As I drift aimlessly through another sleepless night I cannot help but to wonder about Magic: The Gathering. I have been reading a very good book for brain food called: Next Level Magic by Patrick Chapin. In the book he refers to many theory articles and one I have stumbled upon before but never really examined is Stock Mana Theory. For those who have not read the article it can be summed up pretty easily. You identify the cost of a card and compare it to what that essentially buys you. Aj Sacher proposed that, “A vanilla 2/2 is worth approximately 1G or 1W mana.” Anything more is not enough bang for your buck and anything less is gravy. I think this is a very interesting proposition. I want to take this theory a step farther and propose something new. I will be referring to many different theories over the course of this entry. I will try to go over some things in detail and give you different ways to view the game in every format.
I want to couple this theory and Travis Woo’s Mana Sum Theory to take your magic game to a new level in identifying board states to what cards to pick in draft. Both Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana theory have a same general underlining principle; the player that utilizes the most mana effectively will be assured to win the game. After reading both of these articles numerous times along with articles about The Fundamental Turn, Card Economy, The Philosophy of Fire, and Tempo, I have created my own brain child. It utilizes what appears to me as being the foremost pillars of the game:
1. Card Economy
2. Tempo
3. The Philosophy of Fire
4. And the new addition: The Theory of Stock Mana
I currently agree with the fact that the player that generates the most Effective Mana over the course of a game will most likely win it. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what game of magic you are playing you can equate every play into terms of effective mana relative to the format. Then you may see which player had created the most Effective Mana, and that is the player that will win this game. The biggest underlying themes that all the great theorist in our time are trying to do is create the Unifying Theory of Magic. This is the idea that through some principle you can create a way to link every pillar in the game to a unifying factor. I believe this factor is as simple as mana. After thinking about this, I wondered when a card effect is better than drawing a random card out of your deck. Currently in standard the big monster in the room is Siege Rhino. Siege Rhino’s converted mana cost is 1WBG. Now how much effective mana is this? First we need to break down the card into components that are easy to understand. Before I begin analyzing cards I need to address some of my own takes on Effective Mana.
1. A 1/1 for one is not worth a card itself without an effect; such as, flying, haste, infect or any other ability. You can see this as there are very few cards that are vanilla 1/1’s for one. From Raging goblins, Glistener elves, to Suntailed hawks all of these cards would not be worth a single card if they did not have an effect. I am looking toward Raise the Alarms for back up. Two 1/1’s without effects for two mana. The reason this card does not just cost W is that it has the word instant printed on it.
2. An ability that allows you to draw a card. A “Cantrip” generally costs two colorless mana in addition to the base price for the effect. See Reach Through the Mists to Divination, or Counterspell to Dismiss.
3. The assignment of power to toughness is based on color, and there is a rough outline it follows. The more efficient creature to least have certain color assignments as follows: tied for first is Green and White. These creature at common level are usually on curve or slightly about curve for their colors like: 1G or 1W for a 2/2 general rule is that a Green or White card has a combined power and toughness that is approximately two times its mana cost distributed evenly in most cases; such as, 4 combined power and toughness to a Grizzly Bear whose mana cost is two. Second is Black and Red usually both of these colors have high power than toughness and it not uncommon to see 3/1’s and 2/1’s around the one and two mana cost area. Blue being third with its standard being about a 2/2 for three mana.
So for assessing siege rhino is as follows (I am going to be taking a top down approach.):
1. Lose three life is worth about one Black (See Bump in the Night.)
2. Gain three life is worth one White (See Healing Salve.)
3. Trample is worth One Green (See Charging Badger.)
4. Now we are left with the power and toughness of 4/5 I would assign this around 4 Mana
.
Siege Rhino has a mana cost of four mana (1WBG) and an Effective cost of (4WBG). This is a net gain of around three mana so if your opponent is playing a spell that is not worth approximately seven mana you are starting to get ahead. Even if you kill the siege rhino dead. The opponent is still getting a net value of two mana (WB) and you being down a card. Seige Rhino is essentially like you casting Divination and also getting a 4/5 trampler too! I am starting to see why Abzan is one of the leading decks in the format when all of their plays are above curve and proactive. This is where I believe Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana start to approach each other and lead to unifying the pillars of the Magic: The Gathering. I think these two theories start to intersect at this point as well. I believe that Card Economy is the end all be all factor that decides the game; however, I am starting to see that when your cards can generate and extra four mana in value that it is just the same as drawing two cards. If we look at Sidsi, blood tyrant or Butcher of the horde we can compare why the Abzan deck in a vacuum is so much more powerful.
