WotC has reprinted shatter in Khans of Tarkir, which I find to be odd, since I was expecting smelt to replace it as the standard artifact-destroying spell. This odd situation is even more egregious when one considers that naturalize, which is strictly better than shatter, is also in this set. What does everyone else say about this? Why did WotC reprint shatter instead of smelt?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I imagine that in wizards' limited testing, shatter became necessary for red/x archtypes to gel/survive. It's not the sexiest card, for sure, but it has its role.
If that were true, wouldn't it make more sense to reprint Smelt instead?
Not necessarily. Maybe the 1 CMC cost of smelt made it too easy to kill opposing banners or other artifacts. The 2 CMC of shatter may have been more in line with the balance they wanted to achieve between artifacts and artifact hate.
Besides, with Scuttling Doom Engine probably seeing significant play, the nature of the red removal didn't matter much.
They made a point when Smelt was printed about wanting it to be the new standard. Either the Banners are very important in Limited or there is something artifact heavy coming up.
This could be done for flavor to stress the war torn nature of the plane, but other than that, they may just have wanted to protect the Banners from easy removal.
WotC has reprinted shatter in Khans of Tarkir, which I find to be odd, since I was expecting smelt to replace it as the standard artifact-destroying spell. This odd situation is even more egregious when one considers that naturalize, which is strictly better than shatter, is also in this set. What does everyone else say about this? Why did WotC reprint shatter instead of smelt?
Nitpick: Naturalize isn't strictly better than Shatter, because they're in different colors.
They probably opted for Shatter over Smelt for balance reasons in limited. The same reason they like opted for Smite the Monstrous over Reprisal.
Remember that regular sets are going to be home to evergreen reprints now as time goes on - they are probably just getting started on this early so it isn't jarring later.
Cancel is fine. But I question Erase, Shatter, and Naturalize being here all at once. So what's the black staple reprint? Should have given us Doom Blade.
Otherwise the slots are wasted. I rather have a 4-5cmc Stone Rain-esqe spell over Shatter. And Iona's Judgment functional would be decent over Erase.
Cancel is in the set because there's always a no-questions-asked counterspell. It "needs" to be in just about every set so that when Standard rotates, there's never NOT a counterspell.
Naturalize is there for the same above reasons. Why all three? Because that way, Jeskai and Mardu decks don't get screwed over should they encounter any of the above things. They too have answers.
As for the black staple reprint? It's more a functional reprint than a straight up reprint. Say hello to Dutiful Return. We've seen this exact card before, but there's been variations on it for a long time.
I just chalk it up to balancing limited. Be it Shatter or Smelt or any other variant, no one will really care that much in the long run. I'll get my box, I'll open 10 of them, and I'll have some new coasters. ***** happens, and life moves along
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Nitpick: Naturalize isn't strictly better than Shatter, because they're in different colors.
I disagree with that ideal; to me, color is irrelevant in determining whether a certain card is "strictly better" or "strictly worse" than another card; I pay attention only to the total mana cost and the actual effect of the card. For that reason, I believe that terminate is strictly better than doom blade, go for the throat, murder, and terror, and that Aurelia's fury is strictly better than rolling thunder, for example.
Also, how does WotC justify the existence of erase, which is strictly better than demystify? How can there be two cards with the same mana cost while one is superior to the other in every conceivable way? I believe that 1W would be a more reasonable cost for erase, so that there is still reason to use demystify.
Nitpick: Naturalize isn't strictly better than Shatter, because they're in different colors.
I disagree with that ideal; to me, color is irrelevant in determining whether a certain card is "strictly better" or "strictly worse" than another card; I pay attention only to the total mana cost and the actual effect of the card. For that reason, I believe that terminate is strictly better than doom blade, go for the throat, murder, and terror, and that Aurelia's fury is strictly better than rolling thunder, for example.
Also, how does WotC justify the existence of erase, which is strictly better than demystify? How can there be two cards with the same mana cost while one is superior to the other in every conceivable way? I believe that 1W would be a more reasonable cost for erase, so that there is still reason to use demystify.
At the very least, you're quite wrong about equating multicolored cards to monocolor cards in terms of them being "strictly better." The color identity matters quite a bit. It's much easier to include Doom Blade or any of the other cards you listed in any deck than it is to include Terminate.
You're also wrong in claiming that Erase is "strictly better" than Demystify. Cases where you'd want Demystify over Erase do exist, so in some instances, it would be better. I fear you need to bone up on your definition of "strictly better."
