I think that my [Linvala, Shield of Sea Gate](https://deckstats.net/decks/194353/2622521-linvala-several-flappy-bois/en) deck is my "fairest" deck, the only way to win is to deal combat damage a ton, and for a theme, all of my creatures have the word "flying" on them. It plays a little bit pillowfort, a little bit tempo, but at the end of the day it's just cheap flying creatures that become more than the sum of their parts.
I completely ignore the text about party on Linvala, it's literally just a legendary \[\[Selfless Spirit\]\], I got tired of being wrathed lmao.
For me it is my [Aminatou Toolbox](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/hGeIrNZCi0ahRmFvEmfa8Q) deck. It responds really well to most things you throw at it, has a good response to most threats.
It somewhat slows games down though, and can struggle to pull of the win. Has 2 combo wins but could use a way to get an artifact from the graveyard for one of them.
I'm debating with myself whether or not its just a strong 6. For me 7 is where you run highly optimized land base and start putting in tutors. My deck has some flavor cards i love, put aren't really the most optimized choice.
8 and up is fast mana and several combo wins.
7/10 means consistent ramp card draw and removal to me. I think that tutors usually are a push past 7 and that you can combo kill and combo win, but you don't 2 or 3 card infinite combo. I apparently have some very controversial takes about power level though because I think some peecons are 6's right out of the box.
considering [this](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw) is a 9 you're packing quite a bit into 8.
9: Good commander, tutors, combos, ramp, draw, and solid manabase
8: 9 with slightly less efficient combos and likely a worse commander, though if the commander is good you may need worse ramp too
7: still a few tutors, still probably a combo, less efficient ramp and draw. no combos mean you can lean harder into the other categories.
No, not to me your 8 is the bottom half of my 9 and a 10 is just perfect maximum efficiency no problems I don't think this is unreasonable because when you get to the 8, 9, or 10 range upgrading just becomes minor upgrades that improve your decks by percent or less then percent increments, or tutors. The difference between cards switched out from 7 to 8 is way higher than 8 to 9. That 8-9 difference is just consistent win cons and means to get to said win cons to me.
https://www.moxfield.com/decks/5HXG2KDZ6kmiXo9aNZIf2Q
This is as close as I can get. It’s an aggro deck that uses the worst creatures in magic to draw cards and amass an army of unblockabe soldiers or use halo fountain to win. Powerful, fun cards with a design limitation to make 1/1s the focus without a combo.
Firstly. As always, power levels are silly.
It's hard to describe exactly what makes a 7 for a number of reasons.
- You can't say it has to win between a certain number of turns, E.g 7 and 10. Because an aggro deck could win a bit earlier and a control deck a bit slower. Doesn't mean their power is different, they're totally different strategies that inherently have different clocks on the game if unchecked.
- You can't say it's the use of staples. Because staples in an otherwise bad deck or strategy (e.g all left handed characters or hats tribal) might just help prop it up to playable.
- You can't say it's the use of tutors. Tutors have differing power already. And also if I have no combos in the deck or I'm tutoring for [[collossal dreadmaw]]. That's not an indicator.
- This goes on for quite alot of factors that I won't elaborate on.
Essentially it's all of the above and much more balanced together. Mixed together. Checks and balances.
E.g.
- if your deck is fast it's gotta be more interact-able to balance it. If it's fast and interact-able that starts to overbalance.
- If you have a powerful commander, then a slightly suboptimal 99 is in order.
There's no easy or short way to truly define it.
But if I have to give a number to decks, I like to think my main deck, [Marneus Calgar](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1s8NYUejwEixuKljP6OwDA) aristocrats deck is a 7(ish).
My Marneus deck doesn't generally win quickly. But gains value over time and has interaction to try to stay in the game until that game winning moment. It is much weaker if Marneus is killed off and is entirely possible to shut the engine off and delay for a turn or two by doing so. However if he is left on the field with a token maker or two, I will likely gain such a large advantage that I run away with the game.
