How to evaluate a card (a system I have thought of)

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
Recently, I was in Johnny-mode and wanted to create a control deck. Most decks I've created myself are above average casually, but not competitive. I decided it was time I came up with the most 'formula-oriented' way I could evaluate a card, and then hopefully see if I can apply it to the overall deck to make something more competitive.

This is what I came up with so far (and I have mostly only looked at sorceries or instants at this point, but it seems to apply fine for creatures as well. I haven't looked through  and tried to apply it to enchantments yet but I will soon)

How good a card is based on a card's:

*Conditions (Constraints placed on a card, such as an artifact only counter)
*Net Card (Card advantage, constant, or disadvantage)
*Net Mana (Mana advantage, constant, or disadvantage)
*Net Tempo (Tempo defined as Damage output/Time or Turns)
*Special Purposes (Combo setting up, etc.)

Examples:

Divination

Zero Conditions
+1 Card Advantage
- 3 Mana Disadvantage
- To your tempo, no change to their tempo = Overall Tempo disadvantage
No special purposes

Go for the Throat

Two conditions - The target must be a creature, and it must be non-artifact
No change in card advantage
Mana advantage/disadvantage depends on mana cost of creature killed (+ if 3 or higher, same if 2, - if 1 or lower)
- to your tempo (could have been spent on a creature, which increase tempo), - to their tempo = Utilize value judgment to decide if net tempo is positive, constant, or negative
No special purposes

Since it has two conditions, you have to utilize value-judgment to see if it affects your C.A (card advantage), M.A (mana advantage), T.A (Tempo advantage), or S.P (special purposes). Value judgment has to be used anywhere where there is variables, so also in mana advantage department - Will you be killing creatures of 2 mana or higher most of time?

Forbidden Alchemy

One condition - Must have at least four cards left in library <--this is="" hardly="" a="" condition="" so="" value-judgment="" evaluates="" it="" as="" zero="" conditions="" br="">No change in C.A
Decrease M.A
Decrease T.A

^

When a card gives you no advantages in any field, it likely has a special purpose. For Forbidden Alchemy, this includes (but not limited to):

*Deck-thinning
*Card Substitution (Subtitution can be a tutor, a retrieval of graveyard/exile spells, etc). Card substitution increases the range of your cards - In other words, you are able to obtain a card (ideally), that best serves the circumstances, whether that is a C.A, M.A, or T.A overall card.

Geist of Saint Traft

No conditions
Constant C.A
Decrease M.A
Increase T.A
No special purposes

With creatures, you must evaluate ability - Which really complicates it all and I think that's where play-testing is insanely useful. Overall though, as a rule of thumb, creatures increase your tempo or decrease your opponents tempo.




Okay enough examples. I wanted to figure out how to apply this to deck building, so I took two general concepts: Aggro and Control. For me, threats go under the tempo category. T.A correlates to life, so that's why it's essential to spend C.A and M.A to achieve T.A, as that's what will win you games (or special purposes if it is a combo deck). That means that T.A is overall the most important part of Magic. I decided to evaluate the difference between an aggro deck and control deck with T.A.

Aggro decks, if you were to graph Tempo Advantage Vs Turns (time), you'd find that the vertical intercept is higher and there is a positive slope until around turn 4 or 5, at which that slope decreases and can either remain less positive or become negative.

Control decks, on the other hand, will start with a vertical intercept close to 0, but will be more representative of  y = ex (x>0).

In other words, control decks seek to raise their C.A and M.A, so that in the long run they can drastically increase their T.A - so I believe finding cards that will do that is important.

Overall, it's hard to evaluate Magic in just logical terms - there are so many damn variables that  it's impossible to account for them all and play-testing aids in that. Still, I think I may be onto something at least slightly useful, though I haven't applied it yet. I didn't include Mana curve here, which is important but I don't have a set formula for that yet. It's true that Mana curve does affect if you put a card in your deck or not, but a card must pass the 'synergy+advantage' test first, which I am hoping this can help set up. Anyway, if you read this all, props! If not, I don't blame you .





It seems to me like you are over-complicating things, although the aspects of a card that you mentioned (card advantage, cost, tempo, special purpose) are important to be sure.

Also, I see a few errors in evaluation. For example, Geist of Saint Traft does not give you card disadvantage. You've used a card in your hand to gain a card on the battlefield, so net zero. I'm not sure how you've decided whether or not a creature gives you "mana advantage", but Geist of Saint Traft is undercosted by nearly every metric one could use.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by "mana advantage" at all. If anything, it sounds similar to Tempo.
It seems to me like you are over-complicating things, although the aspects of a card that you mentioned (card advantage, cost, tempo, special purpose) are important to be sure.

Also, I see a few errors in evaluation. For example, Geist of Saint Traft does not give you card disadvantage. You've used a card in your hand to gain a card on the battlefield, so net zero. I'm not sure how you've decided whether or not a creature gives you "mana advantage", but Geist of Saint Traft is undercosted by nearly every metric one could use.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by "mana advantage" at all. If anything, it sounds similar to Tempo.