Sidsi, the Blood tyrant is an interesting card to analyze.
1. Creating a 2/2 zombie is worth about 2 mana 1G (see Grizzly Bears.)
2. A 3/3 is worth about two to three mana (see Watchwolf or Trained Armadon.)
It looks as if just resolving Sidsi you can generate at most 4G worth of mana for 1BGU. So you generate approximately one mana from this play. I included milling into the equation at first; however since you are not milling your opposition and are not generating value of depleting your opponent’s resources I decided to remove it. So if Sidsi gets killed you generate 1G worth of value. Now while this seems like the same value generated from the Siege Rhino the effective cost is lowered and doesn’t contribute to the Stock Mana Theory. I am trying to say that even if they both die the Rhino player generated seven mana in value and the Sidsi player only Generated five mana in value. I think using these tools may also become effective during drafts. It can be easier to pick between two cards if on card generates two mana in value such as a Grizzly Bears versus a three mana value in a Trained Armadon. Sometimes the picks will not be as clear and easy as this but if shock is in the format you will likely pick the 3/3 over the 2/2. Until next time, have fun figuring out Effective Mana and generate as much value as you can!
RE: The Theory of Stock Mana:
Now when referring to effective value of a card it can be kind of dicey as to what that may be. In limited a 2/2 could be worth 2 to 3 mana and in legacy drawing a card could be worth less that one mana. I like the idea that the effective value generated from cards are relative to the format it is being played in. In modern, the Siege Rhino example holds up well seeing that losing three gain three can be equated into two mana in comparison to Lightning Helix, and a 4/5 trampler is still worth approximately four or five mana. We are not comparing cards to Tarmogoyf because his value changes with respect to his power and toughness. I think that Aj Sacher was on to a very big discovery; however, he did not know how to convey this to people using very confusing examples such as dredge. I think that mana costs are fluid and can be equated easily as one colored mana on average is going to be worth around two colorless. Take divination for example a cantrip is worth around two mana and drawing one card is around one Blue mana. So if you look as Divination as a draw card that draws a card like a Cantrip it equates to approximately four mana read as “draw one, draw one.” Now in legacy Effective Mana is very hard to calculate so I will leave that up to the big theorists; however, I can see Brainstorm having a huge effective cost. Brainstorm in a delver deck could have an Effective Value at six mana with a fetch land and as little as two mana without, and treasure cruise is a big haymaker with an effective value of six mana especially when only being cast for one Blue. This seems to be as to why the delver archetypes seem to be the most dominate of the field, or atleast the most popular. I think that delver being able to win every game that it doesn’t become tamed is proof. When every one mana you play is worth an Effective six mana it is easy to see why this deck is so good and has so much play. It has inherent value such as Young Pyromancer is generating 1/1 creaures this makes every spell you cast worth about one-half to one extra effective mana per spell. The only reason I would say one half is that while I don’t think a 1/1 is not worth a single card it is irrefutable that it is okay to accept that generally power plus toughness divided by two is a good approximation for Effective Mana, and that not being worth a whole card may be a negative Effective Mana of one half to the total generated value.
When you combine Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana Theory you then will start seeing what I am trying to say. Every turn you utilize your mana effectively it is usually to do something that generates an advantage or set your opponent behind. When you Lightning Bolt a Centaur Courser you are effectively generating an extra two mana. Now while you cannot do anything with the mana you generate you can use it towards Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana Theory to abuse these gains. With the printing of treasure cruise you can generate a mana for every spell you play. When you reach Threshold (having 7 cards in your graveyard.) you may cash in on some of that generated mana and draw three cards which effectively generates an effective mana of six. These examples are not random they can definitely happen in a regular game of magic. I am not saying keep track of Effective Mana; however, keep in mind how you can generate Effective Mana in all formats and in every process in Magic. You can do analysis of your deck on how you can abuse your cards to generate an advantage of Effective Mana.
