Discussion of EDH Tiers

[Mike]

Following elections, there was a pretty involved discussion regarding possible regulations to our EDH metagame. One suggestion was a banned list, which is being discussed in another thread. The other (and in my opinion, more promising) idea was to define tiers.

Due to the fact that EDH is so wide and complicated, it is impossible to create a perfect set of rules. It ultimately comes down to personal judgment. These tiers are meant to provide a guideline when choosing which deck to play in a specific game.

I propose the following three tiers:

Tier 1:
This deck is close to or completely optimized. It plays many of the most powerful cards it has access to, and its goal is to win as often as possible. You accept the fact that you will play against other extremely powerful cards.

Tier 2:
This deck is powerful, but it is either a work in progress or is not playing too many overly broken cards. It has a dedicated strategy and tries to win, but may play some cards that are considered “less than good”.

Tier 3:
This deck is not competitive. It plays mostly cards that are not considered to be powerful, and may have some sort of theme. It may also just be a budget deck that has hopes of acquiring better cards as time goes on.

---

I think that most players in club have decks that are close to tier 2. In general, it will be good practice to ask players what tier game they wish to play before it starts. In a game of 4 or more players, it should not be much of an issue to play a deck that is within 1 tier of all other decks.

Assigning a tier to each of your decks is a personal call. If you are having difficulty figuring out what your deck should be, just ask other players for their opinion. Keep in mind that your deck may move up a tier if you add cards to it over time.

[Deleted]

I support this proposition.

[tehwerr]

the thing about this system is that it already exists for me. when I play a deck I mentally profile how and what it is doing and compare it to my already existing decks.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2011 14:08:55 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

the thing about this system is that it already exists for me. when I play a deck I mentally profile how and what it is doing and compare it to my already existing decks.

So wouldn't that make it easier for you to adopt this system then?

[tehwerr]

of course but I wouldn't stop at 3 tiers I would probably do 5 tiers (six if you count the tier reserved just for nick's banding/phasing deck which literally cannot win ever, even against dummy opponents)

[Kiki]

Apr 26, 2011 14:44:11 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

of course but I wouldn't stop at 3 tiers I would probably do 5 tiers (six if you count the tier reserved just for nick's banding/phasing deck which literally cannot win ever, even against dummy opponents)

But if the cracked a fetchland, you win by milling them.

[Kino]

Apr 26, 2011 14:08:55 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

the thing about this system is that it already exists for me. when I play a deck I mentally profile how and what it is doing and compare it to my already existing decks.

Apr 26, 2011 14:08:55 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

of course but I wouldn't stop at 3 tiers I would probably do 5 tiers (six if you count the tier reserved just for nick's banding/phasing deck which literally cannot win ever, even against dummy opponents)

These two thing I rather strongly agree with. Three tiers is somewhat limiting, as most of my deck would fall somewhere between tier 1 and two in such a system.

In a five tier system, I would put Progenitus, Reaper King, and Uril in tier two, as they are powerful, play lots of strong cards, but are far from optimized. Moreover, I intend to keep them that way by pulling out cards and combos that become too strong (Progenitus recently lost Seedborn Muse and Memnarch because they were too strong). Lorthos and Glissa would be in tier three, as they both are heavily themed at the cost of a considerable amount of consistency and strength. For now Hidetsugu would be tier 3, but if he continues to perform as well as he has so far, and if people think he should, he could get upgraded.

Again, while I would like to see a system like this, it is by no means a complete solution. The social contract still needs to apply, which means that you can find a way to have fun with everyone else. Have fun with your cards, but not at the expense of other players.

[Mike]

Five tiers is probably too complicated to implement, as people are too lazy to memorize things like this. Three tiers can be mentally shortcutted with one word (different depending on your bias). There is definitely a range within each tier, but you should be able to tell if your deck is "upper" tier 2 or on the lower end.

Tier 2 is also the broadest category, and encompasses a majority of decks. You have to do something somewhat extreme to make it tier 1 or 3, and you'll probably realize this.

My suggestion is to have at least 1 deck in each tier that is within your financial means, so that you can play as wide a variety of games as possible.

[tehwerr]

I don't want to have a tier 1 deck. let alone play against one.

[lightspvp]

Just because you don't want to build one doesn't mean you should try to stop everyone else from trying to build better decks.

[Mike]

Apr 26, 2011 16:44:42 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

I don't want to have a tier 1 deck. let alone play against one.

