I kinda like this idea....
but I think they'd template it differently
Aura of Cleansing Fire- 1WW
Sorcery - Arcane
Destroy all creatures. Then search all hands, librarys, graveyards, and sideboards, and remove all cards named ~ from the game.
been looking at the threads, if in fact " Epic " is a keyword or mechanic in anyway i was thinking along the lines of maybe epic battle scenes? so the other speculations on the epic sorceries and instants might be going somewhere... just a thought
Would be nice if they stopped giving blue the shaft, its pretty much been ignored since the Urza's block broke the color..... actually the original base sets did that but thats not even in the same boat... oh well i just am a fan of blue and since they havnt done it anytime in the past like 5 sets i dont see blue getting any power anytime soon though with the whole ' hand size matters ' maybe there is something to hope for......
B!G_BOSS: You do realize that MUC is one of (if not the) best decks in Standard, right?
Epic is probably more of a gating/domain-ish name than a keyword. At the very most, it would be a characteristic a la indestructible or unblockable.
Maybe this reality is actually an alternate reality of a reality in which New Phyrexia was the joke expansion and Mirrodin Pure was the obvious expansion, except our reality is the Time Shifted reality which is opposite of that other reality which is that actual reality.
no doubt, sorry i guess that i worded that completely wrong now that i read it again, i am just reminiscing (spelling? ) on the older days of tolarian academy and such thats all, not talking down on the blue cards they have made since as meloku, gifts, threads, and even D shoal are cool ( D shoal if only for FoW fondness ):grin2:
i dont think wizards would intentionally restrict a card before it even saw play, moreover restricted simply means that you could only have one per deck and with it being epic as you have put that might allow for an opponent to play one as well not a bad idea otherwise
i dont think wizards would intentionally restrict a card before it even saw play, moreover restricted simply means that you could only have one per deck and with it being epic as you have put that might allow for an opponent to play one as well not a bad idea otherwise
They acually have played around with number of card rules before, with the rats, so, I don't see why restricting a number of cards in a deck is too much diferant.
Now, on to what epic is. A legendary spell? Hmm, no, that is simply a bad idea, creates way too many rules problems. A creature super type, simular to legends, again, I would say no. The differance between the two isn't enough to warrent the second super type.
Best I can think of, is it being a cycle of creatures, such as the Kirins, that have increadible abilities. Nothing more. If what everybody is speculating on the Kirin(s) is correct, that, they truly are going to be epic creatures. But, than again, who knows.
true the relentless rats did break a pretty big rule, so perhaps you are right, you could also be right about the kirin(s) if there is a cycle of them, or just the Yuki-Onna which is supposed to have a never before seen star studded ability....
nobody is saying its confusing all just speculation
as far as epic being the same as legendary? dunno if they want to mess with the legendary rule after revamping it already in this block but once again this is speculation so its possible
Epic will be the same as Legendary but the number of that cards on your deck will be restricted to one. So how confusing can that be?
Not confusing, but problematic. The "auto-restrict" mechanic is not a consistent balancing factor. They don't restrict cards in Standard, Extended, or Legacy because doing so is messy and unreliable - you can still mise the card, or you can tutor into it. The only reason that the idea of restricting a card exists is because they want all cards to be playable in Vintage.
There's no reason that "epic" has to follow "legendary" mechanically. It only has to follow it thematically. What makes a legendary card cool? It's not the mechanical drawback of the legend rule. It's the thematic idea that you're playing a really powerful, special creature. That is all that epic spells need to do - seem powerful and special.
I still speculate that it's going to be a "pay in installments" mechanic. This is the only way to have "the most powerful Magic cards ever" (i.e. the most expensive) and ever dream that people will play them, without doing something that skirts the issue entirely like having an alternate cost to get them into play (not Scornful Egotist or Bringer of the Black Dawn, in other words). Example:
Blammo of Infinite Rage (16RRR)
Sorcery
Epic (You may pay the cost for this spell over multiple turns *better wording goes here*)
Blammo of Infinite Rage deals X damage to target player, where X is that player's life total minus 1.
