Something is telling me that this block is going to go from 3-color cards to 2-color and monocolor, with the colorless theme (including artifacts) being more and more pronounced down the line...
It's for limited, simple. Khans needs the manafixing the Banners provide, having 1-mana answers to that would be frustrating. Don't be surprised to see Smelt turn up in the 3rd set of the block.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
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.
How can you only pay attention to converted mana cost? Color identity is so important to this game. Imagine that there was an enchantment "Every spell that deals damage deals two more damage". That would be great in some colors and completely unplayable in others. And making it, I don't know, 1 green and having a version that was 1CR, would you say the green one was better because it was cheaper?
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.
If there were good artifacts coming, they wouldn't have reprinted a crappy card like Shatter, but instead an artifact hate card that's actually good.
I didn't read the whole thread but my prediction is that colorless creatures and artifact creatures will become a bigger deal as Khans goes on. The third set will prob have a heavy artifact sub theme that is clan friendly. This is just speculation
If that were true, wouldn't it make more sense to reprint Smelt instead?
You'd be right if they just wanted everything to be as powerful as possible with no regards to balance. Shatter is correctly powered in some formats while better cards like Smelt and Ancient Grudge are more appropriate in others.
Why not make the same argument for Pillar of Light versus Path to Exile? They don't just say "hey, white needs some instant speed exile - give them the best one out there".
Dunno about Erase/Demystify. Any time you're hitting your own enchantments it'll be the other way around. Hatching Plans is one of the biggest examples where Demystify would win, but there could be cases where blowing something of your own up is the only way to guarantee casting a delve spell next turn. I mean, those are slightly niche situations, but if the only opposing enchantments in the meta were in delveless decks I might lean towards Demystify.
That's one of those moments that's qualified as a convoluted situation.
9 times out of 10, the point of Demystify is to get rid of your opponent's enchantment. Erase does that and then some.
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?
Men i have to say this whole topic seems and smeels like something you shouldn't ask , create threads , etc...
On desmistify vs Erase... there are reanimator decks , there are decks that play Hatching Plans and other cards that wants enchantments going into the yard
On the Smelt Vs Shatter : there are a lots of possible answers like : in limited the card could be a counter card on the second block and also somewhat good in the sideboards of the limited of Khans of Tarkir , soo in that case they choose to put it to maybe prevent you main decking it with maybe Ugin's Nexus for a timetravel that cost alot and shouldn't be good in this limited . And there are more possible answers like : if Artifact theme is low then it is better have the bad removal over the good soo that players feel more confortable drafting robots , etc...
Please next time make a Thread named : " Why THOSE cards are in " and then put the set name ...
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.
Colors CAN'T be ignored when evaluating cards, because differently colored cards go in different decks. Look at Savannah Lions and Jackal Pup, following your criteria, the lions are strictly better than the pup. But in reality, lions saw almost no play, while the pup was an all-star in the Slight deck, simply because it was better for the deck to keep it mono-red and add an inferior card than splashing white just for a few creatures. So no, you have to take colors into account, because some cards are better for a color than for another.
Because in every set, red needs a way to blow artifacts, wether they are relevant or not. They could have done a morph that shatters when it turns face up, but that would likely have been a bad morph, and they wanted that mechanic to be relevant all the time. So they just put in shatter. They could have put in that good ol' Demolish, but in a wedge set it could have been actually too good if that thing is ever possible, so they just put in shatter.
No, but it's safe to say that Moonveil Dragon is not strictly better than Shivan Dragon, the definition is pretty clear.
When would a player ever prefer Shivan dragon over moonveil dragon? I imagine that the number of situations in which the moonveil dragon's stricter casting cost actually matters must be very few and far between.
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
It's probably not going to happen often in real deckbuilding, but it's a real consideration for any deck choosing between the two that has mana sources that don't produce red.
Maybe they only want red for Lightning Bolt and one big dragon finisher. They want to minimize the sources of red mana so they can still cast all their spells of other colors. Going from shivan to moonveil might not be plausible.