On-topic: I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next set, there are more relevant artifacts. I suspect it might have something of a colorless theme, and upping the number of artifacts would fit that theme well. That means that Shatter would be preferable over Smelt for both limited environments.
You're also wrong in claiming that Erase is "strictly better" than Demystify. Cases where you'd want Demystify over Erase do exist, so in some instances, it would be better.
What would those situations be? Are you referring to a situation in which one player uses demystify to destroy an opponent's enchantment, and then returns it from their graveyard to the battlefield under their own control? In that case, I do agree that it is better to destroy a permanent than it is to exile it.
However, that still does not explain how shatter can be in the same set that includes erase; if erase, which costs only 1 mana, can be in this set, why not smelt, which has the same cost, as well?
However, that still does not explain how shatter can be in the same set that includes erase; if erase, costs only 1 mana, can be in this set, why not smelt, which has the same cost, as well?
The aforementioned banner cards; wizards probably didn't want a 1 cmc artifact killer available when people (including folks brand new to the game) were spending their entire t3 trying to assemble their colors. If there was a 3cmc enchantment, integral to players fixing their wedges, then we probably wouldn't have seen erase either.
Shatter destroy artifacts. Erase exiles enchantments. They have different effects and they affect different permanent types. They are also different colors. Why would it follow for them to have the same converted mana cost?
Out of curiosity, why do you italicize card names?
Nitpick: Naturalize isn't strictly better than Shatter, because they're in different colors.
I disagree with that ideal; to me, color is irrelevant in determining whether a certain card is "strictly better" or "strictly worse" than another card; I pay attention only to the total mana cost and the actual effect of the card. For that reason, I believe that terminate is strictly better than doom blade, go for the throat, murder, and terror, and that Aurelia's fury is strictly better than rolling thunder, for example.
Also, how does WotC justify the existence of erase, which is strictly better than demystify? How can there be two cards with the same mana cost while one is superior to the other in every conceivable way? I believe that 1W would be a more reasonable cost for erase, so that there is still reason to use demystify.
Strictly better is a well defined term in MtG, and you are not using it correctly. It's perfectly fine to care about the concept that you're discussing here of course, but you should make your own phrase for it and be clear about exactly what your new phrase does and does not mean. It just confuses people when you use the term "strictly better," and only later in the thread explaining that you don't really mean strictly better but rather some related concept. It would be like saying "a penguin is a type of turkey," and waiting until later to explain that by "turkey" you mean the concept usually denoted by "bird."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
Shatter destroy artifacts. Erase exiles enchantments. They have different effects and they affect different permanent types. They are also different colors. Why would it follow for them to have the same converted mana cost?
Erase is more powerful than shatter because it exiles a permanent, while shatter only destroys it; it does not matter if the cards affect two different types of permanents, or that they are of different colors, one still has a more powerful effect than does the other. It is only logical that a more powerful effect have a greater cost, is it not?
While we are discussing the concept of "strictly better," is it safe to say that moonveil dragon is strictly better than Shivan dragon? The moonveil dragon may have a stricter casting cost, but I imagine that that rarely matters in most situations, especially to skilled players.
Out of curiosity, why do you italicize card names?
I italicize certain words because they are "special" words. For example, the names of books, songs, and films are always italicized: The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, Night on Bald Mountain by Modest Mussrogsky, Raiders of the Lost Arc. When a foreign language is spoken, the words are italicized: "Buenos dias, senor." or "Que pasa, mi amigo?" Names of items are italicized when they are out of the ordinary or foreign: Excalibur or Mjolnir are italicized, but "Ark of the Covenant" and "Holy Grail" are not. In Dungeons & Dragons, the names of spells and items are italicized: lighting bolt, fire ball, wand of magic missiles. For anyone here who is a fan of Japanese animation and manga, names of techniques and items are definitely italicized: Genki Dama, Kamehameha, Tessaiga, Zangetsu, etc. Following that format, I italicize the names of certain cards, specifically, instants, sorceries, enchantments, and artifacts, but not creatures or planeswalkers, and usually not lands, because the former card types represent things that are inherently magical, and need to be distinguished from things that are mundane, while creatures, planeswalkers, and lands do not need that distinction, unless the words are foreign: for example, kitsune is italicized, while "fox" is not.