I probably am over-complicating things, but it's fun at least :P.

You are right, it's card reallocation not card disadvantage. It isn't subtracted from your total useful cards until death, so my bad. I'll change that.

Mana advantage pretty much was a way to consolidate cost and value trades into one thing. For example, M.A for a creature will always be a subtraction because it's a cost, but if you counter a bomb, you're likely trading a 1-3 mana spell for a 6+ mana spell.

Everything is just tempo. And drawing cards is just providing yourself with options to change that tempo. But having cards isn't what is important, having cards that can either currently affect the tempo or cards that will affect the tempo in the future is what matters. A four card hand could be better than a six card hand, it's the tempo the cards are able to create that matters.


Aggro decks rely on creating as much tempo as possible in the shortest amount of time. The easiest way to do that is to play cheap spells. Earlier in the game these cards have the ability to affect the tempo of the game more, but late in the game they will barely affect the tempo of the game. Control decks play slower spells that generate massive amounts of tempo like Grave Titan, but because these cards generate no tempo in the early game they need to be able to preserve themselves or else that card won't be worth it. So control decks need to play some cheap spells still like counter and removal so that they don't roll over to aggro.


The amount of tempo a card provides is always situational. So really you just gotta look at the game from a matchup perspective. How good are my draws against my opponent. You cannot rely on a certain metric to judge cards. By playing a lot of Magic you'll begin to intuitively reason about what cards could potentially be strong in a lot of possible matchups, and what ones are just complete trash all the time.


Everything is just tempo. And drawing cards is just providing yourself with options to change that tempo. But having cards isn't what is important, having cards that can either currently affect the tempo or cards that will affect the tempo in the future is what matters. A four card hand could be better than a six card hand, it's the tempo the cards are able to create that matters.


Aggro decks rely on creating as much tempo as possible in the shortest amount of time. The easiest way to do that is to play cheap spells. Earlier in the game these cards have the ability to affect the tempo of the game more, but late in the game they will barely affect the tempo of the game. Control decks play slower spells that generate massive amounts of tempo like Grave Titan, but because these cards generate no tempo in the early game they need to be able to preserve themselves or else that card won't be worth it. So control decks need to play some cheap spells still like counter and removal so that they don't roll over to aggro.


The amount of tempo a card provides is always situational. So really you just gotta look at the game from a matchup perspective. How good are my draws against my opponent. You cannot rely on a certain metric to judge cards. By playing a lot of Magic you'll begin to intuitively reason about what cards could potentially be strong in a lot of possible matchups, and what ones are just complete trash all the time.




I'm fairly certain this is a repeat of what I said in the last few paragraphs starting with "Okay enough..." I don't see how you can't use a metric to evaluate which cards are good for an aggro deck and for a control deck. For an aggro deck, I said the y-intercept is higher, meaning their initial tempo is much higher than control and it increases until around turn 4 or 5, then slows down and becomes less significant (correlates to your statement "Earlier in the game these cards have the ability to affect the tempo of the game more, but late in the game they will barely affect the tempo of the game."). For a control deck, the y-intercept is lower, but the growth is exponential (correlates to your statement "Control decks play slower spells that generate massive amounts of tempo like Grave Titan...").

In other words, cards that generate more resources in the opening game such as Ponder (which is a card substitution card), Forbidden alchemy (another card subtitution), Sign in Blood (C.A card), etc. are better for a control deck and then those resources are spent later in the game on T.A cards such as Supreme Verdict, Karn Liberated , Angel of Serenity, etc. Doesn't seem too hard to apply - I stated that value judgment is utilized often for T.A, which goes with that 'intuition' about what cards are strong in what matchups, etc. Also, nothing is a replacement for playtesting, but when creating a deck from scratch, this doesn't seem like a bad guideline.

The problem is that cards like Divination can't just be seen as "They give X card advantage on Turn Y for Z mana." What Divination does is incredibly deck dependent. The cards in your deck define what "Draw two." actually means, since those are the spells you'll be drawing after all


In this specific example of drawing cards, the effect of actually drawing cards is generally stronger in aggro decks than control decks. An aggro deck's spells are generally cheaper, so it can often capitalize on extra cards better than control. If your control deck runs a massive amount of four drops it might not be relevant whether you cast Divination on turn three or not, because you're simply flooding your hand with more four mana spells that compete with each other.


This doesn't mean having two five drops in your hand makes one a dead card. If your best five drop at the time can gain you enough advantage to continue the game then the second one will benefit from that, but if your cards don't provide you with reasonable options then you could easily get stuck in a situation where all your spells provide you with a null advantage. This is why 40 Counterspell and 40 Stone Rain decks don't really work, if your opponent resolves a threat you are dead to a lack of spell that actually swing the tempo so that it is favorable.


