|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 2:26AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
|
More stupidity, who the **** designed this set cause they need to be fired.....
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 3:55AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2010
|
I'm not normally the type to complain about this sort of thing, but I really must chime in that I don't feel this captures the flavour of true omniscience in any way; indeed, the effect doesn't even feel Blue. It looks to me like a classic example of Blue being characterised as the colour that 'does weird stuff', where unprecedented effects are arbitrarily pushed into Blue because it's the 'magic colour' - I thought that was something that Magic had moved past. If this card had been printed in Black as "Omnipotence", as a Johnny I'd be terribly excited about it - however, I identify very strongly with Blue as a colour, and the flavour issues are just too offputting for me to get into it, as-is.
Ironically, I think the reason it got through was because members of R&D also identify strongly with Blue; to the point that they don't actually distinguish between omniscience and omnipotence, conceptually. Zac's explanation here didn't sound to me like he was trying to 'stretch' the definition of omnipotence to suit the card; it sounded more like he simply didn't differentiate between the two, as if omnipotence necessarily follows from omniscience. Nonetheless, power and knowledge represent the core values of two separate colours, and even if the practical end result of those pursuits is the same - much the same way that, practically speaking, all colours defeat opponents in duels - it's still important that we draw the distinctions that the colours are fundamentally preciated upon.
Blue is such a traditionally powerful colour, I don't understand why R&D seems so compelled to introduce effects that don't really have a strong basis in Blue. If you really wanted a powerful Blue enchantment, I would think it would be easy enough to take the things that already make Blue powerful and simply exaggerate them - no?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 4:11AM
#23
|
|
|
If this card had been printed in Black as "Omnipotence", as a Johnny I'd be terribly excited about it
Add my name to the this-sayers list =)
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 4:20AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
Zac's explanation here didn't sound to me like he was trying to 'stretch' the definition of omnipotence to suit the card; it sounded more like he simply didn't differentiate between the two, as if omnipotence necessarily follows from omniscience. Nonetheless, power and knowledge represent the core values of two separate colours, and even if the practical end result of those pursuits is the same - much the same way that, practically speaking, all colours defeat opponents in duels - it's still important that we draw the distinctions that the colours are fundamentally preciated upon.
Yup, precisely this...
Blue is such a traditionally powerful colour, I don't understand why R&D seems so compelled to introduce effects that don't really have a strong basis in Blue.
...and this.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 4:45AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Omniscience 7UUU
Enchantment
Reveal your library. You may play cards in your library as though they were in your hand.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 5:12AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2012
|
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.
I opened the article, read the card, and then scrolled immediately to the bottom of the page to get to the forum thread to say exactly this.
Who the hell let this happen? How can an entire team not know the difference between omniscience and omnipotence? This is an incredible failure on so many levels, because this ISN'T an arcane bit of knowledge. A lot of people know this tidbit, and given the archaic words that pop up on some of the cards, I'm certain that you have to have SOMEONE there who knows. I'm simply stunned, because this kind of error says to me that you guys aren't paying attention. This is worse than the Urza's Block failure, because this is something simple and obvious that just slipped through. Game balance is tough. Doing a Google search for "omniscience definition" is not.
Maybe I'm overreacting. In fact, I probably am. But please, guys, don't let this happen again.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 5:33AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2012
|
Everyone who says this is the wrong name isn't thinking about it right. In all magic fantasy, the wizards with more knowledge grow powerful in the same proportion. Remember the piece of flavor text that started "The wizard who reads a thousand books is powerful"? Well what about WIZARDS THAT HAVE READ EVERYTHING, HEARD EVERY ORAL TRADITION. They would know so much that they would have power so great as to be almost limitless. This card encapsulates that rather well.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 6:29AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
In all magic fantasy, the wizards with more knowledge grow powerful in the same proportion. Well what about WIZARDS THAT HAVE READ EVERYTHING, HEARD EVERY ORAL TRADITION. They would know so much that they would have power so great as to be almost limitless.
Yes, and they would therefore be able to cast more than the three spells you happen to have left in your hand at the time. The point is that knowledge=cards is a defined thing in M:TG. Sure, somebody with infinite knowledge could just keep casting Ritual effects and things and gain infinite power, but that doesn't mean you can call power knowldege. Knowledge makes it easier to get power, and power makes it easier to get knowledge but fundamentally they're different things.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 7:32AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 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.
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.
I came to post the same thing, a little worried that I was being pedantic about it. Now I just feel like I'm kicking the guy on the bottom of the pile....
Instead, I'll spend my pedantry points saying that knowledge is somewhere between cards in hand and cards in library. The library represents your repetoire as a spellcaster, which can be interpreted as spells known or -- if you're the bookish, "your mind is like a closet" sort of spellcaster -- an actual library. Your hand represents the spells you can call recall right now. That is, the few spells you can focus on actually casting under duress  because you're too busy running from the wurm your lackeys couldn't manage to hold back. (Stupid squished lackeys.)
(Also, you're not going to see a spell that removes all costs because some effects like Sacrifice  that depend on additional costs to make sense. Also, it could potentially lead to un-fun arguments when someone points out that Phyrexian Dreadnought  ETB ffect is a cost, and someone else has to try explain that it's an effect which is all cost, not an additional cost to cast the card.)
As for whether this really "feels" blue, I'm still on the fence. As "the metamagic" color, blue gets a lot of weird abilities. It fits in with the recent Rooftop Storm  (which gets a pass for being a zombie card in zombie colors), but I can't think of anything else that feels particularly blue about it. If you think of the opposite, making spells cost more, you generally think of Nether Void  and Mana Leak  . There's no corrupt bargaining between resources, so it doesn't feel black. Their mutual enemy in green tends to look down at artificial spellcraft, especially that which doesn't contribute to the perfectly respectable practice of creatures fighting and eating each other. So I guess blue gets it.
I should also add that all the handwringing over name and color philosophy don't really reduce the impact. It's still the kind of card that looks >this< close to being broken and gets the juices flowing.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 29, 2012 - 8:00AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2003
|
Who wanna bet in how many year they will say "Good names are a very valuable resource, and we regret spending the good ones in not the right places, like Invisibility or Omniscience"...
BTW, it would be a good black card. 5BBBBB, cast anything for free. Omniscience could have been: "U:draw a card". Or just be a spell(more blue): Draw your library. Until the end of the game, you cant lose by being unable to draw"
|
|
|
| 
| 
| 
| 
