Creatures that are directly superior to others?

Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by arhar, Nov 21, 2001.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    That's not what I interpreted the intent of the original post to be.

    What we're trying to do is find out what cards WOTC has made with the same characteristics, starting out with cc from the original post but Isty did a great job narrowing it down, and seeing which ones are better in that context.

    I.E. starting with the "vanilla" creatures of Gray Ogre, Pearled Unicorn, Hurloon Minataur, and Eager Cadet and going from there.

    However, I might edit Isty's "one and only one" to "shares at least one". Like "flying, flanking, banding" is superior to just 'Flying" when everything else he mentions is the same.
  2. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    Why doesn't someone start a new thread with exact parameters that have to be met, this is getting too wacky for me to keep track of, my head is hurting me.

    Must...concentrate...
    Spirit of the Night vs. Quirion Elves
    .
    Academy Recotr vs. Squee
    .
    ARGHHHHH!
  3. Ransac CPA Trash Man

    If I was a creature, I'd be superior to every other creature! :D


    Ransac, cpa trash man
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Apparently we still have to nail/agree on the parameters. I vote for Isty's with my modification.

    Or even if you don't agree with the idea of Isty's parameters, you can still vote for it and just restrict yourself to them just for the fun of it. :)
  5. Sammy Dead-O wasting away again

    Where would Goblin Spy vs. Mons' Goblin Raiders stand in this?

    Oh yeah...Scarwood Goblins vs. Yavimaya Barbarian works.
  6. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    Goblin Spy is clearly inferior to Mon's Goblin Raiders. :D

    Seriously, though, let's think about this. Mon's Goblin Raiders is vanilla. Goblin Spy has either an advantage or a drawback, depending on the deck and how you look at it. However, from a metagame perspective, I think we can accurately say that Mon's Goblin Raiders is totally useless - If you want a vanilla creature, there are better ones, and if you want Goblins, there are better ones. However, Goblin Spy is irreplacable. There are (admittably bad) decks out there that rely on Goblin Spy's ability. So, Goblin Spy may eventually see play in a deck that looks on his ability as an advantage, whereas Mon's Goblin Raiders will almost always have a superior option available.

    Therefore, I must conclude that, in terms of the game as a whole, Goblin Spy is better than Mon's Goblin Raiders.

    *washes out mouth with soap*

    I HATE THAT CARD!!
  7. Sammy Dead-O wasting away again

    Nice analysis. I think I have to agree with you...
  8. fuzzy510 I Don't REALLY Exist

    Yes....but not DIRECTLY superior...........
  9. rakso New Member

    Well, I think Morphling > Air Elemental, Silver Wyvern... and just about every other blue creature with a casting cost of 4 or greater. :)
  10. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    And I think you are wrong.

    Morphling is like the 4th best blue creature.
  11. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    I think Lotus MOx is talking nonsense. The one card isnt directly superior to the other they ARE DIFFERENT and so they are CONDITIONALLY SUPERIOR.

    Dont believe me?

    I cast Hurricane for 3.
    Which creature is superior now?

    I cast Earthquake for 2.
    Which creature is superior now?

    I cast Void for 3, trying to pull Absorbs from your hand.
    Which creature is superior now?

    I cast Void for 4, trying to pull FoFs from your hand.
    Which creature is superior now?

    They are simply NOT directly superior. They are CONDITIONALLY superior. There ARE reasons to play the one and not the other, admittedly there are more reasons to play one that there are to play the other - but it IS a choice.
  12. Lotus Mox New Member

    I just wanted to say this again
  13. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Yes I know.

    But that doesnt make a creature DIRECTLY SUPERIOR you thick oink!

    Mooo?. Sometimes it`s like talking to a two year old kid.:mad:
  14. Lotus Mox New Member

    Gizmo, you just have a different viewpoint.

    No need to call be a thick oink.

    What I wanted to say with the words I quoted is that we really need to set borders in which a superiority can exist, I'm fairly certain it can't exist if you allow a certain class of interactions from real magic cards, and definitely is impossible to create with hypothetical cards, like

    RRRRR
    Wrath of Gizmo
    Sorcery
    Destroy all creatures with non-flavor card text. They can't be regenerated.

    My definition of direct superiority is correct, but my example isn't, if you don't allow flying to be directly superior to non-flying and a cheaper casting cost to be directly superior to a more expensive one.
  15. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    Gizmo: Every card, regardless of abilities, has times when it is inferior to a near-identical creature (or, at least, ALMOST every). I've spent a lot of time discussing direct superiority, and I believe the key issue here is the use of individual secondary cards.

    Once you factor in the use of specific cards, every card has its foil, and there's no point in trying to locate directly inferior creatures. I believe that once you need to start naming specific cards (or making up cards) to show that a creature is not directly superior, the point is moot, and the creature in question is better.

    You can NEVER show true direct superiority. Because there will ALWAYS be a case where one is better than another. But you can show a sort of quasi-direct superiority, which is what we've been doing through this entire thread. Nothing is completely solid, but it's still an interesting line of discussion.

    (To illustrate my example: Mogg Fanatic is directly inferior to Mons Goblin Raiders IF:

    Your opponent is at three. You control a tapped Mountain and two Mogg Fanatics/Mons Goblin Raiders in play, and a Lightning Bolt and a Mountain in your hand. You are at one. Your opponent has just sacrificed an Academy Rector, and its ability is resolving. At this point, you win the game if you have a Mons Goblin Raider, and lose if you have the Mogg Fanatic, because your opponent is going to Confiscate your Fanatic, and fling it at your head.

    Now, just because I can say that, are you willing to say Mogg Fanatic is no better than Mons Goblin Raiders? Didn't think so. I've been able to do that type of thing with EVERY comparison people have thrown at me in Magic. So we have to let the idea of "direct superiority" exist only in part, since as soon as name specific cards, any card can be shown to be weaker than any other.)
  16. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Sorry I was in a really really bad mood.

    Oops.
    :rolleyes:

    Aaaaaanyway...

    I think that you have to see that this is called creatures that are DIRECTLY superior. Now either you attach some credence to the word 'directly' in the title, or you might as well think the forum was called "Have you noticed some cards are better than others?"

    Incinerate is not directly superior to Shock, or even to Scorching Lava. It IS, however, directly superior to Volcanic Hammer.

    And if you think any of my spells would use any white mana at all, you`ve not been paying attention. It`s red all the way. Fire, chaos, anarchy, destruction - just my sort of bag.
  17. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Giz - I'm dying to know. If you think Morphling is the 4th best blue creature, which three are better?
  18. fuzzy510 I Don't REALLY Exist

    Couldn't a creature be directly superior to another if it had the same abilities, but cost 1 or 2 mana less?
  19. Lotus Mox New Member

    Powder Keg, Pernicious Deed ;)
  20. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Shadowmage Infiltrator
    Ophidian
    Rainbow Efreet

Share This Page