Listening to this, I was reminded of watching a stream of Semulin's during VOW where chat was going on and on about how bad the commons were in the set, and he said something along the lines of "The commons aren't bad. WOTC doesn't print bad cards anymore. They're just flat in power level. And that means the commons you care about will be determined by the deck you're drafting." I've always remembered that, and this episode feels like an extension of that discourse.
Whatever grading you want to try out, regrade this set and the prior set with that grading system. This way you can see where that C+ cutoff is and what cutoff actually matters. Then you can be prepared to use it in the next set.
You guys are so dang thoughtful about this game. I can’t tell you how much I love it! I consume an insane amount of MTG content and yours is in my top 3 must watches for sure.
Feedback on the grading scale: I think collapsing the grades below B- into fewer ones makes sense similar to what the 5Rs already did, the distinction between D-, D and C- does not really matter much. And distinguishing how many decks a card goes in is good info to know at a glance. It also gets rid of the need to give the grades a "synergy" qualifier. But I don't think trying to squish it into one number is the best idea, since the distinction between roleplayer and replacement seems relevant to me. You could try your system out and just see how it goes though. There are cards that go into decks of all color pairs but are medium to bad in all of them (e.g. Blooming Blast), while others are actively good everywhere (like the Plumecreed Escort you mentioned). Both would get a 4 if I understand your system correctly, but one would actually be a C+(4) and one would be a C- or D+ (4). Same with narrow cards: Something like Moonrise Cleric is only really playable in WB, but it's a C+ there, whereas Seedpod Squire is also only playable in one archetype (WR, surprisingly enough) but not important or better than average there either, so like a C- or maybe C. From a draft perspective, if I start with a B in Green, then a B in Black and pick 3 I have the option between a green C+ that goes in all green decks like Treeguard Duo and a Thornplate Intimidator that is playable in all black decks but highly replacable I would pick Treeguard Duo, barring any strong preferences. Even if the black B was one pick later and so might be more of a signal. That wouldn't be reflected in a numbers-only system below B-. Or maybe you could argue that the Intimidator is actually a 0, I'm not sure. But maybe a way of adding a qualifier to the number (+ or - e.g.) to show if it is good or just medium-bad might be better even if less catchy. So you'd have A-B-, then (1-4)+ and (0-4) or maybe a third subgrade of (1-4)- Awesome Podcast btw!
While I’m here for trying something new (grading), at the same time if it isn’t broken then don’t fix it. I honestly think you guys are being too harsh on yourselves. You got more cards right than wrong, no one is perfect. Like you said with Wicks patrol and the six mana otter some card ranks you will just get wrong because some archetypes will be weaker, but grading the cards without knowing that is fine, that’s what future episodes are for, love the channel!
I like the idea of discussing what you think will be format-defining cards. That feels like it will help guide predictions on what the other cards that will matter below those will be. Love the way you are thinking about the content and evolving how you want to approach grading/discussion!
WOE is so forgettable that we’re still saying LTR was the last time we saw food. For rating, I think phrases are better than alphanumerics but mentioning the number of archetypes a card fits into is a great idea that would be really helpful to know as a listener. Maybe call it the Flexible-Archetype Rating Theory?
What's tough about grading cards is that you should really think about them on two axes: how strong is this card, and how high do I want to pick it. For example Bakersbane Duo is a great common, but not really a pull into green by itself, so I guess it's a C+? But it's a 2-drop that will slot in all your green decks, and green's the best color, so you're actually gonna pick it quite highly, probably higher than some narrower so-called B-. On the other hand, Plumecreed Escort is a better Magic card, and in a set where blue was good would be a high pick, but since blue is bad Escort isn't quite enough to pull you into blue. So it's like a B/B- in a vacuum but gets downgraded to a C+ because of the context of the format I think that's where a lot of your crash course arguments come from, where Ben will grade a card highly and Ethan will say "but you're never taking it highly, are you?" I think Ben grades more on power level and Ethan more on pick order I'm not sure which axis is more interesting to look at, one requires raw card evaluation skills while the other is more about figuring out how the format will play out, which as you've pointed out is really hard to do. But I think you guys need to be on the same page about what you're grading for to avoid the meaningless grading differences
Jeff Hoogland has been putting his marvel snap reviews into tiers of Powerful/flexible Narrow/powerful Fine/flexible Fine/narrow Etc I feel like this is kind of where you guys are trying to get to. Some sort of tier system on that x/y axis.
