No it's not, because the spell loses all synergies with RSowing Salt could have (e. g. cost reduction under Ruby Medallion). It's like having a comparison between Wind Drake and Avian Changeling, somehow... As far as I can see, odds are that when people want to say "strictly X", it's not the right word.
Actually it is.
Corner cases and random synergies aren't relevant for something to be strictly better. A GG 2/3 Human is strictly better than a GG 2/3 vanilla elf, even if you count all the evels synergies.
Perhaps 'strictly better' as a term needs to consider the cards in question in a vacuum to have any validity, ignoring possible synergies, anti-synergies, or variances in quality depending on what you or your opponent is playing. I.e. 'what can this card, as opposed to this other one, contribute to my board state/deck of itself, not considering any other cards I might play with it or answers my opponent may have to it?' Otherwise the phrase does seem to approach legalistic meaninglessness, when it is nonetheless sometimes helpful to be able to point out the effective supersession of one tool by another.
Perhaps 'strictly better' as a term needs to consider the cards in question in a vacuum to have any validity, ignoring possible synergies, anti-synergies, or variances in quality depending on what you or your opponent is playing. I.e. 'what can this card, as opposed to this other one, contribute to my board state/deck of itself, not considering any other cards I might play with it or answers my opponent may have to it?' Otherwise the phrase does seem to approach legalistic meaninglessness, when it is nonetheless sometimes helpful to be able to point out the effective supersession of one tool by another.
Yes, I think that's pretty much the case. And "in a vacuum" (something that needs defining as well, but most people I think have a good intuition) Crumble to Dust is better than Sowing Salt even though there might be some synergies that make Sowing Salt better.
[quote from="Victor Sant »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/632504-manadeprived-com-preview-crumble-to-dust?comment=25"]
Really? Why do Legacy Merfolk play Cursecatcher instead of the "strictly better" Judge's Familiar, then?
Because the term "strictly better" does not, in a strict sense mean "better in every situation".
No it's not, because the spell loses all synergies with RSowing Salt could have (e. g. cost reduction under Ruby Medallion). It's like having a comparison between Wind Drake and Avian Changeling, somehow... As far as I can see, odds are that when people want to say "strictly X", it's not the right word.
Actually it is.
Corner cases and random synergies aren't relevant for something to be strictly better. A GG 2/3 Human is strictly better than a GG 2/3 vanilla elf, even if you count all the evels synergies.
Because its a merfolk in a merfolk deck? Doesn't make Judge's Familiar not strictly better. I wish people would just stop using the phrase altogether. It's used incorrectly more often than not, and it almost always starts arguments.
I like the card. Easier to cast Sowing Salt, exile is relevant, devoid is probably relevant in this block and, by extension, Standard. Idk how good it is, but I'm glad the card will be around.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Another nail in the Tron coffin. Honestly, it would have been a lot better at 1RR, and even RRR, although then we'd mostly see it in burn. This kind of conflicts with the Devoid theme of not requiring a lot of colored mana.
The problem with 4 CMC anti-Tron cards is that Tron can assemble on turn 3 and drop a Karn or Wurmcoil. You can kind of stop them after that with this, but the damage is done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Because the term "strictly better" does not, in a strict sense mean "better in every situation".
"Why is this shoe I requested actually a banana?"
"Well, when we said 'we will definitely get you a shoe', we didn't mean to imply that it would be a shoe with 100% certainty. There was also a 5% chance that it could have been a banana. Actually, there was a 1% chance it may have been a bag full of deadly scorpions. Aren't you the lucky one?"
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
I agree, "strictly better" should and does mean "strictly better", i.e. you would prefer one over the other 100% of the time. It's just that there are vanishingly few cases of strictly-betterness remaining in the game of Magic in 2015. If any.
If terms like "ordinarily better" or "typically better" started entering the Magic lexicon, I would be quite happy.
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
Do you have no imagination at all? Your opponent might have Timely Reinforcements and losing two life might be the way to prevent her from gaining 6.
Forget it, there is no "strictly better" in the sense of "better in literally every situation". That's why the term "strictly better" doesn't actually mean that.
Even for Drown in Sorrow vs Infest a counterexample can be found.
edit: Because of that impossibility I'd prefer a term like "typtically better" as well - but alas, that's not going to happen so we have to live with it.
