I was wondering if anyone had a list of general situations where "strictly better" actually happens.
People "misuse" strictly better a lot (personally i like the loose definition "better in effectively every common scenario", or perhaps "better in 90%+ of scenarios"): ashcoat bear is not strictly better than grizzly bears, because murganda petroglyphs in play make grizzly bears a much better creature.
abbey griffin is not strictly worse than armored griffin because the opponent may have no fliers, no 2 power creatures, and run pthisis or similar
ethereal armor is not better than lance because the opponent may be running an ensnaring bridge keep his hand at one, while your creatures are 1/1 at lowest.
any "same power for lower cost" is worse than a comparable card in the case of a chalice of the void set at that cost (which costs less mana for the opponent).
lands that provide more different types of mana can't be put into certain EDH decks.
etc. etc. etc.
Situations that currently merit strictly better that i can think of:
1. Non-creature permanent for same cost has an additional activated ability, this ability must be the same color as the mana cost.
2. Spell A that includes multiple options at the same cost as a spell B that does not. one of the options is spell B's effect
3. Instant or Sorcery that has a broader range of targets than another Instant or Sorcery of the same mana cost. (One could argue that bad play can cause misplays that make it worse, but meh, i'm assuming a perfect world)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UWUW ControlUW UGWSpiritsUGW GHardened ScalesG WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
playing against a well groomed person is strictly better than playing against one who is not
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
Make the white queen run so fast, she hasn't got time to make you wise.
Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, like thoughts inside a dream.
Doctor, my eyes, tell me what you see. I hear their cries... just say if it's too late for me.
Doctor, my eyes...cannot see the sky. Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?
For example, shock is not strictly better than lightning bolt, because if you get mindslavered you will take 3 damage from a bolt, but only 2 from shock.
Then there's the other definition of strictly better, which, incidentally, how WotC defines it.
I guess I should start by explaining what I mean by “strictly better.” This is a phrase R&D tosses around a lot. “Strictly better” means that one card is in all occurrences (within reason) better than another. An example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock. Barring a really convoluted set-up (you know your opponent has Eye for an Eye and you're at 3 life while he's at 2), you would always want Lightning Bolt over Shock. For an identical cost, it just does exactly the same thing, but better.
There was long thread on it. It was rightfully closed.
Nevermore is still Standard-legal, and the Standard lands aren't strictly better than each other. So no card is strictly better than any other in Standard.
I think the Zendikar manlands might actually be strictly-better-except-for-Mindslaver than the original taplands. All the hate I can think of for them either turns them into taplands or also hits the taplands.
Everyone understands what "strictly better" means, but some think they are being oh so witty by bringing up those extremely rare situations or interactions in which you'd rather play the obviously weaker card.
Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock because you will never run Shock over Lightning Bolt if given the choice, no matter your deck, no matter if Mindslaver is legal or not, and no matter how much of a staple Redirect is in the format.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
ABU duals are strictly better than Shocklands in all situations.
Not if you have two Amulet of Vigors out, as it won't give the ABU duals two untap triggers.
This is how this game goes. For any situation, you can find some backdoor scenario where it's not "Strictly" better, and this highlights how ridiculous and pedantic it can get. Personally, Wizards' definition works for me. If you have to start digging for that one wild corner case, it still counts as strictly better.
Caress won't trigger Bloodthirst. This one I will stand by on not being strictly better. There are things that trigger off of damage specifically, for good or ill.
Yeah convoluted scenarios that involve Mind slaver really don't count. Id say strictly better constitutes that you ALWAYS would choose card A vs card B when constructing your deck. I won't say that ABU duals are strictly better than socks becauseof random deaths shadows decks and such. But lightning bolt is strictly better than shock. And I would agree that WWK man lands are better than original tap lands. Also I'll always pick a 3/3 for two over grizzly bears.
We used to have a thread where the challenge was to come up with convoluted scenarios where Card A was actually better than having Card B. (e.g. Shock instead of Lightning Bolt to kill Mogg Maniac) Unfortunately some drive-by posters took that to mean that we were actually advocating that people always play Shock over Lightning Bolt. (For the record, we weren't - it was just a game).
