(Author’s note: I promised an article that presents the simplest possible card advantage formula, then applies it to various reader-submitted problems. However, I had to split it into two parts because the tables I added to this article made it very long, though the actual discussion is quite short. The reader problems will be featured separately next week, and feel free to add to the considerable amount already in my scratch file for Part II.)
Type I News backlog
Tan Treason Tribunal sends [author name="Abe Sargent"]Abe Sargent[/author] to Guantanamo Bay.
“The Deck” dominates December 2003 Dülmen Top 8 (Type I Slaver takes second).
“The Deck” takes first and second in Barcelona, December 2003.
Rasko’s shotgun > Roney’s Paint Shop.
Tan still waiting for promised playset of Star City Games tokens; sues editor.
TheManaDrain.com temporary boards put up while site moves.
Synopsis of this article
A lot of you are interested in card advantage theory in the way a horny fifteen-year old is interested in a lovely girl: You want to get something done in ten seconds, then go back to the card store.
This is the article for you.
As promised, after reading this article, you should have an extremely short mental checklist that will let you handle most card advantage-counting situations in ten seconds.
Guaranteed: Faster results than a Chasey Lain video, or your money back.
(Legalese: To avail of this guarantee, please mail abovenamed video to author for testing and validation of your claim. Allow 6-8 weeks after receipt for your money back. All material sent in this way shall become the property of said author.) [Yeah, you definitely don’t want it back. – Knut]
The context of card advantage theory
There are four fundamental restrictions in Magic: the Gathering:
Restriction 1: You draw one card per turn
Restriction 2: You untap your cards once per turn (your mana producers, most importantly)
Restriction 3: You play up to one land per turn
Restriction 4: You attack up to once per turn
You win by breaking these rules. Magic theories boil down to this: How to tear apart Richard Garfield’s underlying mathematical architecture, then remake it in your own image.
I distill Magic theory into only two fundamental doctrines.
First, card advantage theory deals with Restriction 1. It talks about winning by amassing more resources than your opponent, and burying him under their weight.
Second, tempo theory deals with Restrictions 2, 3 and 4. It talks about winning by giving yourself more time in which to use your resources, and running circles around your bewildered foe.
Card advantage theory envisions playing checkers with more pieces on your side of the board. Tempo theory envisions taking more moves.
Obviously, card advantage and tempo theory are not mutually exclusive – in fact, they interact. If you’re going to cheat, you may as well cheat a lot and play checkers with more pieces and more moves. The most powerful cards in Magic: the Gathering get a nod from both card advantage and tempo, such as Ancestral Recall, Balance, and Demonic Consultation.
Have you ever started a relationship by getting down on your knees and proposing marriage (or various other things in the R-18 category)? Hell, no. You do things one at a time.
Discussing card advantage, we go to a checker board where you can add all the pieces you want, but take just one move a turn. Discussing tempo, we give you the same number of pieces your opponent has, but let you take all the moves you want.
This article will discuss card advantage theory only. Imagine Tan handing you a big bag of pieces, but whispering to save the extra moves for another day.
Beyond this ten-second solution, please check the previous”Back to Basics” articles:
Card advantage theory
Back to Basics, Part 3: Counting card advantage
Back to Basics, Part 4: Recounting card advantage (Additional scenarios)
Back to Basics, Part 8: Revisiting card advantage (More additional scenarios)
Tempo theory
Back to Basics, Part 5: Counting tempo, Part I (Land drops)
Back to Basics, Part 6: Counting tempo, Part II (Untap phases and mana per turn)
Back to Basics, Part 7: Counting tempo, Part III (Attack phases)
Specific applications of tempo theory
Back to Basics, Part 1: Why Timmy and [author name="Brian Kibler"]Brian Kibler[/author] shouldn’t play Type I (why fat is bad)
Back to Basics, Part 2: A mana curve can be a line or a blob
Tan’s Ten-Second Formula
(To spare your eyes, I’ll use pseudo-RPG notation. CA stands for card advantage)
CA is simpler and more visible than tempo, so the spectacular plays you associate with Type I are usually those that build incredible CA, from Stroke of Genius to Mind Twist. The most powerful card ever printed, Necropotence, is also the most powerful CA engine ever printed.
