Likewise, my snark was a bit over the top as well. Bygones be bygones?
Fact is that for most people this isn't a good move. It's going to hurt people's expectations, it's not going to bring enough Snappys on the market to lower it's price keeping them too hard to obtain...so yeah. Not happy.
Congrats. Still doesnt answer what you DID base it on. Not that anyone's happy with you being right in this case aside from Snaphoarders.
That is a totally fair point. The only problem is, that your "rebuttal" committed the "continuation fallacy". That because something didn't do something recently, it cannot do it going forward.
The other part of the truth is, my "reasons" were not fully conscious to me. As such, I didn't have "good reasons", to be totally candid. And, yes, I let some snark fly and you probably don't deserve that.
I don't know what a "snap hoarder" is. But even if you have 1, I think you'll be happy it's mythic so the value you invested to have one isn't harmed.
[quote from="Duke Daemon »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/765144-repression-du-consulat-repression-of-the-consulate?comment=4"]Well, so long as you yourself aren't running too many artifacts.
After some thought about these cards I have been able to conclude some things.
1. Masterpiece seems like an odd name, sure it makes sense at the moment because of the inventions, but when it comes to non artifact cards it will be a bit out of place. A fine name though, at least it is better than just calling it something like "Secret Mythic" or some such nonsense.
I think it's like "masterpiece" art. I could be wrong.
People really love to abuse the word "broken" here.
You really seem to have a problem with taking correction. This is the wrong standard for it. I'm not saying the CARD is broken, I'm saying it would break standard.
On one hand, Crucible is nice here - but on the other hand now I am worried we aren't going to see it reprinted normally anytime soon...
Which is kind of dumb after reading Maro's article today where he explains that part of the reason for these is that these cards can't be reprinted in Standard without warping it. Crucible of Worlds would barely scratch Standard unless fetch lands were present.
Actually, with the amount of self-mill, it would be broken.
People complaining about expedition being super rare don't understand their purpose. They are here to drive up demand for the set in order to lower the price of standaRd cards and staples. People are going to be opening many boxes of KLD now, making standard accessible. It's a good thing.
The folks who would like these to be more frequent (even 1 a booster) are not failing to understand. In fact, I'm suggesting it would increase the sales of boosters/packs. Because "every box is a winner". 1 in 36 is still 3 or 4 times more rare than a mythic. And is about 2.5 times as common as a mythic foil card.
This schedule of reinforcement would move boxes too.
Think of it the other way, if we took what you said to the extreme... If we made them even more rare...we would sell even more booster boxes? No, if it's too rare, the effect disappears. If it's too common, the impact is too short-lived. I think if you're going to have 20 to 30 of these in a set, 1 per box is a good rate. That would still mean I'd have to buy 20 booster boxes to have a VERY LOW CHANCE of getting 1 of each.
"Many other trading card games do higher rarities than Magic, and we've always avoided those because we didn't want it to get in the way of the game. Cards should be attainable." Mark Rosewater, pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining again. If you want to make them "attainable", don't make them 1 copy per 4 boxes.
By which he means "cards needed to play the format that is about access". Aka, standard. Since the cards are not standard legal ...unless... there is also a regular standard printing, it's all good. In some other games, you really need these "royal rare" type cards and you need 3 or 4 of them to make a deck. This means decks are prohibitively expensive directly or indirectly through trying to open enough booster boxes
I read to catch up and I think Blinking Spirit may be falling or leading readers into an equivocation fallacy.
Specifically, the use the the term "belief".
Are you perhaps using the word in two different ways and acting as if they're are equivalent?
In one case belief seems to mean a specific proposition about the existence of something. I.E. a theist beliefs in god. In another case you seem to be equating it with any propositional statement for reasons of some kind of "indeterminably"...
That is, for me to say, "I believe the table is 30 inches high" means that were we to measure it and remove all reasonable doubt (plus or minus the uncertainty of our measuring device) I would be rather surprised to see the measure reading 300 inches or 3 inches... But I would not be surprised to discover it was 28, 29, 30, 31, or even 32 inches...
Also, once measured, I can say, "It measures, 30 inches". This is also not a "belief". Note, I could continue to say, "I believe it to be 30-inches" to respect the "uncertainty" of the measuring device, my memory, or even some change to the table since I measured. But this is again not a "belief" in the sense of ...I'm not making a claim about how I imagine the world to be... I'm not describing a "hope" of something I'm claiming exists.
Further, you seem to be saying that even a tautological claim is something akin to a belief. So if I say a "triangle has three sides linked end-to-end in a closed polygon"...that such a claim represents a "belief".
But it is not a belief... ...it is a fact, at least with a quick search to make sure there was no mathematical reference frame where that was untrue.
Second, I also share the definition of theist-atheist :: and gnostic-agnostic the other debater is using. This is also reasonable. It is not some strange use of language.
There are multiple definitions of atheism. According to that definition, atheism is not a belief. Also according to that definition, rocks are atheists. If you want to call rocks atheists, I can't tell you that you're wrong to do so. However, I can note that most people do not call rocks atheists, and would find it confusing if you did.
Most people don't typically use set theory when discussing things. And, most people struggle significantly with matters of "negation". In set theory, it's easy to speak of the set of all things WITHOUT X (and in set theory this also means something). And very often it means rocks and babies and squares...oh and even the beliefs that squares are 4 sided polygons with right angles...and even wrong beliefs about squares...can all be in the same set.