To be clear, I don't think that this is going to lead to good cards (note that the above card is horrible). I just think that it's a likely thing for WotC to do, and that it fits the theme.
Wouldn't the simplest way to do this be to have it remove all copies of itself from your hand/lib/as an additional cost to play it, and removes itself on resolution?? No nasty Witness tricks etc. If someone else has suggested this already please ignore, but this threads already 6 pages and growing i didn't have time to read them all!!
E.g:
Red Epic
RR2
Sorcery
Epic (as an additional cost to play Red Epic, remove all other copies of Red Epic from your hand and Library. Whenever Red Epic would be put into a graveyard for anywhere, remove it from the game instead).
Red Epic deals 5 damage to all creatures and players.
Big Bang for cheap, but only once.
This way you get one shot at casting it and one only. This could be used on creatures too without rewording (for green).
Green Epic
G4
Legendary Creature - Green Epic Creature
Epic (as worded above)
When Green Epic comes into play, put all Swamps and Islands on top of their owners libraries in any order.
G: Regenerate
5/3
You only get to cast it once, but it's a Plow Under variant on a 5/3 renergating body against black and/or blue.
A wrath variant for WWW, or WW1 (or even remove all attacking creatures for WW?). Super counter (mana drain ish?) for UU, and BB2, opponent discards his/her hand sorcery (or discard 3 cards for BBB?)all have merit if you can only ever do them once. A nice trick, but hard to abuse or build a deck around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
Hmm...if these ideas are true, I'm going to dig Saviors.
Hmmmmm... yep, most of us would agree dude.
Until we see a little more of the set, either by Wizards previews, Inquest on Wednesday, or some miracle source, I think I'll button up before commenting further on the probability of seeing both 'Epic' and 'Wisdom' on cards in Saviors, and, if the Orb goes live tonight, it'll clear this debate right up with one shift search... Can't wait!!!:halo:
They acually have played around with number of card rules before, with the rats, so, I don't see why restricting a number of cards in a deck is too much diferant.
Actually, this is very different. Being able to play with as many as you want a card allows no easy way to cheat. If your opponent sees more then 4, its okay because they know that its legal.
A "1 of" card on the other hand, is very easy to cheat with. You just play one per game, even though you run more, and never play the others. Short of something like discard, your opponent will never know.
Not confusing, but problematic. The "auto-restrict" mechanic is not a consistent balancing factor. They don't restrict cards in Standard, Extended, or Legacy because doing so is messy and unreliable - you can still mise the card, or you can tutor into it. The only reason that the idea of restricting a card exists is because they want all cards to be playable in Vintage.
Ummmmmm
no
That was now... if you want to back up your opinion, think of both now AND then....
Confuzzled?
Ok, in A/B/U, there was no such thing as a legendary creature. Arabian Nights? nope. Ice age had 4, and Legends had... many. And, you could only play with one of each.
Because they were too powerful? oh yes, everyone had a "one time he played a Sir Shandlar of Eberyn and it was all downhill from there..." story. But in reality, they thought they were keeping the FLAVOR. yes, there is something other then u"berbrokenness to restrict a card. This is what we've been talking about... please remove yourself from your box when speculating...
please remove yourself from your box when speculating...
Are you really asking me to "think outside the box"? Does that cliche still have any meaning?
I don't know why you're talking about this auto-restrict mechanic from a flavor standpoint. Of course it could work. Maybe WotC will even print it someday. But, what we're talking about is this flyer that was distributed to retailers, and what that might tell us about the upcoming set.
A claim like, "the most powerful Magic cards ever" isn't made lightly, even by WotC's hype-crazy marketing execs to retailers who are potentially ignorant of WotC's spotty reputation for releasing overpowered sets. In other words, while it undoubtedly is hype, there must be an element of truth to it somewhere. The speculation on this thread needs to deal with the idea of how they are going to get away with printing "the most powerful Magic cards ever" and not enrage every player that owns a set of Power Nine.