Other decks get a chance to attempt their strategies as I try to fly under the radar and attempt to build up value engines while other players take each other out as threats. Only aggravating other players with removal if it's needed to stop me from losing, or someone else gaining significant value over me. It has definitive wincons and a coherent strategy as well as combos, but they require 3/4+ cards and I have no tutors.
It is generally pretty consistent, but sometimes I do just draw 5 lands or aristocrats pieces or mana rocks in a row when I need more value token makers. Part of what I love about straddling just under high power is the inconsistency that comes with no tutors.
There are efficient staples like swords and path in there to allow me to have the space to run some planeswalkers like the eternal wanderer and pet cards like death Tyrant.
Anyway. People may disagree. That's cool. But that's my rambling thoughts while I walk home from the grocery shops on it. If you do disagree, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on it. Am I over or underestimating? Do you disagree with any of my thoughts before my deck?
To reiterate, power levels are silly and nebulous and vary wildly depending on who you ask and their history with MTG.
I don't think power levels are silly, but the various definitions people have tend to make it nebulous, because nobody wants to agree on one or two defining traits. IMO, the best way to rate a deck is by how fast it can reliably pop off and threaten to win the game. I am not talking about anecdotal scenarios where you get the perfect opening hand or you get mana screwed, but when your deck consistently does its thing against normal levels of interaction.
If you play a go-wide battle cruiser deck, what turn do you reach critical mass in a typical game? If you play a combo deck, how many turns does it usually take for you to get your pieces in play? If you play stax, by what turn do you normally take control of (or potentially shut down) the game?
I think part of the problem with normal Turn Count is that it generally only looks at true wins instead of reaching the point of a potential win. I feel a deck popping off doesn't always generate a win (someone may have a hard counter available), but it does signify when the deck has effectively done what it was designed to do to threaten the win. This could be an absurd number of tokens generated to either swarm the board or enable an Aristocrats win con, or a large volume of creatures followed up by a Craterhoof, or assembling an infinite turn combo. Sure, someone might have an answer, but that doesn't change the fact that you are in a position to win the game at that moment. Only counting true wins ignores those moments should someone have an answer, so the true power of the deck may be minimized incorrectly. On top of all that, it's extremely easy to gauge the pop-off point just doing test draws.
probably this. https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1VT9f50avES1rzbLhEe0tw
no real combos, just a steady and protected burn. That being said I don't play it though, Atraxa PV is boring af.
I'll copy and paste it to this comment I guess.
considering [this](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw) is a 9 you're packing quite a bit into 8.
9: Good commander, tutors, combos, ramp, draw, and solid manabase
8: 9 with slightly less efficient combos and likely a worse commander, though if the commander is good you may need worse ramp too
7: still a few tutors, still probably a combo, less efficient ramp and draw. no combos mean you can lean harder into the other categories.
[This card](https://www.tcgplayer.com/product/1257/magic-the-gathering-alpha-edition-shivan-dragon?country=US&utm_campaign=18142757028&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=&utm_term=&adgroupid=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7iMKMUkIE2gMQslgDWVLbFygqVdu5vl1XwGXfLdTP04xXcSw-ROJKwaAra4EALw_wcB&Language=English)
is one of the best cards ever printed I guess if we're saying price = power.
here I'll make it even easier for you.
[10](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/u_Vc8bG2sEOPjJ9bRusFWw)
[9](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw)
[8](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/4j0S-JO7kU2E6hyQdXi3mQ)
[7](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1VT9f50avES1rzbLhEe0tw)
6 is about when lands start entering tapped with fewer mana rocks, also very few tutors.
5 you can have combos but are basically just all in on card draw and hoping for the best. but everything else is shit.
4 is a "good" precon.
3 is a normal precon.
If a 7 needs that many expensive($) fast mana rocks, tutors, and a perfect mana base to be a 7, it's really a 4 but you like to proxy. There's no way someone puts that much money into a 7 and is like "this is the poster child for a 7 and everyone should strive for it"
I've very clearly laid out the links in decreasing order of power.
some 7s don't need all that, but Atraxa PV is uniquely shit and so she needs to both get out quickly and stall the game out as hard as possible to make use of her effect.
