I agree that it's overused, but I think it can be OK to say it where the superiority is a fact: "Spider Climb is strictly better than Web" is OK by me, while "Rune Snag is strictly better than Mana Leak" bugs me, because sometimes Mana Leak is better.
Question: do you really just not like the superfluous word "strictly?" Or do you dispute that there can be any strict superiority, like "Web might be better in a deck that has Skullclamps?"
"Cursed scroll is better than magus of the scroll" conveys the same meaning as "Cursed Scroll is strictly better than magus of the scroll".
Both are strong, factual statements, only one has an unnecessary word. It's become a trendy habbit, even I've said on occasion. It just dawned on me that it's wierd language.
The word "strictly" is necessary because it indicates that Cursed Scroll is better than Magus of the Scroll. Its usage in that sentence is incorrect because the Magus is a creature, which confers certain benefits (like attacking) upon it that Cursed Scroll doesn't have. There are situations in which you'd like to have a Magus instead of a Scroll. (Usually these will involve an equipment and no creature to pick it up, but that's irrelevant.)
A correct example would have been "Mogg Fanatic is strictly better than Mons' Goblin Raiders" because there are no situations in which you could have a Mons' Goblin Raiders in play and be happy that it's not a Mogg Fanatic because everything game-relevant about the two cards is exactly the same except for "Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg Fanatic does something good that Mons' Goblin Raiders doesn't do." Thus, Mogg Fanatic is strictly better than Mons' Goblin Raiders.
The term still applies and is still useful despite the modern design philosophy of making it extremely difficult to find cards that are strictly better than other cards. They're doing this simply to avoid repeating the mistake they made with the original dual lands, which were strictly better than basic lands. Why else would they be trying to drag your attention away from Squire and its strictly better third cousin Auratog being in the same set?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
When you say "better", then you are saying "better in most cases".
When you say "strictly better", then you are saying "better in almost all cases".
Mogg fanatic is strictly better than mon's goblin raiders. I can't think of a situation where the raiders would be a better card.
However, "serum visions is strictly better than opt" isn't quite up there. There are pros and cons to be considered. It takes some analysis to see which is better. The conclusion was than serum visions was better. But strictly better? No, it is not. There were some situations where serum visions was inferior -- it just so happens that serum visions is better in more situations. So: "serum visions is strictly better than opt" = false. "serum visions is better than opt" = true.
(not my opinion; I dislike serum visions, but the analysis of serum visions as compred to similar cards can be found somewhere in SCG).
"Strictly" is just an adjective, and all adjectives have uses. All words eventually start sounding stupid if you've heard them too much. For instance, ever listen to teenagers right now? They use the word "like" every fifth word or so? Unfortunately, I believe it's also gramattically correct in most cases.
However, you're wrong in that saying that "An island is better than a mountain" is the same as saying that' An island is strictly better than a mountain". One implies that it's better, one implies that it's MUCH better in a way that can't be countered against.
My friend and I have become quite fond of saying, "There are no absolutes." Of course that is a bit of an oxymoron. I think the OP has the same feeling.
When you say "better", then you are saying "better in most cases".
When you say "strictly better", then you are saying "better in almost all cases".
This is more or less correct. Strictly doesn't really bother me, though it might bother some through the implication that something is 100% of the time better than another given card, which can't really hold true for any card. For me, a simple "almost all" is good enough.
When I say "A 2005 mustang is a better car than a pinto"
It doesn't leave any room for argument. It is a 100% statement.
I dont need to say "Its really really really really" better. I dont need to say it's "strictly" better. Saying something is better, implies that it is better all of the time
If I wanted to say that it was "better most of the time" I would say that.
If I wanted to say "it is situationall better". I would say that.
But saying that "it is better" is 100% and leaves no room for arguing the writers intention.
You're almost all wrong. In Magic, when comparing cards, (not decks or players or anything else), "Strictly better" has a precise technical meaning. It does not simply mean 'better'. Skullclamp is better than Chimney Imp. It is -not- strictly better. Card A is strictly better than Card B if and only if it meets -all- of the following requirements:
Card A's mana cost is no higher than Card B's mana cost.
Card A has no drawbacks that Card B does not also have.
Card A and card B are the same card type.
Card A and card B are the same color.
