Strictly better: Difference between revisions

From MTG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
>Neoheart
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
This paragraph uses quotation marks around "strictly better" because it discusses the fact that the term is not literally true in most cases. After this paragraph, return to using it without quotes, as it is now explained and defined.
This paragraph uses quotation marks around "strictly better" because it discusses the fact that the term is not literally true in most cases. After this paragraph, return to using it without quotes, as it is now explained and defined.
-->
-->
"Strictly better" status is not dependent on creature type.<ref>{{EzTumblr|http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/92389242218/does-the-term-strictly-better-care-about-creature|title=Does the term "strictly better" care about creature types?|July 20, 2014}}</ref> More generally, such comparisons between cards are made independent of any particular [[board state]].<ref>{{EzTumblr|http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/165100934838/can-you-please-give-us-a-definition-of-the-term|title=Can you please give us a definition of the term "Strictly Better"?|September 07, 2017}}</ref> Therefore, because of the sheer number of possible gameplay circumstances, for any given "strictly better" card, there is typically some imaginable set of circumstances in which it is, in fact, inferior to another card that would otherwise rank below it. This fact implies that a "strictly better" card might be more accurately termed "typically better", and that distinction sometimes confuses newer players.<ref>{{DailyRef|making-magic/strictly-superior-2014-03-03|Strictly Superior|[[Mike Flores]]|March 03, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{DailyRef|making-magic/redundancy-2014-03-10|Redundancy|[[Mike Flores]]|March 10, 2014}}</ref> However, "strictly better" is well understood among experienced ''Magic'' players, and is the prevailing description of such a relationship between cards.
"Strictly better" status is not dependent on creature type.<ref>{{EzTumblr|http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/92389242218/does-the-term-strictly-better-care-about-creature|title=Does the term "strictly better" care about creature types?|July 20, 2014}}</ref> More generally, such comparisons between cards are made independent of any particular [[board state]].<ref>{{EzTumblr|http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/165100934838/can-you-please-give-us-a-definition-of-the-term|title=Can you please give us a definition of the term "Strictly Better"?|September 07, 2017}}</ref> Therefore, because of the sheer number of possible gameplay circumstances, for any given "strictly better" card, there is typically some imaginable set of circumstances in which it is, in fact, inferior to another card that would otherwise rank below it. This fact implies that a "strictly better" card might be more accurately termed "typically better", and that distinction sometimes confuses newer players.<ref>{{DailyRef|making-magic/strictly-superior-2014-03-03|Strictly Superior|[[Mike Flores]]|March 03, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{DailyRef|making-magic/redundancy-2014-03-10|Redundancy|[[Mike Flores]]|March 10, 2014}}</ref> However, "strictly better" is well understood among experienced ''Magic'' players, and is the prevailing description of such a relationship between cards.  


For example, <c>Lightning Bolt</c> is strictly better than <c>Shock</c>. Both are [[instant]]s, both cost {{R}}, and both can target either a creature or a player, but Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage, whereas Shock deals only 2 damage.<ref>{{DailyRef|latest-developments/strictly-better-2016-11-04|Strictly Better|[[Sam Stoddard]]|November 4, 2016}}</ref> Although Shock would be preferable to Lightning Bolt if, for example, your opponent controls a <c>Mogg Maniac</c> that you need to kill while you have 3 life, this doesn't preclude Lightning Bolt from being "strictly better," as said circumstances are incredibly niche.
For example, <c>Lightning Bolt</c> is strictly better than <c>Shock</c>. Both are [[instant]]s, both cost {{R}}, and both can target either a creature or a player, but Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage, whereas Shock deals only 2 damage.<ref>{{DailyRef|latest-developments/strictly-better-2016-11-04|Strictly Better|[[Sam Stoddard]]|November 4, 2016}}</ref> Although Shock would be preferable to Lightning Bolt if, for example, your opponent controls a <c>Mogg Maniac</c> that you need to kill while you have 3 life, this doesn't preclude Lightning Bolt from being "strictly better," as said circumstances are incredibly niche. How broad these circumstances are is generally the most contentious aspect of the term. Unusual abilities (such as above), target redirection spells, and effects that specifically call out higher numerical values beneficially or lower numerical values hostilely are usually discounted.  


Many pairs of cards are not directly comparable, and thus cannot be termed strictly better or worse. For example, <c>Reprisal</c> and <c>Vanquish the Foul</c> have similar effects, but the latter half of each effect cannot be compared to the other card. Despite <c>Reprisal</c>'s lower cost and faster speed, it cannot be termed strictly better than <c>Vanquish the Foul</c>. However, <c>Reprisal</c> ''is'' strictly better than <c>Smite the Monstrous</c>, because it has a lower cost and prevents regeneration while being worse in no respect.
Many pairs of cards are not directly comparable, and thus cannot be termed strictly better or worse. For example, <c>Reprisal</c> and <c>Vanquish the Foul</c> have similar effects, but the latter half of each effect cannot be compared to the other card. Despite <c>Reprisal</c>'s lower cost and faster speed, it cannot be termed strictly better than <c>Vanquish the Foul</c>. However, <c>Reprisal</c> ''is'' strictly better than <c>Smite the Monstrous</c>, because it has a lower cost and prevents regeneration while being worse in no respect. The fact that something like {{Card|Spell Snare}} counters <c>Reprisal</c>  but not <c>Smite the Monstrous</c> is not a valid consideration.


