|
Entropic posted:It's a useful term when people aren't intentionally obtuse about it. It's useful to be able to look at Marang River Skeleton in the spoiler and say "Oh hey, they made a strictly better Drudge Skeletons" and everyone knows what you mean even if some of them will inevitably concoct an elaborate scenario where Drudge Skeletons is better just out of spite. Yeah, while I think a lot of people use "strictly better" to mean "better, but also you should think I'm smart", the phrase still has descriptive power if you don't get bogged down in pedantry. I like this thread, cool idea
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
With regard to the original duals vs. basics, it's also interesting to note that there wasn't any nonbasic land hate in ABUR. There were cards that hated on land types but those didn't really exert special pressure on the duals, they were color hosers. Blood Moon in The Dark was the first but past that I can't think of a card that punishes nonbasic lands before, like, Tempest block. They had to essentially print nonbasic land hosers in the same way that they had to print Rest in Peace or Stony Silence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:I don't think that the phrase strictly better does anything in this thought that "better" doesn't do by itself. Strictly better, at its best, strictly speaking, is demonstrative. I can say that Ponder is a better card than Jackal Pup. I could make and defend arguments to that effect. But that's not the same order of evaluation as saying that Lightning Bolt is better than Shock. I can claim that Lightning Bolt supersedes Shock; a deck that runs Shock would do the exact same thing in the exact same way but quantitatively better if it could run Lightning Bolt in those slots instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:54
|
|