Just wondering if collapsing all C and D cards together makes sense. Would it be helpful to still distinguish a C1 from a D1? I imagine something like a D4 wouldn’t happen since that card would be very flexible, which makes me wonder if maybe the grades should just be C or D, without plusses and minuses or numbers. Edit: obviously this episode got me intrigued, love that you guys are thinking about this deeply!
I think the Raffine’s Informant comparison isn’t just wrong because conniving is stronger- it’s because that effect is much better in a deck which is aggro slanted. If you’re wanting to close a game in a small number of turns, the body is a lot more relevant, as is the selection ability. The reason white doesn’t tend to get stuff like this is because drawing into aggro is very strong; the value of an individual card matters more when you want everyone to be playing fewer cards
Hi guys (and everyone). Thanks for the episode. I'm interested in hearing you try out a version of the new system. The two issues others have also mentioned are: (1) risk of confusion (2) still needing a way to distinguish how good cards are in the colours they fit in. Like at least one other commenter, I think that retaining C and D (and F) grades but with the new number (of colour combinations) taking the place of the old pluses and minuses makes the most sense, as this solves both of the main issues. And there will still be plenty to agree and disagree about as you discuss the cards!
Haven't played a ton of Magic recently, but I still listen to the podcast episodes. One of the most entertaining episodes was you two arguing over the exact letter grades for BLB limited. It was great fun even if you guys weren't satisfied with the grading scale.
I think the abundance of (to steal a phrase) "secret gold cards" in this set really threw evaluations for a loop. Something like three tree scribe can probably be cut from a lot of non frog green decks, but is easily one of the best cards in a frog deck. Then there's cards that are good in almost any deck, like tree-guard duo. Is tree guard duo in a frog deck better than three tree scribe? No, but when you're evaluating what cards to take early in a draft, your thought process has to be different from when you're done with the draft and making cuts to your deck. All that to say that I think there were a lot more cards that deserved synergy grades, or given two grades like "general power level vs power level in a specific archetype once you've found your lane" We'll see if this hyper synergistic style format is the new norm going forward.
I think the number grades sound awesome and then focus on higher letter grades is perfect. And such a better system. Those lower level cards matter so much more which decks they should be played in instead of just some random letter grade to determine power level. Also if you guys worked with an artist maybe you could get some sort of graphic on screen next to the number that had the color pairs listed next to it. So like a 3 with those other color pairs it goes in
Lots of pegging going on in this convo lol. Love the discussion on evaluation improvement even if all it does is give you another tool to help when letter grades devolve into arguments. Archetype or Flexibility Score or whatever you land on is worthy of an experiment at least! If you aren't confident using it in a full set eval maybe try something smaller stakes like a cube eval or an Alchemy set eval. Thanks as always for inviting us into the conversation.
Love the system! Seems good. I think the way you talk about the cards and what it means to be a 1 2 or 4 because something like pond prophet which may not be graded at b- but is still THE card for the frogs deck. Also I would write them as 4/5 because like you said an artifact could be a 6/10 or something like a hybrid card would be out of whatever the math is I don’t want to do now
My concern with the number scale is if something is a 4, why is that not a C plus? maybe below B, there's D1-D4 (ok in 1-4 archetypes) and a C1-C4 (good in 1-4 archetypes) but even that is hurting my brain a bit thinking about it. Another idea is that the gap it takes to talk about card eval differences grows larger the lower down the card is
Listened on podcast, came here to give grading scale feedback. I like the idea, and… You can do 0-4 and still use the grading scale everyone is used to. C+ (5): You would splash this card in deck of other colors C: Good in 4 decks C-: Good in 3 D+: In 2 D: In 1 D-: 23rd pick if you have to, only one deck. F: Don’t draft this
I disagree as well, mainly because card flexibility and powerlevel are not the same. Something like Fountainport Bell is playable in every archetype, but it's not a C+ since a) you don't need to pick it highly since you can usually get them late and you don't want more than 1 or 2 max and b) it's not *that* much better than running a basic. Or something like blooming blast might be a better example: You can play it just fine in every archetype, so it would get a 5 but it's not particularly good in any of them, so definitely not a C+ on the old grading scale, more like a C- or maybe D+ despite the flexibility.
