Creatures that are directly superior to others?

[BigBlue]

So many I wouldn't know where to start, in both directions, but primarily newer=better (sadly) when it comes to creatures w/ abilities. White has the Best 1 cc creatures imho.

What is missing from this discussion and matters is rarity. It isn't fair to a Common vs a Rare even with the same CC. Is it really fair to compare Mother of Runes to Tundra Wolves or Devoted Caretaker, or Soul Warden to Savannah Lion?

You have to look at the environment at the time of printing, cards seem to gradually get better in some categories, which has to happen in order to keep us old timers buying.

 

[Spiderman]

What is missing from this discussion and matters is rarity

That's true, I raised that point a few posts back.

But what about cards that change rarity between sets?

 

[Istanbul]

I don't think rarity should be an issue at all. We're trying to determine which is a better card, not which is easier to get. We're going by card quality, not card value.

 

[Spiderman]

So rare cards are not necessarily better than uncommons and commons when comparing the same cc, p/t, and color?

 

[Mikeymike]

I definitely agree with Istanbul.

Quoted from BigBlue

Is it really fair to compare Mother of Runes to Tundra Wolves or Devoted Caretaker, or Soul Warden to Savannah Lion?

Yes it is, because when it comes down to building your deck you are going to be objective (or you should be if you are trying to make a competitive deck) and you are going to select the best creatures available to you. If you're building a WW deck and you have 4 Savannah Lions, you'll probably include them. If you don't have them, then you might consider Tundra Wolves.

When it comes to playing particular cards, you don't get extra points for playing a common creature over a rare creature, you'll only do so if that common is simply the better card for your deck.

A quick comparison regarding the above point:
Blastoderm vs. Erithizon vs. Darba
No they aren't the same PT but this common is better than these rare and uncommon cards in almost every situation.

Skizzik vs. Gerrard's Irregulars

 

[Spiderman]

hazily knowing why WOTC makes cards a certain rarity, can it be said that a rare would be better than a common when thinking about design? I.e. it's given an extra ability specifically for that reason?

 

[Mikeymike]

Of course it could, but that's not always the case. That's why I don't think rarity should be an issue when comparing creatures. Besides, that restriction wasn't imposed at the beginning of this discussion.

 

[Spiderman]

Perhaps different categories need to be mentioned then, such as within the same rarity and not.

arhar really hasn't spoken up since he posted this but perhaps he didn't think about this when he first thought of it.

 

[BigBlue]

If rarity is not an issue, then why is Birds of Pardise rare while Llanowar Elves is common?

They are both in the same set for crying out loud. Rarity Matters.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, that's slightly different. BoP has flying, is 0/1, and can produce ANY color.

Elves are 1/1 and just produce G.

I think we're talking something like Pearled Unicorn and Zhalfirin Knight. Both common, same cc, same P/t, yet the Knight has flanking and an activated ability.

Oops, that's the same commonality. I can't think of different commonalities but are the same everything else. Timber Wolves and Benalish Hero come to mind, but they're different colors.

 

[BigBlue]

Originally posted by Spiderman
Well, that's slightly different. BoP has flying, is 0/1, and can produce ANY color.

Elves are 1/1 and just produce G.

I think we're talking something like Pearled Unicorn and Zhalfirin Knight. Both common, same cc, same P/t, yet the Knight has flanking and an activated ability.

Oops, that's the same commonality. I can't think of different commonalities but are the same everything else. Timber Wolves and Benalish Hero come to mind, but they're different colors.

But I submit that is the Natural progression of the game. How many boosters of Mirage would you have bought if as many creatures came without abilities as did in Alpha? The limited expansions always have abilities on cards more than the original set.

Even before the newer sets that was the case. Kird ape vs Mon's Gobs, Flying men vs Merfolk of the Pearl, ...

Nowadays too, they have gotten better about balancing the cycles of cards, whereas before I think Will O'Wisp was the Black 1 cc creature of Alpha? is my memory failing me here? if it were a true cycle Black would have gotten a 1/1 Zombie with no abilities, Benalish Hero wouldn't be the singer in a rock 'n roll band, and Llanowar Elves wouldn't be a mana maker.

And are you saying Elves are better then because they are 1/1? While you can get a little early beats in with elf, I'll take a bird over it any day unless I'm playing Mono-Green. I thought we were comparing CC, not P/T. Birds is still one of the hardest cards to trade for, Flying Chump blocker if need be, and makes every 5C Green deck viable.

 

[Mikeymike]

EDIT: NOTE: This was submitted before I saw BigBlue's last post.

The rarity comparison has many, many holes in it. Go back 8 posts and read Istanbul's comment, he hits the nail on the head.

