Deckbuilding Ratios: A guide to Commander Deckbuilding - Commander (EDH) - The Game - MTG Salvation Forums - MTG Salvation

This site works best with JavaScript enabled. Please enable JavaScript to get the best experience from this site.

All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.

A common concern with those new to Commander (and even some who have been around for a while) is how many of x spell should be included. There are countless threads about how much land, removal, creatures, etc., and this thread is an attempt to limit the amount of new threads created under such contexts.

I've done the simple math of converting slots in a traditional 60-card deck into there perspective Commander amounts. For example, if a deck were to run a playset (4) of Counterspell, they would need 6-7 slots devoted to counters in Commander. This should help new players "convert" 60-card decks into Commander decks more smoothly, as many players are comfortable with their 60-card deck construction, but are intimidated/confused as to how that translates into Commander.

Reading the Table
The column on the left represents the amount of cards you would have in a traditional 60-card deck, with the column on the right representing the equivalent in Commander. The number in parenthesis is the actual number that came out of the calculation, in case you want to disagree with my rounding. The equation I used was simply (x/60)*99, where x is the number of slots dedicated in a 60-card deck. I went with 99 instead of 100 since the Commander doesn't shuffle into your deck, and shouldn't be taken into consideration when concerned with deck-ratios.

It should be noted that Commander is its own beast, and building a deck in Commander is not the same as traditional 60-card Magic. This guide should serve as a way to smooth out the transition from previous deckbuilding experience into building for Commander.

Any suggestions on making the table easier to understand would be greatly appreciated; I haven't quite figured out the best way to create a table using the forums.

Does anyone really need this table? This formula is so simple it can be calculated on the fly(99 can be replaced with 100). Just remember that when "converting" from edh to normal constructed, it's 60/100 ratio and 100/60 the other way around. That is, 3/5 and 5/3.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about because I'm using this method all the time when building decks. It's also good to remember that in 60-card deck, 11 redundant cards have very good chance of appearing on the opening hand in exactly one copy - in edh, that is 18. For example, I consider 18 a threshold of 2-mana instants one needs to reach to play in order to be able to efficiently play Isochron Scepter.

It should be noted that Commander is its own beast, and building a deck in Commander is not the same as traditional 60-card Magic. This guide should serve as a way to smooth out the transition from previous deckbuilding experience into building for Commander.

This is the most important part of the post. Good idea, though

Everyone does the simple math quite a lot, especially for those with non-EDH casual decks with 61+ cards. And as such, a thread with simple math in it doesn't have much to comment, only to say I agree with the above post that EDH should not have simple math done for a land count (ie it's complex).

I've done the simple math of converting slots in a traditional 60-card deck into there perspective Commander amounts. For example, if a deck were to run a playset (4) of Counterspell, they would need 6-7 slots devoted to counters in Commander. This should help new players "convert" 60-card decks into Commander decks more smoothly, as many players are comfortable with their 60-card deck construction, but are intimidated/confused as to how that translates into Commander.

Without further adieu, here's the table:

-1 / 1-2 (1.65)

-2 / 3-4 (3.3)

-3 / 5 (4.95)

-4 / 6-7 (6.6)

-5 / 8 (8.25)

-6 / 10 (9.9)

-7 / 11-12 (11.55)

-8 / 13 (13.2)

-9 / 15 (14.85)

10 / 16-17 (16.5)

15 / 25 (24.75)

20 / 33 (33)

21 / 34-35 (34.65)

22 / 36 (36.3)

23 / 38 (37.95)

24 / 39-40 (39.6)

25 / 41 (41.25)

30 / 49-50 (49.5)

Reading the TableThe column on the left represents the amount of cards you would have in a traditional 60-card deck, with the column on the right representing the equivalent in Commander. The number in parenthesis is the actual number that came out of the calculation, in case you want to disagree with my rounding. The equation I used was simply (x/60)*99, where x is the number of slots dedicated in a 60-card deck. I went with 99 instead of 100 since the Commander doesn't shuffle into your deck, and shouldn't be taken into consideration when concerned with deck-ratios.

It should be noted that Commander is its own beast, and building a deck in Commander is not the same as traditional 60-card Magic. This guide should serve as a way to smooth out the transition from previous deckbuilding experience into building for Commander.

Any suggestions on making the table easier to understand would be greatly appreciated; I haven't quite figured out the best way to create a table using the forums.

BRRakdos, Lord of RiotsBR

Yes, I know what I'm talking about because I'm using this method all the time when building decks. It's also good to remember that in 60-card deck, 11 redundant cards have very good chance of appearing on the opening hand in exactly one copy - in edh, that is 18. For example, I consider 18 a threshold of 2-mana instants one needs to reach to play in order to be able to efficiently play Isochron Scepter.

T2:Nothing until Jace is gone!

EDH:Numot, the Devastator

This is the most important part of the post. Good idea, though

Many thanks to Rising Studios for the sweet avatar

Everyone does the simple math quite a lot, especially for those with non-EDH casual decks with 61+ cards. And as such, a thread with simple math in it doesn't have much to comment, only to say I agree with the above post that EDH should not have simple math done for a land count (ie it's complex).