Is it too extreme to say that if Fountainport Bell isn't inducted into the Golden Egg Hall of Fame on the 50-in-50 episode, we riot? That card is fantastic!
On the subject of C+ and below, I tend to view them pretty interchangeably as just cannon fodder. Yes some cannon fodder is better than others, but they are all just there as bodies to soak up blows while your actual good cards decide the game. I don't care if Bonebind Orator is a C- or a C+, it's just a blocker for their 2 drop that provides some minimal value option later in the game.
In general, I support the idea of a new grading system, but I have a few issues with the system you propose in this episode: 1. I think new listeners who don't already know about the thought process that led you to develop a new grading system will be confused by this one. If you start listening to a Crash Course having never listened to LoL before and all of a sudden they're giving one card a B and another card a 4, it's pretty counterintuitive. 2. Based on my understanding of the new proposed grading method, some cards might get the same score but be very different levels of quality. For example, Treeguard Duo and Glidedive Duo are probably both 4s, but I'd argue Treeguard Duo is significantly stronger and more important. 3. You already brought up how confusing colorless cards might be, but multicolor cards have a similar problem. If a card is 2 colors and isn't a B or above, how do you grade it? It theoretically only goes in exactly one deck.
On 2, both of those in the linear scale probably get C+ or a C grade, so that's not different to now. I would also say they can grade them differently, you can give the best a 4 and the 2nd best a 3 and so on. But also its a rating system as to whether it should make your deck, giving them both a 4 says, you can be happy putting this in any green deck which is true. In the instance where you have both and then have only got room for one, there's no grading scale (unless you're literally putting each card in an archetype and a colour in a straight line) which sorts them. For the purposes of a crash course I think them both getting 4s is absolutely fine and no worse than the SQ.
Change the A and B grades to 1 through 5 stars. Then you're talking about "star cards" and I think that fits very well to describe the category you're talking about
Idk having letter grades AND number grades seems confusing and hurts my small brain lol Should be one or the other imo. Also I love it when you guys get heated over grades please don't stop 😂
My perspective is shifting in a different direction because of this format. I like Raccoon beats more than most because when you go 2, 3, 4, or even better 2, 4, 5, it is the best deck. I was hyped for the Fireglass Mentor, but it doesn't ever play out great (what turn do y'all like playing this card on?). I was hyped for Pond Prophet but it doesn't attack or block. I'm a green (at nearly all costs) fan this format and prefer GB, GR, GW, and GU in that order.
I do think Fs need to be broadened. Wizards just doesn't print enough completely useless cards anymore for it to get its own leter grade. I think what you're usually calling a D- just needs to be an F now.
Don’t change the grading scale, it’s fine as is. The grade itself isn’t even that important anyway, people should be listening to what you actually say about the cards.
There is some logic to what you're saying about the gold cards being good helping to determine if the colour pair will be good. But you're cherry picking cards to justify your argument. Rakdos is think might have the best winrate in the last week on 17lands, and the uncommon is good but the common Cindering Cutthroat is not particularly good. Similarly Dimir has a high winrate for top players (just not for average/bottom players) and its common gold card is also pretty bad. Tbh, most of the gold uncommons are rare level nowadays, and WOTC have specifically said they're going to try to push their power going forward to reward you more for finding the right lane.
Listening to this, I was reminded of watching a stream of Semulin's during VOW where chat was going on and on about how bad the commons were in the set, and he said something along the lines of "The commons aren't bad. WOTC doesn't print bad cards anymore. They're just flat in power level. And that means the commons you care about will be determined by the deck you're drafting." I've always remembered that, and this episode feels like an extension of that discourse.
Whatever grading you want to try out, regrade this set and the prior set with that grading system. This way you can see where that C+ cutoff is and what cutoff actually matters. Then you can be prepared to use it in the next set.
I think the new grading sounds great!
