Ratio

Okay, I'm finally through with review posts. It's exciting at first to do reviews, like to type down my thoughts and how I feel the card is going to impact the meta, etc. It's kind of fun and rewarding if your predictions are right! But, as I hit into the commons and uncommons, I'm tired out by the overwhelming amount of cards to review. Core Sets are not small sets and regardless, I'm not going to do the reviews in that manner for the commons and uncommons for future expansions (also due to the responses). Restructuring the post will benefit in terms of my effort to create a good post and the content being created to the amount of time put in to slowly research and think on what to write in.

For now I want to discuss something which struck my mind when I am doing the reviews of the commons and uncommons. This topic also rose when I was walking home with a friend of mine and we were chatting about the effectiveness and efficiency of cards to their casting cost. In other words, ratio.  By now I assume that the following 5 points below are rather familiar right? I have used them in the discussion of commons and uncommons' values, as well as I have used them as a guideline to review the recent core set. 

If I were to discuss this with in relation to the 5 points of guidelines, I will not just zoom into point 3, but all 5 as they do have a role in determining whether the card is good or not. In essence, the ratio of the converted mana cost of a card to the ability (point 3) is actually both very specific, yet broad at the same time; I'm being an oxymoron here, yes, but hear me out! Specificity of the point relates to the literal, cost to ability ratio, while in broad terms, the ratio is a comparison; a relationship between the 2 parts. In simple terms, I'm not just comparing the cards' ratio in the cmc to ability alone. I have to compare it with other similar cards to have a ground base to work on to say which is good and which is bad.

1. Is the card mainly for flavour or ability? 
2. Is the card ability good?
3. Cost to ability ratio? 
4. Has the card been reprinted? If yes, value of the card prior reprint?
5. Demand and supply of card?

1 mana, 3 damage. 4 mana, 12 damage.

Now, to start off, I would like to direct your attention to a classic staple card: Lightning Bolt. Many people say it's the best burn spell in MTG. But, why? Or for another instance, Tarmagoyf is regarded as the best creature the Modern and Legacy format. Why? The answer to both is that they are simply very cost-effective for they do.
For the example of Lightning Bolt, 1 red source to deal 3 damage is really good! But, if you actually wonder how good or effective this is, The explanation is two-fold; take a look to compare the other similar cards that have the same casting cost to it. 

Now if you notice, most of the other cards are not really as good as lightning bolt for the matter of comparison. The closest is being Shock and Chain Lightning as the easiest examples for the sake of shortening a detailed explanation. Yes, given different circumstances, the different effects by other cards may be better (includes the ones I filtered on the gather website on the 2 links above) but given realistically when you want to cast this off from your hand, you won't think so much as to whether the bonus conditions are met. You'll want to just cast this to deal the damage to the opponents, right? And to that point, if the card is more flexible and has lesser restrictions, you welcome more copies on your hand and it will be easier for you to use these as answers or removals.

For the case of Lightning Bolt, here is the breakdown of the 5 guidelines of analysis of the card:

1. Is the card mainly for flavour or ability?
   Ability. The card is usually printed in core sets, which the flavour is not really of importance.
2. Is the card ability good?
   Yes. Deals 3 damage to creature or player at instant speed.
3. Cost to ability ratio?
   1 mana for 3 damage.
4. Has the card been reprinted? If yes, value of the card prior reprint?
   Yes, reprinted and at common rarity; the value stands and differs in the different prints
5. Demand and supply of card?
   Relatively high demand.

Looking at the analysis, it's easy to see why the more recent prints are around $2 - $2.50 per copy. But, hey! $2.50 for a common! That price easily beats a lot of rares and mythic rares by the bulk boxes!

Okay, another example; 

Every card you throw, the Tarmogoyf will eat and grow...

Every deck that plays green will run this guy. Why?

1. Is the card mainly for flavour or ability?
   Flavour & Ability. The card's ability is exactly translated to its flavour text.
2. Is the card ability good?
   Yes. Every card discarded into any graveyard buffs it by +1/+1
3. Cost to ability ratio?
   2 mana for 0/1 at minimum. 2 mana for 7/8 in ideal (7 different types of magic cards). Average it's a 3/4 or 4/5 for 2 mana. (No legend rule, means possible for multiple copies, this means more powerful board presence.)
4. Has the card been reprinted? If yes, value of the card prior reprint?
   Yes, reprinted once with both rarities at rare and mythic rare. Value is incredibly high at $200/pc as of analysis
5. Demand and supply of card?
   Relatively low demand.

And that, is why it's 200 bucks a piece. 

No. Literally. A new phone or a playset of killer cards. I think I know what I want for my Birthday.