The printing of a new strictly better card may make comparable cards obsolete, and this process left unchecked leads to [[power creep]]. As rarity has no factor on the definition of strictly better, this occurs relatively commonly with directly comparable cards printed in the same set. Less often, two commons such as <c>Glory Seeker</c> and <c>Knight of Cliffhaven</c> in ''[[Rise of the Eldrazi]]'' will have this relationship. This phenomenon of strictly better cards within the same set actually goes all the way back to ''[[Alpha]]'' (e.g., <c>Gray Ogre</c> and <c>Sedge Troll</c>).
The printing of a new strictly better card may make comparable cards obsolete, and this process left unchecked leads to [[power creep]]. As rarity has no factor on the definition of strictly better, this occurs relatively commonly with directly comparable cards printed in the same set. Less often, two commons such as <c>Glory Seeker</c> and <c>Knight of Cliffhaven</c> in ''[[Rise of the Eldrazi]]'' will have this relationship. This phenomenon of strictly better cards within the same set actually goes all the way back to ''[[Alpha]]'' (e.g., <c>Gray Ogre</c> and <c>Sedge Troll</c>).

Revision as of 00:36, 19 November 2021

Strictly better describes a card which is, in isolation from other effects, superior to another card in at least one respect, while being worse in zero respects.[1] Cards are commonly found to be strictly better than others by virtue of lower cost, larger effect, instant speed, greater power or toughness, or more versatile or added effects.

Description

"Strictly better" status is not dependent on creature type.[2] More generally, such comparisons between cards are made independent of any particular board state.[3] Therefore, because of the sheer number of possible gameplay circumstances, for any given "strictly better" card, there is typically some imaginable set of circumstances in which it is, in fact, inferior to another card that would otherwise rank below it. This fact implies that a "strictly better" card might be more accurately termed "typically better", and that distinction sometimes confuses newer players.[4][5] However, "strictly better" is well understood among experienced Magic players, and is the prevailing description of such a relationship between cards.

For example, Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. Both are instants, both cost {R}, and both can target either a creature or a player, but Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage, whereas Shock deals only 2 damage.[6] Although Shock would be preferable to Lightning Bolt if, for example, your opponent controls a Mogg Maniac that you need to kill while you have 3 life, this doesn't preclude Lightning Bolt from being "strictly better," as said circumstances are incredibly niche. How broad these circumstances are is generally the most contentious aspect of the term. Unusual abilities (such as above), target redirection spells, and effects that specifically call out higher numerical values beneficially or lower numerical values hostilely are usually discounted.

Many pairs of cards are not directly comparable, and thus cannot be termed strictly better or worse. For example, Reprisal and Vanquish the Foul have similar effects, but the latter half of each effect cannot be compared to the other card. Despite Reprisal's lower cost and faster speed, it cannot be termed strictly better than Vanquish the Foul. However, Reprisal is strictly better than Smite the Monstrous, because it has a lower cost and prevents regeneration while being worse in no respect. The fact that something like Spell Snare counters Reprisal but not Smite the Monstrous is not a valid consideration.

The printing of a new strictly better card may make comparable cards obsolete, and this process left unchecked leads to power creep. As rarity has no factor on the definition of strictly better, this occurs relatively commonly with directly comparable cards printed in the same set. Less often, two commons such as Glory Seeker and Knight of Cliffhaven in Rise of the Eldrazi will have this relationship. This phenomenon of strictly better cards within the same set actually goes all the way back to Alpha (e.g., Gray Ogre and Sedge Troll).

Examples

More powerful at same cost

The following cards have the same cost, but one has an added ability or greater size.

More flexibility at same cost

The following cards have the same effect, but one is more restricted in its use.

Same effect but cost less

The following cards have the same effect, but one has a greater cost.

Instant instead of sorcery

The following are cards that have the same effect and cost but are instants instead of sorceries.

Multiple upgrades

Some cards may be strictly better in multiple respects but are only strictly better overall if they have no attributes inferior to the card they are compared with.

References

  1. Mark Rosewater (March 31, 2003). "This Land is My Land". magicthegathering.com. Wizards of the Coast.
  2. Mark Rosewater (July 20, 2014). "Does the term "strictly better" care about creature types?". Blogatog. Tumblr.
  3. Mark Rosewater (September 07, 2017). "Can you please give us a definition of the term "Strictly Better"?". Blogatog. Tumblr.
  4. Mike Flores (March 03, 2014). "Strictly Superior". magicthegathering.com. Wizards of the Coast.
  5. Mike Flores (March 10, 2014). "Redundancy". magicthegathering.com. Wizards of the Coast.
  6. Sam Stoddard (November 4, 2016). "Strictly Better". magicthegathering.com. Wizards of the Coast.