[MTG] zendikar and the art of card evaluation

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > [MTG] zendikar and the art of card evaluation

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

not a thread that has anything to do in particular w/ zendikar i just wanted a pun.

card evaluation is hard and even people who are good at it get poo poo wrong. there are a lot of things to consider and i think some discussion that won't get derailed by someone's fnm bad beats story is a good thing.

poo poo we could talk about
- best case scenario mentality
- the idea of "strictly better" and metrics to compare cards w/ similar effects
- "dies to removal" or the jace/doomblade test
- what makes a card of a given type good
- analysis of specific cards
- LR's quadrant theory thing

here's the post from the main thread that made me post this

Serperoth posted:

A Strictly Better Post

Strictly better refers to power in a vacuum. Against a goldfish and whatnot, with the only concern being legality (Black Lotus is strictly better than Lotus Petal. It's also banned almost everywhere), and format details (more of a hypothetical thing, but it needs to be mentioned). It's a very narrow thing, since the points of comparison aren't always valid against one another. Lightning Bolt is better than Shock and Searing Spear, but Shock and Spear differ in both mana and damage dealt, so comparing the two in a vacuum is moot.

So, for the points of comparison:

Same thing, less mana
Lightning Bolt and Searing Spear, for example. They're both Instants, that do 3 damage to target creature or player. Bolt does it for cheaper, making it strictly better than Spear. Similar situation with Counterspell and Cancel

Bigger numbers, same mana
Lightning Bolt and Shock. Both Instants, they both cost R. Bolt does 1 more damage to target creature or player than Shock, making it strictly better.

Same thing, with an upside/without a downside
Fleecemane Lion and Watchwolf. They're both 3/3s for WG, except Fleecemane can become a 4/4 hexproof indestructbile as well. It doesn't matter how marginal, it's still an upside. Similar logic with downsides.

Same thing, easier to cast
This has to do with mana. A spell that costs C is harder to cast than one costing C/D for example. Similar to colours, 2C is better than 1CC, and 1CC is better than 1CD.

Specific mana doesn't count (A spell that costs UUU and does the same as one costing BBB are equal), and other alternate costs are harder to compare if they're not the same. In general, pretty much everything (Phyrexian mana, hybrid, 2/C) is better than a straight coloured mana, since it offers an alternative. A spell that costs 1CC and does a hypothetical thing is worse the same spell costing 1(C/P)(C/P), or one costing 1(2/C)(2/C) for example.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 15:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:26

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

i think the key thing is that we're limited on card slots when deckbuilding and discussions of strict superiority/inferiority are really around that point. in essence, putting a card in your deck is incurring some change in your EV. this is true outside of this discussion, if i put another land in my deck it has an effect on how well my deck achieves its goals/responds to other decks whether that's positive or negative.

the metrics in your post are good ones to identify when considering two cards in the same role which one is giving you a positive change to EV. lightning bolt and shock are both removal cards that go to the face. there are scenarios where it's better that you have shock than bolt but they are few and far between, largely where the card is performing something other than it's intended role. so when slotting a card into the deck that wants bolt or shock, playing shock to hit those fringe scenarios is losing you a ton of value in the normal scenario. in fact i'd say in all decks looking for red removal that can go to the face, the value of playing bolt is greater than the value of playing shock. saying bolt is "strictly better" than shock is in reference to this fact imo, that across the board decks looking for that effect would rather have bolt.

you could maths out this poo poo but who has the time amirite

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 16:11

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

since the other thread shifted onto "dies to removal" i will also blab about that some. there's two aspects to that i think.

one is that removal is generally a tempo positive play (in constructed, in limited wotc has been moving removal away from that) compared to creatures that "die to removal". doom blade is good because it deals with a 5 mana threat for 2 mana, netting you 3 mana worth of tempo. so you want your creatures to either maintain parity even if they eat removal, or provide some value when you cast them in order to recoup some of the tempo disadvantage. like your opponent abrupt decaying your tarmogoyf is nbd because they spent two mana and a card to counter your two mana and a card.

the second is that there is a nonzero chance that your opponent doesn't have removal, especially as the game goes long (or that you can deal with the removal). there are a lot of creatures that saw play (and see play) without gaining value ETB or being tempo neutral/low in tempo loss compared to removal (or tempo advantageous even) because if your opponent doesn't have removal that turn, you'll gain value. in my head the canonical example is baneslayer angel. does nothing until you untap, but when you untap with it you're in a commanding position. that one can be slippery to evaluate and is somewhat meta dependent, but it's something to consider when talking about whether stuff dies to removal.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 16:23

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

yeah if someone wants to post a finance thread go for it but i'd rather talk about why cards are good than why cards cost money

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 17:39

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

Elyv posted:

I actually can't think of a ton that fit this. Baneslayer yes, but Baneslayer is such an enormously powerful card against aggressive strategies that it's able to get around being an unprotected 5 drop that doesn't protect itself. In the 6 or so years, the line seems to be around 4.5 mana. 4 drops that are enormously efficient can get see even if they don't protect themselves or provide instant value(for example, Polukranos or Hero of Bladehold), but for 5+ the only one I can think of offhand that doesn't is Baneslayer, and even Baneslayer was meta dependent.

