Let see the stable cards in contrast with its situational alternatives in this telling

Once upon a time, there was a passionate (but beginner) MTG player (whose identity shall remain confidential) who firmly believed that Artifact Mutation was the ultimate card for drafting. What could possibly surpass the joy of obliterating an opponent’s Dromar’s Attendant while simultaneously generating 5 1/1 tokens? Not to mention the biggest prize of all: the possibility of decimating their Draco with the Mutation! With unwavering hope, she would clutch the Mutation in his hand, patiently awaiting the opportunity to cast it. Alas, that moment never arrived.

In the world of Invasion block, artifacts were a scarce commodity. Rarely did an Attendant hit the battlefield, and, when it did, the opponent always seemed to possess the necessary mana to swiftly sacrifice it, rendering the Mutation disappointingly feeble. The bitter truth slowly dawned upon our valiant player: a card’s greatness is not solely determined by its effect but rather by the frequency with which that effect is relevant within the given environment.

It was a valuable lesson learned through trial and error: a card’s quality depends not on the mere potency of its effect but rather on the consistent opportunity for that effect to unfold.

Artifact Mutation

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 2

Dromar’s Attendant

mana costs:
mana amount: 5
complexity: 1

Draco

mana costs:
mana amount: 16
complexity: 1

The variables that define the stability of a card

In previous chapters, we dealt with the resources available in MTG. Now it is important to understand the criteria according to which we will evaluate the effectiveness of the cards themselves. In other words, while the previous lessons were devoted to analyzing the cost of the cards, now we move on to analyzing their effectiveness.

One of the main obstacles to assessing the real power of cards is the phenomenon of ‘situationality’. We are often introduced to cards that may be very good in certain situations but in other situations their value is considerably diminished. Cards of this type can be called situational. By contrast, there are cards that at first glance look unimpressive, but in the end turn out to be ‘workhorses’. These cards we define as solid, meaning they are useful in different situations in the game: their effectiveness does not depend on a specific situation that develops on the battlefield.

How can we assess the stability of a certain card? What are the relevant variables for this assessment? In general, two such variables can be identified:

Frequency

Applying the frequency test, we ask how common is the situation in which it is possible to make optimal use of a certain card. Optimal use is a situation in which the effectiveness of the card is maximized. The more frequent these situations are, the more stable the card will be. Take as an example the spell Terror. How common are situations in which the player can make optimal use of this card, that is, destroy an opponent’s creature? The answer is, of course, that there are many such situations. That’s why this spell gets a good score on the frequency test. However, if the opponent plays black as one of his main colors, the frequency of the spell’s activation will be considerably reduced (even then about 50% of the opponent’s creatures will be vulnerable to the spell, so it may be worthwhile to continue including it in a deck). As an opposing example, take the spell Afflict. How common are situations in which it is possible to eliminate an opponent’s creature using only this spell? The answer is that these situations are more limited compared to Terror and therefore the frequency of its optimal activation will be lower.

The more frequent the conditions for the optimal operation of a certain card, the more stable it will be.

Terror

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Afflict

mana costs:
mana amount: 3
complexity: 1

Shock

mana costs:
mana amount: 1
complexity: 1

Stoke the Flames

mana costs:
mana amount: 4
complexity: 2

Flexibility

Applying the flexibility test, we ask how effective the card would be even if the optimal conditions for its casting do not materialize. The more flexible the card, the more stable it will be. Let’s go back to the example of Terror. Let’s examine the question of how effective the spell is when the optimal conditions for its activation are not met (i.e., there is no creature it can eliminate). In such conditions, the spell will of course be completely useless. Therefore, the flexibility of Terror is very low. What about Afflict? In fact, this spell will be useful even when it is not able to eliminate a creature by itself. For example: she it can help eliminate the opponent’s creature in combat. It also replaces itself, so it can be used simply for drawing in situations that require a quick solution to a certain situation developing on the battlefield. If so, Afflict is defined as a fairly flexible card.

A flexible card is a card whose effectiveness does not decrease significantly when it is not played in optimal situations. The more flexible the card, the more stable it is.

Two situational axes

Frequency and flexibility are two tests that allow us to examine the stability of a card. A good score in one of these variables makes the card relatively stable. A good score in both variables makes a card particularly stable. In the examples described above, both cards received a good score in one test and a poor score in the other. Still, Terror would generally be considered a better card than Afflict and this indicates that the frequency of a card’s activation tends to be more important than its flexibility.

Frequency cannot be used as a test of a card’s stability unless we know something about the situations the player is likely to encounter. In order to assess whether a card enjoys high frequency, we must imagine the possible situations that may exist in the game and define for ourselves how common each of these situations is. But what are these possible situations? Here we must make a degree of abstraction since the number of possible situations is countless. Broadly speaking, the different possible situations in the game can be divided into two categories or ‘axes’: the Time Mode Axis and the Action Mode Axis. Let us deal with each of them separately.

Time Mode Axis

The state of the game can be characterized according to the time that passes from turn 1: an early game (turn 1–4), a middle game (turn 5–8) and a late game (turn 9 onwards). Each of those stages combines unique characteristics that significantly impact the effectiveness of cards. For the sake of simplicity, I will deal here only with the two extremes.

Early game is characterized by a shortage of mana, many cards in hand, and a high amount of life. Late game is characterized by a lot of mana, a small number of cards in hand, many cards in the graveyard, and a relatively low life quota. How do these features affect the stability of the cards?

