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.)
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?
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.
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 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.
.