It’s really very simple. If Restriction 1 says you only draw one card a turn, or your regular draw, then one way to win is by drawing more cards.
However, spectacular plays aren’t common. Normally, you have to choose between two average plays. Thus, you want a simple method to count CA, to help you decide.
Here’s the formula I implicitly used in”Counting Card Advantage“:
Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting
Rule 1a: Whenever a card moves to your hand, that’s +1 CA
Rule 1b: Whenever a card leaves your hand, that’s -1 CA
Rule 2a: Whenever a permanent moves to your side of the board, that’s +1 CA
Rule 2b: Whenever a permanent leaves your side of the board, that’s -1 CA
Rule 3a: Whenever a card in hand is”dead” or practically useless, that’s -1 CA even though it’s still in your hand. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 1 if the dead card later leaves your hand.
Rule 3b: Whenever a”dead” card in hand becomes useful again, that’s +1 CA even though no new card moved to your hand.
Rule 3c: Whenever a permanent in play is”dead,” practically useless, has no additional effect on the game, or whose effects are all counted by one of these rules, that’s -1 CA even though it’s still on the board. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 2 if the dead permanent later leaves your side of the board.
Rule 3d: Whenever a”dead” permanent in play becomes useful again, that’s +1 CA, even though no new permanent moved to your side of the board.
Additional Rule 4: CA does not change just because the characteristics of a card or permanent change (for example, a change in a creature’s power/toughness; a 1/1 is as good as a 10/10 for our simplified count).
Additional Rule 5: Cards in the library, graveyard and removed from game zone do not affect CA until:
they cause a card to enter or leave your hand
they cause a permanent to enter or leave play on your side of the board
they cause a card or permanent to become”dead”
they make a”dead” card or permanent useful again
Lampooning the finest Magic writer – and Supreme Court justice – tradition of coining highfalutin terms, simplistic enumerations, and catchy acronyms, I hereby dub this,”Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting.”
T.H.E.F.U.C.C. for short.
Now, whenever you need to count CA, you can just ask: WTF?
This is the entire article already, and you can test it against that Chasey Lain video now.
Once you get the hang of it, you can shorten T.H.E.F.U.C.C. this way:
Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting (abridged)
Rule 1: Card in hand = +1 CA
Rule 2: Permanent in play = +1 CA
Rule 3:”Dead” card = -1 CA
Additional Rule 4: All cards in hand and permanents in play are each equally worth 1 CA, regardless of characteristics
Additional Rule 5: Cards in the library, graveyard and removed from game zone are each worth 0 CA
And just to be sure: Your life total does not affect CA computation.
Using Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting
So how do you ask WTF?
My formula counts the CA gained (or lost) by one player. However, you have three scenarios:
Count”intrinsic” CA produced by a card
Count CA produced by a play
Count CA produced by a decision
CA: card
The simplest use is to count the”intrinsic” CA of a card, and you just run through the three rules:
CA (you) = CA (Rule 1) + CA (Rule 2) + CA (Rule 3)
CA: play
Often, though, you need to count the CA produced by a specific play. This is also simple; just subtract the CA your opponent gains from the CA you gain.
Or:
CA (you) – CA (opponent)
Or even:
CA (you) + CA (ally 1) + CA (ally 2) + … + (ally x) – CA (opponent 1) – CA (opponent 2) – … – CA (opponent y)
CA: decision
The ultimate purpose of CA theory is to let you choose between two plays. You have to choose the one that leads to your end goal: Win the game.
Obviously, any theory that doesn’t help you choose wisely and win the game is as useful as Bill Clinton’s definition of sex.
Just subtract the CA of your second option from the CA of your first:
CA (option 1) – CA (option 2)
Or:
[ CA (you, option 1) – CA (opponent, option 1) ] – [ CA (you, option 2) – CA (opponent, option 2) ]
The math child prodigies are probably drooling over Chasey Lain now, but we ordinary joes can stay here and run through some tabulated examples.
