Talk:Strictly better

From MTG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 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, but the casting cost is not: So 3GG is worse than 4G is worse than 5. 4G and 4R can't be compared.