derevi enters the battlefield, the mana source can be used to cast another spell that same turnâthe deck, more often than not, jumps two turns ahead the turn Derevi enters the battlefield. Finally, Muldrotha, the Gravetide features fast mana, conventional ramp, and a number of tutors for Sol Ring, all of which contribute to the deck, more often than not, playing two turns ahead by turn five. Each of these three decks earns this point.
By contrast, my Ghave, Guru of Spores deck runs very few ramp cards, preferring instead to spend the development phase installing synergy pieces which will begin working once Ghave begins creating and sacrificing Saprolings. These cards, theoretically, all factor their effects into their own costs, so while the resulting machine quickly produces value in the mid- to late-game, rarely does any piece enter the battlefield two or more turns early. The deck fails to earn this point.
7. Does your deck produce reliable card advantage?
It is a simple observational matter that in the standard four-player game of Commander, you draw only one card for every three cards drawn by an opponent. This means that, relative to all potential aggressors, you are disadvantaged by a margin of two cards per turn.
In any other format, this would spell doom for your chances for victory. Because of the social dynamics of the typical game of Commander, it is unlikely that you will need to deal with your opponentâs cards on a three-for-one basis to come out on top. Nevertheless, it never hurts to prepare for the worst and begin to level the playing field. For that reason, a powerful deck will need reliable sources of card advantage. While it is difficult to prescribe a precise metric which captures such a monolithic concept, this point will be awarded if your deck is more likely than not to generate three cards worth of card advantage by the end of its sixth turn.
As many have recognized throughout the years, card advantage comes in many forms. (9) It can be internal card advantage, where one or more of your cards is used to gain access to a greater number of cards (e.g. Divination). Alternatively, it can come in the form of external card advantage, where one or more of your cards is used to answer a greater number of your opponentsâ cards (e.g. Decimate). Either is fine for earning this point, so long as the external card advantage proves itself reliably available. Playing ten pieces of mass-removal for artifacts, for example, will mean you can reliably destroy four artifacts by turn fiveâbut if you arenât consistently able to find enough targets, the card advantage cannot be relied upon for the purposes of this point.
This point uses activity in the first five turns as a prediction for the entire game. Recognizing that this is not necessarily accurate, it is my belief that it will hold true in an extremely large majority of cases. It is hard to envision a deck that is fifty percent likely to create three cards worth of card advantage in the first five turns, but which will then be unable to continue that trend in the next five turns. By playing enough cards that present the opportunity for card advantage that it becomes more likely than not that you will see them in the first five turns, it is difficult to see how the cards you draw over the rest of the game would be unlikely to present that same opportunity. With that said, there are a lot of variables inherent to any attempt to quantify card advantage, and this relatively modest benchmark will nevertheless bear the appearance of high card advantage at most tables.
My Feather, the Redeemed deck earns this point by running over a dozen removal spells and half a dozen cantrips, none of which are lost while Feather is on the battlefield. In an average game, the deck can draw cards and remove threats with no loss of cards from hand. My Derevi deck, by contrast, fails to earn this point. While it does contain cards which I can tap repeatedly to multiple cards in a single turn, they require attacking creatures to reuse, they are not numerous enough to be drawn reliably, and they are not a high enough priority for me to consistently cast them on or before my sixth turn.
8. Does your deck significantly interact with opponentsâ play patterns?
A deck that can win quickly is all well and good, but it wonât have much recourse against a deck that can win quickerâat least not without disruption. A deckâs winrate will be greatly increased by the inclusion of spot removal, board wipes, counterspells, hand disruption, and any and all other means of ensuring that your opponentsâ plans are foiled. (10) A deck with little besides an excess of answers can fend off far more powerful decks for many turns, and that extra time might be enough to set off a winning combo or grind out a Voltron win. With that in mind, this point is earned by any deck which runs thirteen or more relevant pieces of selective or mass removal.Â
There are some terms in the forgoing sentence which beg definition. Selective removal takes the form of targeted âdestroyâ or âexileâ effects, counterspells, discard effects which offer a choice to the caster, cards which neutralize a particular card (e.g. Pithing Needle) or any other effect which could conceivably make a specific problem card into a non-problem for a significant period of the game. Mass removal takes the form of âdestroy allâ or âexile allâ effects, effects that force a player to discard all or most of their hand, exiling all cards from a graveyard, stax pieces which neutralize all cards of some description (e.g. Collector Ouphe) or any other effect which takes all or most cards of some description from one zone and neutralizes them.
Based on this description, you likely have unanswered questions. Are âbounceâ spells (e.g. Cyclonic Rift) removal? Narrow counterspells? Cards that exile only one or two cards from a graveyard? That depends. The cards which count for this point must be relevant removalâthat is, they must remove things that you are likely to need removed, and they must remove them for the amount of time you need them gone. If the tempo loss to your opponent from your bounce spell is sufficient to create your opening to victory, it is relevant. If exiling a single card from a graveyard forestalls a game-ending combo, it is relevant. And so on. Naturally, this means that it is difficult to be entirely certain that your deck actually runs thirteen relevant pieces of removal, and it guarantees that the same thirteen cards could satisfy the point at one table and not at another. For that reason, this point does require some generalized player experience. Fortunately, the average Commander game has enough in common with even the most extreme outlier that most players have some sense for what will be relevant at a completely unknown table.