Effective Mana allows you to easily size up cards and approximate what you would pay for a card in a given relative format. You can use this from deck building all the way to picking cards in limited. If the average Effective Mana of a creature is above average in a limited format you may be able to read that cheap or effective utility removal will be a more important role in a game. In this limited format on average every creature you play generates more Effective Mana than what you pay for it and taking that away from your opponent is netting you a difference between the Effective Mana of your removal spell and their creature. In this limited format we will imagine that you will gain a net positive mana every removal spell and that will ensure a victory in most limited games. I hope I have given you guys a lot to think about. I think these theories coincide and can be used in abused by deck builders and up and comers. I would like to deem this theory with a name and I think that shall be. The Theory of Mana.
So how does the Theory of Mana interact with counterspells, removal, or the intricate strategies of the game? I think that a lot of theorist would agree with me that magic theory can have some similarities with physics. In this most things are relative. Velocity of a deck is relative to the number of cards drawn and are able to be played. Fundamental Turn being relative to the format you are playing in. I think that in any given game of magic there is a level of entropy that is available. I think that every game of magic is bound to the first law of thermodynamics. In magic there is a total amount of energy or mana that can be used but you cannot use no more than the ceiling of the set total. Think about if both players got to play magic using all 60 cards in their decks as their opening hand with no discarding or losing to drawing. Each player would exhaust spell after spell while successfully hitting land drop after land drop playing the perfect game of magic with no chances of either player getting “mana screwed.” This would be the total energy limit in a game of magic between two opponents. This limit is relative to the deck configurations as number of lands and spells; however, there is a limit to how much mana you can generate over the course of a game. This would for sure dictate whether a player with the most Effective Mana wins the game is true or not.
How does this Theory of Mana interact with strategy? Well it is easy to see how using Doomblade or Counterspell would be effective against a Primeval Titan; however, when would this be good against a Wild Nacatl or Dark Confidant? If the Wild Nacatl is a 1/1 the chances are you are good to let him resolve and to not Doomblade him, but if he is a 3/3 he is effectively worth three mana and it could be warranted to use any of those spells against him. Now I am not advocating using this to help decide hard judgments I am merely suggesting that this tool could be valuable when analyzing some of these plays. How many turns do you let a Dark Confidant sit on the table before you decide he is ready to meet his friends in the graveyard. If we let him draw one card off of Dark Confidant is the advantage gained too much? Well it is easier to say kill the Confidant earlier than later because every turn he sits on the table your opponent is gaining an Effective two mana. This is how Confidant wins games. Even though the opponent can dome their self for five damage the opponent is paying one resource (life) for another (cards). Usually a card in your library is worth more than your life points unless that life point is that one that changes your life total from one to zero. In a deck where you can find Confidant you can also find the most efficient beaters, removal, and disruption per mana. This is generating even more Effective mana. If your opponent draws a Wild Nactl that will be a 3/3 he is essentially paying one life and one mana for an Effective three mana without him even having drawn his card for turn yet. In this one turn he has surmounted five mana in total value. He gained a card (two mana) a 3/3 beater (three mana). Unless your Forked Bolt can deal four points of damage I think you may be on the wrong side of this exchange. Now how does this work with Counterspells?
This is an interesting concept I have been trying to figure out myself, but I have come to the conclusion that if magic follows the first law of thermodynamics it must also follow the laws set by newton. So in physics when studying forces the most basic concept to understand is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is to say that if you push your finger onto the wall the wall pushes onto your finger with an equal force in an opposite direction. This is why it hurts when you press too hard. So for Counterspells I figured a similar effect has to occur. That is to say if you counter your opponents six mana play of Treasure Cruise with a Pyroblast than you have effectively gained yourself six Effective Mana by denying your opponent that opportunity. This is why counterspells are generally so good. I would be bold to state that regardless of the cost a Counterspell would still generate this value simply be denying your opponent to do so. Now however there are counterspells that are simply not playable but this is usually due to timing restrictions based on the format by the top tier decks. The Fundamental Turn.