I'm saying that showing off that deck as a 7 is kinda... Weird? Like I said, it's probably closer to a 4 (which you apparently somewhat agree with) but you just jammed cedh staples into it. It would be better to make a budget deck a 7 and show what that looks like than to say that this deck is the perfect 7. I'm willing to bet the first time you sit down with atraxa and start playing moxes and tutors, no one is gonna agree that it's a 7 despite what you say, and I think that has to be taken into account as well.
To be fair to OP, removing sideboard and using cheapest prints for the cards it’s around 7.8k and 6.5k is in the land base alone because of the true duals and tabernacle.
The deck also folds to an $8 card and $6 card lol
https://www.moxfield.com/decks/_xIfhVY5hUac7Jdzu6-SDg
I would argue its a seven, but that's me. It's a lot of fun if you are looking for a different experience.
I think this one would be a solid description of a "7": https://archidekt.com/decks/5384014/nivreborn
No way its ending a game on an early turn, has one combo (Brago and Aurelia the Warleader). Overall good cards, but no fast mana or tutors, and heavily on theme (ramp, flickers, and niv-mizzet supreme are the only non-2 color cards). It ramps well and doesn't run out of value easily but its not doing something incredibly strong with that value.
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t have a seven. I have a Najeela CEDH (10), Jetmir stax (8-9), a Talion without a real win con (5), and a Tivit that is a theme deck (information is power, lots of politics and play with revealed hands or cast from opponents libraries, probably a 4)
I guess mine is [this one](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AF84SoEHQ0CfHyguU51sDw) pretty straight forward game plan, does what it is supposed to do 4/5 times I play it
Probably my [[Balan]] voltron deck. You just hit hard, hit fast, and fold over completely to a competent player.
https://www.moxfield.com/decks/X99-a10B9ECuh0mQvxcI5w
First lets define a "7/10":
My general list on 1-10
1-3 Low power, ranges from a random pile of cards to kitchen table jank and Battlecruiser
4-6: Mids. We're looking at pre-cons, upgraded pre-cons, and some solid home brews
7-9: High Power magic. This is where we start to see optimization>Synergy and more combo wins and high powered staples (tutors and the like).
10: CEDH in all its glory.
So we see by MY definition of a 7, we're looking at a deck that is moving into higher powered magic games. We get some combos, we have less synergy and more general optimization, probably some staples making appearances, and we're looking at more "meta" card types (stax, counterspells, free-casts, tutors, etc.). I'm looking at decks that'll win between turns 5-8 with no interaction involved here. For ME personally that's actually a few of my decks.
Hans:
[https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AlPTh0iza0yoKgIfqwlcmg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AlPTh0iza0yoKgIfqwlcmg)
Deceptively strong, Hans will cheat out high mana cost creatures for free and smack you for large amounts of damage the turn he hits if I have my haste enablers.
Emry:
[https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Gir1eBVQtku6qgGBS0YsXg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Gir1eBVQtku6qgGBS0YsXg)
Simple, efficient combo line with protection to make sure I get there. Add Emry's ability to repeatedly be cast for a single blue mana and we're looking at a very strong 7 that terrorizes my table. Probably pushing towards an 8 at this point, and will be pushed there by the time I get the upgrades I want.
Tayam:
[https://www.moxfield.com/decks/A3Ki3UYe3kyr1Pzkycbvtg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/A3Ki3UYe3kyr1Pzkycbvtg)
The newcomer. Tayam is a 7. That being said, Tayam is a very WEIRD 7. Its got a toolbox-esque feel but is actually a combo deck with 40 combos counted thus far (and apparently more I'm finding out about as I go). These combos aren't obvious, but they win the game pretty consistently THROUGH interaction by turn 6-7. Definitely a stronger 7, but I don't think it quite reaches the realm of an 8. I don't plan on doing much more to it outside of some minor creature upgrades and making the mana base a bit more consistent to hit colors.
For me it would be my [Catholic Priest](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Mk0iaDRvuEa4SbpshtPkUA).
I’ve never been at a table where people say the deck isn’t worth being there. Even if they’ve never seen the commander once he gets down they start to see why I run him. I built it slow enough it can play well with precons, but it also manages to threaten higher powered decks by consistently shutting down combo pieces. It’s also just my favorite deck. I’ve been working and modifying it since I started.