i do think this scenario is rare especially with the push in creature quality. you can get such good value with a lower tempo investment (especially relative to removal) nowadays that i don't think this scenario shows up in constructed. in limited this shows up more i think, with limited being rarer, more expensive, and less tuned to a meta.

all this said i think it's a line in which cards are playable even though they ostensibly die to removal. hero is something i'd class like this, it coexisted with removal like doom blade and go for the throat so you could spend half as much mana to deal with it (vs like hero's downfall now to deal w/ polukranos), but untapping with it put you really far ahead. you're positive on value overall (across games) because the value gained when you stick it is so huge that it eating removal is a reasonable risk to take.

i do think the threshold is fundamentally going to tie to the cost/quality of removal in the format. maybe that's a better way to state it.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 18:28

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

e: wow wrong thread

black potus fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Mar 26, 2015

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 13:19

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

1CC isn't strictly better than 1CD i think, but i'd say it's generally better. with the flexibility of mana in constructed these days i think they're much more even in constructed, but the value of staying on color in limited exists. 1CC means you need to hit two lands of your main color in three turns to cast it on t3, whereas 1CD means you need your splash online. so if you're wanting to reliably cast this theoretical card on t3, 1CD puts a lot more demands on your manabase, i.e. has a higher opportunity cost.

this is all of course assuming that C is your main color/one of your main colors. also that you're trying to drop poo poo t3, i think if it's a removal spell that you can afford to cast like t6 or whatever then that opportunity cost is cut because you can afford to not hit your splash until t6.

that said this is smoothed out a ton in constructed where you can put together whatever the best manabase is for your deck and reliably cast siege rhino t4 no problemo.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 13:22

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

Sigma-X posted:

Is there any loving purpose to trying to argue some sort of vacuum-specific (and therefore always irrelevant) Master Card Evaluation Ruleset or whatever the gently caress the purpose of this thread is?

It seems like comparing cards in a deck is strictly loving better than arguing about hypothetical cards

it's cool to talk about a cool game on a mechanical level.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:21

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

Sigma-X posted:

Yeah but the arguments seem to be focused around some sort of non-contextual vacuum in which important relationships are disregarded when that is disconnected from the actual mechanical design of the game so that we can champion a particular card as Objectively The Best despite context that would render that untrue.

Like Judge's Familiar is objectively better than Cursecatcher in a vacuum except in most/all actual contexts Cursecatcher is better as the benefits that Familiar provides are typically overridden by the tribal benefits of being a merfolk.

i have no desire for this thread to poop out the list of cards in Objective Order of Quality or w/e. i think that card eval is both somethin that's good to practice and also lets us talk about the game on a mechanical level in an interesting way. i think the cursecatcher vs judge familiar example is a good discussion point, how synergies can provide incentive to play the "strictly worse" card.

w/ cursecatcher you're losing natural evasion to take advantage of tribal synergies. but tribal synergies incur a deckbuilding cost. however, merfolk has a robust enough suite of cards with useful effects (islandwalk hoho) that that cost is matched by a more significant payoff. these are all things that have some depth to them and i think are interesting even if we don't come out of the discussion learning the relative power of the two cards. i think talking about it with cards we know the value of is still useful because it helps us consider those points when new cards show up and evaluate them.

like there's no thesis on this thread about how one card is The Tits No Argument Allowed, i just think it's useful to talk out the steps of card evaluation. i started this with the strictly better discussion because even talking about how cards might be on the surface "strictly better" but have contextual downsides is an interesting topic to me. contrasting those scenarios with bolt vs shock.

this is probably rambly as hell i haven't had coffee yet and have a splitting headache.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2015 13:41

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

jesus christ goons are terrible

# ¿ Mar 29, 2015 20:18

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

black potus posted:

i do think this scenario is rare especially with the push in creature quality. you can get such good value with a lower tempo investment (especially relative to removal) nowadays that i don't think this scenario shows up in constructed. in limited this shows up more i think, with limited being rarer, more expensive, and less tuned to a meta.

all this said i think it's a line in which cards are playable even though they ostensibly die to removal. hero is something i'd class like this, it coexisted with removal like doom blade and go for the throat so you could spend half as much mana to deal with it (vs like hero's downfall now to deal w/ polukranos), but untapping with it put you really far ahead. you're positive on value overall (across games) because the value gained when you stick it is so huge that it eating removal is a reasonable risk to take.

i do think the threshold is fundamentally going to tie to the cost/quality of removal in the format. maybe that's a better way to state it.

lets talk about removal again because apparently the phrase "strictly better" gets some peoples undergarments in such disarray that the thread is destined for poo poo if we talk about it. or if someone wants to pick a different topic go for it. above's the last post i made, i didn't see a reply but someone quote that if there was one.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2015 13:16

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

i'm still listenin through this but the most recent so many insane plays podcast does a deep dive into git probe: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-43-gitaxian-probillard/

# ¿ Apr 15, 2015 13:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:26

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Lands: if they tap for multiple colours of mana the turn you play them they are probably good

thalakos lowlands

# ¿ Jun 10, 2015 13:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > [MTG] zendikar and the art of card evaluation