Gotta love your good ol' Hill Giant let's hope for M10! :D
Soul_Shackle
★★☆☆☆ (2.6/5.0)(9 votes)
3/3 vanilla for 4 mana? No thanks, not even in a Giant deck.
MasterOfEtherium
★☆☆☆☆ (1.1/5.0)(19 votes)
Fortunately, hill giants have large blind spots in which a human can easily hide. Unfortunately, these blind spots are beneath the bottoms of their feet.
Volcre
★☆☆☆☆ (1.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Art isn't bad... but I'm so glad that this thing has finally been killed off for M10...
BelloAbril
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(10 votes)
Oh, hai guise, you thought i left the core sets? Canyon Minotaur
A3Kitsune
★★☆☆☆ (2.4/5.0)(4 votes)
Previos versions of this card had better art.
Studoku
★★★☆☆ (3.2/5.0)(5 votes)
Nice flavour text but it's a pretty poor card.
ScissorsLizard
★★★☆☆ (3.4/5.0)(9 votes)
The only really noteworthy thing about this card is that it's probably the only one in which MasterOfEtherium didn't capitalize every word of his comment. I'd say he's grown to become less annoying, except that comment is just a copy/paste from the flavor text.
WhiteyMcFly
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(9 votes)
You gotta love the classics. despite the existence of better cards, you gotta admit this is a good pick in limited.
Hill Giant isn't strictly worse than those cards, other than the complex interactions between different cards, no card with an ability is better than the same card without an ability because of Muraganda Petroglyphs which for some reason I can't auto card
Even if one of those cards was a 5/5 it doesn't guarantee that its better, then its power five, it could be returned to hand with a Cowardice and a Mosstodon
With all the cards in Magic, there is no card that's strictly better. Perhaps you can in standard, or like a standard set (like Ravinca Block)
If anyone else has one card that's strictly better in comparison to the other card, if you link them here I will post how its not strictly better on that card
Strictly better, is better at all times in the game, no matter what. Card A that is strictly better than card B, card B should never be played (except if card A can't be played)
@ICEFANG13: Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. I dare you to demonstrate that it's not true!
"Strictly better" cards actually exist! Examples: "compare Grizzly Bears and the strictly better Wild Mongrel" from Arcana: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/arcana/451
"example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock." from Mark Rosewater: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr65 that give a definition of "strictly better": "“Strictly better” means that one card is in all occurrences (within reason) better than another."
My personal definition of "strictly better" is "better stats, given everything else unchanged". Listing corner case in which a card can be worse than another doesn't means anything. For each of your examples, I can give a lot of counter-examples...
@ICEFANG13: Mark Rosewater said "example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock.", not (only) me... I think that MaRo's words are worth listen to.
Muraganda Petroglyphs doesn't make Grizzly Bears better than Wild Mongrel, because it's only one case. Nor it nullifies my statement. What are you saying is that there are some "circùmstances" (read "deck-building decision", or "game-play situation") where one card is preferible that another. Trust me, I agree with you: different circùmstances can make one card preferible than another, but that NOT means that a card is "strictly better" than another (or that it isn't...). Following your logic, I can say: "A 100$ banknote isn't better than a 1$ one, because if somebody robs me in the second case I lose only 1$...". What am I saying is that Wild Mongrel has better values than Grizzly Bears (the "discard a card" ability), given everything else unchanged. Following my logic I can say: "With a 100$ banknote I can do a lot more than with a 1$ one (but if somebody robs me I lose 100$, not 1$...)". You can only say that Wild Mongrel isn't strictly better than Grizzly Bears because they haven't the same creature type, but we both know that Bear and Hound aren't types very supported...
As for the card, I think that (as all "Vanilla") is very "basilar", something that has to exist because it show the curve of mana for each color. Then, it can be beaten by some other card in some expansion... For its "basic-ness", I give it an average 2.5/5
Ligerman30
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Can you say lightning rod?
Shieldman
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
@ICEFANG13
So your argument is that a 10/10 for GG is not strictly better than a 2/2 for GG because Mind Control exists?