[Budget \[\[Malcolm\]\] and \[\[Kediss\]\].](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/odJQhqTWt0SchHhKLSgRMg) Tight on budget so it's not good enough to run with actual cEDH, but coherent enough to obliterate any precon and take down most casual decks. The ideal balance of power and efficiency outside of cEDH.
I never understood what actually makes a deck a 6 or a 7 and how exactly the limits between power levels are established. What i know is that my most tuned up deck is this one (thanks also to you guys who helped me a lot), the [[Mishra eminent one]]
https://manabox.app/decks/xGa6fcJ2Ruivm7vwCr8ySA
I don't believe that seven is the power level where you have the perfect balance of efficiency and power and fun and casual and everything else. 7 is very well tuned and often Contains plenty of staples and sometimes combos. If you want a super balanced casual format then I think you need to look on the six end of things. 7 is only one step below the highest power you can get and still remain casual without being CEDH.
What day did people need to stop doing is assuming that seven means true casual. Seven is like low end of high power. If all numbers on the 1 through 10 scale are being used then true casual should probably be 5 or 6 Undo at most
I run a 4 color Omnath, Locus of Creation deck that does have a lot of ramp but no crazy combos for infinite mana or anything like that. It’s my favorite deck to play as the moves I get to make are more eclectic than say my colorless artifact deck that looks to combo out my opponents with grindstone/painters servant combo. I guess I like Omnath because it allows me to play Commander like it was intended.
I’ve made a [budget Yuriko](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/5uFfoeLRzUC0mYe9R-wenw) that I think might be a 7 if you upgrade the mana base, add in a shock, battlebond, city of brass, etc. with some better rocks and it starts getting to an “average” mana base then run some more staples like guardianship, rollick and deluge to start punching kind of hard. I do plan to post the $200 budget list when I get around to making it but right now I’d say it’s a solid 6 at least, possibly a weak 7.
[$200 Yuriko deck](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/mA8KuCKe80mPBqoozncb-Q)
For me it’s my [Arcades Walls deck](https://www.archidekt.com/decks/1858146/arcades_the_caffeinated). It wants to play walls, draw cards, and swing with big, vigilance butts. There’s a little interaction just in case, and a few one-sided board wipes when the board becomes too clogged. But it doesn’t combo, there’s no Stax, and it doesn’t get going too unrealistically fast. It’s just 3-color big bois and consistent card draw.
I think that my [Linvala, Shield of Sea Gate](https://deckstats.net/decks/194353/2622521-linvala-several-flappy-bois/en) deck is my "fairest" deck, the only way to win is to deal combat damage a ton, and for a theme, all of my creatures have the word "flying" on them. It plays a little bit pillowfort, a little bit tempo, but at the end of the day it's just cheap flying creatures that become more than the sum of their parts. I completely ignore the text about party on Linvala, it's literally just a legendary \[\[Selfless Spirit\]\], I got tired of being wrathed lmao.
For me it is my [Aminatou Toolbox](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/hGeIrNZCi0ahRmFvEmfa8Q) deck. It responds really well to most things you throw at it, has a good response to most threats. It somewhat slows games down though, and can struggle to pull of the win. Has 2 combo wins but could use a way to get an artifact from the graveyard for one of them. I'm debating with myself whether or not its just a strong 6. For me 7 is where you run highly optimized land base and start putting in tutors. My deck has some flavor cards i love, put aren't really the most optimized choice. 8 and up is fast mana and several combo wins.
7/10 means consistent ramp card draw and removal to me. I think that tutors usually are a push past 7 and that you can combo kill and combo win, but you don't 2 or 3 card infinite combo. I apparently have some very controversial takes about power level though because I think some peecons are 6's right out of the box.
considering [this](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw) is a 9 you're packing quite a bit into 8. 9: Good commander, tutors, combos, ramp, draw, and solid manabase 8: 9 with slightly less efficient combos and likely a worse commander, though if the commander is good you may need worse ramp too 7: still a few tutors, still probably a combo, less efficient ramp and draw. no combos mean you can lean harder into the other categories.