The removal of mana burn has made some of the scenarios in the old thread obsolete, but there are still extremely convoluted scenarios where Mana Drain can be worse than Counterspell.
The definition of saying one card is 'strictly better' than another means that it is more advantageous to have that card over the other in every single possible situation. There are currently no situations in which this is the case.
If anyone wants to challenge me on this, have at it. I will show you a scenario in which the 'strictly worse' card is actually better than its counterpart.
It's easy enough to craft scenarios where one card is better than another because cards like nevermore, and mindslaver exist.
I wonder though, can you craft a deck A vs deck B situation where as you're shuffling up for a new game, you would choose to include shock in your deck over lightning bolt?
Or say it's game 2 of a tournament, can you give me situation where I would ever want to side out my 4 lightning bolt for 4 shocks? No matter which deck I'm playing and which deck my opponent is playing, if the answer is "No, I would always include lightning bolt in my deck over shock" Then I feel safe in saying lightning is "strictly better" than shock.
It's easy enough to craft scenarios where one card is better than another because cards like nevermore, and mindslaver exist.
I wonder though, can you craft a deck A vs deck B situation where as you're shuffling up for a new game, you would choose to include shock in your deck over lightning bolt?
Or say it's game 2 of a tournament, can you give me situation where I would ever want to side out my 4 lightning bolt for 4 shocks? No matter which deck I'm playing and which deck my opponent is playing, if the answer is "No, I would always include lightning bolt in my deck over shock" Then I feel safe in saying lightning is "strictly better" than shock.
You're correct. I would be very hard-pressed to find a situation in which you would want to side out bolts for shocks in competitive play. Which means that bolt is better than shock. However, saying bolt is strictly better than shock is a misuse of the term.
You're correct. I would be very hard-pressed to find a situation in which you would want to side out bolts for shocks in competitive play. Which means that bolt is better than shock. However, saying bolt is strictly better than shock is a misuse of the term.
No, it just means you dont know what the term actually means. You have your own definition that no reasonable person shares.
The definition of saying one card is 'strictly better' than another means that it is more advantageous to have that card over the other in every single possible situation. There are currently no situations in which this is the case.
If anyone wants to challenge me on this, have at it. I will show you a scenario in which the 'strictly worse' card is actually better than its counterpart.
In the thread I mentioned previously, we had a few rules:
No Mindslaver scenarios
No infinity-minus-one Meddling Mage scenarios
No cards from Unglued or Unhinged
We made a lot of far-fetched pairings work, such as Land Cap vs. Thalakos Lowlands (this was before Land Cap was reverted to use depletion counters - it essentially acted as Thalakos Lowlands without the ability to tap for colorless mana)
People "misuse" strictly better a lot (personally i like the loose definition "better in effectively every common scenario", or perhaps "better in 90%+ of scenarios"):
ashcoat bear is not strictly better than grizzly bears, because murganda petroglyphs in play make grizzly bears a much better creature.
abbey griffin is not strictly worse than armored griffin because the opponent may have no fliers, no 2 power creatures, and run pthisis or similar
ethereal armor is not better than lance because the opponent may be running an ensnaring bridge keep his hand at one, while your creatures are 1/1 at lowest.
any "same power for lower cost" is worse than a comparable card in the case of a chalice of the void set at that cost (which costs less mana for the opponent).
lands that provide more different types of mana can't be put into certain EDH decks.
etc. etc. etc.
Situations that currently merit strictly better that i can think of:
1. Non-creature permanent for same cost has an additional activated ability, this ability must be the same color as the mana cost.
2. Spell A that includes multiple options at the same cost as a spell B that does not. one of the options is spell B's effect
3. Instant or Sorcery that has a broader range of targets than another Instant or Sorcery of the same mana cost. (One could argue that bad play can cause misplays that make it worse, but meh, i'm assuming a perfect world)
UWUW ControlUW
UGWSpiritsUGW
GHardened ScalesG
WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
The answer is never.
Make the white queen run so fast, she hasn't got time to make you wise.
Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, like thoughts inside a dream.
Doctor, my eyes, tell me what you see. I hear their cries... just say if it's too late for me.
