[Free Podcast] SMIP # 33: Born of the Gods Review

[Smmenen]

I liked the show.  I appreciate the enthusiasm for Kiora, but I can't help but thinking the extra deference is the simply result of having overlooked certain new cards in the past (Decay, Shaman, etc.).  

Except that our show did not overlook these cards.  Despite people in my twitter feed like LSV bashing DRS, I praised Deathrite Shaman in our podcast review of Return to Ravnica and predicted it would appear in Top 8s, and we both discussed Abrupt Decay extensively in the same episode.

In my written set review, I was even more effusive about DRS - so don't lump me in the category of "overlooking" those cards.  

Here is what I said about DRS in my written set review, for the record:

Deathrite Shaman – I believe this card is Vintage playable. The debate over this card has been ferocious, but I’ll be honest – I haven’t read much of it. I overlooked this card in my first pass through of the spoiler. I only tuned into it once Kevin Cron and I did our most recent So Many Insane Plays Episode 18 podcast, where we reviewed Return to Ravnica, the unrestriction of Burning Wish, and more. This is what I get for not reviewing every card in the set!

This card, like all of the other cards similar to it with multiple functions, that I reviewed already, really puts into focus the value of versatility. Please see my review of Izzet Charm for a more in depth analysis of this principle. But the idea is simple: while the individual elements of this card may not rise to Vintage playability, does the sum in total push it over that line? I believe so in this case, if only because this card actually offers more than 3 effects: it actually offers 7, including the warm body.

This card can exile lands, sorceries, instants, creatures, gain 2 life, cause the opponent to lose 2 life, and adds a mana to your mana pool. Each of those things matter.

You might not believe it, but Birds of Paradise effects are quite good right now. A Birds can be played on turn one with just a land and a Mox under a Lodestone Golem and a Thorn, and can help accelerate out spells like Tinker or Jace. If you are playing with fetchlands or Wasteland, you can probably get a nice, immediate Birds effect. Generating mana with this Shaman might not be as consistent as with ]Noble Hierarch or Birds of Paradise, but it’s not inconsistent either. And, situationally, removing land is more important than generating mana. This card can stop Strip Mine recursion with Crucible of Worlds, for example.

Exiling Instants or Sorceries from graveyards is clearly relevant in a format where Snapcaster Mage and Yawgmoth’s Will see heavy play. It’s a non-trivial fact, though, that 2 life is sucked from the opponent as well. If you are applying pressure, this card will contribute to it while disrupting the opponent.

The third ability is critical as well. Taking out a creature can help against both Goblin Welder/Baleful Strix recursion, and more importantly, Dredge. Taking out the first turn Golgari Grave-Troll can be huge.

In sum, the first ability is good against both Shops (especially in the early game), the second ability is good against Control, and the third ability is good against Dredge.

The real limitation on this card, in my opinion, is that you have to play both black and green. You have to play black to get the second ability, which is the most important ability by a strong plurality.

As for Kiora, I think I predicted 2 Kioras in Top 8s.  So, it's not like I'm predicting it to take over the world

[boxian]

Sphinx's Revelation is pretty good in Standard I heard.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

Seriously, isn't Lodestone the only printing they've admitted was squarely aimed at Eternal in like, the last half decade?

Mental Misstep isn't quite 5 years old yet. And I believe that I read Deathrite and Decay were more printed for Eternal than not. Honestly, there have been really good recent printings, but I think it's reasonable to expect a downswing in eternal playable cards as they try to ratchet down the power level again, as they like to do every few sets.

[brianpk80]

Except that our show did not overlook these cards.  Despite people in my twitter feed like LSV bashing DRS, I praised Deathrite Shaman in our podcast review of Return to Ravnica and predicted it would appear in Top 8s, and we both discussed Abrupt Decay extensively in the same episode.

In my written set review, I was even more effusive about DRS - so don't lump me in the category of "overlooking" those cards.  

I remember a painfully long debate where you were adamantly unwilling to acknowledge Abrupt Decay might have a home in Vintage and it's pretty well established that the degree of DRS's prevalence was wildly underestimated.   Anyway, we all make mistakes and the point being made earlier was not pejorative; I was sharing some perspective on why a newfound more careful/deferential approach to new printings can have problems at the other extreme of the spectrum, for instance gushing over cards like Kiora.   

Honestly, there have been really good recent printings, but I think it's reasonable to expect a downswing in eternal playable cards as they try to ratchet down the power level again, as they like to do every few sets.

I agreed that when the power level drops, Vintage gains less.  The issue I have with this block is that we really haven't had a major power nose-dive since Mercadian Masques block and even that had a lot more to offer than Theros.  The only two prior downswings were Fallen Empires-Homelands era, after they came to understand the problems of broken cards from Alpha through Legends, and Masques, after the Urza's block.  We haven't really had extreme "problem" sets like Alpha and Urza's Saga in a long time so this prudishness in design seems arbitrary and is very annoying.   
 

[Smmenen]

Except that our show did not overlook these cards.  Despite people in my twitter feed like LSV bashing DRS, I praised Deathrite Shaman in our podcast review of Return to Ravnica and predicted it would appear in Top 8s, and we both discussed Abrupt Decay extensively in the same episode.

In my written set review, I was even more effusive about DRS - so don't lump me in the category of "overlooking" those cards.  

I remember a painfully long debate where you were adamantly unwilling to acknowledge Abrupt Decay might have a home in Vintage

The discussion I think you are talking about is a discussion three months afterward it had been released, where, IIRC, there had been 18 Top 8 appearances.  I wasn't expressing disbelief at that fact, but asking the narrow question of "why" it was played -- specific uses.  In my set review, I said that I thought Abrupt Decay was limited by being unable to hit Golem or Jace, so I was simply asking what, in view of the players, explained its prevalance.  I wasn't being skeptical or doubtful -- just genuinely curious in the role of a scientific investigator.

and it's pretty well established that the degree of DRS's prevalence was wildly underestimated.

I predicted a non-zero number of DRS in Top 8s, and I think the actual number was 5, IIRC.  I think my prediction was pretty accurate both quantitatively and qualitatively.  

  Anyway, we all make mistakes and the point being made earlier was not pejorative; I was sharing some perspective on why a newfound more careful/deferential approach to new printings can have problems at the other extreme of the spectrum, for instance gushing over cards like Kiora.  

If you want a better example, start with the guesstimate of Swan Song.  I can't remember my prediction from the podcast (maybe 4?) but it was like 17.  

Honestly, there have been really good recent printings, but I think it's reasonable to expect a downswing in eternal playable cards as they try to ratchet down the power level again, as they like to do every few sets.

I agreed that when the power level drops, Vintage gains less.  The issue I have with this block is that we really haven't had a major power nose-dive since Mercadian Masques block and even that had a lot more to offer than Theros.  The only two prior downswings were Fallen Empires-Homelands era, after they came to understand the problems of broken cards from Alpha through Legends, and Masques, after the Urza's block.  We haven't really had extreme "problem" sets like Alpha and Urza's Saga in a long time so this prudishness in design seems arbitrary and is very annoying.    

I don't see any large scale cycle or trends at work.  I think top down design is to blame.   The mechanics and design themes of this block are inherently anti-synergistic with Vintage since they are often creature and combat oriented.  Bring back flashback or storm, and you'll have a very different conversation, even if the power level of the set is low.  

I also don't agree with the general notion that as power level drops Vintage is somehow a loser.  It only takes a small number of cards to make a set a Vintage success; as many as 2-3 cards can be enough.  If we get 5-6 Vintage playables, I consider it a very good set.  10 would be outstanding.  

You can design a set that is a low overall power level, and yet have 2-3 very good Vintage cards because of specific Vintage synergies that have nothing to do with overall power levels, but have to do with specific cards like Workshop and Bazaar of Baghdad, to take two common examples.  

You could have a set with a very high power level overall and still not have Vintage playables.  Power level is not a very good lens, IMO, for ascertaining Vintage playability.  Artifact sets and graveyard sets or sets with lots of unusual design space like Future Sight, with lots of unusual design space, are naturally stronger for Vintage because they aren't wedded to areas of the game that are weaker in Vintage, like combat, or have specific synergies, since Vintage is so GY and artifact oriented. 