Even combo decks obey the Theory of Mana I am proposing. A combo deck wants to delay the game until the conclusion to where it can win by generating enough Effective Mana to kill your opponent. This may be four, five, or two-hundred and seventy-three. Regardless if each of your Pestermite tokens are worth three mana or if your Grapeshot copies are worth two the Effective Mana to kill your opponent is dependent upon the efficiency and capabilities of your deck. Now you’re probably thinking about the decks that go infinite. Decks cannot actually go infinite you have to pick a number or value. If you do not you will create a stack overflow and would cause any single game of magic to collapse on itself.
General Magic Cost Guidelines
1. Increments of 3 life points either way is worth around one colored mana: lightning bolt, bump in the night, healing salve
2. A 2/2 is worth around one colorless mana plus one colored mana (1C): Grizzlybears(1G), Knights Errant(1W), and there is a lot of other 2/2’s for two with abilities, but I don’t want to confuse anyone.
3. One colored mana is worth an effect on a card. Mirridan Crusader (1WW, Doublestrike), Fiendslayer Paladin (1WW, Lifelink) – these cards have more effects, but it was hard to find commons that were 1CC that had an ability; where C is a colored mana.
4. Drawing a card is worth around two colorless mana (cycle) or one colored mana (Reach Through the Mists)
I want to couple this theory and Travis Woo’s Mana Sum Theory to take your magic game to a new level in identifying board states to what cards to pick in draft. Both Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana theory have a same general underlining principle; the player that utilizes the most mana effectively will be assured to win the game. After reading both of these articles numerous times along with articles about The Fundamental Turn, Card Economy, The Philosophy of Fire, and Tempo, I have created my own brain child. It utilizes what appears to me as being the foremost pillars of the game:
2. Tempo
3. The Philosophy of Fire
4. And the new addition: The Theory of Stock Mana
1. A 1/1 for one is not worth a card itself without an effect; such as, flying, haste, infect or any other ability. You can see this as there are very few cards that are vanilla 1/1’s for one. From Raging goblins, Glistener elves, to Suntailed hawks all of these cards would not be worth a single card if they did not have an effect. I am looking toward Raise the Alarms for back up. Two 1/1’s without effects for two mana. The reason this card does not just cost W is that it has the word instant printed on it.
2. An ability that allows you to draw a card. A “Cantrip” generally costs two colorless mana in addition to the base price for the effect. See Reach Through the Mists to Divination, or Counterspell to Dismiss.
3. The assignment of power to toughness is based on color, and there is a rough outline it follows. The more efficient creature to least have certain color assignments as follows: tied for first is Green and White. These creature at common level are usually on curve or slightly about curve for their colors like: 1G or 1W for a 2/2 general rule is that a Green or White card has a combined power and toughness that is approximately two times its mana cost distributed evenly in most cases; such as, 4 combined power and toughness to a Grizzly Bear whose mana cost is two. Second is Black and Red usually both of these colors have high power than toughness and it not uncommon to see 3/1’s and 2/1’s around the one and two mana cost area. Blue being third with its standard being about a 2/2 for three mana.
So for assessing siege rhino is as follows (I am going to be taking a top down approach.):
2. Gain three life is worth one White (See Healing Salve.)
3. Trample is worth One Green (See Charging Badger.)
4. Now we are left with the power and toughness of 4/5 I would assign this around 4 Mana
Siege Rhino has a mana cost of four mana (1WBG) and an Effective cost of (4WBG). This is a net gain of around three mana so if your opponent is playing a spell that is not worth approximately seven mana you are starting to get ahead. Even if you kill the siege rhino dead. The opponent is still getting a net value of two mana (WB) and you being down a card. Seige Rhino is essentially like you casting Divination and also getting a 4/5 trampler too! I am starting to see why Abzan is one of the leading decks in the format when all of their plays are above curve and proactive. This is where I believe Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana start to approach each other and lead to unifying the pillars of the Magic: The Gathering. I think these two theories start to intersect at this point as well. I believe that Card Economy is the end all be all factor that decides the game; however, I am starting to see that when your cards can generate and extra four mana in value that it is just the same as drawing two cards. If we look at Sidsi, blood tyrant or Butcher of the horde we can compare why the Abzan deck in a vacuum is so much more powerful.
