|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 5:16PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:05PM
#2
|
|
|
Legacy decks should have a good time dropping this off Show and Tell—although admittedly Griselbrand might be a better choice
As though decks wouldn't play both. Oh hey, this Griselbrand is free now. Guess I'll draw all these cards and cast all of them for free too! That's totally fair, right?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:11PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
This card is awesome.
It's everything Zac says: breathtaking, inspiring, resonant. I can imagine playing this really feels like becoming some kind of god. My jaw dropped when I saw that image at the top of the article.
Or it least it would have if this card hadn't already been previewed a freaking week ago.
Nice going with that Facebook thing, Wizards.
blah blah metal lyrics
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:17PM
#4
|
|
|
Sorry, Zac. You can try justifying the flavor of this all you want, but you're wrong. This card doesn't represent 'knowing everything' at all. It represents unlimited power. It's Omnipotence, not Omniscience.
Knowledge, in Magic, is cards in hand. Knowing everything would be having access to any card in the game. It would, in terms of a game of Magic, be represented as having access to your entire deck at once, via either drawing your entire library, or being able to tutor each turn for exactly the card you need.
No matter how much this may reduce the cost of your spells, it doesn't give you any knowledge (card draw) at all. It's an absolute, undeniable failure as a top-down design.
Cool design. But definitely the wrong name.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:19PM
#5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:27PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2004
|
Sorry, Zac. You can try justifying the flavor of this all you want, but you're wrong. This card doesn't represent 'knowing everything' at all. It represents unlimited power. It's Omnipotence, not Omniscience.
Knowledge, in Magic, is cards in hand. Knowing everything would be having access to any card in the game. It would, in terms of a game of Magic, be represented as having access to your entire deck at once, via either drawing your entire library, or being able to tutor each turn for exactly the card you need.
No matter how much this may reduce the cost of your spells, it doesn't give you any knowledge (card draw) at all. It's an absolute, undeniable failure as a top-down design.
Cool design. But definitely the wrong name.
This.
Also, I predict that someone, somewhere, is going to be very frustrated by this card when his opponent thinks he can just cast anything for absolutely free and start casting Kuldotha Rebirths and Infernal Plunges all willy-nilly (sorry, bad examples, but they were the first 2 that came to mind). Any particular reason why the card doesn't just remove all costs, period?
Definitely a "hit" on the "hit or myth" scale, though. About time you guys started printing more Confluxes and less Baneslayer Angels.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:35PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
I'm picking up what you're laying down, Zac. This is definately a 'feel' card, and like a painting or a rose, what response it elicits is more important than how 'true' it is. I agree that Omniscience isn't the best name for this card, but if you read this card from bottom up (see the card text first, then the name), the name grabs that feeling of 'not paying mana costs'. To compare it to Future Sight  , FS wins hands down on bringing flavour and crunch together; but Omni wins as a general concept, where the crunch and name both support it. Predicting the future is cool, but knowing everything would be even cooler. It's a pity that names like Omnipotence or Ascendance don't fit the colour of blue, but I'll let it slide if we can see cards with those names in future sets.
'I have had players complain about having extra rares in a pack. I’ve had players complain about getting free things. I have had players complain because they liked something “too much”.' - Mark Rosewater's Twitter, May 7th, 2013
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 9:50PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2010
|
Sorry, Zac. You can try justifying the flavor of this all you want, but you're wrong. This card doesn't represent 'knowing everything' at all. It represents unlimited power. It's Omnipotence, not Omniscience.
Knowledge, in Magic, is cards in hand. Knowing everything would be having access to any card in the game. It would, in terms of a game of Magic, be represented as having access to your entire deck at once, via either drawing your entire library, or being able to tutor each turn for exactly the card you need.
No matter how much this may reduce the cost of your spells, it doesn't give you any knowledge (card draw) at all. It's an absolute, undeniable failure as a top-down design.
Cool design. But definitely the wrong name.
A hundred thousand times this. You can try to justify it all you like. You can claim it's a powerfully resonant card. Maybe it is, to someone. To me it isn't. It's a complete flavor flop. It doesn't feel like Omniscience, it doesn't look like Omniscience. It is the first and only thing I can think about when I see this card.
I truly regret that this card was printed as it is.
Rules Nut Advisor
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 10:11PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2010
|
I think one could make the argument that playing spells without using mana might be tied to Omniscience (as Zac Hill clearly attempts to do in his article), but to me personally, I can't say that this card screams being omniscient.
Although the more I think about it, if you are omniscient (and the card was designed to search for cards in libraries), why would you need to search for the knowledge (cards in your library)? You already know everything. Can Omniscience truly be captured by a Magic card? It's almost as if the card should give you the ability to cast spells without even having the card in the deck or your hand in the first place. Potentially just grabbing it from outside the game or your collection and casting it, or just naming a card, saying you are casting it, and the game "sees" that you cast it even though in reality you never really did.
Click here to enter the Cow Level!
Show
It burns
Show
Welcome to Dragon Roost Island
Show
It's...Alive
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 28, 2012 - 10:18PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
I almost feel like I'm piling on the poor guy now, but I came here to post what a bunch of people already have. The card's name and mechanics really don't fit at all.
|
|
|