 

[brianpk80]

I don't see any large scale cycle or trends at work.  I think top down design is to blame.   The mechanics and design themes of this block are inherently anti-synergistic with Vintage since they are often creature and combat oriented.

I wish that were the case, but it wouldn't account for the success of Innistrad which was also top-down or the fact that the power level nose-dive began in Gatecrash, 2 sets before the dreadful Theros.  The set has an inefficiency problem.  I can't think of many successful decks that don't have at least four creatures main these days, so nothing would require that cards interacting with creatures should be uniformly terrible.  What makes Theros block cards terrible is the fact they're priced on average more than anyone would reasonably consider paying for them, the exact same problem we saw in Homelands. 

[Smmenen]

I don't see any large scale cycle or trends at work.  I think top down design is to blame.   The mechanics and design themes of this block are inherently anti-synergistic with Vintage since they are often creature and combat oriented.

I wish that were the case, but it wouldn't account for the success of Innistrad which was also top-down or the fact that the power level nose-dive began in Gatecrash, 2 sets before the dreadful Theros.  The set has an inefficiency problem.  I can't think of many successful decks that don't have at least four creatures main these days, so nothing would require that cards interacting with creatures should be uniformly terrible.  What makes Theros block cards terrible is the fact they're priced on average more than anyone would reasonably consider paying for them, the exact same problem we saw in Homelands. 

Let me clarify what I meant by blaming "top down design."  Top down design is not inherently good or bad for Vintage.  But what it does is create a focus or foci for any given set based upon themes/mechanics.  A top down set design when implemented in the context of blocks, which are inherently thematic, risk being inherently weaker for Vintage.   This is because themes that are weak in Vintage, like those found in this block, then become terrible when permeated and filtered through a set as part of an overall design approach. 

A top-down design could be awesome for Vintage: case in point is the core sets.  The idea of making simple cards that are basically slight modifications of existing cards, ala Preordain or Young Pyromancer, or in Lorwyn, Ponder and Thorn of Amethyst, is awesome! 

When you take a Vintage playable, and make a sometimes better/sometimes worse version, that's often going to be a Vintage playable (see Flusterstorm vis-a-vis Spell Pierce). 

But top-down overlaying a set focused on combat mechanics and creature boosters, like this block, is generally going to suck. 

The reason I don't see any large scale trends is because I think any given upcoming set could be much better, and M14 and Commander were excellent. 

[evouga]

I think it's a little of both.

Theros block is designed to be all about

1. Enchanting your own guys with expensive Bestow enchantments, triggering Heroic
2. Attack with a bunch of guys, so that they eventually untap and trigger Inspired
3. Play combat tricks, to trigger Heroic

and a typical Vintage deck is not interested in going along with any part of this plan. Then again, I feel like mana costing in this block has been ultra-conservative. Astral Conucopia is probably the biggest wall-banger of the set -- it would have been bad even at XX -- but as briankpk80 said, even the more interesting cards that could have been interesting in Vintage, such as the demigods, are about 2 mana above fair price by Zendikar or Innistrad standards.

[brianpk80]

Let me clarify what I meant by blaming "top down design."  Top down design is not inherently good or bad for Vintage.  But what it does is create a focus or foci for any given set based upon themes/mechanics.  A top down set design when implemented in the context of blocks, which are inherently thematic, risk being inherently weaker for Vintage.   This is because themes that are weak in Vintage, like those found in this block, then become terrible when permeated and filtered through a set as part of an overall design approach. 

A top-down design could be awesome for Vintage: case in point is the core sets.  The idea of making simple cards that are basically slight modifications of existing cards, ala Preordain or Young Pyromancer, or in Lorwyn, Ponder and Thorn of Amethyst, is awesome! 

Top-down means that the flavor is the starting point and the technicalities of the cards are crafted specifically to represent each idea.  The concept of a pleasant townsman by day becoming a werewolf by night yields the double-faced card with transform, as opposed to bottom-up where transform is designed mechanically and then the question is asked, "What sort of flavor would suit this card?  Perhaps a werewolf."  Thorn of Amethyst and the Core Set aren't the results of top-down design, though I do agree with your point that variations of powerful cards that are neither strictly better or worse are good for Vintage. 

But top-down overlaying a set focused on combat mechanics and creature boosters, like this block, is generally going to suck. 

I do appreciate your point that a set loaded with Auras and creature boosts is less likely to impact Vintage for obvious reasons, though those reasons are mitigated by the recent creature influx.  The problem I see is that what you're describing is bottom-up design, where combat mechanics are the starting point and a world/theme is crafted around them.  Hence, the criticism should not apply to top-down.  Design could have just as easily begun with Gods and minor Gods as a starting point and represented their "domains" with powerful enchantments recalling Enchant Worlds like Nether Void.  Secondly, even accepting Bestow, Heroic, Monstrosity, and Inspired as part of the package, nothing inherently prevents them from being grafted onto cards that are acceptable for Vintage play.  Equip and Transform are not mechanics one would normally associate with the way Vintage games tend to proceed, but because of high value & efficiency, we see cards like Delver of Secrets, Umezawa's Jitte, Mayor of Avabruck, and Batterskull seeing very frequent play.  That's what's missing in Theros block, the value and RoI, not necessarily the themes and mechanics themselves. 

The reason I don't see any large scale trends is because I think any given upcoming set could be much better, and M14 and Commander were excellent. 

Well, I do expect Vintage playables in supplemental releases.  But that doesn't negate the fact that there has been a trend towards impotence in all Standard legal products since Gatecrash.  M14 was not excellent; it had one card that was playable in Vintage among a -lot- of chaff, but the power level of the set was very much in the shadow of M10, M11, and M12. 

[MaximumCDawg]

Gatecrash was only in the last block, silly.  It is not much of a trend. 

Anyway, there are elements of truth to both of your points.  The particular mechanics of this set are by already stacked against vintage play, and because of the sets strong top down design, the cards all tend to cluster around those themes.  But, it is perfeclt possible for wizards to have many different mechanics and great vairety in a set but miss the mark anyway by being too timid, ala gatecrash.

[WotC_Ethan]

There are plenty of astute observations in this thread.

We try to vary what mechanical spaces we emphasize in different blocks, so that different Limited environments and different Standard seasons play differently and feel differently. I agree that the power level of the last couple blocks hasn't been very high for Vintage players. The nature of the mechanical themes of the blocks (multicolored cards, buffing creatures) do not lend themselves to Vintage play. Added to that is the fact that a lot of the power in Theros block comes from synergies between cards, not from the power level of individual cards.

Rest assured, the themes will be different in the future.  There will be plenty of artifacts and interactions with zones other than the battlefield, and all that stuff you guys like.

As an aside, the problems of Homelands went waaaay beyond mana costs. Don't tell me you'd play with Mammoth Harness or Aysen Highway if only they cost less mana.

[Smmenen]

There are plenty of astute observations in this thread.

We try to vary what mechanical spaces we emphasize in different blocks, so that different Limited environments and different Standard seasons play differently and feel differently. I agree that the power level of the last couple blocks hasn't been very high for Vintage players. The nature of the mechanical themes of the blocks (multicolored cards, buffing creatures) do not lend themselves to Vintage play. Added to that is the fact that a lot of the power in Theros block comes from synergies between cards, not from the power level of individual cards.

Thanks Ethan.

This last part is a really important point. 

I appreciate Brian's perspective, but I think his analysis is underpinned by a far too limiting and simplistic view of power in relation to Vintage playability -- looking primarily if not exclusively at the ratio of effect to casting cost.  Casting cost is sometimes irrelevant in Vintage (see Blightsteel Colossus, Bridge from Below, Narcomoeba or Golgari Grave-Troll). 

While casting cost generally matters, what matters much more than some generalized assessment about baseline levels of efficiency is zones being emphasized, themes, mechanics, and synergies with existing Vintage staples, like Oath, Workshop, Bazaar, or disruptive potential ala Null Rod, Spirit of the Labyrinth, etc.  A card could measure mediocre on the simple power/casting cost scale, and be nonetheless useful because of the prevalence of tactics in Vintage that it affects, such as Aven Mindcensor or specific synergies like Trinket Mage.  Young Pyromancer is obviously going to be much more powerful in Vintage than other formats because of card celerity.  A narrow view of power -- trying to take an objective rather than contextual POV -- would fail to appreciate this.

