How do you evaluate split costs?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 12, 2025, 12:44 p.m. by Idoneity
When I was initially introduced into the game of Magic, I was taught to evaluate cards based on how much mana they demanded before they did their thing. Air Elemental costs five mana, Brimaz costs three, and Tower of Fortunes costs twelve.
Tower of Fortunes is an undoubtedly terrible card, but it isn't twelve mana; it's eight and then four. Burnished Hart is readily dismissed as "six mana ramp" despite its desired effect being split across its cast and activation.
I have been re-evaluating how I perceive cards with split costs, as the typical intuition of adding it all together hasn't exactly felt accurate. This intuition neglects the fact that cards often take their time over the course of the game. It has moreover led to many cards being naturally excluded from any consideration in the first place. As for a card I (and many others) have come around on, I initially dismissed Wayfarer's Bauble as three-mana ramp and never bothered to try it. I now consider it s staple in non-green commander lists.
Personally, I don't think the additive measure of cost is fluid enough for the game of Magic. There is too much going on for it to be quantified by a single number. I've been using cumulative mana across turns to consider costs in a way that feels more fluid. (Turn one provides one mana, turn two brings that to three mana, turn three brings it to six mana, etc...) This feels better but still imperfect.
How do you evaluate split costs? Do you think that the additive system is good enough as it or do we need something more fluid to more accurately measure a card's power? What do you think?
hyalopterouslemur says... #3
Part of it also depends on the cards around it. I have seen Burnished Hart in some Sun Titan builds that didn't run green, and I used to see Tower of Fortunes in some Naya builds, though as mana curves have gone down, I see it less.
More relevant, I would say it splits between creature and noncreature: You should be running about ten instant-speed answers to creatures and one boardwipe for creatures in every deck, but people often forget answers to noncreature permanents.
January 25, 2025 2:17 p.m.
I feel as if there is some inclusions with my card examples. I do not mean that these specific examples should be evaluated, but rather I am suggesting a different perspective on evaluating the cost of spells. Considering cost and ability additively, a lot of nuance is lost, and this forbids many cards from seeing play despite their potential.
With this in mind, how should/does this perspective coincide with existing measures for a card's power?
January 26, 2025 1:18 a.m. Edited.
hyalopterouslemur says... #5
A lot of the thing with split costs, as you call them, is how often you plan to use them. Take Tower of Fortunes, please. (Sorry.) You're likely to use it once, but if you have the mana, you might swing at using it twice or even three times. (That is, if you have the mana.) But doing so ties up your mana. All in all, the fact that you're paying for every use is what makes it a bad card, and what restricts it to decks featuring green (but not blue or black, both of which have better ways to draw four cards; green does too, but it depends on your board state with green).
TypicalTimmy says... #2
It's a matter of determining strategic value vs immediate value. If you want to play and cast Tower of Fortunes on a single turn, that's 12 mana. For 12 mana, you could do far more and in many cases even win the game or, at the very least, knock an opponent out of the game.
By that metric it's a terrible card. There are far cheaper ways to get 4 cards in hand, although this does come with the benefit of being colorless so it could potentially work in a deck that is limited on mana options such as mono white.
That said, it's also a good setup and bait piece. You could drop it as early as Turn 2 in some circumstances with most times being dropped at 3 or 4. Once there it'll sit with a board presence doing nothing. Against trigger happy opponents, it's a prime removal target which baits that removal out of their hand.
In late stages, it's a great option to have sitting around. Look, realistically speaking we have all been there. You've got 15 mana on the board and a hand full of nothing. If it's there, why not use it? Pop it off on their end step, then on your upkeep. Now, with your draw, you've got 9 additional cards in hand to try and dig for an answer.
So to answer your question, it depends on intent.
If your intent is to look toward immediate use, it's terrible.
If your intent is as a bait, it's okay.
If your intent is to dig yourself out of a hole later, it's invaluable. Because if you're in a hole and you have the option to be dug out or sit in there and be buried alive, I'll take the shovel anytime.
That said, it's also a case by case basis. What I just outlined for Tower may not be applicable for other cards.
So it depends, ultimately, on what your deck seeks to accomplish.
And moreso and just as important, your local meta. We often forget that aspect of the game because we are so caught up on hyper fixating on stats for online decks. But you're likely not seeing those decks IRL in your LGS. Your local meta likely is far different than online.
Online meta has the benefit of costing nothing so we can all build the idealized deck. But the real world has rent, utilities, low hours for work, debt, kids, etc. Most people can't afford their $3,400 deck so they settle for a $600 budget version. Nothing wrong with that, other than that is the reality.
So if you are up against a budget meta where games go into 15 turns, yeah Tower isn't actually terrible anymore.
So, like with all things... It depends.
January 12, 2025 12:56 p.m.