The Wizards Community Card Comparison thread is an ongoing effort to catalog comparable Magic cards, including those that are strictly inferior to others. I've often wanted a list of all the 'strictly worse' cards in Magic, so here it is (all non-'inferior' comparisons were removed):
Please note that all "better" comparisons are subjective. There will always be situations, both in gameplay and in deckbuilding, where the 'worse' card could be a better option, so there's really no card in Magic that could ever be better than any other in the absolute sense. You might very well want to use Volcanic Hammer over Incinerate in your Magnivore-based deck, for example, and there's always a possibility (albeit a rather unrealistic one) that at some point you'd rather have a Shock in hand than a Lightning Bolt.
The purpose of this list, especially the borderline and strictly better portions, is to guide players towards alternatives to the cards they're currently using that they may not have even known existed. The better sections are intended to provide generally helpful suggestions, not condemnations of the 'worse' cards. If you're a good enough player to recognize that sometimes the very thing that makes one card 'worse' than another can be turned to your advantage, you're good enough to know when to ignore this list and go with the 'worse' card.
The better card (Card A) must:
Provide all the inherent benefits provided by the worse card. (Card B)
Have no inherent drawbacks that Card B does not also have.
Have the same or fewer color-commitment requirements in its costs as Card B.
Have any combination of the following attributes:
Fewer inherent drawbacks than Card B.
A lower inherent cost than Card B.
More inherent options than Card B.
More inherent benefits than Card B.
For determining what's a drawback and what's a beneficial ability or "advantage", use common sense. Forced self-discard, for example, is a drawback, while activated discard is a beneficial ability.
Some general rules to follow when figuring out strictly better-ness:
Consider it in a vacuum.
When figuring out whether an effect of a card is a benefit or a drawback, consider it in a vacuum--all other things being equal, is this a good thing? Don't even consider the other effects of the card itself. Yes, this creates a number of "strictly better" pairs that don't really make sense when you consider the entirety of the card (Thicket Basilisk < Cockatrice, for example), but allowing exceptions to this creates a slippery slope. For example, there are many situations where putting cards into your graveyard can be a good thing. So if that's the case, wouldn't Concentrate < Sift? Not as far as we're concerned.
The only exception that is permitted to this rule is that if a card has only one possible effect, that effect is not considered a drawback. (This is mostly so that we don't have to list One with Nothing as being < almost everything.)
Note that some abilities can be both a benefit and a drawback. Mandatory effects that can benefit you and can hurt you in different situations fall into this category, as do abilities such as shroud and protection. For comparisons involving such effects, see the "borderline better" guidelines below.
In addition, this list assumes that "more is better", even when it comes to mandatory or global effects that could potentially harm you. So something that gives all creatures -1/-1 is considered worse than something that gives all creatures -2/-2 for the same price, for instance, even though it will kill off your X/2s when the 'worse' card would not.
Types
Types with no rules-inherent benefits or drawbacks are ignored, be they card types or subtypes; those with them are not. (Goblin, Beast, and Arcane are ignored; Aura, Legendary, and Equipment are not.)
Artifact, Enchantment, and Tribal are treated as placeholder types for the purposes of this list, as there are no rules that would make being any of these three an inherent benefit, nor an inherent drawback.
Creatures and Lands can't be compared to cards without those card types, due to the rules-inherent benefits and drawbacks of being a creature or land. For the same reason, permanent cards and nonpermanent cards are incomparable. Planeswalkers can be worse than noncreature, nonland permanents as they have inherent drawbacks and no inherent benefits; however, it's unlikely a planeswalker that could be compared to an existing artifact or enchantment would be printed.
Instants can be compared with Sorceries, because as far as the rules are concerned, the two are identical save only that instants have an advantage that sorceries do not. (Or looking at it the other way, sorceries are instants with a drawback.)
Cards with different color requirements in their mana costs can be compared; to do so, for each card, imagine all mana symbols in the mana cost of one color are "C", all those of the second are "D", and so on.
A card's name, color, placeholder types, and expansion symbols are all irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. This means that cards that care about these attributes or characteristic-defining abilities that set these characteristics are also irrelevant. (Note that while color is irrelevant, mana requirements are not.)