[DubDub]

I agree that the power level of the last couple blocks hasn't been very high for Vintage players. The nature of the mechanical themes of the blocks (multicolored cards, buffing creatures) do not lend themselves to Vintage play.

Or for Modern players and Modern play.  Remember when after Born of the Gods was spoiled, and every single Modern article by a pro was speculation about the banlist because Born of the Gods had a too-low power level to impact the smallest Eternal format?
Chapin
Demars
Woods
Kibler

I think there were a few more I couldn't find at this time in the morning.  Legacy has also basically ignored this sets' release apart from Death and Taxes decks trying out Spirit.  It's not just Vintage, and the perceived low power-level is not uniquely a complaint from Vintage players.

Added to that is the fact that a lot of the power in Theros block comes from synergies between cards, not from the power level of individual cards.

The issue is that unless we're talking about a constructed format where that's the best available strategy (i.e. Theros Block Constructed), cards need to be pretty good on their own to see play, or be a part of a synergistic win-condition, not just value generator.  This is how you get people trying to make decks with 4x Pain Seer and 4x Aura of Dominion when they're probably just better off playing free cards like Gitaxian Probe and/or Street Wraith in those slots instead of opening themselves up to 2-for-1s just to assemble an Ad Nauseam.

I appreciate Brian's perspective, but I think his analysis is underpinned by a far too limiting and simplistic view of power in relation to Vintage playability -- looking primarily if not exclusively at the ratio of effect to casting cost.

I suspect Brian, like any long-time Vintage player, is implicitly speaking at all times in the Vintage context.  No one has forgotten that Mishra's Workshop or Bazaar of Baghdad exist when they talk about why Evanescent Intellect is a bad card for constructed formats.

Casting cost is sometimes irrelevant in Vintage (see Blightsteel Colossus, Bridge from Below, Narcomoeba or Golgari Grave-Troll).

Right, when it's a card played in conjunction with another highly efficient and aggressively costed card that allows you to ignore casting cost.  Blightsteel's CMC would be relevant if Tinker didn't exist, AND also if Tinker and all similar effects cost seven.  Who's going to be welding in Mindslaver when Goblin Welder costs  ?

synergies with existing Vintage staples, like Oath, Workshop, Bazaar

All of which are themselves drastically undercosted and allow you to ignore casting cost or greatly discount it.  No one plays Defense of the Heart because Oath is leagues better.  Dredge would not be remotely the same deck if Bazaar's ability had an activation cost of  , etc.  Hyper-efficiency or synergies with some of the best hyper-efficient cards is paramount in Vintage, and it's part of the implicit context when talking about why cards like Akroan Skyguard are bad.

Young Pyromancer is obviously going to be much more powerful in Vintage than other formats because of card celerity.

Right, but also because it doesn't cost to make the token like with... Satyr Nyx-Smith.

[MaximumCDawg]

There are plenty of astute observations in this thread.

That's very kind of you.  It's typically true of comments related to Menedian's podcast, though.

Thanks for stopping by this thread!  It's great to hear from someone on the inside of the racetrack.

The nature of the mechanical themes of the blocks (multicolored cards, buffing creatures) do not lend themselves to Vintage play. Added to that is the fact that a lot of the power in Theros block comes from synergies between cards, not from the power level of individual cards.

Actually, I blame the fact that Wizards is too darn good at their job now.  The mechanics may not have lent themselves to Vintage en masse, but all it would take would be very minor design oversights to crack them into Vintage.  For example, if Heroic triggered on becoming the target of any spell or effect, rather than when a spell is cast targeting the creature, the potential for abuse goes up dramatically.  If you had printed a cheap Cihper spell that, say, destroyed a 1 or 0 casting cost artifact, that would potentially be playable.  Or, if Stroinic Resontar could target your opponent's triggers, it immediately becomes more interesting.

Thing is, I get completely why Development would shy away from these kind of things.  The very potential for abuse that makes them Vintage-playable also makes them potentially dangerous in other formats.

I do not think it is a mistake that Vintage sees the most new cards out of obscure and narrow effects rather than abusive development mistakes these days.  But, then again, Jace: TMS did happen...

As an aside, the problems of Homelands went waaaay beyond mana costs. Don't tell me you'd play with Mammoth Harness or Aysen Highway if only they cost less mana.

"Aside" nothing, the people in this thread comparing Born of the Gods to Fallen Empires and Homelands are smoking some pretty stinky crack.  Those sets were almost like people trying actively to make bad cards.  Masques was a better attempt to dial back power creep.  If Theros is doing the same, it's EVEN BETTER at that.  Wizards must have many veteran employees now, because they're getting almost universally better at their jobs over time.

[Smmenen]

I appreciate Brian's perspective, but I think his analysis is underpinned by a far too limiting and simplistic view of power in relation to Vintage playability -- looking primarily if not exclusively at the ratio of effect to casting cost.

I suspect Brian, like any long-time Vintage player, is implicitly speaking at all times in the Vintage context.  No one has forgotten that Mishra's Workshop or Bazaar of Baghdad exist when they talk about why Evanescent Intellect is a bad card for constructed formats.

That's not my point.  My point is that power level is simplistically not reducible to casting cost or some concept of efficiency or derivation thereof (like hyper-efficiency).  It's like those laughable analyses of the restricted list that begin by asserting that cards are restricted because they are 'undercosted' effects or are "tutors."  

Efficiency matters for all formats, not just Vintage, so I'm not sure the relevance of pointing out the Vintage context.

Casting cost is sometimes irrelevant in Vintage (see Blightsteel Colossus, Bridge from Below, Narcomoeba or Golgari Grave-Troll).

Right, when it's a card played in conjunction with another highly efficient and aggressively costed card that allows you to ignore casting cost.  Blightsteel's CMC would be relevant if Tinker didn't exist, AND also if Tinker and all similar effects cost seven.  Who's going to be welding in Mindslaver when Goblin Welder costs   ?

That's not the point.  There are a scaling of ways to bring cards into play: oath, Show and Tell, Sneak Attack, Dream Halls, etc scaled to each casting cost.  If the effect is useful enough, people will find ways to cheat it into play even if cards like Tinker or Oath didn't exist.  We'd just move to the next possibility if the effect was good enough.

I'm contesting the notion that the problem with BOG is some relative inefficiency in casting cost.  That's not the problem with BOG.  It's its focus (themes, mechanics, areas of design emphasis, etc), which are channeled through top down design throughout the entire set to render it less intersting/applicable to Vintage.  

A set with the same level of mana efficency but focused around areas that matter to Vintage would produce Vintage playables.  That disproves the claim that the problem with BOG is simply efficiency/casting cost.

A view that is primarily or even largely focused on casting cost is a dramatically narrow,simplistic and naive understanding of design and playability for Vintage.  Again, I'd recommend my article on this point: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-designing-for-eternal/

Again, Vintage features areas of the game that are less salient or less important than other formats.  That's why Null Rod is so much better in Vintage, but that's not the only example.  Aven Mindcensor is probably average or slightly above average power level looking at it from a pure efficiency metric (3cc 2/1 flyer), but that ignores the fact that shuffling happens so much more in Vintage than other formats.  A card can cost that much and be playable in Vintage if it drills down in areas that matter in Vintage.

I'm just really tired of the very poorly constructed notion (myth really) that all that  matters or what matters most is casting cost.  Yes, casting cost matters, but casting cost need not be hyper efficient or becomes less relevant for certain kinds of effects of interactions.  It's simply not paramount, as some you lead us to believe.  

To wit: There is much more "give" in terms of casting cost that Vintage is willing to accept and trade-off in exchange for really useful (even narrow) effects that don't exist elsewhere.

There are some really problematic assumptions/myths/misconceptions backgrounding  this discussion.

EDIT:

Another example:  

Suppose that all Magic sets have an average efficiency quotient, from 0-100, with the most efficient set (possible Arabian Nights at one time) being 100, and the most costly set (possibly Homelands) being 0.   Let's say that there is some statistical relationship between the proportion of cards playable in Vintage and set efficiency.  I'm positing that such a relationship is weak at best (say coefficient of 30-40).   I'm saying that what matters just as much, if not more, is thematic focus/design focus (i.e. artifacts, graveyard), mechanics, etc.  