Kirbster
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I hear a lot of talking tough, but I have yet to see a Magic player who could take on a Hill Giant in a fight.
Scathing jealousy detected.
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
This card still has nice art, and nice flavor text. You can try to win with x4 hill giants in your deck just for the fun and the flavor, and hes always played in drafts.
psychichobo
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I think what bugs me most about this card is the bad rep he gives giants.
Seriously. As well as the TItans, there's also Jareth, Leonine Titan and the immense amount of Lorwyn Tribal support available, and yet when people think of giants... they think of this guy.
Sigh.
Continue
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
It's crap, but it's classic crap. One of Magic's iconic creatures, simply because it's become a byword for bad vanilla creatures.
DarthParallax
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Don't feed the Troll. ICEFANG is a pessimistic, or a cynic, or a nihilist, or a just-bad-at-math-ist, or whatever he is.
He will be sad forever until he realizes that "Strictly Better" is a thing. He will even if he is happy, be failing to gain the happiness that comes from believing in Strictly Betterness, and thus he will not be Strictly Happy no matter how much he protests that he can be happy and that he is not a cynic. He will only prove his Happiness is stunted because it caps out in such a way that he can be just as equally unsatisfied or satisfied with a Hill Giant as with an Ogre Arsonist. Say what you want about the {1} mana difference, I wouldn't play Hill Giant in any deck I can imagine that wouldn't rather play the Ogre. EVEN B.S. Dredge Decks need lands. Eggs is an entirely different sort of B.S. that also does not change that Hill Giant is worse because you aren't going to have a Metagame be allowed that revolves around Eggs being Tier 1.
ICEFANG- you are making the mistake of thinking that if you put Cards A and B each in different Situations 1 and 2, you can somehow prove things that, if they were true, would imply there's not such a thing as Strictly Better. Basic Economics couldn't exist in the world if you were right. You have to change only 1 variable at a time, which means keeping Card A and B both in Situation 1 or both in Situation 2. Even if your opponent has the answer cards, the Strictly Better cards are actually Strictly Better:
If you are packing Vanilla Creatures with low power:mana cost ratios against a deck full of counterspells and creature destruction and such, your opponent has many cards they can use to swing the game around in their favor, whereas all you can do is attack and hope you aren't blocked. If you fill your deck with Ogre Arsonist's and the like, though- creatures which your opponent may or may not sabotage- you are giving your deck the ability to swing back around from a disadvantage as well. If they steal or destroy your creature, you can play more cards and steal or destroy their cards, and you either reach dynamic equilibrium or you successfully counter the enemy's last move for the win. Your game will be as close to objectively fun as possible because both decks have good winning chances against each other.
On the other hand, if you play only Hill Giants, you fall behind once, you stay behind, you lose, and you die, with really statistically no chance of success beyond an outrageously improbable Act of Providence that mana screws or floods your opponent during the same turns your mana:spell flow suddenly rights itself. Since the Hill Giants are not worth having a deck whose main strategy for victory is Praying that God Mana Screws your opponent, compared to a deck that has a reasonable chance of actually Producing a Game of Magic if you play it, then that is why we say some cards are Strictly Better.
Try playing Limited with any pack of Modern cards. Now try playing Legends-Antiquities-Homelands Limited.
Tell me with a straight face that Limited was playable back then, and was somehow not Strictly Inferior to Limited today. Limited isn't the ONLY format, but most sets produce some kind of reasonable Standard environment. Being able to support Standard and Limited at the same time is why Cards now are More Fun (usually) and the way they often do this is by being Strictly Better than old cards that Just Sucked, even from a mean Developer's perspective who would argue some cards need to be weaker. "Not that weak."
Aquillion
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Overpriced, boring and terrible. Why did they keep printing this card? It was never useful in any edition.
Who says you can't have 32 of the exact same card? Suck it, Relentless Rats.
The_Erudite_Idiot
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Because Mountainwalk is too much to ask for.