What does "powerful" mean? Then, what is the drawback? Your auto-restrict mechanic is not an appropriate drawback for the most powerful Magic cards ever, if by "powerful", you mean, "tournament worthy". An artifact that costs 0 mana and sacrifices itself for four mana of any one color is not balanced in any way by your auto-restrict mechanic. Your auto-restrict mechanic is not an appropriate tradeoff for breaking the mana curve.
So, I speculate that we're going to see is a definition of "powerful" that means high, high mana costs. In other words, a card that Timmy would consider powerful, not Spike. Then, the question becomes, how do you play such a card? Hence, my speculative mechanic.
Isn't it strange that most of the proposed mechanics (except mine and magicianofthought's, I think) concentrates on making the cards weaker, to support massive gameplay effects? I still think that epic (if it's indeed a mechanic) will be mechanic to make the cards strong. Just to remind, my take on epic is "This spell doesn't use stack," which goes well together with the notion of "epic" as something of major proportions, and practically unstoppable once it gets going.
Most of the ideas posted on Epic are pretty good. I highly doubt Wizards is going to print a cheaper *** or anything of that nature. All I can hope for is Epic creatures, so that my janky Call of the Wild deck can go over the top.
JJ
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
but I think they'd template it differently
Aura of Cleansing Fire- 1WW
Sorcery - Arcane
Destroy all creatures. Then search all hands, librarys, graveyards, and sideboards, and remove all cards named ~ from the game.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
but then again anything is possible i guess
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
Epic is probably more of a gating/domain-ish name than a keyword. At the very most, it would be a characteristic a la indestructible or unblockable.
Level 1 Judge. I tweet. Member of clan <Limited>. The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
They acually have played around with number of card rules before, with the rats, so, I don't see why restricting a number of cards in a deck is too much diferant.
Now, on to what epic is. A legendary spell? Hmm, no, that is simply a bad idea, creates way too many rules problems. A creature super type, simular to legends, again, I would say no. The differance between the two isn't enough to warrent the second super type.
Best I can think of, is it being a cycle of creatures, such as the Kirins, that have increadible abilities. Nothing more. If what everybody is speculating on the Kirin(s) is correct, that, they truly are going to be epic creatures. But, than again, who knows.
Behind the eyes of truth, is a world of illustions.
Dragon Riderof a Mist Dragonn anyway with the Dragon Riders Clan.
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
Epic will be the same as Legendary but the number of that cards on your deck will be restricted to one. So how confusing can that be?
- Lack of common sense is like the common flu.
Helping unknown people and getting flame by them.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/guasus_lot/m.html?category=19115&cmd=ViewItem&ih=002&item=120914914666&rd=1&sspagename=WDVW&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2562
My eBay Listings finishing in 15 minutes.
as far as epic being the same as legendary? dunno if they want to mess with the legendary rule after revamping it already in this block but once again this is speculation so its possible
Thanks to Avatar for the Banner
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=13742 ----- my trade thread
Blaine is a pain.... and that is the truth....
choo, choo, choo, choo....... and i am afraid that... is the truth.
There's no reason that "epic" has to follow "legendary" mechanically. It only has to follow it thematically. What makes a legendary card cool? It's not the mechanical drawback of the legend rule. It's the thematic idea that you're playing a really powerful, special creature. That is all that epic spells need to do - seem powerful and special.
I still speculate that it's going to be a "pay in installments" mechanic. This is the only way to have "the most powerful Magic cards ever" (i.e. the most expensive) and ever dream that people will play them, without doing something that skirts the issue entirely like having an alternate cost to get them into play (not Scornful Egotist or Bringer of the Black Dawn, in other words). Example:
Blammo of Infinite Rage (16RRR)
Sorcery
Epic (You may pay the cost for this spell over multiple turns *better wording goes here*)
Blammo of Infinite Rage deals X damage to target player, where X is that player's life total minus 1.