And this is why numbers don't really help you. Some decks want Gush, some want Compulsive Research, some want Think Twice, some want Mulldrifter, and some don't want to run anything more than a Preordain. None of these spells is numerically better than the other somehow, they all do different things in different contexts, and you gain a feel for how they operate with other cards and where they are strongest by playing with them.


When limited players are evaluating a fresh set they'll often reference knowledge of older cards they've played with, but acknowledge how the new format could operate differently and how the spell could be really subject to change because of it. There's just way to much to consider to grind individual cards down to any sort of useful numerical metric in a vacuum.

The format you play in is also very important, cards like supreme verdict are much better in standard than they usually are in vintage
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it

The problem is that cards like Divination can't just be seen as "They give X card advantage on Turn Y for Z mana." What Divination does is incredibly deck dependent. The cards in your deck define what "Draw two." actually means, since those are the spells you'll be drawing after all


In this specific example of drawing cards, the effect of actually drawing cards is generally stronger in aggro decks than control decks. An aggro deck's spells are generally cheaper, so it can often capitalize on extra cards better than control. If your control deck runs a massive amount of four drops it might not be relevant whether you cast Divination on turn three or not, because you're simply flooding your hand with more four mana spells that compete with each other.


This doesn't mean having two five drops in your hand makes one a dead card. If your best five drop at the time can gain you enough advantage to continue the game then the second one will benefit from that, but if your cards don't provide you with reasonable options then you could easily get stuck in a situation where all your spells provide you with a null advantage. This is why 40 Counterspell and 40 Stone Rain decks don't really work, if your opponent resolves a threat you are dead to a lack of spell that actually swing the tempo so that it is favorable.


And this is why numbers don't really help you. Some decks want Gush, some want Compulsive Research, some want Think Twice, some want Mulldrifter, and some don't want to run anything more than a Preordain. None of these spells is numerically better than the other somehow, they all do different things in different contexts, and you gain a feel for how they operate with other cards and where they are strongest by playing with them.


When limited players are evaluating a fresh set they'll often reference knowledge of older cards they've played with, but acknowledge how the new format could operate differently and how the spell could be really subject to change because of it. There's just way to much to consider to grind individual cards down to any sort of useful numerical metric in a vacuum.




Okay so, card draw is terrible in most cases for aggro decks. You personally lose tempo and the opponent's tempo is unchanged. You're right that a card is deck dependent, but first you have to understand the overall goal of a deck as an aggro, aggro-control, or a control deck. Yes, if you cast Divination on turn 4 or 5 you may very well be able to cast what you draw much better in an aggro deck than in a control deck because of mana curve (which is a complicated other consideration), but overall card advantage is not a concern for aggro decks - Tempo advantage is. If you are casting a Divination in an aggro deck on turn 4 or 5, you already lost in most cases.

When you're talking about cards in your hand, that's talking about playing the game, not building a deck. Yes, you have to compete 5 mana spells with one another when you build a deck, but to compete those spells you have to look at what the goal of your deck is. Control decks, at about turn 4 or 5 (so 4 mana spells and 5 mana spells mostly), want to turn their card advantage and special purposes (card substitution mostly) into Tempo advantage.

It's your personal opinion and analyzing skills that allow you to perceive what gives you the best tempo advantage in a given format. Thundermaw Hellkite and Tamiyo, the Moon Sage have different functions. Thundermaw Hellkite increases your tempo more than Tamiyo, and situationally will decrease your opponent's tempo less, the same, or more than Tamiyo. However, Tamiyo also is capable of providing card advantage which can be converted into tempo advantage later (her second ability and third ability).  In order to understand which is better for your deck, you need to understand both your deck's objectives and the current metagame. If your deck is control, and most metagame decks are utilizing artifacts like trading post, then Tamiyo is much better. If your deck is aggro, and most metagame decks are utilizing lingering souls, then Thundermaw Hellkite is better. If there is a situation where, say, your deck is aggro and most metagame decks are utilizing removal that can target Thundermaw, then it's important to see how many pieces of this removal these decks mainly have and how many other tempo advantage threats your deck has. It's difficult to evaluate the metagame though, so most of the time it's better to simply evaluate a deck's goal and whether the card contributes to it or not. Playtesting is the best way to evaluate the metagame.

P.S: This made me think of another category just for permanents - Vulnerability.

Well, for all your examples, they each suit a different style deck. Gush provides a personal tempo loss, no change to your opponent's tempo, +1 card advantage, and mana advantage is dependent on whether you hard cast it or bounce islands (which of course it'll be the latter, so mana will be constant). Gush has special purposes that'd better place it in combo decks than control decks, because it's tempo loss is large enough to outweigh the card advantage and mana constant in most cases. Compulsive Research provides a tempo loss, no change to your opponents tempo, +1 or 0 card advantage, -3 mana advantage, and has special purposes of thinning your deck (which any card draw engine does). It's better suited for control style decks (when I say control, I just mean the archetype that exponentially increases its tempo advantage). This assumes you use it on yourself - if you use it on someone else, it serves a special purpose which goes with combo decks. Think Twice is a unique card to evaluate. Let's assume you cast it for both it's normal cost and flashback cost. Under this case, it's simply a worse Divination which I evaluated earlier. However, it has special purposes - It is an instant, which means it is good in specifically miracle decks to allow you to draw on the opponent's turn. The mana disadvantage it provides can offset the disadvantage blue generally puts itself in (the risk of not playing any spells during a turn and therefore wasting X mana advantage because blue mostly plays reactionary spells). If a deck has many reaction spells (counters, removal, etc.) that have to be held during an opponents turn, Think Twice is an okay engine for not wasting mana advantage while still replacing itself or providing card advantage. Going to stop there, you get my point.

