First 3 cards are reviewed!

|New Rating system (RIP Greven)|
Power | Flexibility | Synergy
3.0 - Total Bomb | 3.0 - Effectively Colorless | 3.0 - Best with others
2.0 - Play this card if you can | 2.0 - Splashable, 3 color | 2.0 - works with some decks
1.0 - Filler | 1.0 - Playable in 2 color without problem | 1.0 - No special interactions
0.0 - Unplayable | 0.0- Needs 10+ colored sources | 0.0 - Sideboard

This is what I came up with, so that the 3 classes would make a rectangular table.
I decided to stick "sideboard" in synergy because it had to go somewhere... I almost put it in Flexibility, but sideboard cards have color restrictions as well, and I couldn't imagine a sideboard card that was also very synergistic (but I am SURE someone will remind me!)

Going from ~4 power levels to 5 is a little tricky.
3.0s are things you are happy to first pick.
2.5s are things you are OK with first picking.
2.0s are high picks that pull you into the color.
1.5s are your solid playables that you rarely cut,
1.0s are interchangable filler cards than often get cut,
0.5 are weak filler that you would prefer cutting.
0.0 you should actively avoid or trick other people into playing.

I guess I should add that last part to each post? I'll wait for some feed back.

I'm not sure I understand the synergy rating. What do you mean by 3.0? Inspiring Call? Cause that should be a low ratingggg. Or a card that's just good in any deck you happen to put it in, like Ultimate Price? Cause going by your descriptions, UP gets a 1.0 on synergy, which is ... awkward.

Good question! What is the opposite of synergy? Esthetically, I couldn't give cards like UP a high "synergy" score because they don't have any high synergy.
Indeed, as currently written stuff like Inspiring Call or Sight of the Scalelords or chief of the foundry would have "high" synergy scores.

What this means is that this card gets BETTER with other cards in your deck. UP is already a 2.5; there is no card you can add that makes it better, so it's actually a low synergy. This probably breaks down with something like Koth of the Hammer "Combos with Mountain", but thats certainly an edge case.

Sight or whatever might get a 0.5/1.0/3.0. I guess a card like Goblin Rabblemaster (synergy with goblins) or more apropos Whirling Rogue would get high values for power AND synergy (they are good by themselves, and even better with other cards in context).

So, I think it's fine as it is -- you can't just add or multiply the numbers to get a total rating (well, I guess you could but you would probably weight it 5/1/1 or something)

My OCD hates the fact that the scale doesn't add to 5 or 10. And I'm also not a fan of the synergy scale, both the concept and the execution.

You can multiple by 1.66667. As for synergy, let's try it for a couple weeks then I will take suggestions.

sideboard almost seems like power level, you remember in dragons when your in a clear 2 colors and you take Rending Volley or Encase in Ice. powerful sideboard cards that against the right colors would possibly become your best removal or even your best card post board. Cards that can become real difference maker. maybe Sideboard just needs a special section and formula on it's own

It might need a separate section, but power level is clearly the wrong place. A sideboard card is, basically by definition either a 0 or a ~2+ on power.

I am on vacation for a couple weeks with essentially no interwebs, so I went ahead and finished off the common creatures.
If someone wants to run the common prowess triggers + lands that would be cool with me, otherwise I'll pick this back up August 8th or 9th.

Post mortem! I think we should keep it. It took a few iterations to get it right, but at least it's different.

I think it would be a good idea to find examples for each rating of power and synergy. I think it would really help. Like, is 3.0 power reserved just for Pack Rat, or are other, a bit more fair cards, also there (I think they should be, mostly because I hope there won't be any Pack Rats in future sets)?

Personally, I liked the old way as far as rating where cards get picked. This to me bunches cards together too often.

I still don't like the synergy scale.

In practice I only bother talking about the power scale to say whether I agree or disagree with the OP.

But in a sense, having the flexibility scale is useful because it allows me to straight out ignore it instead of having to mention it as a caveat like "this card is powerful but not splashable".

Synergy could probably be factored into power if we always assume that a card will only ever be drafted under close to ideal conditions. The current system makes us say things like "Shaman of the Pack is playable on its own but gets better with elves", which is a dumb thing to say since when are you going to draft it without a bunch of elves?

Actually, I think the synergy system is fine but it is upside down. A low rank in flexibility but high power can mean "you can p1p1 this, but you'll have to commit heavily to this color if you want to play it". Similarly a low rank in synergy but high power should mean "you can p1p1 this but you'll have to commit heavily to a synergistic strategy if you want to play it". So sideboard cards would be 3.0 cause they don't care what deck you're drafting, and no special interactions would be 2.0 and so on.

You'd have to rename it to make the synergy requirement sound like a liability rather than a strength. Maybe you'd have power, color flexibility, and strategic flexibility.

The only problem with such a system is that build around cards might get higher power scores than they deserve cause instead of saying "low power high synergy" we're saying "high power low strategic flexibility".

To be honest, I kinda miss the 0 - 5 system...

It was clean and simple.

~SE++

+1

I think I like 0-5 system more too. But I still like the system I suggested back when we last discussed it more than the old one.

You know, I am not sure I have the energy to review all 246 cards. Maybe I'll just stick with the interesting ones.

Do 1 interesting common/day for a month, then uncommons, then rares.

I was wondering how long you will be able to keep it up. You did a great job.

Sure. Let's just do the interesting cards. Maybe we should have a post where people could suggest some cards you don't find interesting?

For sure if people want to pm me suggestions or leave a note in the days thread for later.