Does that make sense, I hope? That is the best description that I can provide, but this may be an instance of where a particular idiosyncrasy that I have is difficult to explain to another person; it makes sense to me, but it may not make sense to other people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Unfortunately, a multitude of factors come together to say that this is not, in fact, the cases. In this instance, one of the main determining factors is the color pie. White is much better at exiling than other colors. Compare Revoke Existence to Fade into Antiquity.
It matters a great deal that the two cards are different colors. It matters just as much that they affect different card types. You can't discount either of those factors when making an analysis, and I don't understand why you think you can.
While we are discussing the concept of "strictly better," is it safe to say that moonveil dragon is strictly better than Shivan dragon? The moonveil dragon may have a stricter casting cost, but I imagine that that rarely matters in most situations, especially to skilled players.
It's not safe to say. Many people would agree that Moonveil Dragon is better than Shivan Dragon but it's not strictly better. As per the link from the wiki, people understand strictly better to mean 'In every way that they are different, the better card would always be the same or better than the weaker'. It's a rather strong claim. There are a number of multicolor decks that will run into situations where they can't even cast Moonveil Dragon.
While we are discussing the concept of "strictly better," is it safe to say that moonveil dragon is strictly better than Shivan dragon? The moonveil dragon may have a stricter casting cost, but I imagine that that rarely matters in most situations, especially to skilled players.
It is not. Quite some time ago (before my magic playing even began), the Magic community decided to go with a very strict interpretation of "strictly better" (which I suppose is pretty reasonable, "strict" is right there in the name). It has to be in the same color, be better in at least one way, and cannot be worse in any meaningful sense (some people go to far in the other direction and claim that no card is ever strictly better because of Mindslaver).
You would say that Moonveil is better, or maybe "much better," but you could say the same thing about Black Lotus vs. Shivan Dragon. The lack of jargon meaning "largely better but very similar" a sort of pseudo-strictly better, also bugs me, but it just hasn't caught on yet in the community and I can't think of a good one.
On another note, people who italicize card names have always kind of bugged me for some reason I couldn't put my finger on, but I think you explained it pretty well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
In addition, the definition of Strictly Better according to this very wiki, and Wizards of the Coast themselves-
A card that does the exact same effect for a cheaper mana cost, e.g. Lightning Bolt vs. Lightning Strike.
A card that costs exactly the same, has the same effect, but offers additional utility, e.g. Jackal Pup vs. Satyr Firedrinker
A card that provides more flexibility for the same cost and effect, e.g. Ancient Grudge vs. Shatter
A card that has the same mana cost and effect, but is now an instant instead of a sorcery, e.g. Boil vs. Boiling Seas.
EDIT: And of course, a card that has a more powerful version of the effect for the same mana cost, e.g. Lightning Bolt vs. Shock
Any combination of the above.
The simple version is: Barring a convoluted situation, Is This Card Better?
No, Moonveil Dragon is not strictly better than Shivan Dragon. Mana-Charged Dragon is. Yes, Erase is strictly better than Demystify.
Does it matter? No. This kind of thing happens all the time. Cards are put into the set for a reason, and we can only guess at what that reason is because we did not spend 6 to a year playtesting and designing it ourselves.
I hate to be that guy who is nitpicking about strictly better, but there might be some impressionable new players reading this thread, so I think I probably should.
Mana-Charged Dragon is not strictly better than Shivan Dragon. Pump only on attack or block (with opponents being able to pump) is significantly different functionality than pump anytime for red only, and it has it's pros and cons. You would prefer Shivan if you're attacking into a 5/5 flyer and a 9/9 flyer for instance.
I would personally agree about Erase vs. Demystify, but I think exile vs. destroy is one of the few remaining truly ambiguous ares until WotC comments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
Fair point, Sliver Lord, but I don't necessarily think that's the case. If I'm attacking into a 5/5 and a 9/9 flyer, I think I'd prefer the dragon that can pump for any color of mana I happen to have.
That said, I suppose no, it isn't strictly better. My apologies.
I can't believe nobody has speculated that this portents some serious artifact critters coming down the pipe. Perhaps artifact dragons??? There's a couple of hints that artifact creatures maybe coming - dragon throne artifact, tomb of the spirit dragon, ghostfire blade.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
"Personally I love high-riak, low-reqars gambles. Life's best with a decent amount of riak. And f*** reqars."
