Oops - the name fooled me since the Shaharazad from the classic Arabian Nights tales is female (and the card based on the character depicts a female as well Shahrazad). My apologies.
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
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.
This is not a good example. Creature type has absolutely zero effect on the independant quality of a card, which is where "strictly better" has any meaning at all. Once you start talking about how a given card is better in relation to other cards, you've lost the ability to even discuss the meaning of "strictly better."
The specific qualities of a card that Joyd gave earlier are the only things that matter when discussing whether or not a card is strictly better than another: casting cost, power, toughness, the card types instant/sorcery (and supertype, with exception of snow) and rules text.
If a card has a higher or more difficult CC, it is not strictly better. If a card has lower power or toughness, it is not strictly better. If a card is legendary compared to a card that isn't, or isn't basic compared to a card that is, or is a sorcery compared to an instant, then it is not strictly better. If the rules text is not superior in every way, then it is not strictly better.
This is the precise, technical definition of the term. Anything else that may seem like a consideration (such as creature type, price, or having to sac an artifact versus a goblin) is not, because everything else depends on interaction with other cards to decide which card is "better," and is thus exclusive to the meaning of the term "strictly better."
So, no, the original dual lands are not strictly better than basic lands.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
So, no, the original dual lands are not strictly better than basic lands.
They may have been strictly better back when certain members of R&D decided to drop them from the base set, but the advent of Wasteland, Back to Basics, and the landtype hosers (Boil) have knocked them down to a level that, while still better than basic lands, isn't quite "strictly" better anymore.
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):
They may have been strictly better back when certain members of R&D decided to drop them from the base set, but the advent of Wasteland, Back to Basics, and the landtype hosers (Boil) have knocked them down to a level that, while still better than basic lands, isn't quite "strictly" better anymore.
You forgot hosers for basic lands affected duals more often.
So, no, the original dual lands are not strictly better than basic lands.
Originally you could play any number of any dual land, just like basic lands. During that time, they were strictly better than basics. You are correct that they aren't now.
This is not a good example. Creature type has absolutely zero effect on the independant quality of a card, which is where "strictly better" has any meaning at all. Once you start talking about how a given card is better in relation to other cards, you've lost the ability to even discuss the meaning of "strictly better."
Actually... I don't agree with that definition. By that definition, these two cards would be identical:
1G
2/2
1G
Other creatures you control get +1/+1
2/2
Independantly, they're identical, but one is a lot better when used with other cards. And so, it's better, as long as you're using those other cards.
The specific qualities of a card that Joyd gave earlier are the only things that matter when discussing whether or not a card is strictly better than another: casting cost, power, toughness, the card types instant/sorcery (and supertype, with exception of snow) and rules text.
Oh? Then why does a 'vore deck play Eye of Nowhere over a 'strictly better' Boomerang? Because, as a sorcery, it's more usefull to them, because they also use Magnovore, which gets beefed up by sorceries. Boomerang isn't stricly better than Eye of Nowhere because it's not the same thing, even if you's usually say that instants are better than sorceries. Just like something that makes you sacrifice a goblin is different from something that makes you sacrifice an artifact.
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.
Shaharazad is a guy.
Oops - the name fooled me since the Shaharazad from the classic Arabian Nights tales is female (and the card based on the character depicts a female as well Shahrazad). My apologies.
http://pmocomic.hostiz.com/c008.htm
The last time a PMO comic was linked here, it got the poster a warning...
I can, because that's not funny at all.
This is not a good example. Creature type has absolutely zero effect on the independant quality of a card, which is where "strictly better" has any meaning at all. Once you start talking about how a given card is better in relation to other cards, you've lost the ability to even discuss the meaning of "strictly better."
The specific qualities of a card that Joyd gave earlier are the only things that matter when discussing whether or not a card is strictly better than another: casting cost, power, toughness, the card types instant/sorcery (and supertype, with exception of snow) and rules text.
If a card has a higher or more difficult CC, it is not strictly better. If a card has lower power or toughness, it is not strictly better. If a card is legendary compared to a card that isn't, or isn't basic compared to a card that is, or is a sorcery compared to an instant, then it is not strictly better. If the rules text is not superior in every way, then it is not strictly better.
This is the precise, technical definition of the term. Anything else that may seem like a consideration (such as creature type, price, or having to sac an artifact versus a goblin) is not, because everything else depends on interaction with other cards to decide which card is "better," and is thus exclusive to the meaning of the term "strictly better."
So, no, the original dual lands are not strictly better than basic lands.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
They may have been strictly better back when certain members of R&D decided to drop them from the base set, but the advent of Wasteland, Back to Basics, and the landtype hosers (Boil) have knocked them down to a level that, while still better than basic lands, isn't quite "strictly" better anymore.
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 forgot hosers for basic lands affected duals more often.
Originally you could play any number of any dual land, just like basic lands. During that time, they were strictly better than basics. You are correct that they aren't now.
Actually... I don't agree with that definition. By that definition, these two cards would be identical:
1G
2/2
1G
Other creatures you control get +1/+1
2/2
Independantly, they're identical, but one is a lot better when used with other cards. And so, it's better, as long as you're using those other cards.
Oh? Then why does a 'vore deck play Eye of Nowhere over a 'strictly better' Boomerang? Because, as a sorcery, it's more usefull to them, because they also use Magnovore, which gets beefed up by sorceries. Boomerang isn't stricly better than Eye of Nowhere because it's not the same thing, even if you's usually say that instants are better than sorceries. Just like something that makes you sacrifice a goblin is different from something that makes you sacrifice an artifact.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Which one gets better gas mileage?
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
I think the pinto gets about 22 miles per explosion.
Pinto = Jackal Pup.
Amirite.