If they are creatures, card A's power is at least as high as card B's power. Same with toughness.
Card A has all of the positive effects that Card B does.
If Card A is legendary, so is card B. (Legendary is considered a drawback.)
In addition, to actually be 'strictly better' (rather than just identical), card A has to acutally be superior to card B in at least one of the above regards. Another way to put it would be to say that Card A is strictly better than Card B if and only if all of the good numbers on A are at least as high as all of the good numbers on B, and all of the bad numbers on A are at least as low. Creature type is ususally ignored, though an extremely benificial creature type such as Sliver might be an exception.
This is not really something that's up for debate. "Strictly Better" and "Strictly Worse" are well-defined (if oft-misused) terms. Trust me, I've definately heard your examples before. (He's got an Ivory Mask and a Mogg Maniac and you have 3 life! Shock isn't strictly worse than Lightning Bolt!)
That said, the word "strictly" is thrown around WAY too often. Magus of the Scroll is not 'strictly' worse than cursed scroll for a large number of reasons, not leas of which is that they aren't even the same card type. (The only card type that's strictly better than another is Instant, which is strictly better than Sorcery.)
This is more or less correct. Strictly doesn't really bother me, though it might bother some through the implication that something is 100% of the time better than another given card, which can't really hold true for any card. For me, a simple "almost all" is good enough.
I disagree with Annorax that the Scroll can be called strictly better than the Magus, since the situations required for the Magus to be better are not quite (in my opinion) convoluted enough for the Scroll to be strictly better. It would probably be valid to say that Cursed Scroll is a whole lot better, though.
The word "strictly" is necessary because it indicates that Cursed Scroll is better than Magus of the Scroll. Its usage in that sentence is incorrect because the Magus is a creature, which confers certain benefits (like attacking) upon it that Cursed Scroll doesn't have. There are situations in which you'd like to have a Magus instead of a Scroll. (Usually these will involve an equipment and no creature to pick it up, but that's irrelevant.)
Mind pointing out where I agreed with the flawed original statement? I don't see it anywhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
Mind pointing out where I agreed with the flawed original statement? I don't see it anywhere.
Somehow I completely blanked out the "in" and thought you said "correct"...sorry!
Quote from Shaharazad »
When I say "A 2005 mustang is a better car than a pinto"
It doesn't leave any room for argument. It is a 100% statement.
I dont need to say "Its really really really really" better. I dont need to say it's "strictly" better. Saying something is better, implies that it is better all of the time
If I wanted to say that it was "better most of the time" I would say that.
If I wanted to say "it is situationall better". I would say that.
But saying that "it is better" is 100% and leaves no room for arguing the writers intention.
This doesn't seem to be the popular usage in Magical contexts. As was noted, Skullclamp is a hell of a lot better than Chimney Imp. This differential is probably larger than that between Shock and Lightning Bolt, but "strictly better" does not apply to Skullclamp vs. Chimney Imp since they are different effects. Even with Magus vs. Cursed Scroll "strictly" does not apply, since there is a crucial difference between them. Again, this does not necessitate a smaller power level difference.
I can understand what you are saying, Shaharazad. However, Joyd is correct. "Strictly better," or "strictly worse" are very specific terms in Magic.
Imagine this card:
2R
Instant
Destroy target land.
Since it is an instant, it is strictly better than Stone Rain. In other words, it is absolutely superior to Stone Rain not only in a sense of power, but it is better at being Stone Rain than Stone Rain is. For the same costs, and with no extra drawbacks. It is exactly equivalent to Stone Rain except for one area, and in that one area it is better, with no recompensation. Note, however, that Demolish is not strictly better (or worse) than Stone Rain. Demolish is different in that it serves other functions with a different cost to it.
Another example would be a version of a card that is functionally the same except with a lower cost, or with "draw a card" added, etc. They are "strictly better" versions of otherwise identical cards.
It does seem, however, that people simply misuse the word "strictly," outside of its exact meaning. Some examples have already been given by others. While Tidings is clearly strictly worse than Ancestral Recall, it's not strictly worse or better than Concentrate. However, some might still claim that one is strictly better than the other.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Fair enough. Thanks Joyd and Mamelon. I guess I am more just annoyed at how often people misuse it recently.
