General Shitpost: Strictly Better in the Same Set

CML

CML

Contributor
A stronger and more memorious player in my Facebook chat thread claimed they rarely made strictly better cards in the same (modern) set, which I know to be untrue, but I am too lazy to look for more examples and he has thus not admitted defeat. Please encourage my pettiness and help me win this argument. This brief list will get you started

vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
 
Jason Waddell

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
Okay, I'd like to preface this by saying: CML, you win.

Let's derail it though, and talk about why you are trying to win. You've provided irrefutable proof, and only heel dragging stands in your way from undisputed victory. Is this a case of "not now honey, someone is wrong on the internet", amplified by "someone people know is wrong on the internet".

Side-side-issue. I see no problem with having strictly better cards in the same set. This is the reason rarities exist.
 
Chriskool

Chriskool

I prefer the art of Coral Merfolk to Azure Mage, that of Sky Skiff to Smuggler's Copter and am on the fence between Glory Seeker and Knight of Cliffhaven.

The art of Yavimaya Wurm is really bad, but I'm sure it doesn't reflect on Steve Belledin's character. That has to be some WotC art department BS, right? Right???!
 
Jason Waddell

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
Kirblinx said:
For a thread with 'shitpost' in the title, I am very disappointed in the lack on 'shitposty-ness' (yes it is a word) in the OP.
It almost feels like a legitimate post.

New forum rule number 2:
Don't use 'shitpost' in thread titles. It could be misleading.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for somebody to make a thread titled "Lorwyn Art Discussion", which is about CMC curves of Tempest Block Sealed or something.
 
Onderzeeboot

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Tzenmoroth said:




Click to expand...

Source: http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Strictly_better

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.
"Strictly better" status is not dependent on creature type or color.[2] More generally, such comparisons between cards are made independent of any particular board state. 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.[3][4] However, "strictly better" is well understood among experienced Magic players, and is the prevailing description of such a relationship between cards.

And (funnily enough):

The printing of a new strictly better card may make comparable cards obsolete, and this process, left unchecked, leads to power creep. Occasionally, this may occur with directly comparable cards printed in the same set, such as Glory Seeker and Knight of Cliffhaven in Rise of the Eldrazi.

Also,

M2011:

M2013:

M2013:
 
CML

CML

Contributor
Jason Waddell said:
Okay, I'd like to preface this by saying: CML, you win.
Click to expand...

of course we would say that when i'd tangle with randy or gerry's untenable arguments for vampires in the modo cube or an all-pizza diet, but, you know

Let's derail it though, and talk about why you are trying to win. You've provided irrefutable proof, and only heel dragging stands in your way from undisputed victory. Is this a case of "not now honey, someone is wrong on the internet", amplified by "someone people know is wrong on the internet".
Click to expand...

it's this guy i know and he tries carefully to not say wrong things and he's very nice so i often rub him the wrong way and want to rub his nose in it. i submit to you that, though this is a shitpost, this is less sad if you know the person irl

Side-side-issue. I see no problem with having strictly better cards in the same set. This is the reason rarities exist.
Click to expand...

i don't like it but i think i'm in the minority here esp. if i'm up against the leader of the Flat Power Cube Forum Level, AmericanTwerp J Wadds himself!

OK, now that we've gotten it out of the way, I want maybe 10 more examples. Bless you mr bot. can anyone help me find more
 
psly4mne

psly4mne

Here is a list to get you started. I would have missed any cards that were improved by removing text, and I only looked at creatures, but there should be enough examples there.

It is notable that there was a long period over which the person's claim is mostly correct - as far as I know, cards were not strictly better than other cards in the same regular set (excluding core sets, starter products, and timeshifted) from about Ice Age to Worldwake.
 
Jason Waddell

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
psly4mne said:
Here is a list to get you started. I would have missed any cards that were improved by removing text, and I only looked at creatures, but there should be enough examples there.

It is notable that there was a long period over which the person's claim is mostly correct - as far as I know, cards were not strictly better than other cards in the same regular set (excluding core sets, starter products, and timeshifted) from about Ice Age to Worldwake.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to ban you for providing a post that's too complete and productive. This is a far better response than CML deserves.
 
psly4mne

psly4mne

Jason Waddell said:
I'm tempted to ban you for providing a post that's too complete and productive. This is a far better response than CML deserves.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to add:

"Strictly better" is a meaningless construct in the first place. Who are we to assign positive or negative utilities to various aspects of a card? That implies that you're just trying to powermax without taking the context into account. Smuggler's Copter isn't necessarily better than Sky Skiff, for instance, because playing Smuggler's Copter might be the last piece that confirms to your opponent that you're playing a particular stock decklist, so they know exactly what to play around, while playing Sky Skiff instead might cause your opponent to think that your deck might contain anything in (or even not in) the format and play around any number of cards that may or may not be in your deck. It's more important to evaluate cards holistically for what impact they will have on the state of the world.

Also


 
Grillo_Parlante

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
Its relevant in a context when identifying when card X largely replaces any practical reason for card Y to exist in a specific pool, as well as the conditions for doing so. Heuristics don't have to be perfect to be useful.
 
CML

CML

Contributor
psly4mne said:
Here is a list to get you started. I would have missed any cards that were improved by removing text, and I only looked at creatures, but there should be enough examples there.

It is notable that there was a long period over which the person's claim is mostly correct - as far as I know, cards were not strictly better than other cards in the same regular set (excluding core sets, starter products, and timeshifted) from about Ice Age to Worldwake.
Click to expand...


jesus christ! thank you. we eat for a year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top