MTG App uses tools, current sources, and structured analysis to help players make better Magic decisions. The goal is not to turn every deck into a score or every draft pick into a universal rule. It is to show what information matters, how to inspect it, and where format, matchup, playgroup, card pool, or personal preference changes the answer.
The evidence we use
| Evidence type | How we use it |
|---|---|
| Published specifications | First-party pages and documentation support claims about tool features, sets, and other published details. A specification describes what is stated, not independently measured performance. |
| Authoritative game information | Current Oracle text, Comprehensive Rules, format legality, banned and restricted lists, tournament policy, and official release details are checked against the relevant current authority when they affect the answer. |
| Cited research and analysis | Research, calculations, tournament data, and specialist analysis may provide context. We consider the source, date, sample, assumptions, and whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion. |
| Professional guidance | Recognized rules, policy, and specialist guidance can clarify technical questions. The source and scope matter; guidance for sanctioned events may not answer a casual playgroup question. |
| Documented direct testing | First-hand testing is used only when the tested deck, conditions, observations, or procedure are documented. We do not label an assumption or illustrative example as a completed test. |
How we evaluate tools and MTG metrics
A tool output is a starting point for investigation. A mana curve can reveal where costs cluster, but it cannot guarantee that a deck will function. Land count, colored sources, ramp, card draw, mulligan decisions, matchup demands, and intended game speed may all change the diagnosis. Our deck builder and mana curve analyzer workflow shows how those views can answer different parts of the same question.
Inputs used only to explain a method are identified as illustrative. We do not invent app-generated grades, curve scores, draft results, combo-search results, prices, or recommendations. Editorial interpretation is kept distinct from what a tool displays: the tool organizes information, while the guide explains what that information may mean for the player’s decision.
Draft practice, combos, and card information
Draft practice is evaluated by the decisions it helps a player repeat: comparing power with flexibility, reading signals, maintaining a playable curve, recognizing archetypes, and knowing when to pivot. A simulator provides practice opportunities, not proof that the same picks will be correct in every pod. See Draft Simulator vs Tier List for a practical comparison of those evidence boundaries.
Combo coverage distinguishes exact rules interactions from ordinary synergy, deterministic loops from value engines, and legality from suitability for a particular format or table. When a line depends on precise wording, current Oracle text and applicable rules take priority. Card-printing and set information is likewise checked against current authoritative data when the exact printing, release, or legality matters.
Currency, limitations, and corrections
Changing facts are assessed for recency, directness, and relevance. Legality, bans, release details, tournament results, metagame shares, availability, and prices should be dated when they materially affect the conclusion. Older information may still explain historical context, but it should not be presented as current.
Metrics are decision aids, not performance guarantees. The strongest next step is usually to test one clear change, record the conditions, and compare versions rather than trusting a single result; this playtest-note workflow provides a repeatable approach. More detail appears in our Editorial Policy and Trust & Transparency pages. To report an error or outdated detail, use the Corrections page or email contact@mtgapp.com.