You're right, there is way too much to consider. Even for Standard, the amount of cards is overwhelming to attempt to evaluate every interaction with one card and every other card in standard. However, I believe that this general guideline can set your mind into the right direction with creating a deck that serves its purpose (all cards contribute to the goal). By no means am I stating that this is a clear-cut way to say that a card is good or bad for your deck, there are some cards that I am sure evaluate out as a bad card for your deck but turn out to be good and vice versa, but I'd say this seems right most of the time.

The format you play in is also very important, cards like supreme verdict are much better in standard than they usually are in vintage



The umbrella term is card comparison. The broader the format (aka vintage), the more cards have strictly better substitutes, better suit your decks goals, etc. Format is very important in considering deck, I just chose Standard for examples.

Yes, but you see, all cards provide tempo advantage in an abstract manner or else they wouldn't be played in a deck. Magic is all about tempo. A hand full of cards doesn't help you when you're at zero life, only the spells that prevent you from ending up in that situation and killing your opponent instead matter. I know your system is supposed to show how cards convert resources to other resources, and how those other resources can be converted back into raw tempo, but it doesn't really work that way. You having a Grizzly Bear on the battlefield with your opponent at 8 life is not some quantity of tempo, it just is what it is.


The reason I brought up the draw spells is because of how hard it is to compare them numerically. Having Think Twice in your deck makes all your instants better. Sometimes you'll leave mana up for something like a Doom Blade and it won't find a profitable target, that is what Think is for. It fills in inconsistent plays by cycling and then giving you more options again from the graveyard. There was a deck I was playing Think Twice in. However, the format changed up. Then almost every deck was making powerful turn two and three plays that I'd have to respond to 90% of the time, and if I didn't dance with these decks I'd fall behind and lose, because none of the spells in my deck were able to generate enough tempo to stabalize again once I let them get away.


This is where Gush came in. Gush is amazing because it free mana wise. You can both respond to your opponent and draw cards. It actually rewards you for using up your mana. With Gush in the picture though I had to keep my deck on the low end. If I had too many 3+ mana spells in my deck I'd get hands with both Gush and them. This restricts my options, only allowing me to play Gush profitably after I have played out my other options, and then it would generally just be worse than a different draw spell anyway. Sometimes the other options aren't good enough and I could be forced to draw more. However, this then renders those other cards unplayable for awhile since I'm behind in lands. So now I have nothing to do with the tempo I gained and my opponent can come back.


For a deck that has nothing to hide and is just going to tap out every turn, Compulsive Research will in most cases be a lot better than the two previous draw spells. In a deck that plans to win by accumulating advantage rather than playing insane finishers, Mulldrifter will probably be better than Compulsive, since it provides an option for a body.


How good the spells are is not only deck dependent, but highly meta dependent as well, as seen by my Think Twice example. Assigning numbers to cards just complicates the deckbuilding process, it doesn't help it. You don't need a calculator to figure out the simple crap like Concentrate is always going to be better than Brilliant Plan in a deck running only blue mana sources, and a metric isn't going to help much with the more complex comparisons. Reasoning about potential situations your deck can get into in your head and AB meta testing are really what you need to be doing. Numbers can help you make decissions, but they should be numbers that reflect firm objective qualities of a card, such as "How often am I able to cast this spell on turn three with my current manabase." Those numbers are useful.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by "mana advantage" at all. If anything, it sounds similar to Tempo.



He is a legendary 2/2 for three mana in two colors, making him in that regard worse than Watchwolf. But he also has hexproof (which is worth one and a half to two mana) and puts a 4/4 flying token on the battlefield each attack, and since copies of tokens like this don't have "exile at EOT" (It's part of the token-making ability.), you can abuse him (or Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker, or Angelic Favor) with populate pretty easily.

And yes, "mana advantage" seems to be a subset of tempo. Tempo includes so many plays, though. But I really wouldn't call Divination when I'm in topdeck mode a bad play.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
The format you play in is also very important, cards like supreme verdict are much better in standard than they usually are in vintage



The umbrella term is card comparison. The broader the format (aka vintage), the more cards have strictly better substitutes, better suit your decks goals, etc. Format is very important in considering deck, I just chose Standard for examples.



I'll take your own examples, think twice is insanely good in my w/u "go" deck (which basically means turn 1 : put land down, go.... you play, instant 1 mana....... turn 2, put land down, go... you play, instant 2 mana, etc). While divination that gives more cards for mana is insanely useless.