As I tried to explain to Brian earlier, you could have a set with below average efficiency quotient (let's say a 40), and produce far more Vintage playables than a set that has above average efficiency quotient (say 60), if directed towards areas of Vintage concern.  If I'm right, then your myopic focus on efficiency is dramatically undermined.  That's my point.  Your comments, and Brian's, are FAR too reductionist in that regard.  Yes, efficiency matters, but not as much as you are suggesting.  Vintage has more "give" in that respect than such viewpoints might suggest.  That's important for designers like Ethan to bear in mind, as it means that there is more design space than simply trying to make cards undercosted.

[evouga]

It's possible for a set with very high average mana cost to contain some Vintage gems, sure. Particularly if there are cards that have unique effects. Gristlebrand is an example of a card that has had a dramatic effect on Vintage, and its mana cost is completely irrelevant. On the other hand, you have a large number of cards for which efficiency is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition on Vintage playability, and I would argue that this category is larger than the first. Nobody would pay for Lodestone Golem, {G} for Nature's Claim, for Delver of Secrets, for Mental Misstep, for Snapcaster Mage... maybe they'd pay for Grafdigger's Cage, but I'd wager the Cage would find its way into far fewer decks than it does currently.

When R&D goes out of its way to price all of the cards in a set extremely conservatively, the chance of the set yielding cards of this second, larger category decreases commensurately. Maybe you'll still end up with a Gristlebrand or two. But you won't have the bounty of Vintage playables that we saw in Zendikar or Innistrad blocks.

EDIT: The claim that the number of Vintage playables in a set is only weakly correlated to the efficiency of the set is a testable one, in theory. The tricky part is quantifying the efficiency of a given set: average mana cost is not that great of an indicator, for many reasons, but is a start. Is there a place I can get a recent (if possible, machine-parsable) version of the Vintage checklist?

[Smmenen]

When R&D goes out of its way to price all of the cards in a set extremely conservatively, the chance of the set yielding cards of this second, larger category decreases commensurately. Maybe you'll still end up with a Gristlebrand or two. But you won't have the bounty of Vintage playables that we saw in Zendikar or Innistrad blocks.

Again, even your groupings is a very narrow way to look at Vintage utility.   I'm not saying that super expensive spells are going to be played in Vintage.  But what I am saying is that, at the margin, cards do not need to be hype-efficient, only average efficiency, to see play in Vintage.  The far more important question is Vintage utility.  If you have really narrow or unique effects, it could be average level efficiency (say, 50 on my scale) and be Vintage playable.  A focus on efficiency obscures this from a design perspective.   A dialogue on how BOG is so inefficient or overcosted especially obfuscates this fact.  that's not its problem.  That may be a problem; but it's not the main problem.  

EDIT:

EDIT: The claim that the number of Vintage playables in a set is only weakly correlated to the efficiency of the set is a testable one, in theory. The tricky part is quantifying the efficiency of a given set: average mana cost is not that great of an indicator, for many reasons, but is a start. Is there a place I can get a recent (if possible, machine-parsable) version of the Vintage checklist?

Those are two separate steps.  First, you have to create a ranking for each set, then you have to cross reference it with the list of Vintage playables, to see how many vintage playables come from each set as a proportion of new printings in that set.  If you can rank sets first by efficiency, then we can probably eye ball the second step.

Again, I'm not saying there is no correlation -- I'm saying that I think it's relatively weak -- .3-.4 as opposed to a strong correlation, like .6-.7.

[brianpk80]

I appreciate Brian's perspective, but I think his analysis is underpinned by a far too limiting and simplistic view of power in relation to Vintage playability -- looking primarily if not exclusively at the ratio of effect to casting cost.  Casting cost is sometimes irrelevant in Vintage (see Blightsteel Colossus, Bridge from Below, Narcomoeba or Golgari Grave-Troll).  

That goes without saying; there's a difference between not iterating points that are mutually understood to be true (out respect for an audience's intelligence) and being ignorant of them.  That said, I understand that you would consider an empirically underpowered set "good" for Vintage if it contained a few cards that while inefficient themselves created a strong synergy with Bazaar, Gifts, Workshop, etc.  That's a reasonable view, though I generally prefer sets where novel concepts are presented efficiently.  Compare Laboratory Maniac to Perplexing Chimera (what a disappointment for an otherwise potentially playable card).  Another frustrating example is Daxos of Meletis.  For reference, "...Whenever Daxos of Meletis deals combat damage to a player, exile the top card of that player's library. You gain life equal to that card's converted mana cost. Until end of turn, you may cast that card and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it."  At 1WU, the card would be borderline playable in a Humans shell except for the fact that design deliberately chose the word "cast" in lieu of "play" so that anytime it flips over a land, the benefit totally bricks.  That kind of adulteration is unnecessary and inexcusable, IMO, and unfortunately we see it throughout Theros block on the cards that don't immediately repulse us with their cost.  Kiora is an example, a stunningly low 2 starting loyalty on a 4CMC Walker with no countervailing enhancement.  There's no way that would have been broken or overpowered at 3, with the ultimate bumped up to -6.  Then there are Minor Gods without (!) activated abilities and requiring seven devotion with a special note that hybrid mana counts as either an X or a Y but not both.  The impotence in Born of the Gods isn't even subtle.  

As an aside, the problems of Homelands went waaaay beyond mana costs. Don't tell me you'd play with Mammoth Harness or Aysen Highway if only they cost less mana.

Alright, it's fair to say that the problem of novel but absurdly narrow abilities that we saw throughout Legends, The Dark, Homelands, and other earlier sets was mostly weeded out by the time Visions/Weatherlight rolled around.  The bigger problem in Homelands however was the inefficiency.  There was more than a handful of cards that could have had interesting applications in Type 1 had they been priced more reasonably (An-Zerrin Ruins, Mystic Decree, Sengir Autocrat, etc.).  It also had the first creature in the game's history with an ability that approximated Hexproof (Autumn Willow).  Hence, it would be unfair to say that the set had nothing going for it, despite being notoriously loathed.  Part of its bad reputation comes from preceding the game's longest gap between expansions without satisfying an excited player base thirsty for new cards on par with the increasingly difficult to acquire ones from the earlier sets.  The long season of malaise that lasted until Alliances with the defeatist sense that Wizards would "never print good cards again" exacerbates the negative view of Homelands in ways that wouldn't be applicable to Theros or Born of the Goods.  But their power levels are very comparable.  Like Homelands, I wouldn't say that Theros block has nothing going for it in an absolute sense but it is weakest overall block since the pre-block era without parallel.  On a positive note, that is a strong testament to the uninterrupted success of every block since at least Odyssey.  

Masques was a better attempt to dial back power creep.

It was also more warranted.  Blowback from Alpha yielded Fallen through Homelands.  Masques responded to Urza's Block.  Kamigawa, the best dial-back, toned the edges down after Affinity but still produced an exquisite offering of peculiar cards that left a permanent mark on Vintage.  The Stoneblade era seems unaccounted for with a dial-down as it was followed by Scars, Innistrad, and the first set in RtR.  The only thing I can think of that would account for the negative changes since Gatecrash is Snapcaster Mage<-Cavern of Souls but that seems very minute by historical standards.  Perhaps the reason is Modern and a desire to handle that format with kid gloves.  

"Aside" nothing, the people in this thread comparing Born of the Gods to Fallen Empires and Homelands are smoking some pretty stinky crack.  Those sets were almost like people trying actively to make bad cards.

What would you call these?

[evouga]

Rest assured, the themes will be different in the future.  There will be plenty of artifacts and interactions with zones other than the battlefield, and all that stuff you guys like.

Wow, I didn't notice an R&D member had weighed in on this thread. That's great to hear. You guys did a great job with Zendikar and Innistrad blocks and I look forward to what's coming in the future.

[evouga]

What would you call these?

I think I remember Mark Rosewater saying at some point that there's a bet going on inside R&D about how crappy they can print removal and still have the card appear in Limited decks. Might be part of what's going on here.

[MaximumCDawg]

What would you call these?

You're cherry-picking some of the worst cards in the worst type of cards in Theros.  They're printing awful removal in this set to allow people to build voltrons in limited.  You can't have an aura-based block in a world with Lightning Bolt at common.  Born of the Gods also has perfectly sensible (but unexciting for Vintage) cards like the Gods, Pain Seer, that one dude who untaps permanents, etc.