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.
If there were good artifacts coming, they wouldn't have reprinted a crappy card like Shatter, but instead an artifact hate card that's actually good.
For constructed, yes, but for limited Shatter is fine. It was a decent first pick in Mirrodin (the original) draft.
Personally the artifact theme in M15 is what makes me suspicious about an artifact theme coming soon. They love to seed the core sets with stuff like that leading into a block with the theme.
They put it in because they could. They really don't need a reason to reprint shatter. Strictly worse than smelt? Not true. Smelt gets mental misstepped and countered by chalice of the void at 1. Not likely to ever happen in a game but it can.
The term strictly better in magic should honestly never be used. There are cases where you prefer an unmorphed scornful egotist to a goblins of the flarg for example. If you're at 3 and your opponent is at 2 shock is actually better than lightning bolt as misdirection, redirect, and fork effects don't ruin your day. Cases where grizzly bears is better than goyf. Woodland druid over deathrite shaman. Etc. etc. I saw mind spring played to great effect in vintage the other day for example over braingeyser despite braingeyser's propensity to deck your opponent and the inability to misdirect it as well.
Terminate is definitely not strictly better than terminate by any stretch. If you drew perfect mana every game of magic, welcome to 5 color the game. Magic is a wildly complex game with so many ins and outs that you will never find them all in a lifetime. That's why it's such a great game. If you want to complain about smelt not being reprinted over shatter go right ahead because it really doesn't matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
Re: Bread Connoisseur (I would quote, but I don't have enough posts)
I don't post often, but I wanted to comment on this. I see this argument made often whenever "Strictly better" is brought up, and I think that the context of "Strictly better" is not discussed enough. Anyone playing Magic long enough can find convoluted game scenarios where Card B is better than Card A, but the real purpose of "Strictly better" is to discuss deck-building context. That being said, your examples of mind spring in a misdirect-heavy metagame as well as discussion of shatter in the context of a chalice of the void heavy metagame show that those cases are poor examples of strictly better. However, the idea that lightning bolt is not strictly better than shock is foolish and adds nothing to discourse.
I'm curious as to whether you're a native English speaker.
Yes, English is my native language; I was born, and have lived my entire life, in the United States, a nation whose primary language is English (I hope). Does not my thorough command of that language, and the ease and eloquence with which I speak it, demonstrate that it is my native language?
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
It's more your quirks with card names that inspired the question, since those aren't things natural to the English language and, in fact, seem to violate grammatical conventions.
Yes, English is my native language; I was born, and have lived my entire life, in the United States, a nation whose primary language is English (I hope). Does not my thorough command of that language, and the ease and eloquence with which I speak it, demonstrate that it is my native language?
It's hard to tell because while you are correct in your grammar if you were writing a paper, you are talking about cards meaning you don't italicizes or use capitalization like that. You need to brush up on quite a few things including the idea of strictly better
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
How can you only pay attention to converted mana cost? Color identity is so important to this game. Imagine that there was an enchantment "Every spell that deals damage deals two more damage". That would be great in some colors and completely unplayable in others. And making it, I don't know, 1 green and having a version that was 1CR, would you say the green one was better because it was cheaper?
If there were good artifacts coming, they wouldn't have reprinted a crappy card like Shatter, but instead an artifact hate card that's actually good.
You'd be right if they just wanted everything to be as powerful as possible with no regards to balance. Shatter is correctly powered in some formats while better cards like Smelt and Ancient Grudge are more appropriate in others.
Why not make the same argument for Pillar of Light versus Path to Exile? They don't just say "hey, white needs some instant speed exile - give them the best one out there".
Dunno about Erase/Demystify. Any time you're hitting your own enchantments it'll be the other way around. Hatching Plans is one of the biggest examples where Demystify would win, but there could be cases where blowing something of your own up is the only way to guarantee casting a delve spell next turn. I mean, those are slightly niche situations, but if the only opposing enchantments in the meta were in delveless decks I might lean towards Demystify.