It doesnt matter how much you want to give a power level to cards, it's just not something that cant be done with so many interactions and so many possibilities. A black lotus can be the turning point of a deck and be close to useless in another deck. I got 3 decks out of 10ish that I use right now, that wouldnt use 4 black lotus if they were legal or would need to undergo a complete overhaul to abuse it. But even if I ONLY had those 3 decks, I know that black lotus is the best card in the game hands down (yeah that's debatable, dont care if you dont believe it's the best card in the whole game, you understand my point, looking at you all nitpicking tards)
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
The problem with this system is that evaluating a single card in this way doesn't take into account it's use for interacting with other cards. You can't put that into a formula as it is affected by the metagame and other things such as combos.
Here's how I evaluate a card, quality of the art / ability based on mana cost. That's about it.

For a card like Fleeting Distraction, an estimate 10 cents.

For one like, Geth, Lord of the Vault, around $25

Jace, Architect of Thought, not even worth the gum on my shoes.
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and mindless.
You can't evaluate single cards for a number of reasons others have mentioned, but the biggest point boils down to the fact that even if you could give every card a specific numerical value, it still wouldn't be useful in any way.

The only reason to bother assigning numbers is if useful information can then be derived from those numbers. In other words, your numbers should be able to stand in for personally evaluating each card. If you can't use the numbers to consistently pull the best possible deck, your numbers are unhelpful.

To go back to the Ponder/Think Twice/Compulsive Research/Forbidden Alchemy example: Let's say you decide Think Twice has the highest number using your measurement. If there are enough situations where choosing a different option over Think Twice is the right call, then the numbers don't mean anything. (Unless there's another cards (there isn't) which fits every deck best in which case your evaluation is just wrong)

Certainly you could say that the numbers are just a 'general guideline' but those are easy enough for an intuitive player to build on their own. You shouldn't need a system to numerically tell you that Ember Shot is not a card you need to be seriously considering. You should be able to make that call yourself in a few seconds.

The other massive issue is that your system does nothing to solve the problem of needing specific cards to do specific things. If all I have is a list of values for each card, I have to hunt for a card that both has a high value and actually fits in the slot I have open. Far more useful than a system which allows you to determine a value for cards would be a system for categorizing cards. For instance "Blue instants which generate card advantage." Gatherer already makes this pretty easy. If you know you're building a monored aggro deck a search for "Red creatures with CMC 1 and power 2 or greater" will help you find most of the options you'd want. However a category system would help catch things like Stromkirk Noble that might fit such a slot despite not having a printed power greater than 1.
Immature College Student (Also a Rules Advisor)
Here's how I evaluate a card, quality of the art / ability based on mana cost. That's about it.

For a card like Fleeting Distraction, an estimate 10 cents.

For one like, Geth, Lord of the Vault, around $25

Jace, Architect of Thought, not even worth the gum on my shoes.



You can play Distraction more easily, and it's a cantrip. It's a cantrip that can go on the stick.

The biggest thing going in Geth's favor over Distraction is that he's much rarer.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
However a category system would help catch things like Stromkirk Noble that might fit such a slot despite not having a printed power greater than 1.



You could always do a search like 1+or+o%3A%2B%29">this.
THUNDEROUSTRUTH:

A wise man once said: "Most thoughts have already been thought through by past generations"

And this is one of those thoughts

The simplest possible card evaluation is based on mana.

1 colored mana adds 3 points
1 colorless mana adds 1 point
being artifact adds 1 point
being creature adds 1 point
having a disadvantage adds 1 point

most abilities on a card costs 1 point
1 power or toughness costs 1 point

and thats about it...

Some abilities cost more than 1 point, and by evaluating the manacost of similare cards you can mostly figure out what the average cost of almost any mainstream ability is.

Three colorless mana doesn't equal one colored mana. Mishra's Workshop is in no way balanced in most formats, and that even has a restriction attached. Toughness is also in no way equal to power. Elite Vanguard is a pretty good aggressive creature, but Kraken Hatchling won't be seen anywhere outside limited.
THUNDEROUSTRUTH:

A wise man once said: "Most thoughts have already been thought through by past generations"

And this is one of those thoughts

The simplest possible card evaluation is based on mana.

1 colored mana adds 3 points
1 colorless mana adds 1 point
being artifact adds 1 point
being creature adds 1 point
having a disadvantage adds 1 point

most abilities on a card costs 1 point
1 power or toughness costs 1 point

and thats about it...

Some abilities cost more than 1 point, and by evaluating the manacost of similare cards you can mostly figure out what the average cost of almost any mainstream ability is.




rofl.... at least sleeping's attempt was decent.... I got a deck that uses 3X urzatron, 4X vesuva and 4X each locus land. I'm pretty sure that my mana base is worth more points than 21 basics lands. My 4X Cabal Coffers are also damn useless, it doesnt give any mana, it has an ability, so all cabal coffers are worth -1 points! We should all stop playing cabal coffers!! Oh wait!!!! They are the cornerstone of my mono black combo deck and I got 8 cards dedicated mostly to fetching them (12 if you include the cabal coffers themselves)

Again, you've shown you were clueless
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
MOIMOI:

As always you stagger into a discusion without thought of what is being discussed exactly!

