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.
False. The words "strictly better" literally mean "better regardless of context." That includes random synergies. The word you're looking for is "better" (sans "strictly").
On topic: This looks powerful. While I'm not a fan of land destruction, I have to admit I sorta like this card.
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.
False. The words "strictly better" literally mean "better regardless of context." That includes random synergies. The word you're looking for is "better" (sans "strictly").
On topic: This looks powerful. While I'm not a fan of land destruction, I have to admit I sorta like this card.
This is the (probably) last post on this subject I'm going to make.
The way to get around this is that in the context of MTG the word "better" is, if you're really nitpicky not clearly defined. If "better" is defined as "more likely to win you the game", then you are right - but this does not have to be so. Another way to define the word "better" is by saying:
*Dealing more damage to an opponent is better than dealing less
*instant speed is better than sorcery speed
*having less mana requirements is better than having more
...
In other words, we are looking at a card "in a vacuum".
Then, you can define that card A is strictly better than card B iff it is better in at least one of those categories and at least equal in all the other ones.
If you chose to interpret "good" or "better" in a different way ("more likely to win you the game"), be my guest - but there are other logically consistent ways to define the terms - and when speaking about card-strength the magic-community and WotC RnD appears to be using the definition that I outlined in my post. Given that there are literally no circumstances under which a card could actually be "strictly better" than another when using your definition of the term, the one given here appears to be the more useful option.
edit: I actually use "more likely to win you the game" as a definition of "better" as well. I'm just saying that it can be done otherwise without making logical errors.
It just bothers me when nitpickers aren't even right.
I actually think it should be rare (as is sowing salt), because it's not the card you want to see/build around in limited, but it has an important place in constructed, it obviously should never be common because of NWO.
There are always dumb Meddling Mage / Pithing Needle arguments against the strict definition of "strictly better".
yeah... I would post exactly that.
still, I think "strictly better" should be used as "If there's really no reason to include card A instead of card B while you're building your deck, then card B is strictly better than card A"
I mean, yeah, there are stupid corner cases in where Shock would be a better play than Lightning Bolt but none of those corner cases would EVER make a reasonable player to cut the lightning bolts in his list to add Shock, it's pretty safe to say that Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock as no one with a good enough argument that has a full playset of lightning bolts in a format where both are legal would even think about adding the first shock before the 4th lightning bolt.
This is purely and simply a definitional argument. Your definition is not "superior" to the one other people are using. If you are confused about the meaning of a word, ask what they mean. Telling them that's not what the word means is almost always pointless and foolish. In the rare case someone was actually mistaken about the meaning of a word, congratulations, you've educated someone, but that's not what is happening here. Some people have decided to use "strictly better" in ways which allow it to apply to Magic cards, with varying levels of strictness, and other people have not.
This card is almost always better than Sowing Salt. That's what everyone in this thread is saying, so there's no actual argument.
You can tell how boring a set's preview cards are when the most excitement is around corner cases where a 2RR red card might be better than a 3R card.
Surprised this isn't rare, given what it's competing with. Looks like BFZ is shaping up to be strictly worse than Zendikar/RoE! (see what I did there?)
This has devolved to be at least the 17th most pedantic thread I've read on MTGS. Anyway, this is a good card. Is it perhaps a little uncreative? Sure, but not every card has to reinvent the wheel and Magic darn near wouldn't even be Magic without reprints and near-reprints.
False. The words "strictly better" literally mean "better regardless of context." That includes random synergies. The word you're looking for is "better" (sans "strictly").
On topic: This looks powerful. While I'm not a fan of land destruction, I have to admit I sorta like this card.
"Strictly better is a term used to compare cards that are identical in most regards, and in each way they are different the same one is more favorable."
"The convention is well understood among experienced Magic players. However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card."
"Strictly better” means in most obvious cases, one card is better than the other. A 2/2 flier for 2U is better than a 2/2 without flying for 2U. The fact that cards can kill fliers doesn’t mean this isn’t strictly better because the vast majority of the time a 2/2 flier is just better than a vanilla 2/2."
Striclty on MTG doesn't care about context, it just comparing the cards in a vaccum. The fact that there is another card that can make the other situationally better doesn't matter.
Well, flavourwise they couldn't reuse Sowing Salt because of the name. Also because this seems a rather Eldrazi-centric effect the Devoid keyword was kinda required.