You guys are so dang thoughtful about this game. I can’t tell you how much I love it! I consume an insane amount of MTG content and yours is in my top 3 must watches for sure.
I’m down for giving the new grading system a shot!
I'm patron since THB and can confirm that the LoL discord is the place to be for fans of Limited. Thanks for all you do ❤❤❤ Love from BlueAndi
Feedback on the grading scale: I think collapsing the grades below B- into fewer ones makes sense similar to what the 5Rs already did, the distinction between D-, D and C- does not really matter much. And distinguishing how many decks a card goes in is good info to know at a glance. It also gets rid of the need to give the grades a "synergy" qualifier.
But I don't think trying to squish it into one number is the best idea, since the distinction between roleplayer and replacement seems relevant to me. You could try your system out and just see how it goes though.
There are cards that go into decks of all color pairs but are medium to bad in all of them (e.g. Blooming Blast), while others are actively good everywhere (like the Plumecreed Escort you mentioned). Both would get a 4 if I understand your system correctly, but one would actually be a C+(4) and one would be a C- or D+ (4). Same with narrow cards: Something like Moonrise Cleric is only really playable in WB, but it's a C+ there, whereas Seedpod Squire is also only playable in one archetype (WR, surprisingly enough) but not important or better than average there either, so like a C- or maybe C.
From a draft perspective, if I start with a B in Green, then a B in Black and pick 3 I have the option between a green C+ that goes in all green decks like Treeguard Duo and a Thornplate Intimidator that is playable in all black decks but highly replacable I would pick Treeguard Duo, barring any strong preferences. Even if the black B was one pick later and so might be more of a signal. That wouldn't be reflected in a numbers-only system below B-. Or maybe you could argue that the Intimidator is actually a 0, I'm not sure.
But maybe a way of adding a qualifier to the number (+ or - e.g.) to show if it is good or just medium-bad might be better even if less catchy. So you'd have A-B-, then (1-4)+ and (0-4) or maybe a third subgrade of (1-4)-
Awesome Podcast btw!
While I’m here for trying something new (grading), at the same time if it isn’t broken then don’t fix it. I honestly think you guys are being too harsh on yourselves. You got more cards right than wrong, no one is perfect. Like you said with Wicks patrol and the six mana otter some card ranks you will just get wrong because some archetypes will be weaker, but grading the cards without knowing that is fine, that’s what future episodes are for, love the channel!
1:10:08 food was in WOE more recently than Lord of the Rings and mattered there
Try the new grading scale out for duskmourn!
I like the idea of discussing what you think will be format-defining cards. That feels like it will help guide predictions on what the other cards that will matter below those will be. Love the way you are thinking about the content and evolving how you want to approach grading/discussion!
WOE is so forgettable that we’re still saying LTR was the last time we saw food.
For rating, I think phrases are better than alphanumerics but mentioning the number of archetypes a card fits into is a great idea that would be really helpful to know as a listener. Maybe call it the Flexible-Archetype Rating Theory?
or FART for short. XD
What's tough about grading cards is that you should really think about them on two axes: how strong is this card, and how high do I want to pick it. For example Bakersbane Duo is a great common, but not really a pull into green by itself, so I guess it's a C+? But it's a 2-drop that will slot in all your green decks, and green's the best color, so you're actually gonna pick it quite highly, probably higher than some narrower so-called B-. On the other hand, Plumecreed Escort is a better Magic card, and in a set where blue was good would be a high pick, but since blue is bad Escort isn't quite enough to pull you into blue. So it's like a B/B- in a vacuum but gets downgraded to a C+ because of the context of the format
I think that's where a lot of your crash course arguments come from, where Ben will grade a card highly and Ethan will say "but you're never taking it highly, are you?" I think Ben grades more on power level and Ethan more on pick order
I'm not sure which axis is more interesting to look at, one requires raw card evaluation skills while the other is more about figuring out how the format will play out, which as you've pointed out is really hard to do. But I think you guys need to be on the same page about what you're grading for to avoid the meaningless grading differences
Jeff Hoogland has been putting his marvel snap reviews into tiers of
Powerful/flexible
Narrow/powerful
Fine/flexible
Fine/narrow
Etc
I feel like this is kind of where you guys are trying to get to. Some sort of tier system on that x/y axis.
