This is another permanent toy for edh easily you either need lands or you have plenty and need to replace the card
That makes it much better in non-singleton formats, for sure. I dislike the feeling turn 7 drawing something like Explosive Vegetation / Circuitous Route.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
Then there are no strictly better cards. Absent anything else, steal spells, redirects, and Mindslaver exist.
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Edit: this is also just assuming cards have equal weight in terms of playability. Depending on how good a hoser is affects the statistics of this. I'd only assume that a 99.99% being better would only increase because the non hoser cards are probably going to get played before hosers
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Hard because it probably has to counter a spell as well as an ability due to cycling being an ability and not casting a spell. It's not out of the realm of things they could print.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
Yes, I think that's a fair place to draw the line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basicly it’s just explosive vegetation with cycling basicly
This is another permanent toy for edh easily you either need lands or you have plenty and need to replace the card
That makes it much better in non-singleton formats, for sure. I dislike the feeling turn 7 drawing something like Explosive Vegetation / Circuitous Route.
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
great point
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
Then there are no strictly better cards. Absent anything else, steal spells, redirects, and Mindslaver exist.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Edit: this is also just assuming cards have equal weight in terms of playability. Depending on how good a hoser is affects the statistics of this. I'd only assume that a 99.99% being better would only increase because the non hoser cards are probably going to get played before hosers
Hard because it probably has to counter a spell as well as an ability due to cycling being an ability and not casting a spell. It's not out of the realm of things they could print.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
Yes, I think that's a fair place to draw the line.