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
Do you have no imagination at all? Your opponent might have Timely Reinforcements and losing two life might be the way to prevent her from gaining 6.
Forget it, there is no "strictly better" in the sense of "better in literally every situation". That's why the term "strictly better" doesn't actually mean that.
Even for Drown in Sorrow vs Infest a counterexample can be found.
edit: Because of that impossibility I'd prefer a term like "typtically better" as well - but alas, that's not going to happen so we have to live with it.
One of the expressions used in R&D is the term "strictly better." By R&D's definition, if you compare two cards and one card is generally better in all reasonable cases (I say "reasonable" because you can always concoct a scenario where one card is better—the definition has to have a practical application, otherwise it's worthless as a term) then it is dubbed "strictly better."
Your argument is like, "b-but w-what i-if my Chimney Imp dies and then my opponent can't cast a 2nd main phase raid spell? tarmogoyf can't do that lol"
Seems like a better card in any modern sideboard than sowing salt unless you're mono red to begin with. Kinda sad that this is printed in a set with a land theme though. Tectonic edge would have been enough. Seems like any sort of deck relying on man lands will really struggle if people have a couple copies of this in the sideboard.
I can just imagine turn 2 jace, turn 4 remove 4 of your lands from the game, turn 5 jace to recast and remove another 4 lands... oh joy
Any Gifts player knows the value of two similar cards, one of which is "strictly better" than the other, using Rosewater's definition. You want one Crumble to Dust and one Sowing Salt, and maybe one Fulminator for a hypothetical land destruction package.
Of course, Gifts doesn't run land destruction in most competitive builds. If it did, Sowing Salt would not be obsoleted by this card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Name me two cards, one which you claim is "strictly better" than the other and I'll give you a situation where this is not true.
The truth is that "strictly better" is a colloquial term and what it means is something like "better in most situations". If it were to mean "better in all situations" we couldn't use it at all.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
Do you have no imagination at all? Your opponent might have Timely Reinforcements and losing two life might be the way to prevent her from gaining 6.
Forget it, there is no "strictly better" in the sense of "better in literally every situation". That's why the term "strictly better" doesn't actually mean that.
Even for Drown in Sorrow vs Infest a counterexample can be found.
edit: Because of that impossibility I'd prefer a term like "typtically better" as well - but alas, that's not going to happen so we have to live with it.
One of the expressions used in R&D is the term "strictly better." By R&D's definition, if you compare two cards and one card is generally better in all reasonable cases (I say "reasonable" because you can always concoct a scenario where one card is better—the definition has to have a practical application, otherwise it's worthless as a term) then it is dubbed "strictly better."
Your argument is like, "b-but w-what i-if my Chimney Imp dies and then my opponent can't cast a 2nd main phase raid spell? tarmogoyf can't do that lol"
Did you even read my argument? Mark Rosewater would AGREE with me. I said it numerous times: Strictly better cannot mean "better in all cases". That's EXACTLY what MaRo said. It is however, not what some of the other people here say.
I do think it's okay to call Crumble to Dust strictly better than Sowing Salt, even though there are some cases where it's worse.
There are always dumb Meddling Mage / Pithing Needle arguments against the strict definition of "strictly better".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Pretty sure this will see modern play. Likely out of the board but who knows. I could see decks like Jund or Grixis pulling this out of the board. One red mana is a lot different than 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Is anyone actually going to sit here and try to convince anyone that sorceries are better than instants because Dispel is out there somewhere? Is this a real thing that's going to happen?
Is anyone actually going to sit here and try to convince anyone that sorceries are better than instants because Dispel is out there somewhere? Is this a real thing that's going to happen?
No it isn't, and if you actually read the thread you'd know that.
Did you even read my argument? Mark Rosewater would AGREE with me. I said it numerous times: Strictly better cannot mean "better in all cases". That's EXACTLY what MaRo said. It is however, not what some of the other people here say.
MaRo is an authority on the design and development of Magic cards.
And yes, he was a writer for Roseanne, but that does not in-and-of-itself make him an authority on word usage.
I would tell MaRo that, if an accurate definition of a term renders a term meaningless... then maybe that term is meaningless, and it's time to find a new term.