But, you've been on and on and on about how Born of the Gods is like Homelands so much in this thread, it makes me want to do a comprehensive analysis.

Are you really gonna make me do this?  

You're really gonna make do this.  

Fine.

THIS IS NOW THE THREAD IN WHICH WE COMPREHENSIVELY REVIEW BORN OF THE GODS IN COMPARISON TO HOMELANDS

I will be back to edit this post in an hour or so with my results.

WHITE CREATURES
--------------------
Homelands:
Average Power: 1.411764706
Average Toughness: 1.882352941
Average Casting Cost: 2.764705882
Efficiency (Power+Toughness / CC): 1.191
Best abilities:  Well, we got one with protection from black, one pro red, a few that redirect damage in a limited way, and, um a bird lord.  At least Crusader gets a bonus for each Soldier you control.

Born of the Gods
Average Power: 2.2352941176
Average Toughness: 2.4705882353
Average Casting Cost: 2.9411764706

Note: For two creatures, I adjusted their PT from what is printed on the card.  The one bird-chariot tribute thing gives you 5/5 worth of duders, just sometimes it's a single 5/5 and sometimes it's a 3/3 and two 1/1s.  I counted that as 5/5.  Also, I counted Ediolon of Countless Battles as 1/1 because he'll always give himself 1/1.

Efficiency (Power+Toughness / CC): 1.6
Best abilities:  Chains of Mephistopheles, several cards spawn dudes like crazy, most notably Brimaz.  Several cards cast raise dead-ish effects on ETB.  

WINNER:  Born of the Gods by a mile.  The creatures are significantly more efficient, and bigger, and have better abilities.  The thing to remember also is that there are many, many very bad abilities in Homelands that don't even merit much discussion (pay mana to gain banding, lol) whereas all of the Born of the Gods dudes at least have some arguable utility in limited.

BLUE CREATURES
------------------
Homelands:
Average Power: 1.9090909091
Average Toughness: 2.8181818182
Average Casting Cost: 3.6363636364
Efficiency (Power+Toughness / CC): 1.3
Best Abilities:  There's a pro red sprite, and a clam that taps to lock down and melt an enemy creature.  Next best is probably a tie between the wall that makes more walls for UU, and a pinger that pings for 2 every other turn.  We're scraping the bottom of the barrell here.

Born of the Gods
Average Power: 2.75
Average Toughness: 2.9375
Average Casting Cost: 3.1428571429
Efficiency (Power+Toughness / CC): 1.8096590909
Best Abilities:  One card lets you cast permanents from your library for free, another steals enemy spells, and several are unblockable or hard to block.

WINNER: Born of the Gods.  About as far apart in efficiency terms as White, the abilities in Born of the Gods are FAR AND AWAY better than those in Homelands.  This is pretty clear even when I just report on the best abilities.  Reminder: Homelands has a blue troll whose ability is to regenerate IF it has been in combat with another blue creature this turn.  lolwhut

RED CREATURES
-------------------
Homelands:
Average Power: 2.0833333333
Average Toughness: 1.9166666667
Average Casting Cost: 3.5
Efficiency (Power+Toughness / CC):  1.1428571429
Best Abilities: Suprisingly decent for Homelands.  Chandler and Joven both have solid removal utility, and Eron is actually a pretty fair beater.  The cliff drops off pretty fast after the Legends, though.

Born of the Gods:
Average Power:2.7222222222
Average Toughness: 2.3333333333
Average Casting Cost:3.5
Efficiency: 1.4444444444
Best Abilities: It's looking grim for BNG here.  Red's best abilities are basically flying, haste, paying to scry, and one-shot artifact kill.  

NOTE: I am completely ignoring Tribute unless both sides of Tribute give you the same power and toughness effectively.  So, unlike in White, here I don't give any modifier for efficiency for crap cards like Oracle of Bones or even the Phoenix.  That goes some way towards explaining the closer efficiency.

WINNER:  It's a tie!  Shocked me, too.  Now, remember, when Homelands abilities are bad, they are REALLY bad.  There's a 3 drop who can tap to make a dwarf bigger and maybe die.  But due to almost identical efficiency, and on the back of Joven, Chandler, and Eron -- probably some of the best cards in all of Homelands -- I can't honestly say BNG is better.

Next up: Green Creatures (but not right now, I'm tired. Will continue tomorrow unless someone else wants to. The way this is going, it could make a pretty hilarious article for one of you publisher-types.  Gimme a buzz if interested)

[boxian]

What would you call these?

I think I remember Mark Rosewater saying at some point that there's a bet going on inside R&D about how crappy they can print removal and still have the card appear in Limited decks. Might be part of what's going on here.

Oh man, if that's true, that's hilarious.

So, I would say that I've been disappointed in this block more than most because I also play a bit of Modern and my deck of choice is an impossible deck in any other format - GW Hexproof, also known as Bogles. I bring this up because it's important to point out that there are no actual playable cards from the aura block for the aura deck.

Aura deck. Aura block. No playable cards. That's significant in that it shows that yes, this block has been deemed as a power down period. That said, I don't think it's a Homelands. I'm just really disappointed that the Aura deck hasn't gotten a playable card yet.

Why is that? It's because none of the cards are competitively costed.

So, while casting cost doesn't matter sometimes (Show and Tell, Sneak Attack, Oath of Druids are the main things here), it DOES matter for everything else that you do in my understanding of vintage. You look at a card, you determine it's affect and it's usefulness and then you take into account how much it will cost you. If you don't get a significant return, it won't be played.

Trostani's Judgment, for example, is a 6 mana instant "exile target creature" effect. Obviously unplayable anywhere besides Limited (and questionable there) because it costs too much and comes down too late.

For Steven's point, Yawgmoth's Bargain is the "fixed" Necropotence by doubling it's mana cost. But that card says, "get to 7 mana, win the game" (7 because you need some way to get more mana to continue casting spells, not that I don't know the CMC). Well for 7 mana, I would like to win the game, that sounds like a good cost to pay for that effect.

Narrow effects, such as mass artifact destruction which is an effect that is uniquely loved in vintage, aren't played unless they are hyper efficient or can get around certain locks. For example, Shatterstorm/Creeping Corrosion aren't played, Pulverize (probably easy to float mana and get around a sphere effect or two, but has the downside of requiring mountains) and Seeds of Innocence (at 3CMC! and a largely negligible drawback when you're destroying 0CMC artifacts or killing via Blightsteel) isn't played.

So I would contest that mana cost is certainly the stick to measure efficiency by, though maybe not the full measure, it does give a good way to check the card at the door. If a card isn't efficiently costed, it won't be played unless it's effect is powerful enough to pay for (Bargain) or cheat out (Griselbrand).

[brianpk80]

Are you really gonna make me do this?  

You're really gonna make do this.  

Fine.

That was a delightful post.  Remember to weigh the Bestow creatures at their Bestow costs and that the Minotaur lord in Homelands benefits from his own bonus so it would be 2/3 rather than the 1/3 written in its corner.    On a more clinical note, it's not pragmatically possible to quantify attributes outside of CMC and P/T so doing so omits a lot of enlightening data.  Even if a comparison of the most vanilla attributes of the creatures shows marginal favor to BNG (in just some colors), how do we account for the stratospheric Merchant Scroll or the longstanding sideboard staple Serrated Arrows in so many different formats?  The best of Homelands, a set much smaller than the entirety of Theros block, is unambiguously more potent and relevant than anything the block has offered thus far.  I don't even want to get into that 6 mana sorcery speed Lightning Bolt; you could get a Craw Wurm for that price.  And even black creature boosters like Feast of the Unicorn tacitly acknowledge that even when coming from the worst of the worst, 4B is too unreasonable for an Unholy Strength.  

But, you've been on and on and on about how Born of the Gods is like Homelands so much in this thread, it makes me want to do a comprehensive analysis.

Well for full disclosure, I would say that Homelands is marginally and I mean marginally worse than Born of the Gods.  The unplayable demigods are more sophisticated than the unplayable Aysen Highways and Black Carriages; we'd expect no less after nearly two decades more experience.  But how surprising is it that after Urza's Block, Onslaught, Mirrodin, Time Spiral, Shards of Alara, Zendikar, Scars, Innistrad, et. al. we have a new set that actually needs to be put under a mathematical microscope to determine whether it really is just as awful as the legendarily bad Homelands or if it's more aligned with just the "very abysmal" sets like Prophecy and Fallen Empires.  The jury is still out.  