This is about measuring an INDIVIDUAL CARD. Nothing about several cards and their mana, but I guess that from our previous engagements about just that, you simply jumped to conclussions and thought I was talking about THAT!

Well, I forgive you, and welcome to the subject of figuring out card values!

SLEEPING:
If you look at cards with more power than toughness, and compare them, you will also find that there is a rule that more power than toughness costs some points.

I have to admit that I forgot another part of the "Equation".

rare cards get +2 points
uncommon cards get +1 points

Now try viewing ball lightning by this.

It got RRR = 9 points
It's rare = 2 points (11 total)
It's a creature = 1 point (12 total)
It dies at end of turn = 1 point (13 total)

It has trample
It has haste - x points
It has more power than toughness - x points
It has 6 power - 6 points
it has 1 toughness - 1 point

So that leaves 6 points between the trample/haste/most power

But we need comparison to get there!

Elite vanguard is a nice way to start:

W = 3 points
being creature = 1 point
being uncommon = 1 point
(total of 5 points)

2 power = -2 points
1 power = -1 point
having most power ?

Well the backside of having most power figures out to be 2 points.

Take a couple of unadvanced creatures with trample and haste and you got the values for the rest of it!

For a common, kraken hatchling is EQUAL in its mana and abilities, and is balanced perfectly.

For an uncommon the vanguard is also perfectly balanced.

Comparing a common vs an uncommon is not the best idea, but considering that I forgot the rarity part you too are forgiven.

This system is by no way any invention of mine, and it's more than 10 years old, and at a time I used it to evaluate all new creaturecards with it, since the only other thing easily point comparable tends to be burn.

It also has to be said that at the start of magic, cards having multicolor were thought of having an edge, which meant that they got -2 points for being multi.

Later that mentality shifted as it was discovered that splitting a deck into more colors is a stretch on the mana-base, the - 2 points disappeared.

And for a finnisher:

Why was mohameti djinn such a rush back in the olden days?

4 colorless = +4
UU = +6
Rare = +2
(Total 12)

Flying = -1
6 power = -6
6 toughness = -6
(Total 13)

Why because it was 1 point better than the "normal" cards at that time.

sort of like a wild mongrel.
   

 
Why in the hell would you measure a card as an individual? The whole point of magic is to have interactions in between cards. Doubling season would be completely useless on it's own. Combining it with a bunch of token/counter intensive cards is what makes it an insanely valuable card in the decks it's played in.

So once again, YOU are clueless and are back with your crackpot theories that dont mean anything. Your system rates insanely useful cards as useless, it's kind of scary that you might influence some poor soul into believing you.

How in the hell is the color of a card's mana cost affecting the points POSITIVELY?!?!?! Ball lightning shouldnt get +9 from the fact that it's RRR, it should get a minus, because it's an handicap in all but monored decks. Wait.... positives are negatives effects and negatives are positive effects!? Only you could come up with that...

Also rarity doesnt have ANYTHING to do in the rating of any card, ever.
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
MOIMOI:

THUNDEROUSTHRUTH, who stated this line almost at the beginning, is my clue:

"I decided it was time I came up with the most 'formula-oriented' way I could evaluate a card, and then hopefully see if I can apply it to the overall deck to make something more competitive."

What would be more simple than evaluating single cards, and picking those with most points above normal cards. by doing this, the whole deck could essentially be filled with overpowered cards, and somehow overpowered tends to win.

From there he can start to build the deck by removing some of the picks that cannot be fit into what he want's to build!

Im as cluefull as ever, and you are forgiven again! (For the "what?" number of times)

I can show you plenty of examples where the point-system adds up if you feel the need, but somehow I doubt you will listen to proff put right in front of you.

But it's nice to see you mingling with my answers, I was starting to think I was no longer your favorite troll

(Moimoi loves trolls = wicked is a troll = moimoi loves wicked!? Well we all knows how that one ends) 
MOIMOI:

THUNDEROUSTHRUTH, who stated this line almost at the beginning, is my clue:

"I decided it was time I came up with the most 'formula-oriented' way I could evaluate a card, and then hopefully see if I can apply it to the overall deck to make something more competitive."

What would be more simple than evaluating single cards, and picking those with most points above normal cards. by doing this, the whole deck could essentially be filled with overpowered cards, and somehow overpowered tends to win.

From there he can start to build the deck by removing some of the picks that cannot be fit into what he want's to build!

Im as cluefull as ever, and you are forgiven again! (For the "what?" number of times)

I can show you plenty of examples where the point-system adds up if you feel the need, but somehow I doubt you will listen to proff put right in front of you.