Effects that effectively allow your opponent to play with your stuff (control-changing effects, copy effects, target-changing effects, etc.) are not taken into consideration, because they would invalidate this entire list. For this reason, targeting flexibility is preferred over the possibility of redirection. (Temporal Manipulation < Time Warp)
Un-Cards (Cards from Unglued and Unhinged) are disallowed, because they cause too many weird arguments. Case in point: Mesa Chicken vs. Leonin Skyhunter
The better card (Card A) must be strictly better than the worse card (Card B) as defined above, save only for the exceptions outlined below:
The keyword abilities Protection, , , Recover, Shadow, Split Second, Cascade, and Rebound, which are normally considered to be mixed benefits and drawbacks, are considered strict benefits. The Haunt keyword ability (normally considered a drawback as its only inherent impact is exiling the card) is assumed to be neutral, being neither a benefit nor a drawback.
Cards which grant some bonus to some subset of cards which will normally include themselves are considered to inherently have that bonus. If a card grants some bonus to some subset of cards which might include your opponent's permanents, that possibility is ignored. This means, for example, that Muscle Sliver would be considered better than Runeclaw Bear, where normally it would be an invalid comparison as Muscle Sliver has the possibility of helping your opponent's Slivers and it could potentially lose its own bonus.
The Legendary and World supertypes, usually considered both a benefit and a drawback, are considered strict drawbacks.
Cards which produce token creatures are considered comparable to creature cards.
Corner cases where a card may have some drawback when reanimated or when the normal casting process is otherwise circumvented are ignored. This means, for example, that the presence of the Morph keyword ability makes any card it appears on automatically considered borderline better than any creature card that would be strictly worse than a colorless 2/2 for three colorless mana.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to preserve all the cards that these inferior cards are being compared to. (they wouldn't fit in a single post) See the original thread, or the document at the end of this post to see which cards are strictly or borderline superior. While I think the card comparison thread does a great job for what it is, there are a number of concerns I have that affect its usefulness:
Format
Because a format's card pool & ban list doesn't influence inferiority, there are a number of cards listed here that, while strictly inferior, are not so considering those 2 items. For example, though Inspiration is strictly worse than Ancestral Recall, it's not strictly worse than any card within Standard, Pauper, and possibly other formats that the latter is illegal in.
Color & Type
The comparisons are done without regard for color, so many comparisons are made that result in claims like Abbey Gargoyles < Malakir Bloodwitch. They both have Flying, Protection from a color, stats >= 3/4, and a CMC of 5. The Bloodwitch has more power, less color commitment, and an ETB drain-life effect, but because color is ignored, may not be useable due to its different color requirements. Similarly, Seat of the Synod is listed here as being < Tundra and the other original dual lands because its Artifact type is ignored. Obviously, being an artifact can be useful in some cases, so the comparison won't always stand.
Abilities
Many abilities are difficult to classify, and are simply ignored for the purposes of comparison, which leads to comparisons such as Brainstorm < Ancestral Recall. In many cases, this is likely true, but the ability to setup a Miracle, or hide an important card from an opponent's Cabal Therapy is something that Ancestral Recall can't do.
I'm trying to separate the commons (for pauper) that are inferior to other commons from those that are inferior to cards of other rarities. So far, I've split the commons apart. Anyone have ideas for further separating them without a lot of manual editing?
Also, as this is the only real comprehensive list for such card comparisons, if anyone has ideas for implementing rules or automation that would make these lists more useful, please share! I'm sure the people who work on it would appreciate it.
1st seat of the synod unless your comparing it to a mox (which is banned all but vintage) it is not strictly worse than anything else. It is used for being an artifact tho it makes it easier to remove doesn't mean it is worth. But you made your point with not counting it, but comparing something to the power 9 isn't really fair.
Another thing is it seems like you have the odd out of color spells in here when in color they don't really have something better. Temporal extortion is not strictly worse than anything because there is nothing like it in black (some in colorless but have their own drawbacks). If you try to say color doesn't matter, that is false because I can't play certain spells if my deck doesn't contain that color, aka how is it STRICTLY worse than something I can't play in certain decks.
1st seat of the synod unless your comparing it to a mox (which is banned all but vintage) it is not strictly worse than anything else. It is used for being an artifact tho it makes it easier to remove doesn't mean it is worth. But you made your point with not counting it, but comparing something to the power 9 isn't really fair.
