|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 6:00AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
Thomas Andersson did not make Top 8 of the first Pro Tour; he made 9th place: www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.as...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 6:18AM
#22
|
|
|
Always good to read these stories, it's always good to see the past perspective on cards. I agree with the others that Desert Twister doesn't seem too horribly out of flavor. I've always agreed with the idea that ramping up the mana cost and maybe narrowing the focus of a mechanic (or adding a limitation). I think Hornet Sting  is a perfectly designed card. But definitely more stories, the further back the better.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 9:11AM
#23
|
|
|
what happened to Skaff?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 9:33AM
#24
|
|
|
I have no problem with Desert Twister.
I don't agree with Maro's hard line on the color pie: to me, the color pie is more an *inclination* towards certain abilities that colors do well, rather than a *inability* to do anything but those abilities that are on-color.
Green is not the color of creature kill, which is why it has to pay 6 instead of 2 mana to kill a creature. That's a huge difference, and doesn't "wreck the color pie."
Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with 4BB: Destroy target enchantment or 4RR: Draw two cards.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 9:54AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2008
|
I very much enjoyed this article and would like to read more like it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 10:00AM
#26
|
|
|
Yes, I would like to see more of these articles. 'very unique'? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Thank you, Erik.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 10:58AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2009
|
I'd just like to take some time to defend MaRo re: the color wheel. I might even take a more hardline approach than he does. I've seen several posts so far saying that an increased mana cost is justification for doing something out of color. But just as he pointed out, letting a color do things it isn't supposed to do is a slippery slope. I wasn't around during the time Desert Twister was in print, but I have very negative feelings towards Hornet's Sting. The entire point of the color pie, to me, is to illustrate mechanically what the color represents philosophically. Direct damage, spot creature removal, etc. are and should be things that green just doesn't do. More than a lot of players I suppose, I would prefer to keep the colors very separate, and very unique. To me, it's what really defines the game. When we start blurring the lines of what colors are allowed to do, we move toward that dangerous area of homogenized magic, where colors lose their meaning and any color can do anything, for the right price. Anything for a price, now that's a very Black philosophy, and as all fantasy game players know, dabbling in black Magic nevery turns out well. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 11:16AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
Master Thief's wording creates a weird interaction.
If player A steals an artifact with it from player B and player C steals the Master Thief, the artifact is returned to player B. Not very intuitive, but probably worth it.
The card is cool though and oozes flavor.
There are other cards that use similar templates (including Aladdin  ), but usually those are for activated ones. I do find it weird that this uses a different version of the ability than Sower of Temptation  , given how similar the two cards otherwise are.
Card is neat. May or may not make it into my Teferi EDH. If it were a Wizard it'd be definitely in, but since it's a Rogue I can't tutor it  .
blah blah metal lyrics
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 12:50PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2010
|
Please, feel free to share more of this with us.
Concerning the “Desert Twister” issue, what had changed in order to recently print a card like “Beast Within”?
Johnny V
Someone other than MaRo is pulling the shots on what colors mean now. On the other hand, Beast Within  is "creature destruction done by creatures" in a very loose sense. Because it is possible to make some sort of connection, it is therefore valid, and adequate design in green's philosophy of turning something into an animal and therefore GOOD.
I see. Thanx Qilong.
I guess it is similar to the "Alien" movie: a creature inside devouring/destroying the other.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2011 - 12:55PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
Please, feel free to share more of this with us.
Concerning the “Desert Twister” issue, what had changed in order to recently print a card like “Beast Within”?
Johnny V
Someone other than MaRo is pulling the shots on what colors mean now. On the other hand, Beast Within is "creature destruction done by creatures" in a very loose sense. Because it is possible to make some sort of connection, it is therefore valid, and adequate design in green's philosophy of turning something into an animal and therefore GOOD.
I see. Thanx Qilong.
I guess it is similar to the "Alien" movie: a creature inside devouring/destroying the other.
I'm sorry, actually. I was being a tad snarky. I do not think, in fact, that Beast Within should be monogreen, or even Green. It feels Black. I can be okay with Black getting permanent destruction, since it can generally hit everything save artifacts anyway, and it's not a stretch to make it a forced-sacrifice-into-creature, like Mercy Killing  . The card exists, I think, to give Green answers, and I do not think there is a flavor reason for its existence at all (what flavor there is is better seen in Black).
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
|
|
|