But, look closer; what or how have I analyzed? In actual fact, I am talking mostly about ratio. Yes; regardless on how you look at it, be it financial or raw ability of the card, I'm analyzing the card by that as the most important aspect of the card that determines if it is valuable or bulk. There may be better ways to analyze the card like meta compatibility, usage and flexiblity which will be incoporated later, but really, think about it, the bottomline is still a ratio; a comparison in mathematical form. If we translate everything to a number and associate the comparison of these numbers, we basically get a ratio. It is easy to understand and show this concept if we are simply looking at factual numbers like cards with raw vanilla power. But, because magic is stupidly (and amazingly) complicated, I'll dumb it down first before going up the ladder. Let's use a simple example first before moving up the notch.

As we go towards the end, you'll realize that the "ratio" term has basically been replaced by effectiveness, because abilities are in lingual text and it is hard to base a factual number on it. Any number placed would be by instinct instead. Like for example, how do you rate that Doom Blade or Go for the Throat is better in numbers? We can't, so we normally talk about how effective the cards are, or how impactful the cards are against the meta, format or decks, etc... the term for comparing efficiency basically if we give a number representation, we can compare it like a ratio. But, in real life, the gut instinct of everyone is different, so it wouldn't be accurate to give an exact figure. In any case, we (or the majority) would agree that X spell is better than Y spell because of certain reasons.

To start off, let's talk about numbers first.

Effect : Card casting cost  (Abilities)
Maximum damage output : Card casting cost  (Creatures, Damage spells)

If you think about how effective Lightning Bolt is by itself, without comparison, it's actually a very good card by itself. the ratio output is actually very high; 3:1 or 3 in fraction terms. This is also why people takes this as a benchmark to decide if other cards are worthy in Modern or Legacy formats.

Now, what about Shock? In the same comparison, the ratio output is actually 2:1 or 2. It's 1 point lower than Lightning Bolt itself. Hence, it's not as good if compared.

Chain Lightning achieves the same efficiency ratio as Lightning bolt, but loses out due to its casting speed. For general purposes, I'd say instant speed is generally better and preferred to than sorcery speed due to its flexibility. 

"Lightning Strike has an efficiency of 1.5 due to the fact that it is 3 damage for 2 mana. But, it's likely to be preferred over shock."  I know there will be bound to have counter-arguments like this, but bear in mind that on the curve, they sit on different slots. Yes, despite the efficiency of the card is, 3 damage still trumps (triumphs) 2 damage upon resolution. For that matter, it's still 3 damage if you can cast it. But, what I'm discussing here, mind you it's the efficiency of the cards itself; how effective is the card's ability or damage output to its casting cost and not about the effect of damage. 

Now, let's bring up a notch, what about creatures? It's more complicated than just a burn spell; P/T ratio plays an important role on the creature survival, damage output, and defense capabilities. The combined stats or individual P/T stats to its casting cost is also another factor. To me, the general rule of the thumb for a decent card can be broken down to the following:

• Combined stats points > casting cost
• Combined stats : casting cost ratio 
• The P/T stats match the casting cost
• Are there any combat abilities?
• Are there any activated or triggered abilities?

For the first two point, if the combined stats is below casting cost for some reason, then you ought to be better looking out as to why are you even playing this card or even using it. If there are abilities, determine the ability's effect to casting cost ratio (discussed more later). If we take take apart the combined stats and individually see the ratios, we usually won't get an ideal match of the P/T stats to casting cost; we usually may get much lower or occasionally, we do get higher P/T stats to the casting cost, but may be more difficult to cast due to the nature of the colour or ability restrictions. In that case, these factors are also taken into account as an overall casting cost. Like a 3-coloured source for a tri-colour deck is definitely not efficient in the colour management in the mana base. These are also factors that determines the cards' efficiency in casting and being cast.

A basic example:

If it is basic vanilla creature, it will be easy to tell which card is good or bad. Actual fact in limited, all 3 have their uses in both offense and defence, but preference to pick in my opinion is as shown in that order. I would rather have creatures survive longer than being able to just deal out damage and die next turn with no board establishment. I won't apply the ratio here, but you can work them out yourself easily for vanilla creatures. But, let's say a creature with abilities. How do we determine if it's a good card or not? Let's take for instance:

I solemnly swear that I am up to no good :)

For the case of Solemn Simulacrum, if I take the closest 2 cards to his ability and combine them, he's pretty much an awesome break down of 4 mana for the 2 abilies with a free 2/2 body. Or, 2 mana for 2/2 and 1 mana respectively for the ramp and draw. But, come on, 1 mana to draw 1 card is actually quite overpowered if you ask me, so let's stick to the former as an ideal breakdown of the mana cost.