Sidsi, the Blood tyrant is an interesting card to analyze.
2. A 3/3 is worth about two to three mana (see Watchwolf or Trained Armadon.)
RE: The Theory of Stock Mana:
Now when referring to effective value of a card it can be kind of dicey as to what that may be. In limited a 2/2 could be worth 2 to 3 mana and in legacy drawing a card could be worth less that one mana. I like the idea that the effective value generated from cards are relative to the format it is being played in. In modern, the Siege Rhino example holds up well seeing that losing three gain three can be equated into two mana in comparison to Lightning Helix, and a 4/5 trampler is still worth approximately four or five mana. We are not comparing cards to Tarmogoyf because his value changes with respect to his power and toughness. I think that Aj Sacher was on to a very big discovery; however, he did not know how to convey this to people using very confusing examples such as dredge. I think that mana costs are fluid and can be equated easily as one colored mana on average is going to be worth around two colorless. Take divination for example a cantrip is worth around two mana and drawing one card is around one Blue mana. So if you look as Divination as a draw card that draws a card like a Cantrip it equates to approximately four mana read as “draw one, draw one.” Now in legacy Effective Mana is very hard to calculate so I will leave that up to the big theorists; however, I can see Brainstorm having a huge effective cost. Brainstorm in a delver deck could have an Effective Value at six mana with a fetch land and as little as two mana without, and treasure cruise is a big haymaker with an effective value of six mana especially when only being cast for one Blue. This seems to be as to why the delver archetypes seem to be the most dominate of the field, or atleast the most popular. I think that delver being able to win every game that it doesn’t become tamed is proof. When every one mana you play is worth an Effective six mana it is easy to see why this deck is so good and has so much play. It has inherent value such as Young Pyromancer is generating 1/1 creaures this makes every spell you cast worth about one-half to one extra effective mana per spell. The only reason I would say one half is that while I don’t think a 1/1 is not worth a single card it is irrefutable that it is okay to accept that generally power plus toughness divided by two is a good approximation for Effective Mana, and that not being worth a whole card may be a negative Effective Mana of one half to the total generated value.
When you combine Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana Theory you then will start seeing what I am trying to say. Every turn you utilize your mana effectively it is usually to do something that generates an advantage or set your opponent behind. When you Lightning Bolt a Centaur Courser you are effectively generating an extra two mana. Now while you cannot do anything with the mana you generate you can use it towards Mana Sum Theory and Stock Mana Theory to abuse these gains. With the printing of treasure cruise you can generate a mana for every spell you play. When you reach Threshold (having 7 cards in your graveyard.) you may cash in on some of that generated mana and draw three cards which effectively generates an effective mana of six. These examples are not random they can definitely happen in a regular game of magic. I am not saying keep track of Effective Mana; however, keep in mind how you can generate Effective Mana in all formats and in every process in Magic. You can do analysis of your deck on how you can abuse your cards to generate an advantage of Effective Mana.
Effective Mana allows you to easily size up cards and approximate what you would pay for a card in a given relative format. You can use this from deck building all the way to picking cards in limited. If the average Effective Mana of a creature is above average in a limited format you may be able to read that cheap or effective utility removal will be a more important role in a game. In this limited format on average every creature you play generates more Effective Mana than what you pay for it and taking that away from your opponent is netting you a difference between the Effective Mana of your removal spell and their creature. In this limited format we will imagine that you will gain a net positive mana every removal spell and that will ensure a victory in most limited games. I hope I have given you guys a lot to think about. I think these theories coincide and can be used in abused by deck builders and up and comers. I would like to deem this theory with a name and I think that shall be. The Theory of Mana.
So how does the Theory of Mana interact with counterspells, removal, or the intricate strategies of the game? I think that a lot of theorist would agree with me that magic theory can have some similarities with physics. In this most things are relative. Velocity of a deck is relative to the number of cards drawn and are able to be played. Fundamental Turn being relative to the format you are playing in. I think that in any given game of magic there is a level of entropy that is available. I think that every game of magic is bound to the first law of thermodynamics. In magic there is a total amount of energy or mana that can be used but you cannot use no more than the ceiling of the set total. Think about if both players got to play magic using all 60 cards in their decks as their opening hand with no discarding or losing to drawing. Each player would exhaust spell after spell while successfully hitting land drop after land drop playing the perfect game of magic with no chances of either player getting “mana screwed.” This would be the total energy limit in a game of magic between two opponents. This limit is relative to the deck configurations as number of lands and spells; however, there is a limit to how much mana you can generate over the course of a game. This would for sure dictate whether a player with the most Effective Mana wins the game is true or not.