That's what this is for- you can just play in tier 2 or 3 games.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2011 14:44:11 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

of course but I wouldn't stop at 3 tiers I would probably do 5 tiers (six if you count the tier reserved just for nick's banding/phasing deck which literally cannot win ever, even against dummy opponents)

You haven't even seen my banding/phasing deck in action...

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2011 16:58:45 GMT -5 @lightspvp said:

Just because you don't want to build one doesn't mean you should try to stop everyone else from trying to build better decks.

None of us are trying to keep others from building those decks. We're just trying to not play them nor play against them.

[lightspvp]

Apr 26, 2011 17:44:38 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

Apr 26, 2011 16:58:45 GMT -5 @lightspvp said:

Just because you don't want to build one doesn't mean you should try to stop everyone else from trying to build better decks.

None of us are trying to keep others from building those decks. We're just trying to not play them nor play against them.

I don't want to have a tier 1 deck. let alone play against one.

Then stop posting negatively on people who want to make good decks.

It's simply annoying to hear "people who play standard and competitive are noobs", "the point of a game is not to win", and "wow that card is so overpowered. ashes to ashes/x card should be banned from edh. isn't that like 20 dollars?" so many times.
Not to mention even "wow akroma angel of wrath is one of the most powerful edh generals." and "wow, student of warfare is in your deck. that deck is way too powerful then".

[Deleted]

So don't try playing in casual or participating in discussions of casual, if you think it's so pointless.

[lightspvp]

Apr 26, 2011 18:09:22 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

So don't try playing in casual or participating in discussions of casual, if you think it's so pointless.

I don't understand how this relates to my post at all.

[Deleted]

You seem to dislike the concept of casual play and would not like to participate in it. If this is as it seems, then you should not be participating in it or in discussions about it.

[lightspvp]

Apr 27, 2011 1:01:41 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

You seem to dislike the concept of casual play and would not like to participate in it. If this is as it seems, then you should not be participating in it or in discussions about it.

As far as I'm concerned, this topic is about all tiers of play, not just the casual one. Your post still does not make sense. At no point in this topic did I say casual is pointless.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2011 2:16:29 GMT -5 @lightspvp said:

As far as I'm concerned, this topic is about all tiers of play, not just the casual one. Your post still does not make sense. At no point in this topic did I say casual is pointless.

Sorry, you did not literally say that you thought casual is pointless. However, throughout every single one of these discussions that you have participated in, you have implied that you vehemently dislike casual and don't think it should be played. Most of these discussions are mainly for the sake of allowing people who enjoy casual magic and actually build casual decks to play magic casually separately from those who don't seem to enjoy casual and who build decks that others generally won't enjoy playing against in casual magic. The main two people in the club who are notable for this are you and Will Anderson.

[tehwerr]

no there are others they just don't pretend to try and mix with the casual crowd.

[lightspvp]

Apr 27, 2011 9:24:35 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

Apr 27, 2011 2:16:29 GMT -5 @lightspvp said:

As far as I'm concerned, this topic is about all tiers of play, not just the casual one. Your post still does not make sense. At no point in this topic did I say casual is pointless.

Sorry, you did not literally say that you thought casual is pointless. However, throughout every single one of these discussions that you have participated in, you have implied that you vehemently dislike casual and don't think it should be played. Most of these discussions are mainly for the sake of allowing people who enjoy casual magic and actually build casual decks to play magic casually separately from those who don't seem to enjoy casual and who build decks that others generally won't enjoy playing against in casual magic. The main two people in the club who are notable for this are you and Will Anderson.

I have never said or implied casual should not be played. I've commented on the naiveness of a clubwide banlist just so "casual" players could win and why casual players should not QQ when they lose to threats their decks simply are not built to answer. Not every deck can deal with flying creatures or engulfing slagwurm. Make your deck better or don't complain about it.

So far all you've contributed is the assertion that tinker is abusable in edh (already banned in official edh banlist + french banlist contributing to the fact that you are ignorant of the banlists already in place) and that cards that can lock any casual deck down should be limited. What if I want to make a casual deck based around a flying theme? It would completely shut down decks with limited responses to flying creatures (example: dwarf deck). Paradoxical situation much?
magiccards.info/som/en/118.html banplz cannot kill with hillgiant.dec
My original elf deck could not remove platinum angel. Am i complaining about it? No. You've said decks should not be forced to run creature/artifact/enchantment removal or else they'd all be the same (include cards like Go for the Throat). I guess Platinum Angel is just the end-all of everything then.