Not necessarily. Maybe the 1 CMC cost of smelt made it too easy to kill opposing banners or other artifacts. The 2 CMC of shatter may have been more in line with the balance they wanted to achieve between artifacts and artifact hate.
"Personally I love high-riak, low-reqars gambles. Life's best with a decent amount of riak. And f*** reqars."
They made a point when Smelt was printed about wanting it to be the new standard. Either the Banners are very important in Limited or there is something artifact heavy coming up.
They probably opted for Shatter over Smelt for balance reasons in limited. The same reason they like opted for Smite the Monstrous over Reprisal.
Cancel is also in Khans. Staples are staples.
Otherwise the slots are wasted. I rather have a 4-5cmc Stone Rain-esqe spell over Shatter. And Iona's Judgment functional would be decent over Erase.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Cancel is in the set because there's always a no-questions-asked counterspell. It "needs" to be in just about every set so that when Standard rotates, there's never NOT a counterspell.
Erase is in the set as a cheap(er) alternative to Deicide for Standard newbies; a "better" version of Revoke Existence for the meta; yet another safety-valve in case things get broken in Theros-Khans Standard; and as an answer in Limited for the not entirely unreasonable amount of potentially problematic, annoying, removal with answers, or otherwise available enchantments in the set.
Shatter is there instead of Smelt, and period, because as stated in this very thread, breaking any of the additional mana fixing and ramp would be frustrating in Limited, but at the same time, you need to have answers to those kind of potential problems. And Smelt was likely too good.
Naturalize is there for the same above reasons. Why all three? Because that way, Jeskai and Mardu decks don't get screwed over should they encounter any of the above things. They too have answers.
As for the black staple reprint? It's more a functional reprint than a straight up reprint. Say hello to Dutiful Return. We've seen this exact card before, but there's been variations on it for a long time.
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
I disagree with that ideal; to me, color is irrelevant in determining whether a certain card is "strictly better" or "strictly worse" than another card; I pay attention only to the total mana cost and the actual effect of the card. For that reason, I believe that terminate is strictly better than doom blade, go for the throat, murder, and terror, and that Aurelia's fury is strictly better than rolling thunder, for example.
Also, how does WotC justify the existence of erase, which is strictly better than demystify? How can there be two cards with the same mana cost while one is superior to the other in every conceivable way? I believe that 1W would be a more reasonable cost for erase, so that there is still reason to use demystify.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
At the very least, you're quite wrong about equating multicolored cards to monocolor cards in terms of them being "strictly better." The color identity matters quite a bit. It's much easier to include Doom Blade or any of the other cards you listed in any deck than it is to include Terminate.
You're also wrong in claiming that Erase is "strictly better" than Demystify. Cases where you'd want Demystify over Erase do exist, so in some instances, it would be better. I fear you need to bone up on your definition of "strictly better."
On-topic: I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next set, there are more relevant artifacts. I suspect it might have something of a colorless theme, and upping the number of artifacts would fit that theme well. That means that Shatter would be preferable over Smelt for both limited environments.
What would those situations be? Are you referring to a situation in which one player uses demystify to destroy an opponent's enchantment, and then returns it from their graveyard to the battlefield under their own control? In that case, I do agree that it is better to destroy a permanent than it is to exile it.
However, that still does not explain how shatter can be in the same set that includes erase; if erase, which costs only 1 mana, can be in this set, why not smelt, which has the same cost, as well?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
The aforementioned banner cards; wizards probably didn't want a 1 cmc artifact killer available when people (including folks brand new to the game) were spending their entire t3 trying to assemble their colors. If there was a 3cmc enchantment, integral to players fixing their wedges, then we probably wouldn't have seen erase either.
"Personally I love high-riak, low-reqars gambles. Life's best with a decent amount of riak. And f*** reqars."
Out of curiosity, why do you italicize card names?
Strictly better is a well defined term in MtG, and you are not using it correctly. It's perfectly fine to care about the concept that you're discussing here of course, but you should make your own phrase for it and be clear about exactly what your new phrase does and does not mean. It just confuses people when you use the term "strictly better," and only later in the thread explaining that you don't really mean strictly better but rather some related concept. It would be like saying "a penguin is a type of turkey," and waiting until later to explain that by "turkey" you mean the concept usually denoted by "bird."
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Erase is more powerful than shatter because it exiles a permanent, while shatter only destroys it; it does not matter if the cards affect two different types of permanents, or that they are of different colors, one still has a more powerful effect than does the other. It is only logical that a more powerful effect have a greater cost, is it not?
