|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 10:50PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2004
|
Also, I think they got the cost wrong on this.
Should be 5UU+100$.
Miracle- 1U+40$ (You may play Temporal mastery for its miracle cost + price tag, if it is the first card drawn this turn, and if it is after December 2012, and has therefore been banned in every major format).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 10:56PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
Two other things just popped out at me while re-reading the article. First, mentionning the moxie of Tinsman to just make the mechanic as is a deal with rules consequences to be handled later and by other people seems less inspired than short-sighted to me. Second, you talk about how early designs of miracle were split between cost reduction and adding a rider effect to the "miracle casting". But then you just drop this thread by saying "development picked cost reduction" without explaining why.
These thing, combined with making a marginally more complicated Time Walk, make me unconvinced and uneasy about Miracle. You wrote about how draw triggers have been a design wish for years, but you still haven't sold us on why they suddenly work, much less that they're a good idea in this form.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:12PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
I hate this card so much. Time walk, thats it? how about noxious revival and snapcaster mage, you realize those are in the same format right? Now you have to ban something in legacy, jace will likely be restricted in vintage. With ponder this card is just insanity at the point of no return. What are you doing? I can't play legacy now until that abomination is banned.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:18PM
#24
|
|
|
When cards like Noxious Revival and Ponder exist and the Scry mechanic exists, this mechanic is utterly broken.
This card is going to be banned right the hell away.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:18PM
#25
|
|
|
I hate this card so much. Time walk, thats it? how about noxious revival and snapcaster mage, you realize those are in the same format right? Now you have to ban something in legacy, jace will likely be restricted in vintage. With ponder this card is just insanity at the point of no return. What are you doing? I can't play legacy now until that abomination is banned.
They're well aware of Noxious Revival. You might want to read Temporal Mastery again, closer this time. Revival doesn't let you reuse it.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:22PM
#26
|
|
|
I hate this card so much. Time walk, thats it? how about noxious revival and snapcaster mage, you realize those are in the same format right? Now you have to ban something in legacy, jace will likely be restricted in vintage. With ponder this card is just insanity at the point of no return. What are you doing? I can't play legacy now until that abomination is banned.
They're well aware of Noxious Revival. You might want to read Temporal Mastery again, closer this time. Revival doesn't let you reuse it.
T3 alchemy pitching it, noxious revival on upkeep.
And I can do that all day since it's not restricted, I can play 4.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:35PM
#27
|
|
|
T3 alchemy pitching it, noxious revival on upkeep.
And I can do that all day since it's not restricted, I can play 4.
Yes, it's potentially extremely powerful. It's altogether possible it will see play, even in the eternal formats. My point was that mlanier seemed to be under the misapprehension that you could use and reuse Noxious Revival  with Snapcaster Mage  to get large numbers of extra turns out of a single Mastery. Which you can't.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:39PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
They're well aware of Noxious Revival. You might want to read Temporal Mastery again, closer this time. Revival doesn't let you reuse it.
There's no re-using to it. It's getting it out of the hand and to the top of the library, where it belongs.
Temporal Mastery is an all-but-dead card once it's in hand (via the initial 7, or an extra draw somewhere, or drawing it without 1U available). Find some way to pitch  it, Noxious it back to the library, then Timewalk.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 08, 2012 - 11:46PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2010
|
My problem is that I think this is just a mechanically bad idea. I compare it to Fateful Hour, and I feel the same way there as well.
Fateful Hour: great mechanic on a decent card.
Miracle: broken mechanic on an awful card.
In both cases, you have mechanics that "don't matter very often." You rarely can use Fateful Hour, so most of the time that line of text is wasted space. Miracles are even worse, most of the time it comes into your hands in the wrong way and is completely dead for several more turns of the game, in which you will get out a very overcosted perk.
At least with Fateful Hour, you got to use the card, with Miracle you may not even ever get to use the card-- more importantly, it's just a much worse option than anything you could do.
Both are fine in limited, both have some part to play in constructed (although one much more offensively), but both are cards where the mechanic (or the casting cost) is likely not to be relevant most of the time. Both are very weak mechanics indeed-- I want to actually be able to use the cool cards I deck.
At least we still have Souldbond to look forward to: a good mechanic on fine cards.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 12:09AM
#30
|
|
|
Card sleeves were very much a thing in 1996. Most of the people I played with in 1995 sleeved their decks. But at the time most sleeves were transparent on both sides, unlike today's sleeves.
I liked the structure of the article a lot.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