Just wondering if collapsing all C and D cards together makes sense. Would it be helpful to still distinguish a C1 from a D1?
I imagine something like a D4 wouldn’t happen since that card would be very flexible, which makes me wonder if maybe the grades should just be C or D, without plusses and minuses or numbers.
Edit: obviously this episode got me intrigued, love that you guys are thinking about this deeply!
I think the Raffine’s Informant comparison isn’t just wrong because conniving is stronger- it’s because that effect is much better in a deck which is aggro slanted. If you’re wanting to close a game in a small number of turns, the body is a lot more relevant, as is the selection ability. The reason white doesn’t tend to get stuff like this is because drawing into aggro is very strong; the value of an individual card matters more when you want everyone to be playing fewer cards
Definitely heard @5:54 "mouse keeping" either it was too good a pun or I'm playing to much RW
Hi guys (and everyone). Thanks for the episode. I'm interested in hearing you try out a version of the new system.
The two issues others have also mentioned are:
(1) risk of confusion
(2) still needing a way to distinguish how good cards are in the colours they fit in.
Like at least one other commenter, I think that retaining C and D (and F) grades but with the new number (of colour combinations) taking the place of the old pluses and minuses makes the most sense, as this solves both of the main issues.
And there will still be plenty to agree and disagree about as you discuss the cards!
I LOVE the idea for the numbers in the letter grades.
Haven't played a ton of Magic recently, but I still listen to the podcast episodes. One of the most entertaining episodes was you two arguing over the exact letter grades for BLB limited. It was great fun even if you guys weren't satisfied with the grading scale.
I think the abundance of (to steal a phrase) "secret gold cards" in this set really threw evaluations for a loop. Something like three tree scribe can probably be cut from a lot of non frog green decks, but is easily one of the best cards in a frog deck. Then there's cards that are good in almost any deck, like tree-guard duo. Is tree guard duo in a frog deck better than three tree scribe? No, but when you're evaluating what cards to take early in a draft, your thought process has to be different from when you're done with the draft and making cuts to your deck.
All that to say that I think there were a lot more cards that deserved synergy grades, or given two grades like "general power level vs power level in a specific archetype once you've found your lane"
We'll see if this hyper synergistic style format is the new norm going forward.
I think the number grades sound awesome and then focus on higher letter grades is perfect. And such a better system. Those lower level cards matter so much more which decks they should be played in instead of just some random letter grade to determine power level.
Also if you guys worked with an artist maybe you could get some sort of graphic on screen next to the number that had the color pairs listed next to it. So like a 3 with those other color pairs it goes in
Lots of pegging going on in this convo lol. Love the discussion on evaluation improvement even if all it does is give you another tool to help when letter grades devolve into arguments. Archetype or Flexibility Score or whatever you land on is worthy of an experiment at least! If you aren't confident using it in a full set eval maybe try something smaller stakes like a cube eval or an Alchemy set eval. Thanks as always for inviting us into the conversation.
Love the system! Seems good. I think the way you talk about the cards and what it means to be a 1 2 or 4 because something like pond prophet which may not be graded at b- but is still THE card for the frogs deck. Also I would write them as 4/5 because like you said an artifact could be a 6/10 or something like a hybrid card would be out of whatever the math is I don’t want to do now
You guys should do an episode with the Lucky Paper Radio guys!
My concern with the number scale is if something is a 4, why is that not a C plus? maybe below B, there's D1-D4 (ok in 1-4 archetypes) and a C1-C4 (good in 1-4 archetypes) but even that is hurting my brain a bit thinking about it. Another idea is that the gap it takes to talk about card eval differences grows larger the lower down the card is
Listened on podcast, came here to give grading scale feedback. I like the idea, and…
You can do 0-4 and still use the grading scale everyone is used to.
C+ (5): You would splash this card in deck of other colors
C: Good in 4 decks
C-: Good in 3
D+: In 2
D: In 1
D-: 23rd pick if you have to, only one deck.
F: Don’t draft this
Disagree with this strongly. Splashing a C+ is maniacal and being good in 2 decks is not a D+
I disagree as well, mainly because card flexibility and powerlevel are not the same. Something like Fountainport Bell is playable in every archetype, but it's not a C+ since a) you don't need to pick it highly since you can usually get them late and you don't want more than 1 or 2 max and b) it's not *that* much better than running a basic.