But it's nice to see you mingling with my answers, I was starting to think I was no longer your favorite troll

(Moimoi loves trolls = wicked is a troll = moimoi loves wicked!? Well we all knows how that one ends) 



Do show me, I want to laugh

I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
Well here goes:

1G = +4
being crt = +1
(total of 5)

2/2 = 4

wow, the formula tells us that grizzly bears are not worth it!

2W = +5
being crt = +1
(total of 6)

2/2 = 4

Wow, the formula tells us that pearl unicorn is REALLY not worth it!!!

If the formula can detect crap, it can be used to find the good stuff as well...

Need something more advanced? 




SLEEPING:
If you look at cards with more power than toughness, and compare them, you will also find that there is a rule that more power than toughness costs some points.

I have to admit that I forgot another part of the "Equation".

rare cards get +2 points
uncommon cards get +1 points

Now try viewing ball lightning by this.

It got RRR = 9 points
It's rare = 2 points (11 total)
It's a creature = 1 point (12 total)
It dies at end of turn = 1 point (13 total)

It has trample
It has haste - x points
It has more power than toughness - x points
It has 6 power - 6 points
it has 1 toughness - 1 point

So that leaves 6 points between the trample/haste/most power

But we need comparison to get there!

Elite vanguard is a nice way to start:

W = 3 points
being creature = 1 point
being uncommon = 1 point
(total of 5 points)

2 power = -2 points
1 power = -1 point
having most power ?

Well the backside of having most power figures out to be 2 points.

Take a couple of unadvanced creatures with trample and haste and you got the values for the rest of it!

For a common, kraken hatchling is EQUAL in its mana and abilities, and is balanced perfectly.

For an uncommon the vanguard is also perfectly balanced.

Comparing a common vs an uncommon is not the best idea, but considering that I forgot the rarity part you too are forgiven.

This system is by no way any invention of mine, and it's more than 10 years old, and at a time I used it to evaluate all new creaturecards with it, since the only other thing easily point comparable tends to be burn.

It also has to be said that at the start of magic, cards having multicolor were thought of having an edge, which meant that they got -2 points for being multi.

Later that mentality shifted as it was discovered that splitting a deck into more colors is a stretch on the mana-base, the - 2 points disappeared.

And for a finnisher:

Why was mohameti djinn such a rush back in the olden days?

4 colorless = +4
UU = +6
Rare = +2
(Total 12)

Flying = -1
6 power = -6
6 toughness = -6
(Total 13)

Why because it was 1 point better than the "normal" cards at that time.

sort of like a wild mongrel.



What the **** does rarity tell you about the power of a card in a deck?

Anyway.
Lodestone Golem
[4]
[5] Creature
[7] Rare
[-1] 8 Combined P/T
[-3] Power > Toughness
So you're trying to tell me that Golem's ability is a negative ability? Not just a negative ability, but a whole -3!? Heck, if you exclude the fact that it's a rare, which you should, it becomes a -5.
Well either that, or you're saying it is one of the more overpowered cards in the game, which is really isn't. It's just solid, and awful for plenty of decks.
Well either that, or you're saying it is one of the more overpowered cards in the game, which is really isn't. It's just solid, and awful for plenty of decks.



Sleeping, he's been going at it (crackpot theories) for quite a while, I've always been there to make sure that the public didnt accept them as a valid theories since they all were... well.... crackpot theories
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
SLEEPING:

Lodestone golem:

4 colorless = 4
being creature =1
being artifact = 1
being rare = 2 
(Total = 8)

1 special ability = 1
total power/tough = 8
most power = 2
(Total = 11)

Meaning it's a card worth it's mana-cost!

This card has +3 above the normal value of the card, but depending on the deck it's ability becomes a +/- so it's either 2 or 4 point above normal, though this is not part of the way the equation should be used.

Again, the system is more than 10 years old, and noone has upgraded it in any way to deflect powercreep. Considering that, I think it still has some nice value as a system.

Only problem about it is that it IS a bit advanced in remembering all bonusses and minusses AND having to recalculate all new abilities from scratch, and sometimes several cards conflict with the costs of their abilities (At a point in wotc R&D some cards had their points based on color. Flying was considered a blue ability, and green cards would thus need 2 points to get flying, which makes the equation fail a lot when older cards are involved)
SLEEPING:

Lodestone golem:

4 colorless = 4
being creature =1
being artifact = 1
being rare = 2 
(Total = 8)

1 special ability = 1
total power/tough = 8
most power = 2
(Total = 11)

Meaning it's a card worth it's mana-cost!

This card has +3 above the normal value of the card, but depending on the deck it's ability becomes a +/- so it's either 2 or 4 point above normal, though this is not part of the way the equation should be used.

Again, the system is more than 10 years old, and noone has upgraded it in any way to deflect powercreep. Considering that, I think it still has some nice value as a system.