I've noticed it, too. It seems people see "strictly better" as synonymous with "much better," when it's not. Like you said, in such a case, it's just unnecessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Fair enough. Thanks Joyd and Mamelon. I guess I am more just annoyed at how often people misuse it recently.
It is severly overused. People who don't really know what they are talking about use the term incorrectly - which causes debates. And there are some times where something is on the verge of being truly, strictly better, but not exactly. Like Grey Ogre and Uthden Troll (or perahps Sedge Troll). Other than creature type, there would be no reason to ever play a Grey Ogre instead of an Uthden Troll, but maybe you're playing Coat of Arms, or some Kamigawa Demon thing that needs Ogres, which makes Grey Ogre the better play. Since they are not Functionally Identical barring 1 difference which is either a weakness of one card, or a power of the other card, as the creatures I named have different creature types, one cannot truly be strictly better than the other, even though you'd have to pretty much be a fool to pick Grey Ogre over Uthden Troll.
My Shock/Lightning Bolt example was intended to be an example of an erroneous argument for Shock's not being strictly worse than Lightning Bolt. (Which it is.)
I feel as if "strictly" sees enough erroneous use that it's almost starting to lose its meaning. (Much like the term "literally" is often just used for emphasis, rather than to indicate that you're using in a literal sense an expression that's normally figurative.) This is really a shame, because it's an extremely useful phrase in the world of CCM critique; sometimes I find myself using "strictly obsoletes" or "is strictly obsoleted by" in an attempt to avoid confusion.
'Strictly better' does have a unique meaning, compared to 'better'. It recently has been grossly misused, but that's another subject. Something is strictly better than something else if it exactly the same, but possesses a characteristic that is universally considered to be better in nearly any situation. (IE, lower CC, more damage, ect) Better means it's... well... better. But, it's not identical in every way except that one characteristic.
A GG 2/2 elf is strictly worse than a GG 2/3 elf.
A GG 2/2 bear is not strictly worse than a GG 2/3 elf. Even though 'elf' is usually a better creature type, you could, possibly, be buidling a bear deck. Or want to avoid an Extinction naming Elf. It's not likely, but it's not the same thing.
Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. Lightning Bolt is not strictly better than Shower of Sparks. You may thing Lightning Bolt is a hundred times better than Shower of Sparks, but they don't do the same thing, so it's not strictly better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
When I say "A 2005 mustang is a better car than a pinto"
It doesn't leave any room for argument. It is a 100% statement.
I dont need to say "Its really really really really" better. I dont need to say it's "strictly" better. Saying something is better, implies that it is better all of the time
If I wanted to say that it was "better most of the time" I would say that.
If I wanted to say "it is situationall better". I would say that.
But saying that "it is better" is 100% and leaves no room for arguing the writers intention.
So in this case, you are shifting the "extra unnecessary word(s)" to the poorer card? SO instead of "better" and "Strictly better" you have "Situationally better" and just "better"?
Its fine as is, however people ARE misusing it, ALA Magus vs Cursed scroll
Want a banner or avatar? Click my banner to visit Aether! Thanks Guys!
Quote from RanDomino »
I think you mean "PoN", but it seems to me that "PwN" is more appropriate
(the 'w' stands for 'win', I think)
Quote from Tang4433 »
I think that WoTC felt that a lot of the players thought Standard was becoming mundane and a joke from all the nuked cards floating around. R&D took a vacation, and MaRo just started reprinting things.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm getting sick of hearing people say "strictly better" or "strictly worse".
There is absolutly no sense in saying the word "strictly". I mean, seriously, think about it, how is it helping the process of comunication?
It's a bad habit that a lot of us have gotten into and, quite frankly, its strictly unnessary.
I mean here is a strictly basic example of this strictly annoying phenominon.
Cursed scroll is strictly better than magus of the scroll.
Okay, now I ask you, what word was strictly unnessary in that scentence?
Strictly the end of my rant.
Question: do you really just not like the superfluous word "strictly?" Or do you dispute that there can be any strict superiority, like "Web might be better in a deck that has Skullclamps?"
Both are strong, factual statements, only one has an unnecessary word. It's become a trendy habbit, even I've said on occasion. It just dawned on me that it's wierd language.
