Since you didn't read it earlier, an excerpt from this page.
An idiom is a term or phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use.
-
- Sutherlands
- Registered User
-
Member for 19 years, 1 month, and 12 days
Last active Tue, Jun, 2 2009 14:15:09
- 0 Followers
- 7,365 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
-
Aug 4, 2008
Sutherlands posted a message on What "strictly better" truly means: A challengePosted in: Surging Chaos's Realm of Ruination -
Jul 24, 2008
Sutherlands posted a message on What "strictly better" truly means: A challenge"Back seat driver" means just that though; a person is driving from the back seat.Posted in: Surging Chaos's Realm of Ruination
I don't see how this isn't understood. If a person is driving from the front seat or is not driving, they are not a back seat driver.
There is nothing around it. If you want to bend the rules and say the back seat is the front seat, then you have your understanding of back seat driver wrong.
Not only did you ignore my link of the idiom, but cards that are considered "strictly better" are considered in a vacuum. That's the ONLY MEANINGFUL DEFINITION of "strictly better," and thus, it's the one that gets used.
You can say "strictly better means a card has to be better than another card in all circumstances, and there for no card is strictly better than another," but that's pretty worthless for conversation. I'd rather use the definition of "card A has all the advantages that card B has, and none of the disadvantages that it doesn't, plus it is superior in way X, therefore, it is strictly better." This meaning is actually useful in conversation, and once again, that's why it gets used. -
Jul 24, 2008
Sutherlands posted a message on What "strictly better" truly means: A challengeTo put it mildly: You're wrong.Posted in: Surging Chaos's Realm of Ruination
Check out this thread. Nothing is 100% always better than something else, that's why when talking about "strictly better" we use a functional definition. Also, check out this page. -
May 29, 2008
Sutherlands posted a message on Fairies. The other deck (To beat)I played an earlier version of this at FNM a few weeks ago, and found that quite a few times I had trouble getting black on the opponent's turn for terror. (Also a problem for the Pact.) For this reason, I support the Ruins. But why not 4x conclave?Posted in: TeknoBlog
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Arcane shouldn't be included.
For the blasts, the question is whether being able to target something that you can't effect is an advantage, disadvantage, or neither/both. I'm inclined to say the latter.
The rule should be: Slivers are not comparable to non-sliver creatures. For example, which of these cards is better:
Enchantment
Green creatures get +1/+1
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1
The obvious answer is: neither. The first one is more powerful when you build around it, but you can also help your opponent with it. In the "Catharic Adept < Screeching Sliver" the Cathartic Adept is the second one... your creature gets it, but none of your other creatures do. The Sliver is the first enchantment... hopefully you built your deck around maximizing its effectiveness, but there's a chance even that it will help your opponent more than you. This is especially possible in limited formats. For the purposes of this thread, these cards are incomparable.
This goes double for GiftsTrix, Minineko and Apokalypse Kid, who have 10-16 posts and haven't posted in 4 days to a week.
I would say that being an artifact IS a drawback. Having any additional types makes something more susceptible to being removed. As for which is better, this thread is about which cards make the other "inferior" or are "strictly better" than them. Both of those cards have drawbacks that the other doesn't, so neither is the obvious better choice.
They're not comparable.
Except that in the one case, they KNOW that choosing the "lose the game" option is worse for them, whereas in the case of the scorcher, they don't know which option is worse for them assuming that you have at least one card in your hand. They are not comparable for the purposes of this thread.
The more expensive one triggers whenever their mountain becomes tapped for any reason (twiddle, chimeric idol) which could make a big difference.
Assuming no team games, then yes.
Wall of Vapor can still deal damage if you raise its power.
Doublestrike.
Doublestrike isn't realistic??
I would say that having a drawback on resolution is much better than having a drawback when you play the card, since you're not certain it will resolve. This means that they're not better than each other.
Please learn how to identify jokes on forums. Smilies are generally a good indication, especially if they're winking.
um... no.
Rift Bolt costs 3 for immediate damage and isn't an instant. Lava Spike doesn't hit creatures. Shard Volley makes you sac a land.
False
No. Red mana is not comparable to blue mana.
Saying Grizzly is better than Ashcoat because of Petroglyphs is the same as saying that a 4/3 is worse than a 3/3 because of Reprisal.