Cost in MTG Cards

MTG Cards as a means of payment

The cost of a normal card in MTG involves not only paying mana but also losing a card. In other words: the cost of casting a spell is one card, plus additional costs. There are of course exceptional cases. Sometimes the casting of a card does not require its waste. This is the case, for example, when a card allows it to be exchanged for another card (such a card is called a cantrip) or reused (for example, playing it again from the graveyard). The cost of a card may involve wasting more than one card. For example, when casting a spell forces the player to discard an additional card or sacrifice a creature on the battlefield.

TBeast Attack

mana costs:
mana amount: 5
complexity: 3

Cloudkin Seer

mana costs:
mana amount: 3
complexity: 1

Don’t miss our sales: no card payment for these!

The great importance of cards as a resource in MTG is obvious to any experienced player. However, there is a tendency among new players to underestimate the importance of this resource. Beginners tend to be much more impressed by the card’s mana cost: they quickly learn to be suspicious of high-cost spells. At the same time, they take time to internalize the fact that every use of spells demands not only that they spend mana but also that they give up a card and this payment is more expensive.

One reason for this tendency is that at first glance cards in MTG appear to be clearly unbalanced. On the one hand, there are mythic cards that can decide the game by themselves, commonly known as bombs. On the other hand, there are cards whose usefulness is very situational, or those whose cost/benefit ratio is so high that they are practically unplayable. This fact creates an illusion that it is not the quantity of cards that is important but their quality. However, the cards are actually much more balanced than it appears at first glance. Admittedly, there are cards that alone can give the player a tremendous advantage. However, these cards are so rare that a player cannot hope to include more than one or two such cards in her deck. Also, these cards are not immune to simple countermeasures that the opponent can use, such as removals. Therefore, the effect of these cards is not as great as one might think at first glance. Yet the bad, unplayable cards simply aren’t played, even in a limited environment. Therefore, despite the significant difference in the strength of cards in MTG, in practice there is a surprising equality between the various cards, and this makes the quantitative balance a central factor in the chance of achieving victory.

The above emphasizes the great importance of obtaining an advantage over the opponent in terms of the amount of cards and therefore the importance of the question of the cost of cards in cards. However, to say that the casting of a certain spell involves giving up 1, 2 or more cards does not indicate anything about the true value of the spell. The important question is how many cards the opponent had to give up as a result of casting the spell. The value of the card will be measured only according to the ratio between the number of cards wasted in casting the spell and the number of cards the opponent had to give up as a result. This issue is called card advantage and is very central to the game. The rule is that this balance should at least stand at 0 (i.e., equality―your card for the opponent’s card) in order for the card to be considered of game quality. There are many exceptions to this rule, but it is important to be aware of the basic principle. This principle has important implications for the way we evaluate different types of cards and we will deal with this in detail later.

While creature boosters generally benefit from a positive CS score, they are expensive in terms of card cost in cards. The reason is that usually the benefit derived from them depends on the survival of the creature they strengthen. Destroying the creature will lead to the loss of their effect. Therefore, using these spells is a kind of gamble: the opponent can use a single card of his (removal) to neutralize two of your cards. Therefore, they maintain a negative relationship in terms of the balance of cards with the opponent. An exception is equipments that can be reused even after the creature they strengthen is eliminated. For this reason, their value in terms of tempo is lower than that of other creature boosters.

Like the cost of spells in mana, the cost of spells in cards also has two components: the amount of cards required as payment and the control of this payment:

The number of cards required as payment

Unsurprisingly, the amount of cards I must sacrifice in order to play a certain spell is a key component in assessing the cost of that spell. As mentioned, the vast majority of the cards in the game cost one card (meaning―I am required to give up the card I am using). However, there are spells that require the player give up additional cards as well as the card being played. For example, spells that require her to discard a card or more from his hand in addition to paying its cost in mana; or spells that require the sacrifice of permanents already on the table.

Heartfire

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Due to the importance of the card resource, the player must judge such spells very carefully. She must make sure that the returns she receives are worth the high cost she is required to pay. High cost? Yes, but not always. The nature of the cards to be sacrificed, the type of spell that requires them to be sacrificed and the form of the sacrifice (i.e., the payment method) may reduce the real cost of these cards.

Vulshok War Boar

mana costs:
mana amount: 4
complexity: 2

Mardu Outrider

mana costs:
mana amount: 3
complexity: 2

Don’t be fooled: these spells aren’t so cheap!

It is not always painful to give up a card.

Often the sacrificed card has almost no value from a certain stage, so giving it up is not significant. Take as an example an expensive creature (said to cost 7 mana) that requires a land sacrifice when it comes into play. If we control 7 lands, sacrificing one land is not usually a problem. In general, it can be said that expensive cards requiring the sacrifice of lands as part of the payment or when they are played should not be judged too harshly. Giving up a creature late in the game isn’t so bad either, if the spell that requires it is powerful. The effectiveness of many cheap creatures is limited to the early stages of the game, and their value decreases significantly as the game progresses. Sacrificing a 2/2 creature in order to bring a 7/7 creature into play 2 or 3 turns earlier will generally be considered a profitable deal.

TrHellkite Hatchling

mana costs:
mana amount: 4
complexity: 2

Wretched Gryff

mana costs:
mana amount: 7
complexity: 1

The speed of sacrifice

The fact that the spell is cast at a sorcery’s speed or instant’s speed may have a great effect on its practical cost in cards. Take as an example removal that requires the sacrifice of a creature . If it is a sorcery, then we will have to give up 2 cards for one of the opponent’s cards (sometimes this pays off, but usually it doesn’t). If it is an instant, on the other hand, we can wait for the right circumstances that will allow the exchange of these 2 cards with 2 of the opponent’s cards. For example: when a removal is played on one of my creatures and therefore it is going to the graveyard anyway. In such a case, the creature’s sacrifice will not count as a cost since it is already lost. Each of us lost one creature and one removal―no cards disadvantage for me!

Launch Party

mana costs:
mana amount: 4
complexity: 1

Bone Splinters

mana costs:
mana amount: 1
complexity: 1

Rot-Tide Gargantua

mana costs:
mana amount: 5
complexity: 2

Casting speed has a quantitative dimension

The form of sacrifice

The form of the sacrifice may also affect the number of cards I am requiresd to sacrifice when I play a certain spell. If the sacrifice is defined as a payment (usually it will be defined as an additional payment to the payment in mana), then losing the additional cards is inevitable. However, sometimes the sacrifice is not defined as a payment but is part of the effect of the card (for example, when the creature enters the battlefield, its controller is required to sacrifice another creature). In such a case, it may happen that the casting of the card will not actually cost me additional cards (for example, a card that requires discard when I have no cards in hand).