I think you guys misunderstand what "strictly better" means...it means the card is without a doubt 100% better in any situation. As a counterexample, If your opponent has no creatures and is at 1 life with no poison counters, I'd much rather have Femeref Scouts in play. Conversely, if I had an opponent with 20 life and 9 poison counters, I'd rather have Priests of Norn in play. An example of a strictly better card is how many would argue (in terms of power of cards) Demonic Tutor is strictly better than Diabolic Tutor since they have the exact same effect, except Demonic costs {1}{B} less.
@Tcollins. Yeah, but demonic tutor can be spell snare, but diabolic tutor cannot. So in that one case, diabolic is better. I think no card is strictly better by the literal definition, because you could always provide one card to change that.
madm3001
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Actually this card played an important role on Mirage Limited since it could stop most of the common creatures (2/2 flankers or four cost 3/3s).
Comments (7)
Yeah, but demonic tutor can be spell snare, but diabolic tutor cannot. So in that one case, diabolic is better. I think no card is strictly better by the literal definition, because you could always provide one card to change that.