Rarity of a card has no direct effect on the makeup and outcome of a game of Magic, a card being rare will never win or lose you a game. It is a measure of a cards worth and classifyer of commonality, a totally subjective attribute of the card. A creatures good P/T to Casting Cost ratio will win you the game, or its activated ability will win you the game - not its rarity.

In general rare cards are better, but because this is simply frequently untrue, it just shouldn't be a factor in this comparison. Why did people run Blastoderm in their MBC decks and not Erithizon or Darba? Because its a better card, not b/c its an easy to get common.

Answer me this question. When you are selecting cards for a deck and you are trying to make the best deck possible, why would you put Grey Ogre in the deck instead Granite Gargoyle?

 

[Spiderman]

BigBlue: I'm not saying the Elves are better than the Birds necessarily, what I was saying was that there are too many differences to really compare the two in terms of this topic.

Mikeymike: But I submit that because cards are made with rarity in mind, a strict comparison without taking it into account means the comparison is already flawed.

Besides, I don't even think you can really compare Blastoderm with Erithizon and Darba because they're not really what we're talking about. B & E have two different abilities (Fading and untargetability vs. gaining a counter) and Darba has a different cc to begin with AND a different p/t. It's like comparing Benalish Hero with Tragic Poet; they both have the same cc and p/t, but two different abilities. There's no "baseline".

This is what I understood the question behind the thread:

What creatures are superior to others when every other factor is the same: cc, color, p/t, commonality, and a "baseline" of a shared ability. As such, everything gets compared to Pearled Unicorn or Gray Ogre because they HAVE no ability; that's the baseline. But you can't really compare two creatures with two different abilities because then you're not really arguing which is superior, you're arguing which is more situational.

 

[BigBlue]

Originally posted by Mikeymike

Answer me this question. When you are selecting cards for a deck and you are trying to make the best deck possible, why would you put Grey Ogre in the deck instead Granite Gargoyle?

I never said I would use a Grey Ogre, just that it isn't fair in a comparison of "cards" not the game, to compare the Ogre to the Gargoyle. I only ever got 1 gargoyle in all the boxes of Revised I bought, so doesn't that matter? If rarity was not a factor, and we all had 4 of every card available, then Grey ogre wouldn't even have been printed. Wizards printed Ogre to fill our decks, and Gargoyle to embelish them. How could they have known the extents they'd reach years later when they printed say Suq'atta Lancer with Haste and Flanking same P/T, CC, and rarity as the Ogre?

I will stop kicking this dead whorse.

 

[BigBlue]

Originally posted by Spiderman
BigBlue: I'm not saying the Elves are better than the Birds necessarily, what I was saying was that there are too many differences to really compare the two in terms of this topic.

I guess I misunderstood the topic, I thought it was CC vs CC, not CC & P/T vs . . .

otherwise it isn't apples to oranges they both cost the same. As a player when I build decks, the primary thing I look at is CC & Abilities, not P/T. In fact I'd say P/T is somewhat an ability, the creature has the "Ability" to do P damage and take T damage.

But again, I'll stop kicking the dead whorse.

 

[Mikeymike]

Fair enough, as Spidey pointed out I started drifting off point anyway, man I've got to learn to stop my rambling. I should pay more attention to my own sig

 

[Spiderman]

Well, I think it started out with rather "open" requirements. I just think before we do comparing we should nail down the requirements a bit more so everyone's on the same page. Otherwise we get these arguments

 

[Istanbul]

A creature's statistics, for our purposes, include:

Power
Toughness
Casting cost
Special abilities (banding, flanking, flying, whatever)

One creature can only be compared to another in terms of direct superiority when one and ONLY one of these are different between the two. When special abilities are called into question, they must be identical except that one creature must have abilities that another doesn't; banding vs. banding & flanking is okay, banding vs. flying isn't.

Eager Cadet and Benalish Hero can be compared because Power, Toughness, and Casting Cost are the same, but Special Abilities are different.

Eager Cadet and Savannah Lions can be compared because Toughness, Casting Cost, and Special Abilities are the same, but Power is different.

Prodigal Sorceror and Thornwood Faeries can NOT be compared, because while Power and Toughness are the same, Casting Cost and Special Abilities are different.

 

[Spiderman]

This I can go with

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by Istanbul
A creature's statistics, for our purposes, include:

Power
Toughness
Casting cost
Special abilities (banding, flanking, flying, whatever)

One creature can only be compared to another in terms of direct superiority when one and ONLY one of these are different between the two.

I disagree.
For example: (hypothetical cards)

2W
flying
3/3

is directly superior to

3W
2/2

even though none of the statistics are the same.

In order to determine if a creature is directly superior, every single statistic of the subpar creature must be equal or directly worse to the superior creature.

BTW, you can ALWAYS find situations in the game when a subpar creature is somehow better than the superior one (Meekstone, Hurricane, Treachery, Pernicious Deed etc.)