Which is More Important: Total Mana Cost or Cost-to-Effect Ratio (i.e., mana efficiency)?
General forum
Posted on Dec. 27, 2024, 9:33 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
I often wonder which is more important for a card: its overall cost or its cost-to-effect ratio (i.e., its mana efficiency); for example, there is no question that Lightning Bolt is superior to both Shock and Searing Spear, but, between the other two cards, I would choose Shock over Searing Spear in the majority of situations, because Shock has a ratio of 2 damage for 1 mana, whereas Searing Spear has a ratio of 1.5 damage for 1 mana.
For a slightly more complicated example, compare Eladamri's Call to Shared Summons; the former card can find a creature for a mere 2 mana, which is very efficient, but it simply replaces one card in its controller's hand with another, whereas the latter card can search for two creatures, which leaves its caster with an additional card in hand, compared to before it is cast, but it is less efficient, costing 2.5 mana per creature found, so it is not as clear which card is superior, there.
Opportunity is literally a double version of Quick Study, as they both have the same ratio of cost to effect, but which is the superior card? Is it really better to spend six mana to draw four cards, as doing that would leave the caster with less mana to cast the spells that they draw? Also, Quick Study is strictly better than is Inspiration, as it costs 1 less mana to cast, but, between Concentrate and Tidings, I am not certain which is superior, since they both allow a player to draw one less card than their mana values.
On the subject of card drawing, in the realm of repeatable card drawing, Arcane Encyclopedia is strictly better than is Jayemdae Tome, as it costs only 3 mana to draw a single card, compared to 4, but Tower of Fortunes can draw four cards for 8 mana, which is a ratio of 2 mana per card, but that ability costs 8 mana, overall, so the question is if it is worth 8 mana to draw four cards.
Continuing that theme, there are numerous creatures (and one enchantment) that allow a player to repeatedly draw cards, such as Azure Mage, Spectral Sailor, Faerie Mastermind, Triskaidekaphile, or Treasure Trove, a ratio of 4 mana for one card, but Mystic Archaeologist can draw 2 two cards for 5 mana, a ratio of 2.5 mana per card, which is definitely far superior, in my mind.
Hedron Archive
is literally two Mind Stones put together, and Dreamstone Hedron is literally a triple Mind Stone, so they all have the same cost-to-effect ratio, but I prefer the original Mind Stone, since the existence of Thran Dynamo and Gilded Lotus makes it difficult to justify using the other mana rocks, at least, for me.
To use the example of Skyward Eye Prophets, a 1/1 creature for 2 mana is perfectly acceptable, a 2/2 creature for 4 mana is slightly expensive, but nothing outrageous, but a 3/3 creature for 6 mana is simply too much, although, as a side note, I have a copy of that creature, in one of my decks, because I really like its ability.
For a further example, I would choose Mantis Rider over Lightning Angel in the majority of situations, since it provides a better rate than does the angel, and, similarly, I would choose Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers over Vernadi Shieldmate, since the former creature is more efficient for its cost.
I believe that I have provided a sufficient number of examples, for this discussion, so which trait do you believe is more important: overall mana cost or cost-to-effect ratio/mana efficiency? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.
SteelSentry says... #3
Some of those are also relative because sometimes being one bigger than the other is a much bigger deal than just one. I can tell you from Standard that I can remember way more Lightning Strikes being cast than Shocks ever were unless you were in specifically a Prowess-style deck; thrown at a player, 2 and 3 damage is the difference between a playset doing 8 and 12, and 2 toughness and 3 toughness are important breakpoints in creature design for many reasons, the Bolt test being one of them.
Shared Summons is certainly a powerful card, especially in combo decks, but Eladamri's Call letting you find the right creature and casting it the same turn makes it better in most cases than getting two creatures and then dying to some artifact or enchantment you didn't have the mana to remove with Reclamation Sage which means I prefer it in most cases.
Lightning Angel is actually a good example of 3 vs 4. Mantis Rider is good, and also, relevantly, a Human, but it dies to Bolt or a 1/1 plus a Shock, and anything it kills it trades with. In a mirror match, the Angel can block other Angels all day, dodges Bolt, and unless you're playing a cube (Flame Slash and Flametongue Kavu are popular includes) or a format that has playable expensive red removal like Witchstalker Frenzy, a red deck may struggle to kill it 1-for-1.
With the draw spells, this is a very common theory in Yu-Gi-Oh actually, but a card going +1 like Quick Study is very powerful. More cards is always better, as is mana-to-card ratio, but little burst draw or cantrips usually live and die on their efficiency, and Quick Study being the cheapest unconditional way outside power to go card positive makes it incredibly noteworthy. Like the tutor argument, you might prefer card filtering cantrips that leave you neutral because the right card is more important than more cards, but it depends on why you're putting the spell there in the first place.
It's a very interesting topic that is often ignored in Commander due to the nature of the format, but the idea that "1 isn't always 1" is what really makes card analysis for 60 and 40 card formats special to me.