When R&D goes out of its way to price all of the cards in a set extremely conservatively, the chance of the set yielding cards of this second, larger category decreases commensurately. Maybe you'll still end up with a Gristlebrand or two. But you won't have the bounty of Vintage playables that we saw in Zendikar or Innistrad blocks.

These comments have been on-point and well-stated.  I'd give props to all of the blocks from Odyssey onward, excluding Theros. It doesn't take a repeat of Urza's Saga, Mirrodin, or Worldwake to give Vintage players a lot of food for thought.  And that's what is lacking here, because the question of playability is already precluded by the inefficiency.  Contrary to claims of ignorance or naivety, I very much understand Stephen's statement that empirically "inefficient" cards may still find a home in Vintage if they interact meaningfully with important features, tactics, and peculiarities of the format.  That is so obvious to everyone here it need not be stated.  We all know that gigantic monsters and robots are to be evaluated through the lenses of Tinker, Oath of Druids, Workshop, and Dread Return, etc. rather than dismissed for their casting cost.  Did you know that it's cold in Antarctica?  But regardless of whether a card can destroy an artifact or exile opponent's graveyard, it's not likely to see play unless it can execute those Vintage relevant actions effectively and economically.  Where the inefficiency is particularly frustrating is on cards that are novel and could have been subjected to some very interesting testing if they had been more reasonably priced.  In cost-effective sets, we get Painter's Servant and Laboratory Maniac.  And Myr Welder (is he good?  I still don't know.).  In Born of the Gods, we get Perplexing Chimera, a card that could have been a fantastic skill tester in a host of Vintage scenarios but instead is relegated to the dustbin on first sight due to its horrific casting cost.  That is why many of us are frustrated with this block.  

[Smmenen]

This conversation is a cautionary tale on the dangers of using examples that only illustrate one aspect of a broader point.  People will latch onto the example and subsume the larger point.  

To wit:

I appreciate Brian's perspective, but I think his analysis is underpinned by a far too limiting and simplistic view of power in relation to Vintage playability -- looking primarily if not exclusively at the ratio of effect to casting cost.  Casting cost is sometimes irrelevant in Vintage (see Blightsteel Colossus, Bridge from Below, Narcomoeba or Golgari Grave-Troll).  

That goes without saying; there's a difference between not iterating points that are mutually understood to be true (out respect for an audience's intelligence) and being ignorant of them.

Your full response is only responsive to the second sentence, not the more important first, and actually ignores my main point.

My point isn't that casting cost is sometimes irrelevant.  My point is actually far more subtle: it's that casting cost is not as important as you are asserting in this thread.  It may not even be the most important thing.   It's just one aspect of a total package.

The basic message throughout this thread and other threads that you have been advancing is that BOG represents a low ebb of a larger cyclical trend in which spells are increasingly expensive (i.e. less efficient).  And therefore that renders it inevitably terrible for Vintage.

I'm saying that narrative is wrong.  It focuses way too much on casting cost.  

My point, which was overshadowed by the example of instances in which casting cost is truly not relevant, is that hyper-efficiency really doesn't matter.  Just make a card average efficiency or even slightly below average, but make the effect relevant to Vintage, and it will have a good shot at seeing Vintage play.  

There is a background notion that cards only see play in Vintage if they are *the most efficient cards in the game.*  This is the kind of BS that informs superficial analysis of the restricted list.  While that has a veneer of truth, the reality is much more complicated.  What matters most is relevance/applicability to Vintage tactics.  Null Rod and Grafdiggers Cage don't see play because they are efficient but because they are relevant.  Grafdigger's Cage could cost 2 and it would still see plenty of play.  Sure, less play -- but the standard we are discussing in this discussion is a binary: whether something is Vintage playable or not.  It either is, or it isn't.  

This goes to my thought experiment that I believe sets that are somewhere in the average range in terms of efficiency probably have just as many playables as sets regarded for their efficiency (like Arabian Nights or Tempest) because, at base, while casting cost matters, it is not, as some people put it in this thread, "paramount."  It's merely one of many factors that matter.   In short, I'm contesting the over-emphasis on casting cost.

As I said before:

Suppose that all Magic sets have an average efficiency quotient, from 0-100, with the most efficient set (possible Arabian Nights at one time) being 100, and the most costly set (possibly Homelands) being 0.   Let's say that there is some statistical relationship between the proportion of cards playable in Vintage and set efficiency.  I'm positing that such a relationship is weak at best (say coefficient of 30-40).   I'm saying that what matters just as much, if not more, is thematic focus/design focus (i.e. artifacts, graveyard), mechanics, etc.  

As I tried to explain to Brian earlier, you could have a set with below average efficiency quotient (let's say a 40), and produce far more Vintage playables than a set that has above average efficiency quotient (say 60), if directed towards areas of Vintage concern.  If I'm right, then your myopic focus on efficiency is dramatically undermined.  That's my point.

Another dimension of this larger argument is my point that Vintage cards have much more "give" than is supposed.   As I said "There is much more "give" in terms of casting cost that Vintage is willing to accept and trade-off in exchange for really useful (even narrow) effects that don't exist elsewhere." That is, cards that are useful for Vintage need not be as efficient as generally supposed to see play.   All R&D needs to do is focus more on designing cards that have relevant interactions with the Vintage structure (meaning the tactics and strategic cards that permeate that format), and cost them whatever is average for those effects, and you'll likely have Vintage playables.   In any case, I would argue that this design process (outlined in my design article) would actually produce more playables for Vintage than a set that simply focused on being as efficient as possible for printing.  If that's true, then I am right.  

Moreover, this is counter-intuitive given the myths of the format.  If it 'goes without saying' that casting cost is not as important as you are suggesting, then I wouldn't need to be explaining this at all.  

That said, I understand that you would consider an empirically underpowered set "good" for Vintage if it contained a few cards that while inefficient themselves created a strong synergy with Bazaar, Gifts, Workshop, etc.  That's a reasonable view, though I generally prefer sets where novel concepts are presented efficiently.

Well, sure.  But we can't have everything.  And what I'm saying is that from a design perspective, better to focus on identifying or creating/designing cards that interact well with or are disruptive to effects commonly played in Vintage, ala Aven Mindcensor or Grafdigger's Cage (meaning narrow but vintage relevant effects), than to simply try to bend cost curves down to pray cards find their way into Vintage.  This argument is entirely disruptive to your general critique of BOG, which I find to be misplaced.  Again, the problem with BOG isn't that it's inefficient; it's that its mechanics and themes aren't relevant to structural features of the Vintage format.  Your critique is far too reductionist, overemphasizing casting cost as the root problem.  

If a card isn't efficiently costed,

Disagree.  Again, I'm saying a card can be *average* efficiency in terms of casting cost (in terms of the larger card pool) and still see plenty of Vintage play if the effect is directly relevant to the structural features of the format.  See Grafdiggers Cage or Aven Mindcensor as an example of a design attacking prominent structural features of Vintage.  Aven Mindcensor is not hyper-efficient for a 2/1 flyer, but is disruptive to a structural feature of hte format, and therefore a Vintage playable.

When R&D goes out of its way to price all of the cards in a set extremely conservatively, the chance of the set yielding cards of this second, larger category decreases commensurately.

Not if my empirical hypothesis about only a weak correlation is correct.  


Bottom line: if you are a designer, just focus on designing cards that do things that interact promisingly with cards already played in Vintage, either synergistically or disruptively, cost them at average cost, and you'll have a better shot at making a Vintage playable than heeding critiques here by trying to bend mana curves down on a block or set basis.  

[brianpk80]

Moreover, this is counter-intuitive given the myths of the format.  If it 'goes without saying' that casting cost is not as important as you are suggesting, then I wouldn't need to be explaining this at all.  