Apart from that it really is mostly an easier to cast Sowing Salt.
i mostly agree, while strictly speaking strictly means better in every scenario that's not a particular useful definition to use(and language is mostly a tool to express what you mean), however its still useful to have a term that describes that a card has only upsides over an other card in any scenario you expect to have happen, but I think a lot of people do use the term so liberally that it also becomes useless in that it no longer describes something different then for example arguably better, much better or better(depending on the person using it).
I personally am somewhat on the strict side, for example I would not say ancestral recall is strictly better then treasure cruise, mostly because in the one format you can expect to play both, there is a downside of recall over cruise that's not only relevant(being misstepable), but actually gives situation where cruise would have won you the game but recall does not, so i draw the line at:"In formats where i would play these both cards do I expect to encounter any of the potential downsides of the supposedly strictly better card if I play a few tournaments."
Though this is all mostly semantics.
Ancestral Recall IS strictly better than Treasure Cruise though. That's the exact definition of strictly better.
Here's another one: Vapor Snag is strictly better than Unsummon. Blah blah save your own creature, the one life doesn't matter, snag is strictly better.
I'm sorry but you cited a site that cites Maro and than Maro twice. Common usage dictates the meaning of a word not Maro. I'll leave my thoughts on Maro at that since this is not a Maro thread, but to provide a counter example your first source claims "Strictly better does not care about creature type" and yet by this definition Judge's Familiar is strictly better than Cursecatcher and yet cursecatcher is a 10 dollar modern staple while the familiar has seen virtually no modern play. Conventional wisdom should tell you that if a card is strictly better then it should always be played over it's strictly worse counterpart in any competitive deck.
With this in mind I think devoid is such a weird mechanic that it's hard to describe Crumble to Dust as strictly better than Sowing Salt. Crumble to Dust is obviously the better card, but it's not strictly better. For example even in standard there is Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh which is not triggered by this but is triggered by sowing salt and in legacy there is Chill making this obviously the better choice. I would have actually preferred a Sowing Salt reprint because Pyromancer's Goggles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
False. The words "strictly better" literally mean "better regardless of context." That includes random synergies. The word you're looking for is "better" (sans "strictly").
On topic: This looks powerful. While I'm not a fan of land destruction, I have to admit I sorta like this card.
"Strictly better is a term used to compare cards that are identical in most regards, and in each way they are different the same one is more favorable."
"The convention is well understood among experienced Magic players. However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card."
"Strictly better” means in most obvious cases, one card is better than the other. A 2/2 flier for 2U is better than a 2/2 without flying for 2U. The fact that cards can kill fliers doesn’t mean this isn’t strictly better because the vast majority of the time a 2/2 flier is just better than a vanilla 2/2."
Striclty on MTG doesn't care about context, it just comparing the cards in a vaccum. The fact that there is another card that can make the other situationally better doesn't matter.
What makes me mad about the interpretation of MaRo is that people assume that cards are in a vacuum. That's not what he means at all. What he means and by given his example that even if there is a downside to a card such as a 2/2 flyer over the same cc 2/2 vanilla beater the advantage of having flyer far outweighs the disadvantages of flying destruction that it has an advantage over a vanilla. You'll never not run the flyer over the vanilla because it's just in your benefit to do so.
With this card, it is not strictly better to where it would make sense to not run it over sowing salts. It may have one less red in its cc but loses the ability to copy with goggles. Not to mention the colorless ability doesn't benefit the card design instead of saying a devoid shock. Now it's it a better card. Yes absolutely because it's more splashable. But not strictly better in the sense of bolt to shock, or alpha duals to shock lands. If it had a 3cmc or was red it would strictly be better.
Point in it all is that magic is not played in a vacuum. Maro never implied the term to mean that. There are contexts to cards where you can say they're strictly better or not, but this is not the case. It'd be like telling me that a 2u 3/3 elf is better than a 1gg 3/3 elf. (I know this is a stupid analogy but I'm trying to prove a point that comparing cards in a vacuum is stupid)
Pssst: Your insulting attempt at a caricature and gross simplification of the R&D process is in the wrong thread. This isn't the thread for Scatter to the Winds, which it sounds like you were attempting to refer to. Bit difficult to tell with all that word vomit though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Honestly I'm suprised it is not rare in this set
False. The words "strictly better" literally mean "better regardless of context." That includes random synergies. The word you're looking for is "better" (sans "strictly").
On topic: This looks powerful. While I'm not a fan of land destruction, I have to admit I sorta like this card.
This is the (probably) last post on this subject I'm going to make.