My Ghave, Guru of Spores deck is built as a control deck, can disrupt multiple opponents simultaneously, and earns this point with exactly thirteen cards. While the deck does not feature any instants or sorceries, the Saprolings and +1/+1 counters produced by Ghave can fuel repeatable removal for all permanent types, as well as discard effects to suppress spellslinging decks. While the deck has a standard setup which I use for most games, I also carry a ten-card sideboard with the deck, which contains card which challenge particular strategies. Given that my opponents are up to the challenge, this sideboard ensures the slots devoted to interaction are not just relevant to Commander games at large, but relevant to the particular game we are playing.
My Patron of the Moon deck is on its own plan full-time. While some Moonfolk have disruptive payouts, the deck is mostly interested in protecting its mana-doubling pieces, drawing cards, tutoring, and threatening a solitaire win at the earliest possible opening. It fails to earn this point.
9. Is your deck capable of withstanding interaction by your opponents?
Perhaps the most ethereal criterion on this list, this point springs from the premise that threatening a win is good, but protecting that win with a Counterspell or a Teferiâs Protection is better. There are lots of ways to make a deck resilient: leveraging mechanics like Hexproof and Indestructible to make your threats harder to remove, having counterspells available to stop your opponentsâ removal, or having recursion for when your pieces get removed. If your deck is commonly the aggressor, disruptions to your opponentâs plan (especially their mana development) might be disruptive enough to preclude them disrupting your plans. If your deck relies on your commander to execute its plan, single-body protection for it can constitute protection sufficient for this purpose as well.
It is sometimes difficult (and other times not) to say with specificity what cards count toward this tally, especially where those cards can serve a dual function of removal or protection. The bottom line is that your deck will earn this point if six or more slots are devoted to any combination of proactive protection of your plan and defensive counter-play. Alternatively, commanders who are inherently protective will earn you this point, given that you are running the kinds of cards your commander inherently protects.
My partnerâs Ezuri deck earns this point by having a small suite of counterspells and effects that grant Shroud or Hexproof. The deck can usually sandbag answers to shake off a piece of removal or two on the turns where it really matters, and can seize the opportunity to close out the game through disruption on these key turns.
My partnerâs Eight-and-a-Half-Tails deck earns this point by caveat. The commander itself is such that the deck will never want for a response to removal that gets pointed at its permanents.
My Derevi, Empyrial Tactician deck fails to get this point. The deck relies on late-game card draw, avoiding the command tax, and efficient interactions between Derevi and token producers to rebuild after board wipes, but when an opponent presents that board wipe, the deck takes the hit right on the chin. Since the deck offers no agile counter-play to the humble Wrath of God, it fails to earn this point.
10. Does your deck have a critical mass of tutors?
Some players have all the luck. Itâs tough to compete with the player who always seems to draw what he needs on the right turn, game after game after game. We canât change our luck, but thereâs something we can do to alleviate the problem: run tutorsâcards that search for cards. (11) Playing a handful of tutors means that, in the average game, we will draw a card or two that will play as a modal spell with five, ten, twenty, or more modes. Put another way, by incorporating, say, six tutors in your deck, you have effectively made it so you are running seven copies of each card in your deck. A sufficient suite of tutors lets us draw exactly what we need, on the turn we need it. The more tutors the merrier, but if your deck has six tutors which are not mana development, your deck has earned this point.
The exception for tutors which only develop your mana is merely to point out that running Farseek and Prismatic Vistaâcards which do technically search for other cardsâdoes not get you any closer to this point. Those do contribute to a stronger deck, but they do so by facilitating earlier plays and more perfect color production. That is not to say, however, that cards that search for lands cannot count toward the six-card threshold. My Multrotha deck, for example, can sacrifice Expedition Map to search for color fixing and ramp, but can also search for card selection, combo pieces, removal, protection for the commander, and pillow fort pieces, as well.
This example is just one case which illustrates a broader principle for this point: general tutors like Demonic Tutor always count toward this point, but you will need to use some judgment to determine which of your narrow tutors have enough cards falling under their search conditions to count toward your six-card count. In general, a tutor which can search for mana development, a way to prevent you from losing, and a way to contribute to your deckâs win-plan is sufficiently diverse to count as one of your six tutors. If your tutor needs to find a second tutor to get to what you need, that is probably fine to count, too. If those lines are common, the mana inefficiency of such plays is accounted for in other locations on this list.