While we are discussing the concept of "strictly better," is it safe to say that moonveil dragon is strictly better than Shivan dragon? The moonveil dragon may have a stricter casting cost, but I imagine that that rarely matters in most situations, especially to skilled players.
I italicize certain words because they are "special" words. For example, the names of books, songs, and films are always italicized: The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, Night on Bald Mountain by Modest Mussrogsky, Raiders of the Lost Arc. When a foreign language is spoken, the words are italicized: "Buenos dias, senor." or "Que pasa, mi amigo?" Names of items are italicized when they are out of the ordinary or foreign: Excalibur or Mjolnir are italicized, but "Ark of the Covenant" and "Holy Grail" are not. In Dungeons & Dragons, the names of spells and items are italicized: lighting bolt, fire ball, wand of magic missiles. For anyone here who is a fan of Japanese animation and manga, names of techniques and items are definitely italicized: Genki Dama, Kamehameha, Tessaiga, Zangetsu, etc. Following that format, I italicize the names of certain cards, specifically, instants, sorceries, enchantments, and artifacts, but not creatures or planeswalkers, and usually not lands, because the former card types represent things that are inherently magical, and need to be distinguished from things that are mundane, while creatures, planeswalkers, and lands do not need that distinction, unless the words are foreign: for example, kitsune is italicized, while "fox" is not.
Does that make sense, I hope? That is the best description that I can provide, but this may be an instance of where a particular idiosyncrasy that I have is difficult to explain to another person; it makes sense to me, but it may not make sense to other people.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
It matters a great deal that the two cards are different colors. It matters just as much that they affect different card types. You can't discount either of those factors when making an analysis, and I don't understand why you think you can.
It's not safe to say. Many people would agree that Moonveil Dragon is better than Shivan Dragon but it's not strictly better. As per the link from the wiki, people understand strictly better to mean 'In every way that they are different, the better card would always be the same or better than the weaker'. It's a rather strong claim. There are a number of multicolor decks that will run into situations where they can't even cast Moonveil Dragon.
It is not. Quite some time ago (before my magic playing even began), the Magic community decided to go with a very strict interpretation of "strictly better" (which I suppose is pretty reasonable, "strict" is right there in the name). It has to be in the same color, be better in at least one way, and cannot be worse in any meaningful sense (some people go to far in the other direction and claim that no card is ever strictly better because of Mindslaver).
You would say that Moonveil is better, or maybe "much better," but you could say the same thing about Black Lotus vs. Shivan Dragon. The lack of jargon meaning "largely better but very similar" a sort of pseudo-strictly better, also bugs me, but it just hasn't caught on yet in the community and I can't think of a good one.
On another note, people who italicize card names have always kind of bugged me for some reason I couldn't put my finger on, but I think you explained it pretty well.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
In addition, the definition of Strictly Better according to this very wiki, and Wizards of the Coast themselves-
A card that does the exact same effect for a cheaper mana cost, e.g. Lightning Bolt vs. Lightning Strike.
A card that costs exactly the same, has the same effect, but offers additional utility, e.g. Jackal Pup vs. Satyr Firedrinker
A card that provides more flexibility for the same cost and effect, e.g. Ancient Grudge vs. Shatter
A card that has the same mana cost and effect, but is now an instant instead of a sorcery, e.g. Boil vs. Boiling Seas.
EDIT: And of course, a card that has a more powerful version of the effect for the same mana cost, e.g. Lightning Bolt vs. Shock
Any combination of the above.
The simple version is: Barring a convoluted situation, Is This Card Better?
No, Moonveil Dragon is not strictly better than Shivan Dragon. Mana-Charged Dragon is. Yes, Erase is strictly better than Demystify.
Does it matter? No. This kind of thing happens all the time. Cards are put into the set for a reason, and we can only guess at what that reason is because we did not spend 6 to a year playtesting and designing it ourselves.
Mana-Charged Dragon is not strictly better than Shivan Dragon. Pump only on attack or block (with opponents being able to pump) is significantly different functionality than pump anytime for red only, and it has it's pros and cons. You would prefer Shivan if you're attacking into a 5/5 flyer and a 9/9 flyer for instance.
I would personally agree about Erase vs. Demystify, but I think exile vs. destroy is one of the few remaining truly ambiguous ares until WotC comments.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
That said, I suppose no, it isn't strictly better. My apologies.