How does this Theory of Mana interact with strategy? Well it is easy to see how using Doomblade or Counterspell would be effective against a Primeval Titan; however, when would this be good against a Wild Nacatl or Dark Confidant? If the Wild Nacatl is a 1/1 the chances are you are good to let him resolve and to not Doomblade him, but if he is a 3/3 he is effectively worth three mana and it could be warranted to use any of those spells against him. Now I am not advocating using this to help decide hard judgments I am merely suggesting that this tool could be valuable when analyzing some of these plays. How many turns do you let a Dark Confidant sit on the table before you decide he is ready to meet his friends in the graveyard. If we let him draw one card off of Dark Confidant is the advantage gained too much? Well it is easier to say kill the Confidant earlier than later because every turn he sits on the table your opponent is gaining an Effective two mana. This is how Confidant wins games. Even though the opponent can dome their self for five damage the opponent is paying one resource (life) for another (cards). Usually a card in your library is worth more than your life points unless that life point is that one that changes your life total from one to zero. In a deck where you can find Confidant you can also find the most efficient beaters, removal, and disruption per mana. This is generating even more Effective mana. If your opponent draws a Wild Nactl that will be a 3/3 he is essentially paying one life and one mana for an Effective three mana without him even having drawn his card for turn yet. In this one turn he has surmounted five mana in total value. He gained a card (two mana) a 3/3 beater (three mana). Unless your Forked Bolt can deal four points of damage I think you may be on the wrong side of this exchange. Now how does this work with Counterspells?
This is an interesting concept I have been trying to figure out myself, but I have come to the conclusion that if magic follows the first law of thermodynamics it must also follow the laws set by newton. So in physics when studying forces the most basic concept to understand is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is to say that if you push your finger onto the wall the wall pushes onto your finger with an equal force in an opposite direction. This is why it hurts when you press too hard. So for Counterspells I figured a similar effect has to occur. That is to say if you counter your opponents six mana play of Treasure Cruise with a Pyroblast than you have effectively gained yourself six Effective Mana by denying your opponent that opportunity. This is why counterspells are generally so good. I would be bold to state that regardless of the cost a Counterspell would still generate this value simply be denying your opponent to do so. Now however there are counterspells that are simply not playable but this is usually due to timing restrictions based on the format by the top tier decks. The Fundamental Turn.
Even combo decks obey the Theory of Mana I am proposing. A combo deck wants to delay the game until the conclusion to where it can win by generating enough Effective Mana to kill your opponent. This may be four, five, or two-hundred and seventy-three. Regardless if each of your Pestermite tokens are worth three mana or if your Grapeshot copies are worth two the Effective Mana to kill your opponent is dependent upon the efficiency and capabilities of your deck. Now you’re probably thinking about the decks that go infinite. Decks cannot actually go infinite you have to pick a number or value. If you do not you will create a stack overflow and would cause any single game of magic to collapse on itself.
2. A 2/2 is worth around one colorless mana plus one colored mana (1C): Grizzlybears(1G), Knights Errant(1W), and there is a lot of other 2/2’s for two with abilities, but I don’t want to confuse anyone.
3. One colored mana is worth an effect on a card. Mirridan Crusader (1WW, Doublestrike), Fiendslayer Paladin (1WW, Lifelink) – these cards have more effects, but it was hard to find commons that were 1CC that had an ability; where C is a colored mana.
4. Drawing a card is worth around two colorless mana (cycle) or one colored mana (Reach Through the Mists)
For Reference:
Aj Sachers original statements about stock mana:
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=8738
Travis Woo’s Mana Sum Theory:
http://www.channelfireball.com/home/woo-brews-building-better-decks-with-mana-sum-theory/