Which is More Important: Overall Damage or Damage-to-Mana Ratio?
General forum
Posted on Nov. 15, 2015, 12:16 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
Some time ago, I had a discussion (a friendly discussion, of course) with another player about which card between Shock or Searing Spear was the better card. The other player stated that searing spear is better because it deals more damage, and I stated that shock is better because it has a better damage to mana ratio; it deals 2 damage per one mana, while the spear deals only 1.5 damage per one mana.
Therefore, I wish to ask the other users of this forum: in the context of damage-dealing spells, which aspect do you believe is more important: overall damage or damage-to-mana ratio, and why? I eagerly await your responses.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #3
In a slower format like standard, I'd rather have Searing Spear. In faster formats like modern I'd want Shock (over spear) because the 1cmc is important can still hit mana dorks and many other threats
November 15, 2015 12:48 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #4
a balance between the 2.
afterall, Lava Axe is still in many situations better than Searing Wind. unless you're playing EDH, in which case you should be maindecking about 50 Searing Winds. you play group will allow it, I swear!
November 15, 2015 1:04 a.m.
I think it depends on the format, and what exactly you are trying to kill. In Modern, I'd take Shock, because most people already try to avoid bolt-blowouts anyways. If a standard metagame is full of toughness 3 creatures, I choose Searing Spear.
Without any of these factors though, I'd probably take Searing Spear. Although Shock has a better tempo rate, Searing Spear kills more things, and likely kills people sooner.
November 15, 2015 3:25 a.m.
Searing Spear is the better card because it does more damage. Damage to mana ratio is fantastic if the card is doing enough damage to affect the board state in any large way. If its not (and Shock is borderline here) then it doesnt matter how efficient the card is - it probably won't be played. So efficiency is one important aspect but if the spell doesn't do enough damage to be reliable then it's just not a solid pickup.
The other reason we prefer higher damage cards is because we only get 60 cards in a deck, and because we only draw one card per turn.
If you build a deck with 36 Shocks and 24 lands, and I build a deck with 36 Searing Spears and 24 lands:
- Your deck will be faster in terms of unloading the cards it has in hand,
- But my deck will be able to do more damage with a hand of seven cards (assuming 5 spells and 2 lands it'll be 10 damage versus 15),
- And my deck will top deck better than yours (3 damage per top deck versus 2 damage per top deck),
- And ultimately my deck will win the matchup (because it requires just 2 more top decked spells to kill you, whereas yours requires 5 more top decked spells)
So you could say the cards in my deck are more impactful because each one does more than yours and that means that when we start top decking or get into a tricky situation I will be the clear winner.
November 15, 2015 6:16 a.m. Edited.
titanreaver says... #7
As a general rule efficiency is the hey to success. Then ratios aside the other issue is just the CMC. Gutshot is actually as useful card in many formats simply because it can be free, Lava Dart is better than Lava Axe simply because it costs one and not five. Another things to consider is are other any other costs associated with the card? Fireblast is a very good card because it gets around paying mana, at the cost of loosing those lands entirely. Flame Rift is great because it gets more damage out at the cost of some of your own life. Then are there any other benefits to the card? Does is have buyback, retrace, replicate, storm, or even something like scry? So is Magma Jet better than Searing Spear. Is one card faster than the other I.E instant or sorcery.
Truthfully the answer is much more complicated and situational than it appears. Mostly because we can't make decks of all one spell so each card must be chosen to fit its position in the deck. Because as the game progresses what is efficient can change. Because if you are playing damage spells and you have untapped lands prior to your untap step, well how much did you loose out on. If you have three mana out and two Searing Spear in your hand you will only get to play one of them, and you will be left with open man. If you have two Shock in your hand you will do more damage but you will still have open mana. If you have one of each you will do the most damage and have used all of your resources.
Then you have to think what is the goal target for this spell. Are you playing the spell to kill dudes and then maybe turn it to your opponent's face later. If so ratio is definitely more important because it doesn't matter how much I do to the creature so long as its over its toughness it will die. If you goal is to point the spell at your enemy and maybe use it to shoot down dudes than damage becomes more important because I need to get you from twenty to zero quickly. Most of the time though you have to find a balance and look at what you can afford to do with in your mana curve. Burn/RDW will almost never have enough lands in play to cast Lightning Axe but maybe it can splurge to cast Char, but even that would be questionable. On the other hand elfball doesn't care about Lightning Bolt it is going to cast Banefire for lethal.