Don’t mix things up. Again, we have three applications:
Card (add up the CA produced by the various rules)
Play (subtract CA gained by the opponent from the CA you gain)
Decision (subtract CA of the second option from the CA of the first option)
These all lead up to the third and most important application, which in turn should lead to your end goal: Win the game.
The basics of Rule 1: Shock
Rule 1 is the simplest, most basic of my three rules. A simple card like Shock (or Healing Salve) represents the simplest application of this rule:
Play: You cast Shock, targeting your opponent. He does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Shock leaves your hand)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
Try it on Healing Salve and other common instants and sorceries; most will add up to -1 CA.
The basics of Rule 1: Thoughtcast
Now try it on a spell that draws additional cards:
Play: You cast Thoughtcast. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Thoughtcast leaves your hand)
+2 (Rule 1: Two cards move to your hand due to Thoughtcast)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = +1 – 0 = +1 CA
Now you see why card drawing spells are the basic card advantage example. (If you thought that was good, check out Ancestral Recall, easily the most common early-game tutor target in Type I.)
General lesson
As a general rule, the moment you cast a card from your hand, you lose a card. Thus, Thoughtcast is +1 CA, not +2.
Advanced lesson
Try using Rule 1 to explain why vanilla life gain like Blessed Nectar and inflexible burn like Lava Axe are rarely used.
(These”Advanced lessons” pose questions beyond the scope of this article, but may confuse you when you come across them. If you find them distracting, you can skip them first.)
The basics of Rule 1: Wrench Mind
Finally, try Rule 1 in Reverse:
Play: You cast Wrench Mind. Your opponent does nothing, and has no artifacts in hand. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Wrench Mind leaves your hand)
CA (opponent)
-2 (Rule 1: Two cards leave your opponent’s hand due to Wrench Mind)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – -2 = +1 CA
Thus, drawing cards is not the only basic way of gaining CA.
General lesson
Whenever your opponent loses a card from his hand, that’s +1 CA for you.
Advanced lesson
The Fallen Empires common Hymn to Tourach produces an identical +1 CA, but beyond card advantage, Hymn is clearly better because of the random discard. Thus the old expression,”Hymn, Hymn, I win!”
But if you think this is nasty, some mana-intensive Type I decks pack Mind Twist with their Mana Drains.
The basics of Rule 2: Hill Giant
Now let’s go to a simple example for the next rule.
Play: You cast Hill Giant. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Hill Giant leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant moves onto the board)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = +0 CA
Thus, permanents like creatures, artifacts, enchantments and land are still useful after they leave your hand, unlike sorceries and instants. Generally, Rule 2 stops you from writing them off just because they left your hand.
General lesson
Casting a permanent is +0 CA.
Advanced lesson
Compare Shock to Grizzly Bears. Use Rule 2 to explain why an all-Red deck with only burn spells is weaker than an all-Red deck with both cheap creatures and burn.
The basics of Rule 2: Battery
Hill Giant is one of the”classic” vanilla creatures of Magic, along with Mons Goblin Raiders, Merfolk of the Pearl Trident, Grizzly Bears, Gray Ogre, and the venerable Hurloon Minotaur.
But let’s take a non-creature spell that’s practically identical:
Play: You cast Battery (from Assault/Battery). Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Battery leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: 3/3 Elephant token moves onto the board)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = +0 CA
Obviously, it’s identical to playing Hill Giant; both plays mean losing a card in hand and gaining a 3/3 on the board.
General lesson
A token creature is equivalent to a creature-permanent.
Another author proposed you shouldn’t count tokens for CA purposes because you can’t track them physically, like normal cards. I replied this is absurd in the face of beads, coins and pornographic playing cards.
An editor proposed you shouldn’t count tokens for CA purposes because casting Boomerang on them removes them from the game. So what?
Boomerang also kills Skulking Ghost instead of returning it to your hand.