The way to get around this is that in the context of MTG the word "better" is, if you're really nitpicky not clearly defined. If "better" is defined as "more likely to win you the game", then you are right - but this does not have to be so. Another way to define the word "better" is by saying:
*Dealing more damage to an opponent is better than dealing less
*instant speed is better than sorcery speed
*having less mana requirements is better than having more
...
In other words, we are looking at a card "in a vacuum".
Then, you can define that card A is strictly better than card B iff it is better in at least one of those categories and at least equal in all the other ones.
If you chose to interpret "good" or "better" in a different way ("more likely to win you the game"), be my guest - but there are other logically consistent ways to define the terms - and when speaking about card-strength the magic-community and WotC RnD appears to be using the definition that I outlined in my post. Given that there are literally no circumstances under which a card could actually be "strictly better" than another when using your definition of the term, the one given here appears to be the more useful option.
edit: I actually use "more likely to win you the game" as a definition of "better" as well. I'm just saying that it can be done otherwise without making logical errors.
It just bothers me when nitpickers aren't even right.
still, I think "strictly better" should be used as "If there's really no reason to include card A instead of card B while you're building your deck, then card B is strictly better than card A"
I mean, yeah, there are stupid corner cases in where Shock would be a better play than Lightning Bolt but none of those corner cases would EVER make a reasonable player to cut the lightning bolts in his list to add Shock, it's pretty safe to say that Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock as no one with a good enough argument that has a full playset of lightning bolts in a format where both are legal would even think about adding the first shock before the 4th lightning bolt.
This is purely and simply a definitional argument. Your definition is not "superior" to the one other people are using. If you are confused about the meaning of a word, ask what they mean. Telling them that's not what the word means is almost always pointless and foolish. In the rare case someone was actually mistaken about the meaning of a word, congratulations, you've educated someone, but that's not what is happening here. Some people have decided to use "strictly better" in ways which allow it to apply to Magic cards, with varying levels of strictness, and other people have not.
This card is almost always better than Sowing Salt. That's what everyone in this thread is saying, so there's no actual argument.
Surprised this isn't rare, given what it's competing with. Looks like BFZ is shaping up to be strictly worse than Zendikar/RoE! (see what I did there?)
That xkcd comic is stupid.
Striclty on MTG doesn't care about context, it just comparing the cards in a vaccum. The fact that there is another card that can make the other situationally better doesn't matter.
Apart from that it really is mostly an easier to cast Sowing Salt.
Good enough for me.
Here's another one: Vapor Snag is strictly better than Unsummon. Blah blah save your own creature, the one life doesn't matter, snag is strictly better.
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
I'm sorry but you cited a site that cites Maro and than Maro twice. Common usage dictates the meaning of a word not Maro. I'll leave my thoughts on Maro at that since this is not a Maro thread, but to provide a counter example your first source claims "Strictly better does not care about creature type" and yet by this definition Judge's Familiar is strictly better than Cursecatcher and yet cursecatcher is a 10 dollar modern staple while the familiar has seen virtually no modern play. Conventional wisdom should tell you that if a card is strictly better then it should always be played over it's strictly worse counterpart in any competitive deck.
With this in mind I think devoid is such a weird mechanic that it's hard to describe Crumble to Dust as strictly better than Sowing Salt. Crumble to Dust is obviously the better card, but it's not strictly better. For example even in standard there is Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh which is not triggered by this but is triggered by sowing salt and in legacy there is Chill making this obviously the better choice. I would have actually preferred a Sowing Salt reprint because Pyromancer's Goggles.
What makes me mad about the interpretation of MaRo is that people assume that cards are in a vacuum. That's not what he means at all. What he means and by given his example that even if there is a downside to a card such as a 2/2 flyer over the same cc 2/2 vanilla beater the advantage of having flyer far outweighs the disadvantages of flying destruction that it has an advantage over a vanilla. You'll never not run the flyer over the vanilla because it's just in your benefit to do so.
With this card, it is not strictly better to where it would make sense to not run it over sowing salts. It may have one less red in its cc but loses the ability to copy with goggles. Not to mention the colorless ability doesn't benefit the card design instead of saying a devoid shock. Now it's it a better card. Yes absolutely because it's more splashable. But not strictly better in the sense of bolt to shock, or alpha duals to shock lands. If it had a 3cmc or was red it would strictly be better.
Point in it all is that magic is not played in a vacuum. Maro never implied the term to mean that. There are contexts to cards where you can say they're strictly better or not, but this is not the case. It'd be like telling me that a 2u 3/3 elf is better than a 1gg 3/3 elf. (I know this is a stupid analogy but I'm trying to prove a point that comparing cards in a vacuum is stupid)