[Official] Reverse Time | Rewind

[OldTrees]

Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.

But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.

I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).

You still have a huge whole in your logic.  LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE.  You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature.  IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE.   It takes up the space.  So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you.  If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp.  The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP)  so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.

At start You have 7 cards in hand, to put big creature You need next 3-4 turns (=10 cards in hand/field). It is highly probable that You will have 2 creatures in hand and I will have 1 creature + 1 Lighting/BB/Rewind/etc. So I can easy destroy Your creature and put my own dragon in the same turn.
Of course all depends on lucky and draw.

This is only true if removal costs significantly less than the creature removed (Crimson Dragon). This would be false if the removal cost only slightly less than the creature removed (Lava Golem). It would be demonstrably UP if the removal cost the same as the creature removed(5 ).

[eaglgenes101]

Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.

But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.

I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).

You still have a huge whole in your logic.  LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE.  You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature.  IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE.   It takes up the space.  So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you.  If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp.  The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP)  so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.

At start You have 7 cards in hand, to put big creature You need next 3-4 turns (=10 cards in hand/field). It is highly probable that You will have 2 creatures in hand and I will have 1 creature + 1 Lighting/BB/Rewind/etc. So I can easy destroy Your creature and put my own dragon in the same turn.
Of course all depends on lucky and draw.

This is only true if removal costs significantly less than the creature removed (Crimson Dragon). This would be false if the removal cost only slightly less than the creature removed (Lava Golem). It would be demonstrably UP if the removal cost the same as the creature removed(5 ).

And if you're playing against an archetypical mono aether, good luck making use of the lightning.

[DarkBaron12390]

I read some interesting analyses, but I think you guys are forgetting some very important things: RT acts as a +1 draw to you. It functions as a procrastination via creature control. Now, Tsunami's EQ costs 3|2. EQ (the card) costs 3|2. Gravity Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Black Hole costs 4|3. Purple Nymph's ability costs 4|4. Antimatter costs 7|6. Pulverizer's ability costs 3|2. Steal costs 4|3 and explosion costs 3|2 (Explosion is the analog to destroy). Blue Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Unstable Gas costs 6|5. Gray NYmph's ability costs 1|1. Aflatoxin costs 6|5. Life Nymph's ability costs iirc, 2|2? Adrenaline is 4|3. We can ignore the nymphs if you want - this is all to draw one thing to your attention: A pattern. The card itself always, always, ALWAYS, costs AT LEAST the amount of the card's analog activated ability.

Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?

Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.

[Cheesy111]

I read some interesting analyses, but I think you guys are forgetting some very important things: RT acts as a +1 draw to you. It functions as a procrastination via creature control. Now, Tsunami's EQ costs 3|2. EQ (the card) costs 3|2. Gravity Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Black Hole costs 4|3. Purple Nymph's ability costs 4|4. Antimatter costs 7|6. Pulverizer's ability costs 3|2. Steal costs 4|3 and explosion costs 3|2 (Explosion is the analog to destroy). Blue Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Unstable Gas costs 6|5. Gray NYmph's ability costs 1|1. Aflatoxin costs 6|5. Life Nymph's ability costs iirc, 2|2? Adrenaline is 4|3. We can ignore the nymphs if you want - this is all to draw one thing to your attention: A pattern. The card itself always, always, ALWAYS, costs AT LEAST the amount of the card's analog activated ability.

Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?

Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.

Rewind for 4 | 3 will not only break its abuse, it will break its use.  Rewind also does NOT function as a +1 card for you.  You seem to forget that Rewind also takes up a card slot, the same as whatever card it is rewinding.  Without rewind in the deck, you would have drawn the next card in the deck, therefore the sides are evened up.  Rewind functions as light creature control that punishes quanta-light decks and buff decks, especially nova-based ones. 

Consider your theoretical Rewind/Eternity example with rewind at 4 | 3.  Would you honestly rather pay 4 for a single rewind than pay 6 and be able to rewind for less than the cost of a normal rewind infinitely while also doing damage each turn?

[DarkBaron12390]

Don't blame me, blame the game. If you change the game mechanics to revolve around a card, perhaps the problem is the card itself. Opponent gets -1 card draw, thus, +1 net card for you. Whatever that card is, procrastination or w/e that gives a draw, net +1 draw for you. Only this time, you're doing it the other way. The weapon can be destroyed. Don't forget that. I laid out the game mechanics and the one (two) exception that matters to the game. Address that and then get back to me.

[Cheesy111]

Don't blame me, blame the game. If you change the game mechanics to revolve around a card, perhaps the problem is the card itself. Opponent gets -1 card draw, thus, +1 net card for you. Whatever that card is, procrastination or w/e that gives a draw, net +1 draw for you. Only this time, you're doing it the other way. The weapon can be destroyed. Don't forget that. I laid out the game mechanics and the one (two) exception that matters to the game. Address that and then get back to me.

I don't understand your don't blame me, blame the game comment.  Hopefully you can clear that up for me.

Restating for clarity:
Rewind also does NOT function as a +1 card for you.  You seem to forget that Rewind also takes up a card slot, the same as whatever card it is rewinding.  Without rewind in the deck, you would have drawn the next card in the deck, therefore the sides are evened up.