CFLuke
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I don't know why people say that this used to be the mana curve. This was never on the mana curve. Even way back in the day, this (along with Gray Ogre) was unplayable.
Comments (24)
Steamflogger Boss
War-spike Changeling
Coal Stoker
Furnace Brood
Hatcher Bully
Kavu Runner
Lavaborn Muse
Lord of Shatterskull Pass
Lowland Oaf
Roc of Kher Ridges
Rosheen Meanderer
The following cards are always better in a mono-red deck:
Talruum Minotaur
Stone Giant
Viashino Fangtail
Zerapa Minotaur
Clickslither
Cyclops Gladiator
Flowstone Giant
Goblin Razerrunners
Highland Giant
Lowland Giant
Mudbrawler Raiders
Pardic Arsonist
Raging Minotaur
Shatterskull Giant
Sootwalkers
Spitemare
Creatures: Barbarian Horde x4, Canyon Minotaur x4, Hill Giant x4, Lagac Lizard x4, Ogre Warrior x4, Tor Giant x4, Wild Jhovall x4, Shu Elite Infantry x4, Trokin High Guard x4, Giant Octopus x4
Lands: Mountan x14, Plains x4, Island x2
I didn't say it was a good deck...
Hill Giant isn't strictly worse than those cards, other than the complex interactions between different cards, no card with an ability is better than the same card without an ability because of
Muraganda Petroglyphs which for some reason I can't auto card
Even if one of those cards was a 5/5 it doesn't guarantee that its better, then its power five, it could be returned to hand with a Cowardice and a Mosstodon
With all the cards in Magic, there is no card that's strictly better. Perhaps you can in standard, or like a standard set (like Ravinca Block)
If anyone else has one card that's strictly better in comparison to the other card, if you link them here I will post how its not strictly better on that card
@ leomistico, I already said why Grizzly Bears isn't strictly better than Wild Mongrel
Muraganda Petroglyphs
Strictly better, is better at all times in the game, no matter what. Card A that is strictly better than card B, card B should never be played (except if card A can't be played)
Lightning Bolt isn't strictly better than Shock. A Lightning Bolt that is Swerved will kill the Cliffrunner Behemoth you control, while a Swerved Shock will not. They would both be ample to deal with Dreadwing . In this situation Lightning Bolt isn't better than Shock, and therefore not strictly better.
Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. I dare you to demonstrate that it's not true!
"Strictly better" cards actually exist! Examples:
"compare Grizzly Bears and the strictly better Wild Mongrel" from Arcana:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/arcana/451
"example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock." from Mark Rosewater:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr65
that give a definition of "strictly better":
"“Strictly better” means that one card is in all occurrences (within reason) better than another."
My personal definition of "strictly better" is "better stats, given everything else unchanged".
Listing corner case in which a card can be worse than another doesn't means anything. For each of your examples, I can give a lot of counter-examples...
@ICEFANG13:
Mark Rosewater said "example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock.", not (only) me... I think that MaRo's words are worth listen to.
Muraganda Petroglyphs doesn't make Grizzly Bears better than Wild Mongrel, because it's only one case. Nor it nullifies my statement. What are you saying is that there are some "circùmstances" (read "deck-building decision", or "game-play situation") where one card is preferible that another. Trust me, I agree with you: different circùmstances can make one card preferible than another, but that NOT means that a card is "strictly better" than another (or that it isn't...).
Following your logic, I can say: "A 100$ banknote isn't better than a 1$ one, because if somebody robs me in the second case I lose only 1$...".
What am I saying is that Wild Mongrel has better values than Grizzly Bears (the "discard a card" ability), given everything else unchanged. Following my logic I can say: "With a 100$ banknote I can do a lot more than with a 1$ one (but if somebody robs me I lose 100$, not 1$...)".
You can only say that Wild Mongrel isn't strictly better than Grizzly Bears because they haven't the same creature type, but we both know that Bear and Hound aren't types very supported...
As for the card, I think that (as all "Vanilla") is very "basilar", something that has to exist because it show the curve of mana for each color. Then, it can be beaten by some other card in some expansion...