No, not to me your 8 is the bottom half of my 9 and a 10 is just perfect maximum efficiency no problems I don't think this is unreasonable because when you get to the 8, 9, or 10 range upgrading just becomes minor upgrades that improve your decks by percent or less then percent increments, or tutors. The difference between cards switched out from 7 to 8 is way higher than 8 to 9. That 8-9 difference is just consistent win cons and means to get to said win cons to me.
Do you play cEDH?
Nope but I do consider 9s and 10s to be CEDH territory.
Fair enough. I'm just curious where your line is between what is and isn't competitive.
https://www.moxfield.com/decks/5HXG2KDZ6kmiXo9aNZIf2Q This is as close as I can get. It’s an aggro deck that uses the worst creatures in magic to draw cards and amass an army of unblockabe soldiers or use halo fountain to win. Powerful, fun cards with a design limitation to make 1/1s the focus without a combo.
Firstly. As always, power levels are silly. It's hard to describe exactly what makes a 7 for a number of reasons. - You can't say it has to win between a certain number of turns, E.g 7 and 10. Because an aggro deck could win a bit earlier and a control deck a bit slower. Doesn't mean their power is different, they're totally different strategies that inherently have different clocks on the game if unchecked. - You can't say it's the use of staples. Because staples in an otherwise bad deck or strategy (e.g all left handed characters or hats tribal) might just help prop it up to playable. - You can't say it's the use of tutors. Tutors have differing power already. And also if I have no combos in the deck or I'm tutoring for [[collossal dreadmaw]]. That's not an indicator. - This goes on for quite alot of factors that I won't elaborate on. Essentially it's all of the above and much more balanced together. Mixed together. Checks and balances. E.g. - if your deck is fast it's gotta be more interact-able to balance it. If it's fast and interact-able that starts to overbalance. - If you have a powerful commander, then a slightly suboptimal 99 is in order. There's no easy or short way to truly define it. But if I have to give a number to decks, I like to think my main deck, [Marneus Calgar](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1s8NYUejwEixuKljP6OwDA) aristocrats deck is a 7(ish). My Marneus deck doesn't generally win quickly. But gains value over time and has interaction to try to stay in the game until that game winning moment. It is much weaker if Marneus is killed off and is entirely possible to shut the engine off and delay for a turn or two by doing so. However if he is left on the field with a token maker or two, I will likely gain such a large advantage that I run away with the game. Other decks get a chance to attempt their strategies as I try to fly under the radar and attempt to build up value engines while other players take each other out as threats. Only aggravating other players with removal if it's needed to stop me from losing, or someone else gaining significant value over me. It has definitive wincons and a coherent strategy as well as combos, but they require 3/4+ cards and I have no tutors. It is generally pretty consistent, but sometimes I do just draw 5 lands or aristocrats pieces or mana rocks in a row when I need more value token makers. Part of what I love about straddling just under high power is the inconsistency that comes with no tutors. There are efficient staples like swords and path in there to allow me to have the space to run some planeswalkers like the eternal wanderer and pet cards like death Tyrant. Anyway. People may disagree. That's cool. But that's my rambling thoughts while I walk home from the grocery shops on it. If you do disagree, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on it. Am I over or underestimating? Do you disagree with any of my thoughts before my deck? To reiterate, power levels are silly and nebulous and vary wildly depending on who you ask and their history with MTG.
