Talk:Battle for Zendikar/Card comparisons

Colorless is not strictly better than colored cards
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.
 * Yes, it is. You can pay colorless mana costs with any color of mana, which makes them strictly superior, and you don't consider interactions with other cards for this purpose. So, for instance, Scaleguard Sentinels is a strictly superior card compared to Elvish Warrior, since the former has the same mana cost and Power/Toughness while having additional positive abilities, even though the latter is an Elf and has synergy with Elf-matters tribal cards. I've re-added the Eldrazi to the page as a result. --58.7.241.238 16:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this wikis page on "Strictly better": "Strictly better" status is not dependent on creature type or color.
 * This discussion has also been taking place on that article's talk page. Let's keep it all together? --Corveroth (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Grip of Desolation
Shouldn't this be listed as strictly better than Spiteful Blow? Exile > Destruction and Instant > Sorcery.

Endless One and Strictly Better
Isn't Endless One strictly better than all of these 167 cards http://magiccards.info/query?q=is%3Avanilla+cmc%3E%3Dpow+cmc%3E%3Dtou&v=olist&s=cname ?

Noteworthiness
Is Endless One a sufficiently noteworthy card to warrant its own article(s)? If not, and its importance stems solely from being strictly better than many other cards, I think this page should be a subpage of the Battle for Zendikar article, where that fact is noted, e.g. Battle for Zendikar/Cards strictly worse than Endless One. --Corveroth (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly raised my eyebrows when I saw this article, but opted not to comment, seeing as this is not the part of the Wiki that I normally concern myself with, and I don't want to step on toes. But yeah, my opinion would be that this does not warrant its own article. --Sene (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the content is fine, it's just not worthy of being a separate page. It's lengthy enough that it shouldn't be in the main article, perhaps, and that's what a subpage is for. --Corveroth (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I Propose to make a subpage Battle for Zendikar/Card comparisons under category trivia. Leave the functional reprints on the main page and move all the stictly better / worse things to that subpage. It was getting out of hand anyway. --Hunter (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be good practice, in general, for the large list-style sections on set articles. Whether we adopt that in the future or not, I agree for this case. --Corveroth (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)