There’s no need for additional sub-rules because Rules 1 and 2, as you will see, ably handle Boomerang on a normal creature, a token creature, and Skulking Ghost.
The basics of Rule 2: Battery using the wrong Rule 2
There is no good reason for treating tokens differently. However, there is a simple reason not to treat tokens differently:
Play: You cast Battery (from Assault/Battery). Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Battery leaves your hand)
+0 (Breaking Rule 2: You don’t count the 3/3 Elephant token)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
You conclude that casting Battery is a losing play, unlike the identical Hill Giant.
This is ridiculous, and makes breaking Rule 2 (by counting tokens as non-permanents) as useful as a [censored]. Not only does Rule 2 become useless, it even becomes misleading.
At best, you’ll be forced to come up with a confusing Rule 6 to fix the distinction without a difference. This unnecessarily destroys the simplicity of CA theory, and you’ll be forced to mail me that Chasey Lain video because you’ll be taking more than ten seconds.
Advanced lesson
Try to compute the CA of Deranged Hermit, and of a Call of the Herd cast and flashed back for both tokens. Using Hill Giant for comparison, explain why breaking Rule 2 becomes even more misleading.
The basics of Rule 2: Dark Banishing
Now that you have the basic idea, let’s try a couple of slightly more advanced scenarios. First, let’s examine removal cards, or spells that destroy permanents.
Play: You cast Dark Banishing on your opponent’s Hill Giant. He does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Dark Banishing leaves your hand)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant leaves the board)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – -1 = +0 CA
Thus, you’re even (you lost a card, but he lost a permanent).
General lesson
Whenever your opponent loses a permanent, that’s +1 CA for you.
General lesson
A”trade” occurs when you exchange a card or permanent for an opponent’s card or permanent.
Compute the CA when you attack with your Hill Giant and your opponent blocks with his, killing both creatures.
General lesson
Compute Wrath of God on your opponent’s ten creatures. Explain how you gain a lot of card advantage from such”global” or”mass-removal” spells without drawing cards. Then explain why control decks love these effects, from the venerable Nevinyrral’s Disk and Powder Keg to Starstorm and Akroma’s Vengeance.
If you thought that was exciting, look up Balance.
General lesson
Applying Rule 2, explain why casting Wrath of God on a million of your opponent’s 1/1 Soldier tokens is a good play.
Advanced lesson
A trade may be even in card advantage terms, but not in others.
Remember, card advantage is only one of the fundamental theories. Read”Counting Tempo, Part II.” You’ll realize that trading a three-mana Dark Banishing for a four-mana Hill Giant is still good in the sense that your opponent effectively wasted the extra mana.”Why Timmy and [author name="Brian Kibler"]Brian Kibler[/author] shouldn’t play Type I” gives more painful examples using high-mana cards.
To give another example, Duress is a trade under card advantage. However, a disruptive early Duress is rarely considered even.
But, again, we’re focusing on only card advantage today. Save the other theories for another time.
The basics of Rule 2: Boomerang
Second, let’s examine”bounce,” or spells that return permanents to a player’s hand.
Play: You cast Boomerang on your opponent’s Hill Giant. He does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Boomerang leaves your hand)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant leaves the board)
+1 (Rule 1: Hill Giant moves to your opponent’s hand)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
You conclude that casting Boomerang is a losing play. Or, rather, you conclude that Boomerang has to be well-timed to make it at least a trade.
(Compute Boomerang in response to your opponent’s Rancor. Then compute Boomerang on Grizzly Bears, when those Bears and an Eager Cadet are blocking your Hill Giant. Also compute Boomerang on a 3/3 Elephant token.)
Advanced lesson
Card advantage, however, might not be the best theory for judging bounce.
Read”Counting Tempo, Part II.” Consider that a two-mana Boomerang on a four-mana Hill Giant wastes your opponent’s mana, and doubly so because he has to tie up another turn’s worth just to recast it.
Then consider you still have mana to cast something else in the same turn using the rest of your mana, and attack with your creatures now that the blocking Hill Giant took a forced leave.