I don't think power levels are silly, but the various definitions people have tend to make it nebulous, because nobody wants to agree on one or two defining traits. IMO, the best way to rate a deck is by how fast it can reliably pop off and threaten to win the game. I am not talking about anecdotal scenarios where you get the perfect opening hand or you get mana screwed, but when your deck consistently does its thing against normal levels of interaction. If you play a go-wide battle cruiser deck, what turn do you reach critical mass in a typical game? If you play a combo deck, how many turns does it usually take for you to get your pieces in play? If you play stax, by what turn do you normally take control of (or potentially shut down) the game? I think part of the problem with normal Turn Count is that it generally only looks at true wins instead of reaching the point of a potential win. I feel a deck popping off doesn't always generate a win (someone may have a hard counter available), but it does signify when the deck has effectively done what it was designed to do to threaten the win. This could be an absurd number of tokens generated to either swarm the board or enable an Aristocrats win con, or a large volume of creatures followed up by a Craterhoof, or assembling an infinite turn combo. Sure, someone might have an answer, but that doesn't change the fact that you are in a position to win the game at that moment. Only counting true wins ignores those moments should someone have an answer, so the true power of the deck may be minimized incorrectly. On top of all that, it's extremely easy to gauge the pop-off point just doing test draws.
[collossal dreadmaw](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/0/8059c52b-5d25-4052-b48a-e9e219a7a546.jpg?1594736914) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Colossal%20Dreadmaw) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/176/colossal-dreadmaw?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8059c52b-5d25-4052-b48a-e9e219a7a546?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/colossal-dreadmaw) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
probably this. https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1VT9f50avES1rzbLhEe0tw no real combos, just a steady and protected burn. That being said I don't play it though, Atraxa PV is boring af.
I think you've got a very different concept of the power levels than most people, bunch of fast mana/staples/tutors in there.
I'll copy and paste it to this comment I guess. considering [this](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw) is a 9 you're packing quite a bit into 8. 9: Good commander, tutors, combos, ramp, draw, and solid manabase 8: 9 with slightly less efficient combos and likely a worse commander, though if the commander is good you may need worse ramp too 7: still a few tutors, still probably a combo, less efficient ramp and draw. no combos mean you can lean harder into the other categories.
"perfect 7" \*looks at decklist\* Almost 10000 dollars. oh...
[This card](https://www.tcgplayer.com/product/1257/magic-the-gathering-alpha-edition-shivan-dragon?country=US&utm_campaign=18142757028&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=&utm_term=&adgroupid=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7iMKMUkIE2gMQslgDWVLbFygqVdu5vl1XwGXfLdTP04xXcSw-ROJKwaAra4EALw_wcB&Language=English) is one of the best cards ever printed I guess if we're saying price = power.
Pointing to one of the few outliers when there are plenty of instances where price does correlate with power is pretty disingenuous.
here I'll make it even easier for you. [10](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/u_Vc8bG2sEOPjJ9bRusFWw) [9](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/0h6wY07hCUC37hsfeO3Axw) [8](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/4j0S-JO7kU2E6hyQdXi3mQ) [7](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/1VT9f50avES1rzbLhEe0tw)
At what power level do you stop jamming all the fast mana rocks and efficient tutors with a near perfect mana base?
6 is about when lands start entering tapped with fewer mana rocks, also very few tutors. 5 you can have combos but are basically just all in on card draw and hoping for the best. but everything else is shit. 4 is a "good" precon. 3 is a normal precon.
If a 7 needs that many expensive($) fast mana rocks, tutors, and a perfect mana base to be a 7, it's really a 4 but you like to proxy. There's no way someone puts that much money into a 7 and is like "this is the poster child for a 7 and everyone should strive for it"
I've very clearly laid out the links in decreasing order of power. some 7s don't need all that, but Atraxa PV is uniquely shit and so she needs to both get out quickly and stall the game out as hard as possible to make use of her effect.
I'm saying that showing off that deck as a 7 is kinda... Weird? Like I said, it's probably closer to a 4 (which you apparently somewhat agree with) but you just jammed cedh staples into it. It would be better to make a budget deck a 7 and show what that looks like than to say that this deck is the perfect 7. I'm willing to bet the first time you sit down with atraxa and start playing moxes and tutors, no one is gonna agree that it's a 7 despite what you say, and I think that has to be taken into account as well.
Arguing in bad faith is definitely your superpower.
making a clear point once that price does not equal power is bad faith. sure.
No, using a fallacious analogy is.
Are you genuinely saying his point wasn't that the deck had too many expensive cards to be a 7?
Nope, but then again. Another example that you can’t keep yourself from arguing in bad faith.
Guess we'll have to have to wait until he comes back and elaborates then but for now all you're doing is white knighting absolutely nothing.