Doctor, my eyes...cannot see the sky. Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?
Mindslaver isn't legal in all formats, though. So perhaps a card can be "strictly better in Standard" or "strictly better in Draft."
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
There are two thoughts on it.
Some people will insist "better in all situations", which means never because of meddling mage, mindslaver, chalice of the void, and similar cards.
For example, shock is not strictly better than lightning bolt, because if you get mindslavered you will take 3 damage from a bolt, but only 2 from shock.
Then there's the other definition of strictly better, which, incidentally, how WotC defines it.
There was long thread on it. It was rightfully closed.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I think the Zendikar manlands might actually be strictly-better-except-for-Mindslaver than the original taplands. All the hate I can think of for them either turns them into taplands or also hits the taplands.
Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock because you will never run Shock over Lightning Bolt if given the choice, no matter your deck, no matter if Mindslaver is legal or not, and no matter how much of a staple Redirect is in the format.
Not if you have two Amulet of Vigors out, as it won't give the ABU duals two untap triggers.
This is how this game goes. For any situation, you can find some backdoor scenario where it's not "Strictly" better, and this highlights how ridiculous and pedantic it can get. Personally, Wizards' definition works for me. If you have to start digging for that one wild corner case, it still counts as strictly better.
Caress won't trigger Bloodthirst. This one I will stand by on not being strictly better. There are things that trigger off of damage specifically, for good or ill.
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
Everything is strictly better than vizzidrix.
Boom.
Legends die when your opponents play the same legend, they are strictly worse than their vanilla counterparts obviously.
Not next month!
Im at 3 life, you're at 2.
I control Repercussion
You control a tapped Stuffy Doll, Leyline of Sanctity
I lose if I bolt it, win if I shock the doll.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyArena of the Ancients
We used to have a thread where the challenge was to come up with convoluted scenarios where Card A was actually better than having Card B. (e.g. Shock instead of Lightning Bolt to kill Mogg Maniac) Unfortunately some drive-by posters took that to mean that we were actually advocating that people always play Shock over Lightning Bolt. (For the record, we weren't - it was just a game).
The removal of mana burn has made some of the scenarios in the old thread obsolete, but there are still extremely convoluted scenarios where Mana Drain can be worse than Counterspell.
Some concrete examples of what the OP wanted:
Fireball is always better than Blaze
Shattering Pulse is always better than Shatter
Ok, I'm done with this thread lol.
Time to close the thread.
Ex:
Shattering Pulse is not strictly better than Shatter because of Nevermore and Meddling Mage.
Strip Mine is not strictly better than Wasteland because you could get Mindslavered and have one of your basic lands destroyed. In addition, Pithing Needle effects.
If anyone wants to challenge me on this, have at it. I will show you a scenario in which the 'strictly worse' card is actually better than its counterpart.
I wonder though, can you craft a deck A vs deck B situation where as you're shuffling up for a new game, you would choose to include shock in your deck over lightning bolt?
Or say it's game 2 of a tournament, can you give me situation where I would ever want to side out my 4 lightning bolt for 4 shocks? No matter which deck I'm playing and which deck my opponent is playing, if the answer is "No, I would always include lightning bolt in my deck over shock" Then I feel safe in saying lightning is "strictly better" than shock.
You're correct. I would be very hard-pressed to find a situation in which you would want to side out bolts for shocks in competitive play. Which means that bolt is better than shock. However, saying bolt is strictly better than shock is a misuse of the term.
No, it just means you dont know what the term actually means. You have your own definition that no reasonable person shares.
In the thread I mentioned previously, we had a few rules:
No Mindslaver scenarios
No infinity-minus-one Meddling Mage scenarios
No cards from Unglued or Unhinged
We made a lot of far-fetched pairings work, such as Land Cap vs. Thalakos Lowlands (this was before Land Cap was reverted to use depletion counters - it essentially acted as Thalakos Lowlands without the ability to tap for colorless mana)
We absolutely could not make Blaze > Fireball work. The same with Untamed Wilds > Search for Tomorrow
EDIT: For reference, here's the original thread (please do not revive): http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=75953
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!