[DazBoot]

Apr 27, 2011 9:24:35 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

Sorry, you did not literally say that you thought casual is pointless. However, throughout every single one of these discussions that you have participated in, you have implied that you vehemently dislike casual and don't think it should be played. Most of these discussions are mainly for the sake of allowing people who enjoy casual magic and actually build casual decks to play magic casually separately from those who don't seem to enjoy casual and who build decks that others generally won't enjoy playing against in casual magic. The main two people in the club who are notable for this are you and Will Anderson.

I want you to read over what you just said. This discussion is to discuss the RELATIONSHIP between casual and non-casual. You cannot just ignore half of it. While you chastise him for standing against casual, you are inherently doing the exact same in the other direction. Just think about that.

Also, regarding most people in this thread, please take a second to realize that this is not a "how do we stop competitive players from playing" nor is it "make your decks better" this is meant to be a place where we can discuss how the two can exist together. Please try to keep that in mind with your posts.


EDIT: I want to clarify, this isn't to say "we all need to be praising and happy" posts can be critical, but please make sure you are still working towards a constructive end.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2011 10:34:13 GMT -5 DazBoot said:

I want you to read over what you just said. This discussion is to discuss the RELATIONSHIP between casual and non-casual. You cannot just ignore half of it. While you chastise him for standing against casual, you are inherently doing the exact same in the other direction. Just think about that.

Also, regarding most people in this thread, please take a second to realize that this is not a "how do we stop competitive players from playing" nor is it "make your decks better" this is meant to be a place where we can discuss how the two can exist together. Please try to keep that in mind with your posts.

EDIT: I want to clarify, this isn't to say "we all need to be praising and happy" posts can be critical, but please make sure you are still working towards a constructive end.

Ok, I'm sorry. I was going into an escalating rant on this, and that was immature. That is not the way to facilitate these discussions. I think that the other thread is now going reasonably and this idea would be something else to discuss. If there could be a board meeting at some point to specifically discuss which, if any, systems we are planning to implement, that would be nice.

[pommy]

Well, after reading most of the post on this subject, here is what I think: The problem is more in the way that magic club works then in the different cards people use. I think that the problem is simply that almost all edh games at magic club are at least supposed to be "casual". The problem comes from the fact that some people like building competitive decks, and like playing those decks in games. Since all edh games at magic club are casual, this leads to people trying to play competitive decks in casual games, causing both sides to complain about the relative power level of what edh should be. I think at least part of this problem could be solved if there were more places for the competitive edh decks to be played, so those people wouldn't feel the need to bring overpowered decks into casual games. This could probably be done with tournaments or maybe something like a competitive edh league or something. At least in my experience, most of the casual edh people already have a pretty good idea of what should and shouldn't be played in casual games, so I really don't think an explicit banned list is needed for the long term.

[tehwerr]

exactly

[toastytoast78]

Apr 27, 2011 13:36:23 GMT -5 pommy said:

Well, after reading most of the post on this subject, here is what I think: The problem is more in the way that magic club works then in the different cards people use. I think that the problem is simply that almost all edh games at magic club are at least supposed to be "casual". The problem comes from the fact that some people like building competitive decks, and like playing those decks in games. Since all edh games at magic club are casual, this leads to people trying to play competitive decks in casual games, causing both sides to complain about the relative power level of what edh should be. I think at least part of this problem could be solved if there were more places for the competitive edh decks to be played, so those people wouldn't feel the need to bring overpowered decks into casual games. This could probably be done with tournaments or maybe something like a competitive edh league or something. At least in my experience, most of the casual edh people already have a pretty good idea of what should and shouldn't be played in casual games, so I really don't think an explicit banned list is needed for the long term.

I agree with most of this. I think the tier system is a good idea and we should definitely try it. However, I think the problem goes both ways--it's not just people playing more competitive decks in casual games, it's also people playing more casual decks in competitive games. This doesn't even need to stem from lacking a less competitive or more competitive deck; rather, people just like to play with all of their decks. I myself have played my sliver deck in some games I probably shouldn't have simply because I don't play it often and I like to play it.

Even if we never officially implement some kind of tier system, the "social contract" is, in my opinion, the best way to go about keeping the power level of games balance.