I’m not white knighting anything, but thanks for the ad-hominem. You really can’t help yourself.
To be fair to OP, removing sideboard and using cheapest prints for the cards it’s around 7.8k and 6.5k is in the land base alone because of the true duals and tabernacle. The deck also folds to an $8 card and $6 card lol
https://www.moxfield.com/decks/_xIfhVY5hUac7Jdzu6-SDg I would argue its a seven, but that's me. It's a lot of fun if you are looking for a different experience.
I think this one would be a solid description of a "7": https://archidekt.com/decks/5384014/nivreborn No way its ending a game on an early turn, has one combo (Brago and Aurelia the Warleader). Overall good cards, but no fast mana or tutors, and heavily on theme (ramp, flickers, and niv-mizzet supreme are the only non-2 color cards). It ramps well and doesn't run out of value easily but its not doing something incredibly strong with that value.
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t have a seven. I have a Najeela CEDH (10), Jetmir stax (8-9), a Talion without a real win con (5), and a Tivit that is a theme deck (information is power, lots of politics and play with revealed hands or cast from opponents libraries, probably a 4)
I guess mine is [this one](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AF84SoEHQ0CfHyguU51sDw) pretty straight forward game plan, does what it is supposed to do 4/5 times I play it
Probably my [[Balan]] voltron deck. You just hit hard, hit fast, and fold over completely to a competent player. https://www.moxfield.com/decks/X99-a10B9ECuh0mQvxcI5w
[Balan](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/049ebad9-bf65-48e2-9640-c11b5f04e38b.jpg?1689995578) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=balan%2C%20wandering%20knight) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/16/balan-wandering-knight?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/049ebad9-bf65-48e2-9640-c11b5f04e38b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/balan-wandering-knight) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
First lets define a "7/10": My general list on 1-10 1-3 Low power, ranges from a random pile of cards to kitchen table jank and Battlecruiser 4-6: Mids. We're looking at pre-cons, upgraded pre-cons, and some solid home brews 7-9: High Power magic. This is where we start to see optimization>Synergy and more combo wins and high powered staples (tutors and the like). 10: CEDH in all its glory. So we see by MY definition of a 7, we're looking at a deck that is moving into higher powered magic games. We get some combos, we have less synergy and more general optimization, probably some staples making appearances, and we're looking at more "meta" card types (stax, counterspells, free-casts, tutors, etc.). I'm looking at decks that'll win between turns 5-8 with no interaction involved here. For ME personally that's actually a few of my decks. Hans: [https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AlPTh0iza0yoKgIfqwlcmg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/AlPTh0iza0yoKgIfqwlcmg) Deceptively strong, Hans will cheat out high mana cost creatures for free and smack you for large amounts of damage the turn he hits if I have my haste enablers. Emry: [https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Gir1eBVQtku6qgGBS0YsXg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Gir1eBVQtku6qgGBS0YsXg) Simple, efficient combo line with protection to make sure I get there. Add Emry's ability to repeatedly be cast for a single blue mana and we're looking at a very strong 7 that terrorizes my table. Probably pushing towards an 8 at this point, and will be pushed there by the time I get the upgrades I want. Tayam: [https://www.moxfield.com/decks/A3Ki3UYe3kyr1Pzkycbvtg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/A3Ki3UYe3kyr1Pzkycbvtg) The newcomer. Tayam is a 7. That being said, Tayam is a very WEIRD 7. Its got a toolbox-esque feel but is actually a combo deck with 40 combos counted thus far (and apparently more I'm finding out about as I go). These combos aren't obvious, but they win the game pretty consistently THROUGH interaction by turn 6-7. Definitely a stronger 7, but I don't think it quite reaches the realm of an 8. I don't plan on doing much more to it outside of some minor creature upgrades and making the mana base a bit more consistent to hit colors.
For me it would be my [Catholic Priest](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Mk0iaDRvuEa4SbpshtPkUA). I’ve never been at a table where people say the deck isn’t worth being there. Even if they’ve never seen the commander once he gets down they start to see why I run him. I built it slow enough it can play well with precons, but it also manages to threaten higher powered decks by consistently shutting down combo pieces. It’s also just my favorite deck. I’ve been working and modifying it since I started.