December 27, 2024 3:58 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #4
I generally tip towards “faster is better” if we’re talking about standard or modern or kitchen table magic; any of the 1v1 / winning matters formats. I guess you could look at it as “turn efficiency” rather than “mana efficiency”. Overall, though, it really is situational. My play style was probably more rush/goblins/speed because it was easier on my CPU ;p
December 28, 2024 12:31 p.m.
In my limited experience, most decks want it's 'key pieces' to be as low to the ground as possible, this is why Night's Whisper is a very good card, it works in hands where you are short of key resources (but not so short that you couldn't risk the hand), and it's still completely worth playing if you draw it fairly late in the game; drawing 2 cards is almost universally a good thing, and only paying 1B to do it means you can either play it early or play it late and follow it up with something you drew. In contrast a card like Tower of Fortunes is a trap in almost every list because you need to input a grand total of 12 mana to draw ANY cards, meaning it's a dead card until you can generate 8 mana in one turn. That makes the card a lot worse in practice, since every game has early turns and only some games go long enough for Tower to really shine.
The same is true about ramping, something like Utopia Sprawl (or Crop Rotation might fit better lol) is incredibly efficient, it can be played turn 1 in many games and if it's drawn late it's literally mana neutral, making it a 'free roll' in decks that can count on having a Forest early. In contrast Explosive Vegetation is unplayable turn 1 in almost any situation, ditto for turn 2, and you will need to have ramped to play it by turn 3. This means that if you're stuck on 2 lands something like Farseek could find you a key land but Explosive Veggies will just sit there making you feel stupid. This makes Explosive Veggies a relatively unimpressive card, and that's why you don't see as much ramp that costs more than 3 (and many Spikey players hate paying more than 2 for ramp), it plays a lot worse in hands that would otherwise be keeps, and they can actually cost you games.
In contrast though there are 'value cards' (usually MV 4-6), these aren't necessarily going to win the game by themselves but these are important in metas that don't expect anyone to win too early. These types of cards can cost more mana because they're doing a lot, but most deck builders quickly realize you can only include so many of this type of card, specifically because they WILL clog your early hands. These types of cards drive up your average MV, most people like something in the 2.5-3.5 range (most prefer lower fwiw). It's worth noting that spells that cost 7-10 mana are often WAY more powerful, but most of these aren't necessary to win games, and due to their sky high MV these are even worse about clogging your hand. People are generally fine with Expropriate from a power level perspective, even if many find it boring, but I think a plurality of decks that are power level 7 and up eschew big mana stuff because they don't need it, if you can win with Rite of the Raging Storm then you don't need Expropriate. In cEDH people actually skew even lower on MVs, especially Ad Nauseam lists, and it turns out it's very possible to win games using almost nothing but MV 2 and under stuff, and unsurprisingly these incredibly fast and low to the ground win cons are the most powerful.
Ultimately the less resources you need to put into an effect the better that effect. It's equally true that all things being equal doing the exact same thing a turn earlier is MUCH better, and it keeps getting better each turn sooner (in an exponential manner). The complication for me is that cards aren't very equal, and it's actually possible to build decks that assiduously ignore all of the conventions I mentioned here (my Pavel Maliki deck has 17 5 drops and an average MV of 4.20, while my Sunastian Falconer deck has a gobsmacking MV of 5.35, both are functional decks IMHO) if you simply run better cards that have relatively high MVs, and run enough of them that you will consistently have one or more to choose from. The Pavel deck happily runs some stuff like Omen of Fire that can be completely dead because the deck can usually afford to have dead cards and still be a threat, and the Sunastian deck runs some pretty derpy 'big' creatures, many aren't even cost effective, it just doesn't matter because if you have enough huge creatures it doesn't matter if you paid extra for them, they're still huge creatures that will stomp the opponent into gravy! In effect both decks win the games they win via scale, Pavel tends to have a lot of cards that trade for multiple cards, and Sunastian's effects are often so bulky that they just go right over other decks.
Even in 1v1 some of my weird Legacy decks sneak in some pretty high MV cards, and often these cards can steal games when I'm in topdeck mode (in Legacy anything over MV 2 is considered 'really high' fwiw), even if they cost me a few when I draw terribly and have 5 3 drops in my first 9 cards and I scoop. Ball Lightning is a really bad card by many metrics, but if you playtest a Burn deck in throw one or two in they WILL steal the odd game due to card efficiency (Burn's biggest problem has always been running out of Bolts).
December 29, 2024 10:15 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #6
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet that I would like to touch upon is that in general, cards (at least good ones) get more mana efficient as they get more expensive. Take your example of draw spells. Opportunity may not be very useful, but there is a better cost-to-draw ratio for cards like Overflowing Insight, and Finale of Revelation-esque cards have an arithmetic floor for their effects, which also changes things.