Stephen, the reason you are again "explaining" your view that applicability to Vintage phenomena is a greater indicator of a card's playability than efficiency is because for some reason, you incorrectly believed I did not hear or understand it in the first place. You can afford respect for other contributors' intelligence and comprehension as we do for you.  On the above topic, I agree that applicability is an important factor and in some cases may justify playing an otherwise inefficient card.  Playability involves both variables.  However, I think efficiency and value are more important than you're crediting particularly in the case of novel effects and creatures.  People didn't start playing Jace because he's spectacular at bouncing Bridge tokens.  Tarmogoyf doesn't stop Vault/Key; it's hyperefficient.  Painter's Servant opened a whole new dimension because it was competitively priced at .  In my estimation, because efficiency and applicability are both factors that positively correlate to playability, it follows that a set following an inefficient design philosophy will have less overall playability, unless the applicability is adjusted in a way to offset the deficiency.  It doesn't foreclose the possibility of a playable or diamond in the rough; nothing is absolute.  

You're blaming the lack of playables on the set's mechanical focus on combat and creature boosts, making it more generally inapplicable to Vintage despite the recent resurgence of creatures.  That part I can agree with; it's both inefficient and Auras etc. are not very mechanically applicable to the format.  What I disagree with is your attribution of its inapplicability to top-down design, which at times suggests a misunderstanding of what top-down design actually means.  "A set focused on combat mechanics" is definitively bottom-up.  Top-down here simply means that facets and concepts of Ancient Greek mythology are first identified and then represented as well as possible using mechanics of the game.  By contrast, bottom-up sets are designed like machines and the flavor is added afterwards.  Nothing about Ancient Greece requires a set overrun with Auras or a set focused on combat tricks.  When I think of Zeus, the last thing that comes to mind is a 5 mana Unholy Strength.  As I said before, there are many different ways the themes could have been represented, like something recalling Enchant Worlds.  The implementation here combined with its general inefficiency is what's resulted in a poor set.  Though to be fair, some of what they were trying to accomplish is clever.  It would have been interesting to have a Heroic creature, enabler, and Aura so efficient, effective, or applicable to the metagame that it became a Vintage mainstay, the way Umezawa's Jitte and Sword of Fire Ice did for Equipment.

Finally, I disagree that Aven Mindcensor, Null Rod, and Grafdigger's Cage are inefficient.  Grafdigger's Cage costs  .  Null Rod is very competitively priced for what it can accomplish.  And Aven Mindcensor has a modified version of the better half of Stranglehold ( ) slapped onto a 2/1 Flyer with Flash, but even goes further by asymmetrically applying the Stranglehold effect to the opponent.     for 2/1 Flying Flash is not unreasonable.  How do we value the Stranglehold effect?  Even assuming we only value it at , the card would cost   . At   , it's anything but inefficient; it's a bargain.    

[evouga]

Here are the Vintage-playable cards that have come from the previous few sets (Innistrad and beyond). I'm sure one could argue that some cards are missing, or should have been left out, of this list; I constructed it by quickly looking over the 2014 Vintage Top 8s posted so far on morphling.de.

0 Mana:
*Cavern of Souls

1 Mana:
*Delver of Secrets
*Grafdigger's Cage
*Deathrite Shaman
*Swan Song
*Dryad Militant

2 Mana:
Young Pyromancer
*Snapcaster Mage
*Rest in Peace
*Abrupt Decay
*Memory's Journey
Scavenging Ooze
*Stony Silence
*Thalia, Guardian of Thraben

3 Mana:
*True-name Nemesis
Laboratory Maniac
Toxic Deluge

4+ Mana:
Notion Thief (4)
Restoration Angel (4)
Talrand, Sky Summoner (4)
Gristelbrand (8)

I've marked here, with an asterisk, those cards that I consider conservatively and uncontroversially "hyper-efficient" in terms of mana cost, and they add up to over 60% of the list. I didn't even count cards like Young Pyromancer, Toxic Deluge, or Scavenging Ooze that I also personally consider very much under the curve.

There are some cards that are not hyper-efficient, but that still show up due to their unique effects in the context of the Vintage metagame. Laboratory Maniac, Notion Thief, and Talrand are good examples. These, however, are a tiny minority, and it should be noted that over 80% of the playables in this list cost 3 mana or less.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the above data with the argument that mana cost has been overemphasized as a factor in Vintage playability.

[Smmenen]

Moreover, this is counter-intuitive given the myths of the format.  If it 'goes without saying' that casting cost is not as important as you are suggesting, then I wouldn't need to be explaining this at all.  

Stephen, the reason you are again "explaining" your view that applicability to Vintage phenomena is a greater indicator of a card's playability than efficiency is because for some reason, you incorrectly believed I did not hear or understand it in the first place.

One can only assess comprehension/understanding based upon responsiveness to arguments advanced. Your last reply seemed responsively only to the obvious point that, in some instances, casting cost is irrelevant - not the larger point that casting cost is less relevant than you have been emphatically suggesting in this thread and elsewhere.  Moreover, the bulk of your comments in this thread and the Kiora thread is centered almost entirely on your critique of BOG based on efficiency concerns.  Your thesis is that BOG is the nadir, or at least another mark on the downward slope, of power level decline, defined in terms of efficiency.  

On the above topic, I agree that applicability is an important factor and in some cases may justify playing an otherwise inefficient card.  Playability involves both variables.

Totally agree.  But this is the first time you've acknowledged as much so clearly.   I'm emphasizing the non-casting cost factors to illustrate important ideas that were absent from this discussion aforehand, and to express my disagreement with the notion that hyper-efficiency is so paramount.  At base, my point is that cards only need to be average casting cost to be Vintage playable, not hyper-efficient.  

it follows that a set following an inefficient design philosophy will have less overall playability, unless the applicability is adjusted in a way to offset the deficiency.  

I agree that this is true -- that there is a correlation, but disagree as to its strength. As I said, if you mapped it out, I would expect a weak correlation of .30-.40.  Sets like Scars of Mirrodin would be huge outliers, to take but one example, I would expect, is not in the top two quintiles in terms of magic card pool efficiency. 

Something can be true as a binary, and untrue in terms of its significance.  This is such a case.  Where there is a statistical relationship, if that relationship is weak, it is a relationship nonetheless.  There are lots of things that have relationships, but weakly so.  This is such a case, I believe.  

You're blaming the lack of playables on the set's mechanical focus on combat and creature boosts, making it more generally inapplicable to Vintage despite the recent resurgence of creatures.  That part I can agree with; it's both inefficient and Auras etc. are not very mechanically applicable to the format.  What I disagree with is your attribution of its inapplicability to top-down design, which at times suggests a misunderstanding of what top-down design actually means.  "A set focused on combat mechanics" is definitively bottom-up.

Then we agree on the important things.  

Finally, I disagree that Aven Mindcensor, Null Rod, and Grafdigger's Cage are inefficient.  Grafdigger's Cage costs  .  Null Rod is very competitively priced for what it can accomplish.  And Aven Mindcensor has a modified version of the better half of Stranglehold ( ) slapped onto a 2/1 Flyer with Flash, but even goes further by asymmetrically applying the Stranglehold effect to the opponent.     for 2/1 Flying Flash is not unreasonable.  How do we value the Stranglehold effect?  Even assuming we only value it at , the card would cost   . At   , it's anything but inefficient; it's a bargain.    

First of all, I did not say that these cards were inefficient.  What I said was that some of them were not hyper-efficient.  There is a difference between not being hyper efficient and being inefficient.  Average efficiency is such an example.  I was pointing to Aven Mindcensor as such.

Re-read what I wrote about Aven Mindcensor more carefully.  I simply said that it was "not hyper-efficient."  I was quite careful and deliberate not to describe it as inefficient.  That this subtlety was either glossed over or missed entirely, and that you unjustifiably interpreted my comment as an inference that Aven Mindcensor is inefficient, reinforces my point about you not actually grasping the nuances of my argument.  

Second, my point about Cage was not its casting cost, but its effect -- narrow effects that are mostly relevant to Vintage and to a lesser extent Legacy.  I wasn't using it to illustrate a notion of inefficiency or average efficiency, but to illustrate a principle of design -- of how to design cards for Vintage based on features/actions/activities of the Vintage format.

Upon further reflection, I think one reason my point holds, that efficiency scaling is really not that paramount, and that average costing rather than hyper-efficiency, is all that is required to create Vintage playables is simple: cards that can really impact Vintage are often so narrow that they would be in the sideboard or 15th pick in limited, or unplayable in Standard (I suspect).  Therefore, they can be more aggressively costed in general -- and therefore rate at average, rather than hyper, efficiency.  