In my argument I took it as granted that people want to use the term "strictly better" and that we MUST fill it with meaning. I don't like the phrase either.
I define strictly better as "statistically superior on the basis of natural benefit" and exclude card-specific synergies. This has the same effect as Sowing Salt, can be cast at the same times, and has a less strict mana cost within the same color, therefore it is strictly better.
Oblivion Sower will happily steal all your Tron lands after they've crumbled to dust. Indeed, red Eldrazi decks now have two options to use against Tron decks. Bonus if your deck happens to be a Tron itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Really? Why do Legacy Merfolk play Cursecatcher instead of the "strictly better" Judge's Familiar, then?
It just goes to show you that, choose one or more —
Yes, I think that's pretty much the case. And "in a vacuum" (something that needs defining as well, but most people I think have a good intuition) Crumble to Dust is better than Sowing Salt even though there might be some synergies that make Sowing Salt better.
Because the term "strictly better" does not, in a strict sense mean "better in every situation".
Because its a merfolk in a merfolk deck? Doesn't make Judge's Familiar not strictly better. I wish people would just stop using the phrase altogether. It's used incorrectly more often than not, and it almost always starts arguments.
I like the card. Easier to cast Sowing Salt, exile is relevant, devoid is probably relevant in this block and, by extension, Standard. Idk how good it is, but I'm glad the card will be around.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
Suddenly Dispel
The problem with 4 CMC anti-Tron cards is that Tron can assemble on turn 3 and drop a Karn or Wurmcoil. You can kind of stop them after that with this, but the damage is done.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
"Well, when we said 'we will definitely get you a shoe', we didn't mean to imply that it would be a shoe with 100% certainty. There was also a 5% chance that it could have been a banana. Actually, there was a 1% chance it may have been a bag full of deadly scorpions. Aren't you the lucky one?"
"I would like a shoe, please."
"Of course."
Hands over two gum wrappers and a piece of chalk.
Underground Sea and Watery Grave. And before anyone tries to give me any 'but what if you're only a standard/modern player' malarky, remember the reason we will never see the original Duallands again is because they are, when played from the hand, better than a basic land. And strictly better than a shockland.
I agree, "strictly better" should and does mean "strictly better", i.e. you would prefer one over the other 100% of the time. It's just that there are vanishingly few cases of strictly-betterness remaining in the game of Magic in 2015. If any.
If terms like "ordinarily better" or "typically better" started entering the Magic lexicon, I would be quite happy.
Do you have no imagination at all? Your opponent might have Timely Reinforcements and losing two life might be the way to prevent her from gaining 6.
Forget it, there is no "strictly better" in the sense of "better in literally every situation". That's why the term "strictly better" doesn't actually mean that.
Even for Drown in Sorrow vs Infest a counterexample can be found.
edit: Because of that impossibility I'd prefer a term like "typtically better" as well - but alas, that's not going to happen so we have to live with it.
Mark Rosewater himself would disagree with you
Source: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/213
Your argument is like, "b-but w-what i-if my Chimney Imp dies and then my opponent can't cast a 2nd main phase raid spell? tarmogoyf can't do that lol"
I can just imagine turn 2 jace, turn 4 remove 4 of your lands from the game, turn 5 jace to recast and remove another 4 lands... oh joy
Of course, Gifts doesn't run land destruction in most competitive builds. If it did, Sowing Salt would not be obsoleted by this card.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Did you even read my argument? Mark Rosewater would AGREE with me. I said it numerous times: Strictly better cannot mean "better in all cases". That's EXACTLY what MaRo said. It is however, not what some of the other people here say.
I do think it's okay to call Crumble to Dust strictly better than Sowing Salt, even though there are some cases where it's worse.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
No it isn't, and if you actually read the thread you'd know that.
And yes, he was a writer for Roseanne, but that does not in-and-of-itself make him an authority on word usage.
I would tell MaRo that, if an accurate definition of a term renders a term meaningless... then maybe that term is meaningless, and it's time to find a new term.
Oblivion Sower will happily steal all your Tron lands after they've crumbled to dust. Indeed, red Eldrazi decks now have two options to use against Tron decks. Bonus if your deck happens to be a Tron itself.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.