But playing anything later in the game comes with higher risk because the boardstate late game is usually going to be much more hostile/high interaction/complex than early game, so higher cost effects even if they have a higher impact are a lot riskier to invest in.
But to answer your question, I'm personally a mana cost focused builder, not necessarily a mana efficiency focused builder. I'll obviously choose the most mana efficient option for each effect at each mana cost, but mana cost in general will take precedence unless there's a truly unique or insane effect I'm missing out on by not going higher (for example, finding a finisher at 10 mana is a lot easier than finding one at 9 mana).
December 29, 2024 7:16 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #7
Kazierts, I agree that both Faerie Mastermind and Spectral Sailor are excellent creatures, but why do you not believe that Triskaidekaphile is a good creature? It provides four benefits in one card: unlimited hand size, a mana sink, repeatable card advantage, and an alternate win condition, all for a mere 2 mana, so how is that not a staple for every blue deck?
TheOfficialCreator, I have noticed that, in most cases, except that Shared Summons is not as efficient as is Eladamri's Call, and I also would prefer Opportunity over Overflowing Insight, because the former card is an instant, while the latter card is a sorcery, and that difference can be crucial in a desperate situation.
December 30, 2024 9:09 a.m.
DemonDragonJ, again the reason is context. You do not get all of that for a mere 2 mana. Let's dissect each of those upsides.
-
You have no maximum hand size - Genuinely good, no complaints here. However, this by itself a good card doesn't make. Graceful Adept is a card that's not even close to being a staple even though it has the same effect. This is because nobody puts a card in their deck exclusively because it just gives them no maximum hand size (Reliquary Tower is a very different case). This effect is more relevant when attached to something else. Examples being Proft's Eidetic Memory, Sea Gate Restoration Flip, The Magic Mirror and, most notably Thought Vessel. Notice something? None are creatures and provide more immediate and impactful effects.
-
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have exactly thirteen cards in your hand, you win the game. - This is honestly because Innistrad haha 13 funny. It's an extremely clunky alternative win condition. Just because something has you win the game written on it doesn't mean it's good. Example (focusing on cards that can go on any deck) being Luck Bobblehead. Alternative win conditios are always attached to something, which is why Coalition Victory is banned since that alternative wincon is actually pretty easy to achieve. Thassa's Oracle is also another very good example. It's really easy to mill your entire deck, which literally makes Thoracle a you win button.
-
: Draw a card - Although good, let's think a little bit about costs. Triskaidekaphile costs to cast and to activate, meaning you have to pay a total of for 1 single card, for two cards and so on. Hey, guess how much mana are 7 cards worth. The answer is Overflowing Insight (7 cards for 7 mana) meaning the rate mana-to-card isn't that good. You might argue that paying that much mana in a single go is too much, and that would be correct. Still, for a measly , Wizard Class gives you no maximum hand size, draws two cards, is more resilient to removal and the +1/+1 counters can actually be a decent win condition.
Long story short, the cost deceptive. There's way more involved than just paying two mana. However, I'll admit that Triskaidekaphile isn't necessarily bad. I just think it's bait. There are so many cards that either look incredible by themselves or look like they should be amazing in certain decks, but when you actually play with them they're just ok.
There's a lot more that could be said, but the main thing is a lot of cards need context to be properly evaluated. Siege Rhino was a absurd monster when it first released. Years later, now it's just ok.
December 30, 2024 7:51 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #9
Kazierts, I definitely appreciated that very thorough analysis of Triskaidekaphile, and I certainly can understand why it may not be an all-star creature, but I still am very fond of it.
Kazierts says... #2
The answer is pretty simple, it always depends on context. Magic is a very complex game and situations matter a lot. A lot of examples you gave already mentions different contexts and cannot be judged the same way as other examples.
Of the cards with activated abilities you mentioned, only Spectral Sailor and Faerie Mastermind are any good because they are useful aside from their card draw ability. A lot of times you don't even need to activate them since that's just tge cherry on top. Unless you have a very specific combo with Mystic Archaeologist, it's a horrible card because the only thing you can with it is pay a lot of mana to draw only 2 cards. For 5 mana, Mulldrifter is miles better. However, maybe you're making a weird Wizard EDH with Zirda as a companion and Mystic Archaeologist happens to fit perfectly.
Even the example with Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers and Vernadi Shieldmate is relative. The Cavaliers is an Elf Knight while the Shieldmate is a Human soldier, which means, as more "efficient" as one is over the other, some decks might completely one of them.
Usually, cheaper cards are better, but synergies, strategies and redundancy also influence card choice. Is Searing Spear better than Shock? Maybe, but maybe some people prefer to have only burn spells in their deck. Maybe there's a format where Lightning Bolt doesn't exist and both Shock and Searing Spear (or Lightning Strike since it's the more modern version) go in the same deck.
Very few things are so black and white in MTG.
December 27, 2024 10:12 a.m.