MTG Deck Testing Tools: Goldfishing, AI Simulations, and Power Scores - How Can You Test a Deck?
Published 2026-11-03
MTG Deck Testing Tools: Goldfishing, AI Simulations, and Power Scores
There are several ways to test a Magic: The Gathering deck without playing every game yourself. Some tools let you practice hands, others analyze decklists, and some simulate games against opponents.
What MTG deck testing tools are available?
Goldfishing means playing through your deck without an opponent to check draws, mana, and consistency.
Automated simulators go further by testing against opponents. Some model outcomes statistically, while others play individual games using Magic's rules.
| Platform | Goldfish | Auto-play games | Simulates card rules | Power score | Improvement analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moxfield | ✓ | — | N/A | — | ◐ |
| Archidekt | ✓ | — | N/A | ◐ | ◐ |
| ScryCheck | — | — | N/A | ✓ | ✓ |
| Forge | ◐ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
| EDHbots | ✓ | ✓ | ◐ | ✓ | ✓ |
| MTG Carlo | — | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| Grim.Cards | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Legend: ✓ Supported · ◐ Limited or partial · — Not listed as a supported feature · N/A Not applicable
This compares capabilities, not quality or accuracy. Rules simulation means executing individual card interactions rather than only estimating outcomes. Feature coverage and supported cards vary.
Can AI simulate hundreds or thousands of MTG games?
Yes. Forge can play games using Magic's rules and AI opponents. Grim.Cards uses Forge to run hosted Commander and Standard simulations, reporting matchup results, power scores, and coaching.
EDHbots offers large-scale Commander simulations, while MTG Carlo provides automated matchup testing using its own rules-based simulation approach.
Can automated testing identify deck weaknesses?
Yes. Deck analyzers can identify mana curve issues, synergies, and potential combos. Simulators can expose difficult matchups, inconsistent performance, and underperforming cards.
These findings depend on the opponents, simulation method, and AI decisions.
What about combo-heavy Commander decks?
Complex combos can be difficult for automated players. Even when a simulator supports the cards involved, its AI may miss important sequences or winning lines.
Some tools, including Grim.Cards, allow users to guide certain AI decisions. Commander Spellbook can help identify known combos, while manual testing remains useful for verifying execution.
How reliable are MTG power scores?
Power scores are estimates, not universal ratings. Some tools evaluate deck composition and synergy; others incorporate simulated performance.
Scores are generally useful for comparisons within the same platform, but shouldn't be treated as interchangeable or confused with official Commander brackets.
Which testing approach should you use?
Goldfishing checks consistency. Deck analysis examines construction and synergy. Automated simulations test matchups and gameplay performance.
Each answers different questions. Combining methods provides a more complete picture than relying on a single score.