However, let me turn this to you. What term would you use to say... "I'm not a member of any group that believes in a god/dess and/or multiple gods/goddesses/divine entities/powers?"
What term would you use to describe someone who...upon taking an "x-ray" of their beliefs finds there is no active belief about god...including no active belief that god doesn't/cannot exist?
And if you say that's an "agnostic". Please tell me what a gnostic is by your understanding.
A self-identity is a belief about oneself. But this is strictly a theoretical quibble, because in practice, of course, no conscious human has no beliefs.
This is an example of where you seem to be using "beliefs" in those two ways and suggesting they're equivalent. Again, if I say I'm adopted. This is not a "belief". It is a part of my identity. It is a statement describing part of my identity. I do "believe" it to be true in the most trivial sense. But it would seem altogether insulting if after I said, "I'm adopted" someone replied. "That's just you're belief..."
Mastepiece cards are in English Only though they appear (in English) in other language boosters.
Of course
That is a totally fair point. The only problem is, that your "rebuttal" committed the "continuation fallacy". That because something didn't do something recently, it cannot do it going forward.
The other part of the truth is, my "reasons" were not fully conscious to me. As such, I didn't have "good reasons", to be totally candid. And, yes, I let some snark fly and you probably don't deserve that.
I don't know what a "snap hoarder" is. But even if you have 1, I think you'll be happy it's mythic so the value you invested to have one isn't harmed.
At this point I will base it on ...being right?
It doesn't exile your artifacts.
I think it's like "masterpiece" art. I could be wrong.
You really seem to have a problem with taking correction. This is the wrong standard for it. I'm not saying the CARD is broken, I'm saying it would break standard.
Actually, with the amount of self-mill, it would be broken.
The folks who would like these to be more frequent (even 1 a booster) are not failing to understand. In fact, I'm suggesting it would increase the sales of boosters/packs. Because "every box is a winner". 1 in 36 is still 3 or 4 times more rare than a mythic. And is about 2.5 times as common as a mythic foil card.
This schedule of reinforcement would move boxes too.
Think of it the other way, if we took what you said to the extreme... If we made them even more rare...we would sell even more booster boxes? No, if it's too rare, the effect disappears. If it's too common, the impact is too short-lived. I think if you're going to have 20 to 30 of these in a set, 1 per box is a good rate. That would still mean I'd have to buy 20 booster boxes to have a VERY LOW CHANCE of getting 1 of each.
By which he means "cards needed to play the format that is about access". Aka, standard. Since the cards are not standard legal ...unless... there is also a regular standard printing, it's all good. In some other games, you really need these "royal rare" type cards and you need 3 or 4 of them to make a deck. This means decks are prohibitively expensive directly or indirectly through trying to open enough booster boxes
Specifically, the use the the term "belief".
Are you perhaps using the word in two different ways and acting as if they're are equivalent?
In one case belief seems to mean a specific proposition about the existence of something. I.E. a theist beliefs in god. In another case you seem to be equating it with any propositional statement for reasons of some kind of "indeterminably"...
That is, for me to say, "I believe the table is 30 inches high" means that were we to measure it and remove all reasonable doubt (plus or minus the uncertainty of our measuring device) I would be rather surprised to see the measure reading 300 inches or 3 inches... But I would not be surprised to discover it was 28, 29, 30, 31, or even 32 inches...
Also, once measured, I can say, "It measures, 30 inches". This is also not a "belief". Note, I could continue to say, "I believe it to be 30-inches" to respect the "uncertainty" of the measuring device, my memory, or even some change to the table since I measured. But this is again not a "belief" in the sense of ...I'm not making a claim about how I imagine the world to be... I'm not describing a "hope" of something I'm claiming exists.
Further, you seem to be saying that even a tautological claim is something akin to a belief. So if I say a "triangle has three sides linked end-to-end in a closed polygon"...that such a claim represents a "belief".
But it is not a belief... ...it is a fact, at least with a quick search to make sure there was no mathematical reference frame where that was untrue.
Second, I also share the definition of theist-atheist :: and gnostic-agnostic the other debater is using. This is also reasonable. It is not some strange use of language.
Most people don't typically use set theory when discussing things. And, most people struggle significantly with matters of "negation". In set theory, it's easy to speak of the set of all things WITHOUT X (and in set theory this also means something). And very often it means rocks and babies and squares...oh and even the beliefs that squares are 4 sided polygons with right angles...and even wrong beliefs about squares...can all be in the same set.
However, let me turn this to you. What term would you use to say... "I'm not a member of any group that believes in a god/dess and/or multiple gods/goddesses/divine entities/powers?"
What term would you use to describe someone who...upon taking an "x-ray" of their beliefs finds there is no active belief about god...including no active belief that god doesn't/cannot exist?
And if you say that's an "agnostic". Please tell me what a gnostic is by your understanding.
This is an example of where you seem to be using "beliefs" in those two ways and suggesting they're equivalent. Again, if I say I'm adopted. This is not a "belief". It is a part of my identity. It is a statement describing part of my identity. I do "believe" it to be true in the most trivial sense. But it would seem altogether insulting if after I said, "I'm adopted" someone replied. "That's just you're belief..."