The basics of Rule 2: Hill Giant blocked by Grizzly Bears and Eager Cadet
Let’s go back to a previous example:
Play: You attack with Hill Giant. Your opponent chooses to block with his only creatures, Grizzly Bears and Eager Cadet. He does nothing more. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant leaves the board)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 2: Grizzly Bears leaves the board)
-1 (Rule 2: Eager Cadet leaves the board)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – -2 = +1
Thus, in card advantage terms, this is good. If he keeps this up, he’ll run out of cards, and will have nothing left to deal with your next creatures.
General lesson
CA theory tells you to avoid plays where you have to trade multiple cards for one of your opponent’s. What you want to do is trade one of your cards for a lot of your opponent’s, like casting a single Wrath of God to wipe all his creatures off the face of the board.
Of course, CA theory also tells aggro players to avoid this by not putting too many creatures on the board for no good reason.
Advanced lesson
Is Force of Will broken? Compute, and you’ll find that it’s lousy in CA terms. Read, however,”Counting Tempo, Part III,” which explains why a two-for-one CA trade can be excellent under tempo theory.
The basics of Rule 3: Dark Banishing against Black creatures
Rules 1 and 2 are simple and straightforward, but Rule 3 requires a little more thought. Rather, it requires a bit of common sense, since”dead” and”practically useless” depend on the situation.
Right, there are an infinite number of situations in Magic.
It’s impossible to formulate a more detailed rule than”common sense” without making the rule useless. I trust, however, you’ll know it when you see it, without taking Rule 3 to absurd extremes.
The”dead” card in hand is the classic understanding of the term”dead” card:
Play: You draw Dark Banishing in your opening hand. However, you know your opponent is playing with mono black, with nothing but black creatures. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 3: Dark Banishing is a dead card in hand)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – 0 = -1
Imagine a banker trying to collect a loan from a penniless debtor who just declared bankruptcy. He may as well write off the debt instead of deluding himself, and possibly spending the money he (mistakenly) expects to collect.
But how can Rule 3 save you from yourself here?
At this point, you can choose to mulligan. You don’t lose anything, since you effectively drew a six-card hand, anyway.
In fact, if you drew four Dark Banishings and three Swamps as your opening hand, you should, since -1 CA from the mulligan is better than -4 CA from the dead cards.
Advanced lesson
“Dead” cards are a classic problem of reactive cards, and the control decks that use them most. This explains the quote from the”King of Beatdown,” David Price:”There are no wrong threats, but there are wrong answers.”
In Type I, the common example is having creature removal like Swords to Plowshares against creatureless control or combo decks. The”Disenchant problem” was also discussed in”The Control Player’s Bible, Part XVI: Why Control Sucks.”
This problem also explains why more flexible solutions like Cunning Wish have become staples, and why Isochron Scepter has replaced The Abyss as the permanent creature solution of choice.
Of course, you don’t waste even dead cards. They may yet be pitched to Force of Will, or replaced by a new card using Brainstorm and a reshuffler.
The basics of Rule 3: Arrest on your own creature
“Revisiting Card Advantage” used local enchantments as a fertile example for Rule 3. Let’s take one from there:
Decision: You sacrificed Mindslaver to take control of your opponent’s turn. Among other things, you now have the option to play his Arrest on his own Skyhunter Patrol. WTF?
Option 1: Cast Arrest
CA (you)
-0 (does nothing; Mindslaver was already sacrificed in the scenario)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 1: Arrest leaves his hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Arrest moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 3: Arrest has no additional effect on the game)
-1 (Rule 3: Skyhunter Patrol becomes practically useless)
Total CA of Option 1: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – -2 = +2 CA
Option 2: Don’t cast Arrest
CA (you)
-0 (does nothing; Mindslaver was already sacrificed in the scenario)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA of Option 2: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = +0 CA
Total CA of decision: 2 – 0 = 2
(Note that you can count Mindslaver if you really want to, but it won’t matter. Because the Mindslaver was already sacrificed, you’ll count it in both Options 1 and 2, and they’ll cancel out.)