Another thing is it seems like you have the odd out of color spells in here when in color they don't really have something better. Temporal extortion is not strictly worse than anything because there is nothing like it in black (some in colorless but have their own drawbacks). If you try to say color doesn't matter, that is false because I can't play certain spells if my deck doesn't contain that color, aka how is it STRICTLY worse than something I can't play in certain decks.
That's the exact issue that I brought up on the thread I got the lists from, along with the format restrictions that I mention here. Ideally, I'd want this list to be interactive, so that I can filter away off-colored cards, different rarities, sets, or formats, as well as set which effects are inherent benefits/disadvantages such as being an artifact. I'm hoping that zammm and the others who work on it have it saved somewhere with relevant card information. Otherwise, my ideal's going to be quite difficult to create.
As for Seat of the Synod, I believe one of their criteria was that artifacts are considered a 'placeholder type' and offer no inherent advantages or disadvantages. With its artifact status effectively ignored, Tundra and the other ABUR duals are strictly better.
You need to define your criteria. These threads pop up every few weeks and always devolve into bickering about the minutia of what "strictly inferior" means. Left unchecked there is a way to make any card be the right card for a given situation.
As for Seat of the Synod, I believe one of their criteria was that artifacts are considered a 'placeholder type' and offer no inherent advantages or disadvantages. With its artifact status effectively ignored, Tundra and the other ABUR duals are strictly better.
In Affinity, ABUR duals are strictly worse than Seat of the Synod, since they don't reduce the cost of your Affinity spells by 1
That's the problem with "strictly worse" lists, they ignore context, which is hugely important. Thats why these threads often devolve into cards failing the Mindslaver test or corner cases where any card can be better than any other card. Context matters.
Ok... there's one scenario....
When someone has a Meddling Mage out naming Spell Burst, you'd rather have a Spell Blast in your hand.... haha
But this scenario is true for almost every single comparison you could make... except that Seat of Synod vs Mox Sapphire someone raised...
Brainstorm is on there. I suppose in the bizarro universe that list originates from it's worse than... what? Ancestral Recall? Because no-one ever wanted to stack the top of the libray for U?
You need to define your criteria. These threads pop up every few weeks and always devolve into bickering about the minutia of what "strictly inferior" means. Left unchecked there is a way to make any card be the right card for a given situation.
Just a friendly warning.
Apparently, I wasn't clear enough in saying where the list(s) came from. I've updated the OP with the rules criteria and better acknowledged the original source, as well as linked to a downloadable version of said source.
But the Bloodwitch is in a different color and can't block red creatures with impunity every turn. I don't see how the two are even comparable in the context of this thread
EDIT: Sorry, I reread your definitions and noticed the part about this. I can't agree because I think your definitions are off-base (Phyrexian Crusader's protections often seem better than Mirran Crusader's because of Red and White removal are fairly common even though they have the same amount of protections; Mana Leak in Red would be more powerful than it is in Blue because Mono-Red doesn't have access to that effect; et cetera) , but using strictly better-inferior as you defined them this is an accurate case.
Please note that all "better" comparisons are subjective. There will always be situations, both in gameplay and in deckbuilding, where the 'worse' card could be a better option, so there's really no card in Magic that could ever be better than any other in the absolute sense. You might very well want to use Volcanic Hammer over Incinerate in your Magnivore-based deck, for example, and there's always a possibility (albeit a rather unrealistic one) that at some point you'd rather have a Shock in hand than a Lightning Bolt.
The purpose of this list, especially the borderline and strictly better portions, is to guide players towards alternatives to the cards they're currently using that they may not have even known existed. The better sections are intended to provide generally helpful suggestions, not condemnations of the 'worse' cards. If you're a good enough player to recognize that sometimes the very thing that makes one card 'worse' than another can be turned to your advantage, you're good enough to know when to ignore this list and go with the 'worse' card.
For determining what's a drawback and what's a beneficial ability or "advantage", use common sense. Forced self-discard, for example, is a drawback, while activated discard is a beneficial ability.
Some general rules to follow when figuring out strictly better-ness:
The only exception that is permitted to this rule is that if a card has only one possible effect, that effect is not considered a drawback. (This is mostly so that we don't have to list One with Nothing as being < almost everything.)