Only problem about it is that it IS a bit advanced in remembering all bonusses and minusses AND having to recalculate all new abilities from scratch, and sometimes several cards conflict with the costs of their abilities (At a point in wotc R&D some cards had their points based on color. Flying was considered a blue ability, and green cards would thus need 2 points to get flying, which makes the equation fail a lot when older cards are involved)



Failures :
5-3 is good in some occasions, but in this occasion, it's VERY BAD, the golem would be worth so much more if it was a 3-5 since it's would be out of most burn and creature's range. He shouldnt get a +2 from that, he should get a -2 for being a lightning rod

His ability is insanely good, yet you only give it a +1................... his ability outweight ANYTHING else about him, it should be +10 since it's a game winner ability.

Rarity... lol........
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
Even more than Doubling Season is Isochron Scepter.

Counterspell
Heroes' Reunion (bad just for being a pure lifegain card, but the best of the bunch)
Lightning Helix and other 2 cmc removal spells
Unsummon (lol)
Fog (come at me bro)
cantrips (these become card advantage very quickly)

But it's completely useless on its own.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt

Consider this.


Llanowar Elves, a perfectly playable ramp card in most formats. Not amazing, not terrible, should probably be a zero.


[3]
[4] Creature
[2] 1/1
Therefor the ability is worth two points. That sounds about right. It's a good ability, mana is powerful.


Now lets look at Skyshroud Troopers.


[6]
[7] Creature
[1] 3/3
[-1] ": Add to your mana pool."


How about Copper Myr?


[2]
[3] Creature
[4] Artifact
[2] 1/1
[0] ": Add to your mana pool."


Your system says that Troopers is better than Elves in most cases, and Copper Myr is usually about the same. This is absolutely untrue though. Troopers is an awful card, Copper Myr is fairly mediocre, and Elves is usually decent. That's because this ability is much more relevant early game, and using the ability means that you won't be using the body much. The system doesn't intuitively know these things, and to invent new qualifiers for the system would be both complicated and futile. The system is also completely out of touch in terms of mana costs still. Wurmcoil Engine would be much more powerful for than .


The system also won't tell you that: In certain decks Elf tribal matters. In many decks is the same as in costs, and in others is the same as when a card provides it. How good a specific ramp card is depends specifically on your curve. Etc.

Llanowar elves are better(equal? couldnt care) than birds of paradise with his stupid method.... wait no, I never said that, hey wickedarman, I got a bunch of AWESOME llanowar elves to trade, would you mind trading your birds of paradise with me? I'll trade you as many llanowar elves as you have birds! It will be a fair deal if we use your system, hell I'm feeling generous, I'll even throw in 2 extra llanowar elves for free if you trade me a playset of birds!
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
What I find funny is that the elves make Copper Myr the default "worst of the cycle".

But it's an artifact, and I like green to get the worst of artifact-related cycles.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Llanowar elves are better(equal? couldnt care) than birds of paradise with his stupid method.... wait no, I never said that, hey wickedarman, I got a bunch of AWESOME llanowar elves to trade, would you mind trading your birds of paradise with me? I'll trade you as many llanowar elves as you have birds! It will be a fair deal if we use your system, hell I'm feeling generous, I'll even throw in 2 extra llanowar elves for free if you trade me a playset of birds!


Birds has seen print 14 times, they really aren't that exciting or hard to find. Most people who have played for a few years have birds out the binder.
57170298 wrote:
Borrowing the East Wind (P3) - Haha, it's like Hurricane but for horsemanship? That makes hilariously little sense. "Oh man, the wind is so much worse up on this horse."
57044478 wrote:
Jon Finkel can win a Magic tournament with a ham sandwich. That doesn't mean ham sandwiches are now the metagame breaker.
97820278 wrote:
Koth: I'm the first viable red planeswalker. Who are you? Tibalt: I'm a two-mana red planeswalker. Koth: I'm the last viable red planeswalker.
Llanowar elves are better(equal? couldnt care) than birds of paradise with his stupid method.... wait no, I never said that, hey wickedarman, I got a bunch of AWESOME llanowar elves to trade, would you mind trading your birds of paradise with me? I'll trade you as many llanowar elves as you have birds! It will be a fair deal if we use your system, hell I'm feeling generous, I'll even throw in 2 extra llanowar elves for free if you trade me a playset of birds!


Birds has seen print 14 times, they really aren't that exciting or hard to find. Most people who have played for a few years have birds out the binder.



True, but the birds are better than the elves in most ways. One point of power isn't usually a big deal, especially for a utility creature.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
I got my first Birds two years ago, now I think I have about sixteen. I have just as many Birds as Lightning Bolt. I don't even like Birds all that much.
Too bad you don't. It's one of green's premier creatures.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
It's certainly strong, just not all that interesting. I'm a bigger fan of more explosive cards like Lotus Cobra, Noble Hierarch, and Joraga Treespeaker. Also all the previously mentioned cards have amazing artwork. I like the Seventh Edition birds artwork, but all the Birds I have are with the stupid Ravnica artwork.
A lot of you missed the point............
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
A lot of you missed the point............


No, it's more like we went off topic and just started talking about Birds.