2 mana for tutor, 5 mana for a 6/6 flyer. It's a good deal!

Now, it also doesn't mean that a high mana cost creature with a sick ability slapped onto it will mean it's efficient in the casting cost. Also, it doesn't mean that a low mana creature with either vanilla (no) stats or some small stats will mean it is a definite high efficiency creature. It really depends on what format you play, how effective the creatures or spells are in the meta, and also, your deck variant. A good example is that if you are facing a bunch of creatures of with 3 toughness, a Pyroclasm or Volcanic fallout won't be of use. Instead, Anger of the Gods would be better isn't it?

Also, how the card impacts the board affects the efficiency in casting. For example, Hornet Queen. It may initially see as a 6 mana for a 2/2 flyer and deathtouch. By itself, it doesn't seem very efficient but let's look at the ability. Flying, Deathtouch and 4 OTHER insect tokens also with Flying and Deathtouch! This effectively makes it as 6 mana 6/6 flyer and deathtouch! By just itself it's actually quite effective, but look at the mana needed. Three green sources means that decks heavy on multi-colours are going to find it a hard time to cast this as compared to other creatures. It is outclassed by more effective or more powerful creatures at the 6 mana slot in the curve. The impact it has for constructed format is not great enough to create a dent as compared to other cards. However, that said, the effect is really powerful for limited formats.

What about this? 3 mana 2/1 flying is okay, but what really makes the card shine is that it may be cast at instant speed (Flash). Also, remember the annoying orb? Yes... for an additional white mana, it's on a flying creature with flash... The effectiveness of the card and ease of casting it makes it a very efficient card.

Get the point?


But, let's bring back to what we know and realize. By the time we hit to effects and abilities on creatures and essentially on any other type of MTG card, how do we know that the effectiveness is that high or that low? Remember about me saying about gut instinct and how we just have to give a number in order to compare as a ratio? Well, I have an example to discuss on the point;

Look at the 3 cards above. They essentially do the same thing right? "Search your library for a card and put it into your hand." But, how do we know which is a better card? We obviously know that Demonic Tutor is the best right? But, what does this represent in mathematical ratio?

We assume that if any effect is 1 point, the casting cost is X and we take a comparison, Demonic Tutor will be a ratio of 1/2 or 0.5 points, while Diabolic Tutor is 1/4 or 0.25 points. In fact, regardless the points, it doesn't really matter, what matters more in the end is the comparison between the 2 imaginary numbers you obtained from such a comparison. And for that, In my own EDH, I actually ran Increasing Ambition over Diabolic Tutor. Reason is because Increasing Ambition has a ratio point of 0.2 for its first ability, 0.25 (2 cards for 8 mana so it/s 2/8) for its flashback ability and an overall ratio point of 0.25. This matches the same efficiency as Diabolic Tutor, but for the 1 card, I actually get to tutor out 3 cards instead of one!

Allies on your side, foes on your enemies'

What about planeswalkers? Because the activated ability is kind of free; just in the sense that you add or remove loyalty counters, so apart from the casting cost, you don't really need to sink in additional mana for them already. But, to analyze a good planeswalker, we can use the following 3 points as guidelines.

• Mana cost and Starting loyalty?
• Can it protect itself?
• Relevance of the ability(s).
  - Does the effects establish or aids in board presence?
  - Any form of advantage to gives you to gain the upperhand?

From the analysis, A good planeswalker like Elspeth, Knight Errant, Liliana of the Veil, Karn Liberated and Jace, the Mind Sculptor (Honarable Mention; Garruk(s)) all have some sort of abilities that will protect them from combat damage in a way of disruption, spawning tokens or removals.

Also, their casting cost to their starting loyalty counters are reasonably close, like a ratio point of 1 or close to 1 on average. This means that they either have a higher chance of survival rate upon resolution, or upon activating their ability, they evade most direct damage effects. For the matter, the argument here would be to escape "bolt rage". Basically evading the 3 damage from Lightning Bolt itself. My third point, similar to creature or effect spells, the abilities does matter as to whether the planeswalkers are worth casting. If the abilities are bad or doesn't suit your strategy, then what's the point of playing it? If the abilities are also not impactful enough for you to gain any advantage, then is it worth casting or playing it in the first place?

In summary, when it comes to the underlying comparison of almost everything in MTG can be thought as a ratio with some being a literal comparison by numbers, others by imaginary. You have to do the comparison and decide for yourself if it's worth playing at that cost or go for something that requires the additional cost, that gives bonus effects on top of the desired effect. Then, it really depends on what do you want to use and your reasoning of your preference.