Format
Because a format's card pool & ban list doesn't influence inferiority, there are a number of cards listed here that, while strictly inferior, are not so considering those 2 items. For example, though Inspiration is strictly worse than Ancestral Recall, it's not strictly worse than any card within Standard, Pauper, and possibly other formats that the latter is illegal in.
Color & Type
The comparisons are done without regard for color, so many comparisons are made that result in claims like Abbey Gargoyles < Malakir Bloodwitch. They both have Flying, Protection from a color, stats >= 3/4, and a CMC of 5. The Bloodwitch has more power, less color commitment, and an ETB drain-life effect, but because color is ignored, may not be useable due to its different color requirements. Similarly, Seat of the Synod is listed here as being < Tundra and the other original dual lands because its Artifact type is ignored. Obviously, being an artifact can be useful in some cases, so the comparison won't always stand.
Abilities
Many abilities are difficult to classify, and are simply ignored for the purposes of comparison, which leads to comparisons such as Brainstorm < Ancestral Recall. In many cases, this is likely true, but the ability to setup a Miracle, or hide an important card from an opponent's Cabal Therapy is something that Ancestral Recall can't do.
I'm trying to separate the commons (for pauper) that are inferior to other commons from those that are inferior to cards of other rarities. So far, I've split the commons apart. Anyone have ideas for further separating them without a lot of manual editing?
Also, as this is the only real comprehensive list for such card comparisons, if anyone has ideas for implementing rules or automation that would make these lists more useful, please share! I'm sure the people who work on it would appreciate it.
1st seat of the synod unless your comparing it to a mox (which is banned all but vintage) it is not strictly worse than anything else. It is used for being an artifact tho it makes it easier to remove doesn't mean it is worth. But you made your point with not counting it, but comparing something to the power 9 isn't really fair.
Another thing is it seems like you have the odd out of color spells in here when in color they don't really have something better. Temporal extortion is not strictly worse than anything because there is nothing like it in black (some in colorless but have their own drawbacks). If you try to say color doesn't matter, that is false because I can't play certain spells if my deck doesn't contain that color, aka how is it STRICTLY worse than something I can't play in certain decks.
That's the exact issue that I brought up on the thread I got the lists from, along with the format restrictions that I mention here. Ideally, I'd want this list to be interactive, so that I can filter away off-colored cards, different rarities, sets, or formats, as well as set which effects are inherent benefits/disadvantages such as being an artifact. I'm hoping that zammm and the others who work on it have it saved somewhere with relevant card information. Otherwise, my ideal's going to be quite difficult to create.
As for Seat of the Synod, I believe one of their criteria was that artifacts are considered a 'placeholder type' and offer no inherent advantages or disadvantages. With its artifact status effectively ignored, Tundra and the other ABUR duals are strictly better.
Just a friendly warning.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
In Affinity, ABUR duals are strictly worse than Seat of the Synod, since they don't reduce the cost of your Affinity spells by 1
That's the problem with "strictly worse" lists, they ignore context, which is hugely important. Thats why these threads often devolve into cards failing the Mindslaver test or corner cases where any card can be better than any other card. Context matters.
Spell Blast and Spell Burst
Ok... there's one scenario....
When someone has a Meddling Mage out naming Spell Burst, you'd rather have a Spell Blast in your hand.... haha
But this scenario is true for almost every single comparison you could make... except that Seat of Synod vs Mox Sapphire someone raised...
That list is pretty pointless.
Not even. Sometimes you just gotta hide something from Cabal Therapy.
Malakir Bloodwitch. Interesting, but not very useful, eh?
Apparently, I wasn't clear enough in saying where the list(s) came from. I've updated the OP with the rules criteria and better acknowledged the original source, as well as linked to a downloadable version of said source.
But the Bloodwitch is in a different color and can't block red creatures with impunity every turn. I don't see how the two are even comparable in the context of this thread
EDIT: Sorry, I reread your definitions and noticed the part about this. I can't agree because I think your definitions are off-base (Phyrexian Crusader's protections often seem better than Mirran Crusader's because of Red and White removal are fairly common even though they have the same amount of protections; Mana Leak in Red would be more powerful than it is in Blue because Mono-Red doesn't have access to that effect; et cetera) , but using strictly better-inferior as you defined them this is an accurate case.