Early Game: There are cheap cards whose effectiveness is limited to being cast in the initial stage of the game. Cheap creatures, for example, tend to give the player an advantage in the early stages of the game, but drawing them later will be quite marginal in terms of their effect on the battlefield. For example: the effectiveness of Grizzly Bear varies a lot depending on the turn in which it is drawn. At an earlier stage it can bring some benefit. However, at a late stage it is almost useless. Therefore, a cheap card tends to be situational in terms of the frequency of its optimal activation: only drawing it in the early stages of the game will be significant. By contrast, cheap cards are stable in terms of their flexibility: they can be used at any stage of the game, even if not optimally (for example: Grizzly Bear in the late stages of the game). It is important to note that this trend does not always apply because there are cheap spells that are effective at any stage of the game.

Grizzly Bears

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Bring them early on!

The life points resource is a particularly attractive means of payment in the early game for two reasons: it is abundant and using it does not involve sacrificing the player’s position at the battlefield. As the game progresses, the life resource shrinks and therefore its use becomes more expensive. Accordingly, cards that require a life payment, especially a significant amount, will be considered situational cards in frequency terms: they are good at the beginning of the game but their value decreases as the game progresses. Here the degree of control the player has over the loss of life is very important. Control makes the card flexible and therefore more stable.

Finally, players may profit from the large number of cards in their hands in the early game. Some abilities, such as Reinforce and Amplify, flourish when hands are full of cards.

Late Game: A card with a high casting cost in terms of the amount of mana required or the complexity of the mana is situational both in terms of the frequency of its activation and in terms of its flexibility. This is because we must wait a long time until the mana is available to cast it (frequency), and until then it will not be possible to use it in any other way (flexibility), except when it benefits from an additional feature that allows it to be used further (see below). Take as an example a big creature that costs 8 mana. This creature will be completely useless in an opening hand as we will have to wait a long time before we can cast it. This card is therefore situational: it will only be effective if we have enough mana to cast it. This fact limits us in the number of expensive cards that we would like to include in a deck, despite the great advantage we can gain from them.

Mana accelerators increase the frequency of using the expensive cards because they can be cast earlier in the game. This of course reduces the effectiveness of the deck in other respects, as will be discussed further. Certain cards benefit from an ability that speeds up their casting given certain conditions. In this case they have a mana accelerator built in. The advantage of such spells is that we don’t waste a card to speed up mana, but the price we pay for that is the low cost/benefit ratio if we are required to pay the full cost of the spell in mana. Also, it speeds up its own casting but cannot help us cast other spells faster. Example of such abilities are Convoke and Delve.

There are a lot of abilities that make cards more flexible by (1) amplifying their effect at later stages of the game, when mana is more readily available. For example: Adapt, Ascend, Buyback, Entwine, Evoke, Level-up, Kicker, Overload, Replicate, Transform; (2) making them still useful for a reduced amount of mana. For example: Channel, Cycling, Entwine, Evoke, Morth, Replicate, Storm, Suspend.

Brain Freeze

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Kavu Aggressor

mana costs:
mana amount: 3
complexity: 1

Halimar Wavewatch

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Flourishing Strike

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Some cards benefit from the life points shortage late in the game. Yet, they are flexible because they may be used even earlier. For example: Fateful Hour ability augments the power of a spell if the player’s life points decrease to a certain level.

Break of Day

mana costs:
mana amount: 2
complexity: 1

Other cards benefit from the fact that in the late game graveyards tend to be populated (Delve, Threshold) or the hand is low on cards (Hellbent).

Question: Why do spells costing 3–5 mana tend to be stable in terms of frequency compared to other spells?

Action mode axis

The situation on the battlefield can be defined according to the form of interaction between the two opponents. In a general way, a player’s action can be characterized in two ways: defense or attack. Defense is defined as a mode-pattern in which the player does not attack with creatures capable of effective blocking (this distinction is important because the player attacking with a creature that is unable to block an attacking creature will not be considered an attacker: this is the only use that can be made of this creature). Offence is defined as an action-pattern in which the player attacks with one or more creatures capable of effectively blocking. Since we are dealing with a game between two opponents, four possible action modes arise:

Defensive: In this mode, the player is under pressure and does not apply counter pressure. This is due to a certain advantage that the opponent enjoys and the player aims to check. In this action mode, the player is interested in cards that allow her to stabilize the battlefield (for example, removals, defensive creatures.)

Offensive: In this action mode, the player exerts pressure on his opponent while she is not under parallel pressure. At this stage, the player is interested in cards that allow her to continue the pressure until victory is achieved (aggressive creatures, removals, finishers).

Race: In this action mode, the player puts pressure on her opponent, but she is under pressure herself. Each of the players tries to inflict more damage on the opponent. The nature of the cards needed is similar to that of the attack action mode, but not completely identical. In a race situation, for example, defensive cards can be of great help (especially creatures with Vigilance). This is the only action mode in which life-gaining cards are considered effective.

Standstill: In this action mode, both players avoid attacking each other. The player is interested in cards that allow the stalemate to be broken in her favor: stealthy creatures, finishers (for example, the opponent’s creatures cannot block) or good combat tricks.

Special operating conditions

Beyond the time and action modes, some spells have special operating conditions that largely define their stability. Each such special condition requires us to estimate how often it occurs.

In the following chapters we will see how the stability test allows us to estimate the value of different types of cards in MTG.