For its "basic-ness", I give it an average 2.5/5
So your argument is that a 10/10 for GG is not strictly better than a 2/2 for GG because Mind Control exists?
Scathing jealousy detected.
Seriously. As well as the TItans, there's also Jareth, Leonine Titan and the immense amount of Lorwyn Tribal support available, and yet when people think of giants... they think of this guy.
Sigh.
He will be sad forever until he realizes that "Strictly Better" is a thing. He will even if he is happy, be failing to gain the happiness that comes from believing in Strictly Betterness, and thus he will not be Strictly Happy no matter how much he protests that he can be happy and that he is not a cynic. He will only prove his Happiness is stunted because it caps out in such a way that he can be just as equally unsatisfied or satisfied with a Hill Giant as with an Ogre Arsonist. Say what you want about the {1} mana difference, I wouldn't play Hill Giant in any deck I can imagine that wouldn't rather play the Ogre. EVEN B.S. Dredge Decks need lands. Eggs is an entirely different sort of B.S. that also does not change that Hill Giant is worse because you aren't going to have a Metagame be allowed that revolves around Eggs being Tier 1.
ICEFANG- you are making the mistake of thinking that if you put Cards A and B each in different Situations 1 and 2, you can somehow prove things that, if they were true, would imply there's not such a thing as Strictly Better. Basic Economics couldn't exist in the world if you were right. You have to change only 1 variable at a time, which means keeping Card A and B both in Situation 1 or both in Situation 2. Even if your opponent has the answer cards, the Strictly Better cards are actually Strictly Better:
If you are packing Vanilla Creatures with low power:mana cost ratios against a deck full of counterspells and creature destruction and such, your opponent has many cards they can use to swing the game around in their favor, whereas all you can do is attack and hope you aren't blocked.
If you fill your deck with Ogre Arsonist's and the like, though- creatures which your opponent may or may not sabotage- you are giving your deck the ability to swing back around from a disadvantage as well. If they steal or destroy your creature, you can play more cards and steal or destroy their cards, and you either reach dynamic equilibrium or you successfully counter the enemy's last move for the win. Your game will be as close to objectively fun as possible because both decks have good winning chances against each other.
On the other hand, if you play only Hill Giants, you fall behind once, you stay behind, you lose, and you die, with really statistically no chance of success beyond an outrageously improbable Act of Providence that mana screws or floods your opponent during the same turns your mana:spell flow suddenly rights itself. Since the Hill Giants are not worth having a deck whose main strategy for victory is Praying that God Mana Screws your opponent, compared to a deck that has a reasonable chance of actually Producing a Game of Magic if you play it, then that is why we say some cards are Strictly Better.
Try playing Limited with any pack of Modern cards.
Now try playing Legends-Antiquities-Homelands Limited.
Tell me with a straight face that Limited was playable back then, and was somehow not Strictly Inferior to Limited today. Limited isn't the ONLY format, but most sets produce some kind of reasonable Standard environment. Being able to support Standard and Limited at the same time is why Cards now are More Fun (usually) and the way they often do this is by being Strictly Better than old cards that Just Sucked, even from a mean Developer's perspective who would argue some cards need to be weaker.
"Not that weak."
4x Hill Giant
4x Lagac Lizard
4x Russet Wolves
4x Orge Warrior
4x Barbarian Horde
4x Canyon Minotaur
4x Wild Jhovall
4x Tor Giant
28x Mountain
Who says you can't have 32 of the exact same card? Suck it, Relentless Rats.
Way back then, for 3B, you got Bog Wraith
for 3U you got Phantom Monster
for the same cost, 3R you got Roc of Kher Ridges
for 3G you got War Mammoth
for an easier casting cost of 4, you get Juggernaut
at 2RR, Dragon Whelp was massively better, and Stone Giant got you an extra point of toughness plus an obscure additional ability, and for one additional R, you can get either Fire Elemental or Earth Elemental, neither of which ever saw much play...