Under these criteria, tutors like Green Sunâs Zenith and Fabricate will count in most decks that are running them. Open the Armory and Trinket Mage, on the other hand, will require you to build your deck in such a way that there are searchable cards for a variety of situations. Ultimately, whether a card is a tutor will require you to appeal to your played experience.
Finally, Commanders which are tutors themselves will earn this point automatically, as long as your search targets make a diverse toolbox, as discussed above. The chance of âdrawingâ your commander is one hundred percent, which puts you in an even better position than six slots in the ninety-nine.
My partnerâs Oona, Queen of the Fae deck is packed with conventional tutors, cards with Transmute, and narrow tutors with manicured toolboxes. Itâs stuffed to the gills with cards that find other cards, and uses those other cards to ramp, control the board, and combo off. It earns this point to excess. In a less extreme example, my Kruphix, God of Horizons deck utilizes a number of tutors for colorless spells, creatures, Eldrazi, and so on. These tutor targets are the win conditions, interaction, and combo pieces of the list. The tutors make sure I always have the right haymaker for the job. It earns this point.
My Ghave, Guru of Spores deck is in a color identity which could run many, many tutors. It runs none. Because so many cards I enjoy playing with work so well with Ghave, I built the deck to force me to fit the square peg of any given hand into the round hole of the game I happen to be in. For that reason, the deck does not earn this point.
11. Is your deck a cEDH deck?
Itâs no secret that there are folks attempting to âsolveâ Commanderâand theyâre doing a pretty good job of it. Anyone with an interest in doing so can find threads, primers, decklists, and videos highlighting the most efficient, effective strategies for taking down pods. (12) This subculture has considered every angle on every commander, has agonized over every card in the ninety-nine, and has honed the most lethal options to a razorâs edge. The most aggressive of these decks will consistently end the game before most decks finish ramping, and the control decks will unload streams of the gameâs most efficient removal and Stax pieces as they march inexorably toward their combo finish. This approach to Commander is known as cEDH.
Any of these titans of the format will earn each of the first ten points, or will have a very, very compelling reason for not doing so. Since these scale-busting decks are exceptional, so too is this point. If your deck is, in significant portion, a known cEDH deck, your deck is an eleven-point deck, regardless of how many points it has earned up to now. Since playing a cEDH deck at a typical, non-competitive pod is considered bad form (unless everyone involved knowingly consents to a game of Archenemy), you must have a conversation about your deckâs power level with the table, even if you have made a few personal tweaks to the list or are saving up for one or two of the hundred dollar singles.
If you are at a table of similarly high-powered decks, the previous ten metrics will not help you distinguish between them. If you donât already know how powerful your cEDH deck is when compared to its peers, you will need to consult a cEDH tier list as opined by one of the gurus of that well-defined metagame. I can be of little help, as none of my decks are even remotely in this stratum.
 Having gone through all eleven points, I urge you to bear in mind that this scaleâs intended use is diagnostic. It is not intended to convey any value judgments about a deck. It is merely to facilitate meaningful pre-game conversation.
 For those curious, my decks rank as follows using this scale:
Kruphix, God of Horizons: 7
Muldrotha, the Gravetide: 8
Derevi, Empyrial Tactician: 6
 My partnerâs decks rank as follows:
Ezuri, Claw of Progress: 5
Oona, Queen of the Fae: 7
Eight-and-a-Half-Tails: 4
Jodah, Archmage Eternal: 7.
 It is noteworthy that many of the decks still fall into the six to eight range. This is because many of them have lost points in the tutor, ramp, and mana categories either by design or because of budget constraintsâcomparable decks without these factors could approach a nine or ten. More importantly, the scale offers concrete guidance into why the deck is only a six or only an eight. Because this scale has prompted me, I am aware of the fact that my Ghave deck is weaker for not having ramp or tutors. It can get early combo wins, but it requires its draw engines to find them, and it wonât stop you from stopping it. This qualitative description can temper opponentsâ expectations before a game begins and provide some context when my deck thatâs a â7â goes infinite on turn four.
(1) See https://mtgcommander.net/index.php/the-philosophy-of-commander/; see https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/809264-april-2019-banlist-rules-updates, but compare https://mtgcommander.net/index.php/rules/
(2) https://open.spotify.com/episode/6KmCuH6mvYpdF24dKxbqU0
(3) See https://edhrec.com/top/salt
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au2FR_q6fh8
(5) https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-academy/managing-mana-screw-2007-04-28
(6) See https://www.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/articles/how-many-colored-mana-sources-do-you-need-to-consistently-cast-your-spells-a-guilds-of-ravnica-update/
(7) https://open.spotify.com/episode/4fTdxRRLTpzqVnXDBr26rU
(8) E.g. https://aetherhub.com/Apps/HyperGeometric
(9) https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/lo/basics-card-advantage-2014-08-25
(10) See generally https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/shaman-you-2008-03-24
(11) See https://commandertheory.com/post/188329252907/quantifying-color-power-rankings
(12) E.g. https://cedh-decklist-database.xyz/primary.html
Originally Posted April 12, 2020