A correct example would have been "Mogg Fanatic is strictly better than Mons' Goblin Raiders" because there are no situations in which you could have a Mons' Goblin Raiders in play and be happy that it's not a Mogg Fanatic because everything game-relevant about the two cards is exactly the same except for "Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg Fanatic does something good that Mons' Goblin Raiders doesn't do." Thus, Mogg Fanatic is strictly better than Mons' Goblin Raiders.
The term still applies and is still useful despite the modern design philosophy of making it extremely difficult to find cards that are strictly better than other cards. They're doing this simply to avoid repeating the mistake they made with the original dual lands, which were strictly better than basic lands. Why else would they be trying to drag your attention away from Squire and its strictly better third cousin Auratog being in the same set?
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
You might as well simply say it without the word "strictly" because the message of the scentence is the same in both situations.
"Mogg fanatic is better than mon's goblin raiders."
This is a strong, factual opinion. This statement leaves no room in the readers mind regarding the belief of the writer.
"Mogg fanatic is strictly better than mon's goblin raiders."
This too is a strong, factual opinion which leaves no room in the readers mind regarding the belief of the writer.
Same scentence, one is simply
strictlywierder.When you say "strictly better", then you are saying "better in almost all cases".
Mogg fanatic is strictly better than mon's goblin raiders. I can't think of a situation where the raiders would be a better card.
However, "serum visions is strictly better than opt" isn't quite up there. There are pros and cons to be considered. It takes some analysis to see which is better. The conclusion was than serum visions was better. But strictly better? No, it is not. There were some situations where serum visions was inferior -- it just so happens that serum visions is better in more situations. So: "serum visions is strictly better than opt" = false. "serum visions is better than opt" = true.
(not my opinion; I dislike serum visions, but the analysis of serum visions as compred to similar cards can be found somewhere in SCG).
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
In this case, mindslaver before you play it, or that new split second ray of command after.
But really, it doesn't matter. You know what they're talking about.
However, you're wrong in that saying that "An island is better than a mountain" is the same as saying that' An island is strictly better than a mountain". One implies that it's better, one implies that it's MUCH better in a way that can't be countered against.
My helpdesk should you need me.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
This is more or less correct. Strictly doesn't really bother me, though it might bother some through the implication that something is 100% of the time better than another given card, which can't really hold true for any card. For me, a simple "almost all" is good enough.
On a tangent, maybe this forum should be renamed.
It doesn't leave any room for argument. It is a 100% statement.
I dont need to say "Its really really really really" better. I dont need to say it's "strictly" better. Saying something is better, implies that it is better all of the time
If I wanted to say that it was "better most of the time" I would say that.
If I wanted to say "it is situationall better". I would say that.
But saying that "it is better" is 100% and leaves no room for arguing the writers intention.
Card A's mana cost is no higher than Card B's mana cost.
Card A has no drawbacks that Card B does not also have.
Card A and card B are the same card type.
Card A and card B are the same color.
If they are creatures, card A's power is at least as high as card B's power. Same with toughness.
Card A has all of the positive effects that Card B does.
If Card A is legendary, so is card B. (Legendary is considered a drawback.)
In addition, to actually be 'strictly better' (rather than just identical), card A has to acutally be superior to card B in at least one of the above regards. Another way to put it would be to say that Card A is strictly better than Card B if and only if all of the good numbers on A are at least as high as all of the good numbers on B, and all of the bad numbers on A are at least as low. Creature type is ususally ignored, though an extremely benificial creature type such as Sliver might be an exception.
This is not really something that's up for debate. "Strictly Better" and "Strictly Worse" are well-defined (if oft-misused) terms. Trust me, I've definately heard your examples before. (He's got an Ivory Mask and a Mogg Maniac and you have 3 life! Shock isn't strictly worse than Lightning Bolt!)
That said, the word "strictly" is thrown around WAY too often. Magus of the Scroll is not 'strictly' worse than cursed scroll for a large number of reasons, not leas of which is that they aren't even the same card type. (The only card type that's strictly better than another is Instant, which is strictly better than Sorcery.)
Mind pointing out where I agreed with the flawed original statement? I don't see it anywhere.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
When the superior card is better than the inferior card in every way possible and has the exact same weaknessess as the inferior card.