9 times out of 10, the point of Demystify is to get rid of your opponent's enchantment. Erase does that and then some.
Men i have to say this whole topic seems and smeels like something you shouldn't ask , create threads , etc...
On desmistify vs Erase... there are reanimator decks , there are decks that play Hatching Plans and other cards that wants enchantments going into the yard
On the Smelt Vs Shatter : there are a lots of possible answers like : in limited the card could be a counter card on the second block and also somewhat good in the sideboards of the limited of Khans of Tarkir , soo in that case they choose to put it to maybe prevent you main decking it with maybe Ugin's Nexus for a timetravel that cost alot and shouldn't be good in this limited . And there are more possible answers like : if Artifact theme is low then it is better have the bad removal over the good soo that players feel more confortable drafting robots , etc...
Please next time make a Thread named : " Why THOSE cards are in " and then put the set name ...
Colors CAN'T be ignored when evaluating cards, because differently colored cards go in different decks. Look at Savannah Lions and Jackal Pup, following your criteria, the lions are strictly better than the pup. But in reality, lions saw almost no play, while the pup was an all-star in the Slight deck, simply because it was better for the deck to keep it mono-red and add an inferior card than splashing white just for a few creatures. So no, you have to take colors into account, because some cards are better for a color than for another.
When would a player ever prefer Shivan dragon over moonveil dragon? I imagine that the number of situations in which the moonveil dragon's stricter casting cost actually matters must be very few and far between.
“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
Maybe they only want red for Lightning Bolt and one big dragon finisher. They want to minimize the sources of red mana so they can still cast all their spells of other colors. Going from shivan to moonveil might not be plausible.
Vorosh BUG
Sygg
Molimo
Intent RUG
Rith RWG
Purphoros
For constructed, yes, but for limited Shatter is fine. It was a decent first pick in Mirrodin (the original) draft.
Personally the artifact theme in M15 is what makes me suspicious about an artifact theme coming soon. They love to seed the core sets with stuff like that leading into a block with the theme.
The term strictly better in magic should honestly never be used. There are cases where you prefer an unmorphed scornful egotist to a goblins of the flarg for example. If you're at 3 and your opponent is at 2 shock is actually better than lightning bolt as misdirection, redirect, and fork effects don't ruin your day. Cases where grizzly bears is better than goyf. Woodland druid over deathrite shaman. Etc. etc. I saw mind spring played to great effect in vintage the other day for example over braingeyser despite braingeyser's propensity to deck your opponent and the inability to misdirect it as well.
Terminate is definitely not strictly better than terminate by any stretch. If you drew perfect mana every game of magic, welcome to 5 color the game. Magic is a wildly complex game with so many ins and outs that you will never find them all in a lifetime. That's why it's such a great game. If you want to complain about smelt not being reprinted over shatter go right ahead because it really doesn't matter.
Currently Playing:
Retired
I capitalize only proper nouns or "important" words in names: Serra angel, Shivan dragon, The Lord of the Rings, Return of the Jedi, etc.
“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 don't post often, but I wanted to comment on this. I see this argument made often whenever "Strictly better" is brought up, and I think that the context of "Strictly better" is not discussed enough. Anyone playing Magic long enough can find convoluted game scenarios where Card B is better than Card A, but the real purpose of "Strictly better" is to discuss deck-building context. That being said, your examples of mind spring in a misdirect-heavy metagame as well as discussion of shatter in the context of a chalice of the void heavy metagame show that those cases are poor examples of strictly better. However, the idea that lightning bolt is not strictly better than shock is foolish and adds nothing to discourse.
Yes, English is my native language; I was born, and have lived my entire life, in the United States, a nation whose primary language is English (I hope). Does not my thorough command of that language, and the ease and eloquence with which I speak it, demonstrate that it is my native language?
“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's hard to tell because while you are correct in your grammar if you were writing a paper, you are talking about cards meaning you don't italicizes or use capitalization like that. You need to brush up on quite a few things including the idea of strictly better