For all practical purposes, this is like having him cast Dark Banishing on his own creature. He obviously loses two cards, and it shouldn’t be different when you use Arrest instead of Dark Banishing.
Option 1: Cast Arrest, break Rule 3
CA (you)
-0 (does nothing; Mindslaver was already sacrificed in the scenario)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 1: Arrest leaves his hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Arrest moves to the board)
-0 (Breaking Rule 3: You don’t count that Arrest has no additional effect on the game)
-0 (Breaking Rule 3: You don’t count that Skyhunter Patrol becomes practically useless)
Total CA of Option 1: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = 0
Without Rule 3, you come to the absurd, misleading conclusion that the play makes no difference – you stand to rob him of two of his own cards!
The basics of Rule 3: Arrest on your own creature, Part II
What happens if your opponent topdecks Naturalize on his next turn and immediately casts it on the Arrest? WTF?
CA (you)
-0 (does nothing)
CA (opponent)
-1 (Rule 1: Naturalize leaves his hand)
-0 (Rule 3: Arrest leaves the board, but you already counted -1 CA from Rule 3)
+1 (Rule 3: Skyhunter Patrol becomes a useful permanent again)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = 0
It’s just as though he topdecked and cast a fresh Skyhunter Patrol.
The basics of Rule 3: Animate Dead
Here’s another example from”Revisiting Card Advantage“:
Play: You cast Animate Dead on a Hill Giant in your graveyard. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Animate Dead leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Animate Dead moves to the board)
+1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 3: Animate Dead has no additional effect on the game)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = +0 CA
+0 CA makes perfect sense, since this is the same result as casting a fresh Hill Giant from your hand.
Without Rule 3, you get another absurd result:
Play: You cast Animate Dead on a Hill Giant in your graveyard. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Animate Dead leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Animate Dead moves to the board)
+1 (Rule 2: Hill Giant moves to the board)
-0 (Breaking Rule 3: You don’t count that Animate Dead has no additional effect on the game)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = +1 – 0 = +1 CA
If you can explain how you create card advantage by using Animate Dead instead of casting a copy of the exact same creature from your hand, I would have gladly recommended you to Enron’s Accounting department.
If someone Naturalizes Animate Dead, you can compute that it’s the same result as Dark Banishing on the creature. This follows the preceding Arrest example.
The basics of Rule 3: Treasure Trove
It’s useful to apply Rule 3 to any permanent whose effects are already covered by a rule:
Play: You cast Treasure Trove. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Treasure Trove leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Treasure Trove moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 3: Treasure Trove has no additional effect not covered by Rule 1)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = -1 – 0 = -1
Wait, Oscar, did you use to work for Enron?
How does a card drawing permanent end up losing you CA?
It does, at first, and consider you have to activate it once to break even, and a second time to get +1 CA.
Play: You cast Treasure Trove and activate it once. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
CA (you)
-1 (Rule 1: Treasure Trove leaves your hand)
+1 (Rule 2: Treasure Trove moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 3: Treasure Trove has no additional effect not covered by Rule 1)
+1 (Rule 1: A card moves to your hand due to Treasure Trove)
CA (opponent)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (you) – CA (opponent) = 0 – 0 = 0
If you don’t apply Rule 3, you actually treat Treasure Trove differently from Thoughtcast, discussed above. Try breaking Rule 3, and you’ll conclude that Treasure Trove activated once equals Thoughtcast in CA terms.
That isn’t right; that was just like cycling Treasure Trove or”breaking even.”
General lesson
Use the above discussion to explain why Howling Mine is -1 CA, or a lousy card drawing engine.
Advanced lesson
This -1 CA for card drawing permanents helps quantify a number of familiar ones from Jayemdae Tome to Disrupting Scepter.
Does this particular application look familiar?
It should. My Rules 3 and 1 applied this way give you Mike Flores 1998 Investment Theory, though as part of a more general formula. (Flores’s original article was discussed in”Counting Tempo, Part II” and”Revisiting Card Advantage.”)
[Editor’s Note: The rest of this article is continued in Part II.]