I want to see more cards like Lab Maniac, which is average efficiency -- simply a grey ogre with a highly conditional trigger -- but hugely synergistic with Doomsday.  

The main point is this: a design orientation that begins with the notion of aiming for greater effiency will be less efficient at creating Vintage playables than an approach that begins with an understanding of key structural features of Vintage, and then aims at those, caring only to make sure that such effects aren't inefficient.  

As I said before: "Bottom line: if you are a designer, just focus on designing cards that do things that interact promisingly with cards already played in Vintage, either synergistically or disruptively, cost them at average cost, and you'll have a better shot at making a Vintage playable than heeding critiques here by trying to bend mana curves down on a block or set basis."

There are some cards that are not hyper-efficient, but that still show up due to their unique effects in the context of the Vintage metagame. Laboratory Maniac, Notion Thief, and Talrand are good examples. These, however, are a tiny minority, and it should be noted that over 80% of the playables in this list cost 3 mana or less.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the above data with the argument that mana cost has been overemphasized as a factor in Vintage playability.

First of all, the fact that 40% of your cards were not "hyper-efficient" I think actually proves my point, that hyper-efficiency is not a paramount consideration for Vintage playability.  My point is that average efficiency cards can be Vintage playable if relevant or applicable to structural features of the format.  Second,  your findings are not inconsistent with my hypothesis regarding a weak statistical relationship (.3-.4 correlation coefficient or regression coefficient) between overall set efficiency and Vintage playability (proportionate to new cards in set).    Second, it's obvious that the most efficient cards in any set are going to be the ones that are constructed playable.  But this is not just true of Vintage.   It's also true of Standard, etc.  Third, and most importantly, identifying that a majority of recent printings are efficient or even hyperefficient doesn't prove the general assertion that hyper-efficiency is "paramount" to Vintage playability.  Remember, Brian's claim is a generalized one to the entire set.  His claim is that BOG sucks because it is, as a SET, and not simply in individual cards, overcosted.  Pointing to individual cards that are efficient or even hyper-efficient, doesn't have any relevance to this claim.  You have to have an aggregate analysis to prove that point, and pointing backwards to individual cards tells us nothing about the overall efficiency quotient of those sets.  

[brianpk80]

One can only assess comprehension/understanding based upon responsiveness to arguments advanced.

In certain contexts perhaps, but not here.  I consider discussion on this site to be among friends and therefore not conducive to lecturer/student subordinations.  I don't for instance assume you're that unable to tie your shoes until you demonstrate otherwise.  Sheesh.   

[Argopelter]

I've marked here, with an asterisk, those cards that I consider conservatively and uncontroversially "hyper-efficient" in terms of mana cost, and they add up to over 60% of the list. I didn't even count cards like Young Pyromancer, Toxic Deluge, or Scavenging Ooze that I also personally consider very much under the curve.

There are some cards that are not hyper-efficient, but that still show up due to their unique effects in the context of the Vintage metagame. Laboratory Maniac, Notion Thief, and Talrand are good examples. These, however, are a tiny minority, and it should be noted that over 80% of the playables in this list cost 3 mana or less.

I don't think that each card you mention is uncontroversially hyper-efficient.  Dryad Militant, for instance, is not an automatic 4-of in every aggressive green or white deck in Standard.  For a 1-mana creature, a 2/1 with upside is par for the course for modern constructed Magic.  That its upside hoses the graveyard would seem to support Stephen's point, which is that it's most important to look at the effect that a card has on Vintage strategies and tactics rather than a simple calculus of "how much do I get for my mana."  Memory's Journey is an even better example; it's the graveyard-ness that gives that card its Vintage playability.  One mana is about the right cost for such an effect.  The card saw very little play in Standard and zero play in Modern (unless I'm missing some tier 2 combo strategies that use it) despite it's low mana cost.

On the other hand, hyper-efficient cards that don't interact with Vintage strategies and tactics don't matter very much.  Hyper-efficient life gain, for instance, probably wouldn't see much play unless it got really out of hand.  A card like "G, sorcery, gain 15 life" would basically break Standard, since it would blank any burn strategy and most aggro strategies.  I can't imagine it seeing much Vintage play (although I could be dead wrong about this, so I'm open to this being a bad example); at best, perhaps it would enable a deck based around paying even more life than Vintage decks already want to pay.  Same thing for, say, Giant Growth effects; maybe a really efficient one would make Infect a top strategy?  But failing that, Vintage wouldn't care at all.

[MaximumCDawg]

Brian, I was doing the analysis (and got bored with it) to unambiguously demonstrate that your comparison is silly.  Homelands is arguably the low point in Magic, ever.  To compare it to BNG boggles my mind.

Even if a comparison of the most vanilla attributes of the creatures shows marginal favor to BNG (in just some colors), how do we account for the stratospheric Merchant Scroll or the longstanding sideboard staple Serrated Arrows in so many different formats?  The best of Homelands, a set much smaller than the entirety of Theros block, is unambiguously more potent and relevant than anything the block has offered thus far.  

Well, we start by noticing that the vast majority of the cards in Homelands have MISERABLE abilities.  The cards in Born of the Gods often have abilities that are bad for Vintage, but perfectly decent in other environments like Limited or Standard.  You've got a white creature who lets you untap a land... during your opponent's upkeep.. every third turn.  You've got multiple creatures where you have to pay to gain banding.  Compare that to Born of the Gods, where your creatures do things like copy other creatures, become auras, draw you cards or scry, and there's just no comparison.  It's night and day.  

You can quibble with how many Vintage staples come out of a set, but that's not a measure of the set's quality as a whole.  It's pure hyperbole to compare a modern-designed set to trash like Homelands writ large.  It's not marginal.  The jury is not out.  

Look here Steve, I would like to tell you some big words.

Setting aside the wordiness of the debate going on here, this sort of boils down to a question: Is efficiency key to Vintage playability?  I had a thread about that a few years ago, and I can't find it now.  Basically I asked whether Vintage is what it is merely as a result of mistakes in casting cost.  The verdict - from Steve as well, I think -- was: "Yes, yes it is."

Take the Power Nine.  Most have modest effects, drawing cards or adding mana to your mana pool.  However, they are undercosted by 2 or 3 mana and that's all the difference.  Similarly, the pillars of other decks, like Bazaar and Workshop, probably should cost 2 mana each rather than being free lands.  (Time Walk is the odd man out, with an ability that is enormously powerful even at higher mana costs.  Even so, 5 mana is too much, as Time Warp sees no play.)

Now, we can run some cards with interesting effects provided we have a way to "cheat" the casting cost in Vintage.  With cards costing 2 - 5, the P9 acceleration actually goes a large way to doing this for us.  That's why Vintage decks can run higher curves than Legacy decks do.  For other cards, like Grislebrand, we have things like Show and Tell and Oath.  So it's true when Steve says that casting cost of the card in question is not necessarily the sole determining factor of vintage playability.

At root, however, Vintage playable IS determined by efficiency. It's like the quotient of (effect) / (casting cost), as long as you adjust the casting cost to account for ways to cheat the cost in Vintage.

[Protoaddict]

I feel like there were cards you guys didn't talk about on this episode. As bad as the set is I do think there are cards that are potentially playable in the future if not now. I'm not saying these are decks in themselves, nothing like Cavern of souls or anything, but these can certainly be role players in some lists.

• Brimaz, King of Oreskos - Maybe the most efficient white 3 drop creature ever. Role of a pure beater but I can easily see him being a white Tarmogoyf in White trash.
• Eidolon of Countless Battles - With the number of playable white enchantments in vintage right now (stony silence, rest in peace, Spirit of the labyrinth) and Serra's Sanctum being a card, I don't think that it is so far fetched to believe that a white trash/enchantment deck could work. The next set may add to this.
• Bile Blight and Drown in Sorrow - Both are removal role players for decks like dark times and are strict upgrades to other cards that periodically see play, so I am hard pressed to believe they won't see play here and there.
• Aspect of Hydra - Elves?
• Courser of Kruphix - Gushbond will love this card, it may be a new build in and of itself.
• Unravel the Æther - Differently named Deglamer, which also sees play, so works for name diversity reasons.
• Kiora’s Follower - Possible Time Vault enabler that is also a win con in and of itself.