It's a bit rough, but you get the idea.
Examples of strictly better:
Black Lotus and Lotus Petal
Goblin Welder and Mon's Goblin Raiders
Examples of NOT strictly better:
Boros Recruit and Tundra Wolves
Into the North and Rampant Growth
Terramorphic Expanse and Onslaught Fetchlands
Cursed Scroll and Magus of the Scroll
If you're going to be that picky, then nothing is strictly better than anything else.
Black Lotus isn't strictly better than Lotus Petal because:
-You're at one life. You play a spell, and it gets Force Spiked. Black Lotus will lose you the game.
The term should apply to anything, that, in any reasonable circumstance, would be better.
Somehow I completely blanked out the "in" and thought you said "correct"...sorry!
This doesn't seem to be the popular usage in Magical contexts. As was noted, Skullclamp is a hell of a lot better than Chimney Imp. This differential is probably larger than that between Shock and Lightning Bolt, but "strictly better" does not apply to Skullclamp vs. Chimney Imp since they are different effects. Even with Magus vs. Cursed Scroll "strictly" does not apply, since there is a crucial difference between them. Again, this does not necessitate a smaller power level difference.
Imagine this card:
2R
Instant
Destroy target land.
Since it is an instant, it is strictly better than Stone Rain. In other words, it is absolutely superior to Stone Rain not only in a sense of power, but it is better at being Stone Rain than Stone Rain is. For the same costs, and with no extra drawbacks. It is exactly equivalent to Stone Rain except for one area, and in that one area it is better, with no recompensation. Note, however, that Demolish is not strictly better (or worse) than Stone Rain. Demolish is different in that it serves other functions with a different cost to it.
Another example would be a version of a card that is functionally the same except with a lower cost, or with "draw a card" added, etc. They are "strictly better" versions of otherwise identical cards.
It does seem, however, that people simply misuse the word "strictly," outside of its exact meaning. Some examples have already been given by others. While Tidings is clearly strictly worse than Ancestral Recall, it's not strictly worse or better than Concentrate. However, some might still claim that one is strictly better than the other.
The Skullclamp vs. Chimney Imp contrast is probably a better example.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I've noticed it, too. It seems people see "strictly better" as synonymous with "much better," when it's not. Like you said, in such a case, it's just unnecessary.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
It is severly overused. People who don't really know what they are talking about use the term incorrectly - which causes debates. And there are some times where something is on the verge of being truly, strictly better, but not exactly. Like Grey Ogre and Uthden Troll (or perahps Sedge Troll). Other than creature type, there would be no reason to ever play a Grey Ogre instead of an Uthden Troll, but maybe you're playing Coat of Arms, or some Kamigawa Demon thing that needs Ogres, which makes Grey Ogre the better play. Since they are not Functionally Identical barring 1 difference which is either a weakness of one card, or a power of the other card, as the creatures I named have different creature types, one cannot truly be strictly better than the other, even though you'd have to pretty much be a fool to pick Grey Ogre over Uthden Troll.
I'd love input and advice!
I feel as if "strictly" sees enough erroneous use that it's almost starting to lose its meaning. (Much like the term "literally" is often just used for emphasis, rather than to indicate that you're using in a literal sense an expression that's normally figurative.) This is really a shame, because it's an extremely useful phrase in the world of CCM critique; sometimes I find myself using "strictly obsoletes" or "is strictly obsoleted by" in an attempt to avoid confusion.
A GG 2/2 elf is strictly worse than a GG 2/3 elf.
A GG 2/2 bear is not strictly worse than a GG 2/3 elf. Even though 'elf' is usually a better creature type, you could, possibly, be buidling a bear deck. Or want to avoid an Extinction naming Elf. It's not likely, but it's not the same thing.
Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock.
Lightning Bolt is not strictly better than Shower of Sparks. You may thing Lightning Bolt is a hundred times better than Shower of Sparks, but they don't do the same thing, so it's not strictly better.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
So in this case, you are shifting the "extra unnecessary word(s)" to the poorer card? SO instead of "better" and "Strictly better" you have "Situationally better" and just "better"?
Its fine as is, however people ARE misusing it, ALA Magus vs Cursed scroll
Want a banner or avatar? Click my banner to visit Aether! Thanks Guys!