Talk:Strictly better

I disagree with one of the recent additions to this page. While Reprisal is certainly strictly better than Smite the Monstrous (for multiple reasons), I don't think it's fair to say that either is STRICTLY better than Vanquish the Foul, because Vanquish DOES have an extra effect that neither of the other two do (Scry 1). While this effect may seem minimal, it is an added effect over the other two spells, which based on my understanding of the concept of "strictly better" makes the comparison invalid. I am not arguing the idea that both spells are better than Vanquish the Foul, however "better" and "strictly better" are two different things.

Has anyone actually noticed that the Shock, Lightning Bolt, and Booby Trap scenario actually still leaves Lightning Bolt being better? Either one works, due to Booby Trap only activating as a trigger. This gives the player with Lightning Bolt time to kill the opponent before the trigger actually resolves. WindMasterArceus (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless you somehow draw that Lightning Bolt with no mana available to cast it. 207.12.131.30 16:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What about color and colorless?

As far as I know a card can't be strictly better than another card of different colors. And same goes for colorless vs. colored. There are effects that care about color, some positive some negative. Being colorless isn't _always_ an advantage.

Colors and subtypes are generally ignored (for example devoid doesn't matter), but the casting cost is not: So 3GG is worse than 4G is worse than 5. 4G and 4R can't be compared.

I'll grant that more stringent color requirements are worse, and that different colors are incomparable. I would err on the side of considering a colorless spell a different color - it trades manabase flexibility for exemption from color-matters effects, and a tradeoff removes it from the realm of strict comparisons. From a broader point of view, though, I wonder how useful it is to tally every single improved card rather than work on more substantive aspects of the wiki. --Corveroth (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Enchantment vs. Artifact

As far as I understand, they technically shouldn't be compared...? Asking to make sure, because Ice Age page makes a comparison between Staff of the Ages and the anti-landwalk enchantment cycle from the Legends expansion. Though I could see how in a way they could be seen as equivalent types of permanents (or even how, for instance, a creature with just the same ability as an enchantment and the same casting cost could be seen as strictly better, since it can also naturally attack, block and deal combat damage). Ontos (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Usually different types are not comparable, as they interact very differently with the game. Only two are instants and sorceries as they almost act the same and instants are faster. - Yandere-sliver (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh I get that. I'm just thinking about more idealized examples when they might be. Or in other words, should the Staff comparison be removed from that page (as a matter of principle) or should it stay, because you can sort of see it. Ontos (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors for the card comparison tabs don't even necessarily ascribe to the philosophy outlined on this page. Such pages are due for a cleanup, as not even counting the plain errors, most of them are unexhaustive and getting to the point of being trivia (we don't need to know the fifteenth card better than Goblin Piker or Cancel). I used to find it interesting to note when new commons are strictly better than older cards, but as the set releases got faster it made it less appealing to go through. I'm more inclined now to request a policy change to cut said pages altogether. In summary? It's probably fine to remove, but be aware trying to clean up all of said pages is a deep rabbit hole that isn't very constructive. Shield (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)