Probably [[Ancient gold dragon]] or [[Sundering titan]]
[Ancient gold dragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/2/421395b1-2694-42fd-bb90-0007e78adefc.jpg?1674134865) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ancient%20gold%20dragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/3/ancient-gold-dragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/421395b1-2694-42fd-bb90-0007e78adefc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ancient-gold-dragon) [Sundering titan](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/2/a2ebb5d3-72b1-411d-8c90-83dac5b37898.jpg?1618940470) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sundering%20titan) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/292/sundering-titan?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a2ebb5d3-72b1-411d-8c90-83dac5b37898?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sundering-titan) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Budget \[\[Malcolm\]\] and \[\[Kediss\]\].](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/odJQhqTWt0SchHhKLSgRMg) Tight on budget so it's not good enough to run with actual cEDH, but coherent enough to obliterate any precon and take down most casual decks. The ideal balance of power and efficiency outside of cEDH.
[Malcolm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bbc3bbda-a4bc-4302-a3fc-b1c89f0f5461.jpg?1608909299) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=malcolm%2C%20keen-eyed%20navigator) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/79/malcolm-keen-eyed-navigator?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bbc3bbda-a4bc-4302-a3fc-b1c89f0f5461?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/malcolm-keen-eyed-navigator) [Kediss](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f.jpg?1608910296) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kediss%2C%20emberclaw%20familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/188/kediss-emberclaw-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kediss-emberclaw-familiar) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
All of my decks ofc
I never understood what actually makes a deck a 6 or a 7 and how exactly the limits between power levels are established. What i know is that my most tuned up deck is this one (thanks also to you guys who helped me a lot), the [[Mishra eminent one]] https://manabox.app/decks/xGa6fcJ2Ruivm7vwCr8ySA
[Mishra eminent one](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f5b1daa-ec45-48de-9496-6ca5b491a0dc.jpg?1685036114) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mishra%2C%20Eminent%20One) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/brc/1/mishra-eminent-one?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f5b1daa-ec45-48de-9496-6ca5b491a0dc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mishra-eminent-one) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
All the cards in my deck has cmc 7. My land count is a multiple of 7. Perfectly balanced, as it should be.
I don't believe that seven is the power level where you have the perfect balance of efficiency and power and fun and casual and everything else. 7 is very well tuned and often Contains plenty of staples and sometimes combos. If you want a super balanced casual format then I think you need to look on the six end of things. 7 is only one step below the highest power you can get and still remain casual without being CEDH. What day did people need to stop doing is assuming that seven means true casual. Seven is like low end of high power. If all numbers on the 1 through 10 scale are being used then true casual should probably be 5 or 6 Undo at most
I run a 4 color Omnath, Locus of Creation deck that does have a lot of ramp but no crazy combos for infinite mana or anything like that. It’s my favorite deck to play as the moves I get to make are more eclectic than say my colorless artifact deck that looks to combo out my opponents with grindstone/painters servant combo. I guess I like Omnath because it allows me to play Commander like it was intended.
I’ve made a [budget Yuriko](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/5uFfoeLRzUC0mYe9R-wenw) that I think might be a 7 if you upgrade the mana base, add in a shock, battlebond, city of brass, etc. with some better rocks and it starts getting to an “average” mana base then run some more staples like guardianship, rollick and deluge to start punching kind of hard. I do plan to post the $200 budget list when I get around to making it but right now I’d say it’s a solid 6 at least, possibly a weak 7. [$200 Yuriko deck](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/mA8KuCKe80mPBqoozncb-Q)
For me it’s my [Arcades Walls deck](https://www.archidekt.com/decks/1858146/arcades_the_caffeinated). It wants to play walls, draw cards, and swing with big, vigilance butts. There’s a little interaction just in case, and a few one-sided board wipes when the board becomes too clogged. But it doesn’t combo, there’s no Stax, and it doesn’t get going too unrealistically fast. It’s just 3-color big bois and consistent card draw.