Lastly, as has been mentioned, you have to consider the format. What would be good in your meta game. Will Shock, or Gutshot deal with threats? If so than it is better because it uses up less of your stuff than it took them to present the threat.If Shock isn't enough but Searing Spear would be better because it actually does the job. Thus what makes one thing better than another, is about as clear as mud sometimes, and the answer is equally situational.
November 15, 2015 9:22 a.m.
Lightning Bolt is the answer you're looking for.
But in all seriousness, generally I would say damage to mana ratio. You want to maximize both, but in a highly competitive format, you have to squeeze every ounce of value out of every mana spent; obviously every card's effectiveness is dependent in the meta it's played in, but for the reasons I have stated above, I could see Searing Spear being played in Standard more likely than it would in Modern, and vice versa for Shock.
November 15, 2015 9:45 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #9
This depends on what you want to use that burn spell for, controlling the opponent's creatures or reducing his life points directly.
For removal, 3 damage is always better than 2 since it allows to remove a greater range of different critters.
If you want to burn the opponent directly, it's more complicated. The gist of it is that you want to use as much mana per turn and as few cards per turn as possible while not missing any turns to overcosted spells. I'd suggest asking Google about the "Mana Curve" and reading some of the many articles written on the topic.
November 15, 2015 9:56 a.m. Edited.
But there is a balance between 'as few cards as possible' (high damage) and doing so with as little mana as possible (high efficiency). Somewhere in the middle of those two is the correct answer in a general sense. Though when it comes between 2 or 3 damage I'd still be heavily swayed towards 3 damage as long as the mana cost was reasonable.
November 15, 2015 10:06 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #11
If you were quoting me, ChiefBell, please note that I said "using as much mana as possible per turn", which is a different aspect than "as little mana as possible per point of damage". Maximizing the effect you get for your mana is kind of a given, so using more mana should result in more effect. It's trivial, nobody would pick a Shock over a Lightning Bolt given the choice.
November 15, 2015 10:38 a.m.
I realise that, but sequencing is different to comparing two cards side by side. I believe you were referring to the former and I was going for the latter
November 15, 2015 10:51 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #13
Comparing two cards side by side can not be done without situational context unless one of those cards is strictly better or significantly more above the curve than the other.
In fact. I'm very tempted to go with Zen tradition and just say "ask the cow", because the answer to the question "Is damage per mana or damage per card more important?" is "Mu", or in english, "the question is wrong". It's like asking if it's better to drive fast or slow in a car race, and the answer is the same: Depends on your position, gear and the curves.
November 15, 2015 11:18 a.m. Edited.
Not really. It can be done if you bother to type out the context, as most of us have done.
November 15, 2015 11:59 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #15
Case in point ChiefBell. You can't type out context if you don't have it. And in this case of a situational question asked without context, you can only give a true and complete answer if it includes all conclusions for every possible context. None of the above answers does, including mine and yours. What about draw effects? Are there Mana accelerators in the equation? It's nigh impossible to account for all eventualities.
The fact remains that the question can not be answered in the manner in which it is asked, since it asks, "A or B?" and not "When A and when B?", which is the question to which good albeit non-exhaustive answers are given.
P.S. I feel the need to clarify my above post since I accidentally let some lingo slip in without adapting it for MtG and TappedOut.
The mention of "above the curve" in the first paragraph refers to a power curve as used for balancing games, not the mana curve used in deck building. It groups elements by cost and shows the average power for each group.
The plural "curves" in the last sentence refers to the power curve as well the mana curve.
November 15, 2015 12:28 p.m. Edited.
biggestmtgnerd says... #16
Shock is a card that is below the curve, as shown by wizards printing shocks with upside. Searing spear is on the curve, as shown by wizards preferring it and functional reprints. A hypothetical version that's three mana and four damage is above the curve, since wizards won't print it. My rule of thumb is the mana cost increases, the upside should increase by what would be equivalent to slightly less than one damage
wehave2poopzz says... #2
to me the searing spear would be better. it has a higher damage so if its not directed at a player it would have a better chance of killing a creature or a pw. so personally ill go for more damage at a higher cost within reason.
i remember when lightning bolt was standard it saw a lot of play rotated into shock and no one cared about 2 damage then we started getting searing spears and functional reprints and they see a lot play because overall players want the higher damage it simply does more
November 15, 2015 12:25 a.m.