To be clear, I don't think that this is going to lead to good cards (note that the above card is horrible). I just think that it's a likely thing for WotC to do, and that it fits the theme.
E.g:
Red Epic
RR2
Sorcery
Epic (as an additional cost to play Red Epic, remove all other copies of Red Epic from your hand and Library. Whenever Red Epic would be put into a graveyard for anywhere, remove it from the game instead).
Red Epic deals 5 damage to all creatures and players.
Big Bang for cheap, but only once.
This way you get one shot at casting it and one only. This could be used on creatures too without rewording (for green).
Green Epic
G4
Legendary Creature - Green Epic Creature
Epic (as worded above)
When Green Epic comes into play, put all Swamps and Islands on top of their owners libraries in any order.
G: Regenerate
5/3
You only get to cast it once, but it's a Plow Under variant on a 5/3 renergating body against black and/or blue.
A wrath variant for WWW, or WW1 (or even remove all attacking creatures for WW?). Super counter (mana drain ish?) for UU, and BB2, opponent discards his/her hand sorcery (or discard 3 cards for BBB?)all have merit if you can only ever do them once. A nice trick, but hard to abuse or build a deck around.
Hmmmmm... yep, most of us would agree dude.
Until we see a little more of the set, either by Wizards previews, Inquest on Wednesday, or some miracle source, I think I'll button up before commenting further on the probability of seeing both 'Epic' and 'Wisdom' on cards in Saviors, and, if the Orb goes live tonight, it'll clear this debate right up with one shift search... Can't wait!!!:halo:
Actually, this is very different. Being able to play with as many as you want a card allows no easy way to cheat. If your opponent sees more then 4, its okay because they know that its legal.
A "1 of" card on the other hand, is very easy to cheat with. You just play one per game, even though you run more, and never play the others. Short of something like discard, your opponent will never know.
Ummmmmm
no
That was now... if you want to back up your opinion, think of both now AND then....
Confuzzled?
Ok, in A/B/U, there was no such thing as a legendary creature. Arabian Nights? nope. Ice age had 4, and Legends had... many. And, you could only play with one of each.
Because they were too powerful? oh yes, everyone had a "one time he played a Sir Shandlar of Eberyn and it was all downhill from there..." story. But in reality, they thought they were keeping the FLAVOR. yes, there is something other then u"berbrokenness to restrict a card. This is what we've been talking about... please remove yourself from your box when speculating...
I don't know why you're talking about this auto-restrict mechanic from a flavor standpoint. Of course it could work. Maybe WotC will even print it someday. But, what we're talking about is this flyer that was distributed to retailers, and what that might tell us about the upcoming set.
A claim like, "the most powerful Magic cards ever" isn't made lightly, even by WotC's hype-crazy marketing execs to retailers who are potentially ignorant of WotC's spotty reputation for releasing overpowered sets. In other words, while it undoubtedly is hype, there must be an element of truth to it somewhere. The speculation on this thread needs to deal with the idea of how they are going to get away with printing "the most powerful Magic cards ever" and not enrage every player that owns a set of Power Nine.
What does "powerful" mean? Then, what is the drawback? Your auto-restrict mechanic is not an appropriate drawback for the most powerful Magic cards ever, if by "powerful", you mean, "tournament worthy". An artifact that costs 0 mana and sacrifices itself for four mana of any one color is not balanced in any way by your auto-restrict mechanic. Your auto-restrict mechanic is not an appropriate tradeoff for breaking the mana curve.
So, I speculate that we're going to see is a definition of "powerful" that means high, high mana costs. In other words, a card that Timmy would consider powerful, not Spike. Then, the question becomes, how do you play such a card? Hence, my speculative mechanic.
Epic X- When ever ~this~ gose to the graveyard you may play a card from you hand with X a its CC
JJ