Or something like blooming blast might be a better example: You can play it just fine in every archetype, so it would get a 5 but it's not particularly good in any of them, so definitely not a C+ on the old grading scale, more like a C- or maybe D+ despite the flexibility.
So then how do you differentiate between an ok 2 and a great 2? Maybe have an ABC sub grade? 2a vs 2c?
Is it too extreme to say that if Fountainport Bell isn't inducted into the Golden Egg Hall of Fame on the 50-in-50 episode, we riot? That card is fantastic!
I like the proposed rating system
On the subject of C+ and below, I tend to view them pretty interchangeably as just cannon fodder. Yes some cannon fodder is better than others, but they are all just there as bodies to soak up blows while your actual good cards decide the game. I don't care if Bonebind Orator is a C- or a C+, it's just a blocker for their 2 drop that provides some minimal value option later in the game.
In general, I support the idea of a new grading system, but I have a few issues with the system you propose in this episode:
1. I think new listeners who don't already know about the thought process that led you to develop a new grading system will be confused by this one. If you start listening to a Crash Course having never listened to LoL before and all of a sudden they're giving one card a B and another card a 4, it's pretty counterintuitive.
2. Based on my understanding of the new proposed grading method, some cards might get the same score but be very different levels of quality. For example, Treeguard Duo and Glidedive Duo are probably both 4s, but I'd argue Treeguard Duo is significantly stronger and more important.
3. You already brought up how confusing colorless cards might be, but multicolor cards have a similar problem. If a card is 2 colors and isn't a B or above, how do you grade it? It theoretically only goes in exactly one deck.
On 2, both of those in the linear scale probably get C+ or a C grade, so that's not different to now. I would also say they can grade them differently, you can give the best a 4 and the 2nd best a 3 and so on. But also its a rating system as to whether it should make your deck, giving them both a 4 says, you can be happy putting this in any green deck which is true. In the instance where you have both and then have only got room for one, there's no grading scale (unless you're literally putting each card in an archetype and a colour in a straight line) which sorts them. For the purposes of a crash course I think them both getting 4s is absolutely fine and no worse than the SQ.
Change the A and B grades to 1 through 5 stars. Then you're talking about "star cards" and I think that fits very well to describe the category you're talking about
YOOO I was super high on Blacksmith's Talent!! I'm glad my instincts aren't always bad 😂
Idk having letter grades AND number grades seems confusing and hurts my small brain lol Should be one or the other imo. Also I love it when you guys get heated over grades please don't stop 😂
My perspective is shifting in a different direction because of this format. I like Raccoon beats more than most because when you go 2, 3, 4, or even better 2, 4, 5, it is the best deck. I was hyped for the Fireglass Mentor, but it doesn't ever play out great (what turn do y'all like playing this card on?). I was hyped for Pond Prophet but it doesn't attack or block.
I'm a green (at nearly all costs) fan this format and prefer GB, GR, GW, and GU in that order.
You should rank cards like NBA players.
MVP (A+)
All-NBA (A, A-)
All-Star (B)
Roleplayer (C+)
Bench Warmer (C, C-)
G-league (D)
6th Man (sideboard)
I do think Fs need to be broadened. Wizards just doesn't print enough completely useless cards anymore for it to get its own leter grade. I think what you're usually calling a D- just needs to be an F now.
Don’t change the grading scale, it’s fine as is. The grade itself isn’t even that important anyway, people should be listening to what you actually say about the cards.
Erm🤓👆conclave mentor is from m21
There is some logic to what you're saying about the gold cards being good helping to determine if the colour pair will be good. But you're cherry picking cards to justify your argument. Rakdos is think might have the best winrate in the last week on 17lands, and the uncommon is good but the common Cindering Cutthroat is not particularly good. Similarly Dimir has a high winrate for top players (just not for average/bottom players) and its common gold card is also pretty bad.
Tbh, most of the gold uncommons are rare level nowadays, and WOTC have specifically said they're going to try to push their power going forward to reward you more for finding the right lane.