You say that the card itself always costs at least the amount of the card's analog activated ability.  I posit that this is better considered on an individual level than on a group level.  Consider that Pulverizer is balanced in a repeatable destruction ability only because it requires multiple elements and costs 3 | 2.  The same effect is observable in Trident.  Multiple elements are required because a repeating ability, even with the possibility of PC, is more powerful than a one-use spell.  Eternity's mono effect is balanced in this arena by having a higher base cost and a weaker effect.  There is no rule that just because many activated abilities cost equal to or less than the one-time use abilities that all abilities must follow this rule.  Abilities and spells need to be considered on their own merits in the metagame and how they interact with other cards.  Nerfing RT based on Eternity if both are balanced as separate cards is just silly.

[DarkBaron12390]

I'm not saying many obey this rule; I am saying all cards follow this rule, barring the anomalous white nymph and luciferin. And that is what I mean by game mechanics. The current game mechanics dictate that the card always costs at least as much as the ability. Not to do this indicates that the card is either underpowered or overpowered. RT is certainly not underpowered... In fact, any card not obeying the structured system reveals an issue with the card itself. For instance, Destroy costs 3|2, explosion used to cost 2|1. What happened? Nerf to explosion. Aflatoxin is strange in that it costs 6|5 but the effect is 1|1. This analysis of the game reveals problems with luciferin, aflatoxin, and RT. Now i haven't browsed the forums on the metagame much, but if I am correct that there are balance issues with aflatoxin and luciferin (either UP or OP), then I suggest looking at RT in the same light. I.e. in need of change.

Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.

[omegareaper7]

I'm not saying many obey this rule; I am saying all cards follow this rule, barring the anomalous white nymph and luciferin. And that is what I mean by game mechanics. The current game mechanics dictate that the card always costs at least as much as the ability. Not to do this indicates that the card is either underpowered or overpowered. RT is certainly not underpowered... In fact, any card not obeying the structured system reveals an issue with the card itself. For instance, Destroy costs 3|2, explosion used to cost 2|1. What happened? Nerf to explosion. Aflatoxin is strange in that it costs 6|5 but the effect is 1|1. This analysis of the game reveals problems with luciferin, aflatoxin, and RT. Now i haven't browsed the forums on the metagame much, but if I am correct that there are balance issues with aflatoxin and luciferin (either UP or OP), then I suggest looking at RT in the same light. I.e. in need of change.

Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.

Before anything, i would recommend comparing it to lightning first, as that is the best comparison.

[Chapuz]

I'm not saying many obey this rule; I am saying all cards follow this rule, barring the anomalous white nymph and luciferin. And that is what I mean by game mechanics. The current game mechanics dictate that the card always costs at least as much as the ability. Not to do this indicates that the card is either underpowered or overpowered. RT is certainly not underpowered... In fact, any card not obeying the structured system reveals an issue with the card itself. For instance, Destroy costs 3|2, explosion used to cost 2|1. What happened? Nerf to explosion. Aflatoxin is strange in that it costs 6|5 but the effect is 1|1. This analysis of the game reveals problems with luciferin, aflatoxin, and RT. Now i haven't browsed the forums on the metagame much, but if I am correct that there are balance issues with aflatoxin and luciferin (either UP or OP), then I suggest looking at RT in the same light. I.e. in need of change.

Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.

Before anything, i would recommend comparing it to lightning first, as that is the best comparison.

It has been done... and some ppl still say it's OP, dunno why.

[OldTrees]

I read some interesting analyses, but I think you guys are forgetting some very important things: RT acts as a +1 draw to you. It functions as a procrastination via creature control. Now, Tsunami's EQ costs 3|2. EQ (the card) costs 3|2. Gravity Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Black Hole costs 4|3. Purple Nymph's ability costs 4|4. Antimatter costs 7|6. Pulverizer's ability costs 3|2. Steal costs 4|3 and explosion costs 3|2 (Explosion is the analog to destroy). Blue Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Unstable Gas costs 6|5. Gray NYmph's ability costs 1|1. Aflatoxin costs 6|5. Life Nymph's ability costs iirc, 2|2? Adrenaline is 4|3. We can ignore the nymphs if you want - this is all to draw one thing to your attention: A pattern. The card itself always, always, ALWAYS, costs AT LEAST the amount of the card's analog activated ability.

Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?

Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.

Good try at a balance model. It is one that seems intuitive at the first glance. However it seems to break down when looking at weapons.
I think you missed the difference between the casting costs and the attacks not to mention the difference between mono and duo activation costs.

Earthquake: 3|2 + 1 card casting cost
Trident: 3|3 + weapon + 1 card casting cost + 3|2 activation cost (duo) -> 4 attack + Earthquake ability
Reverse Time: 2|1 + 1 card casting cost
Eternity: 6|5 + weapon + 1card casting cost + 3|3 activation cost (mono) -> 4 attack + Reverse Time ability
Deflagration: 3|2 + 1card casting cost
Pulverizer: 4|4 + weapon + 1 card casting cost + 3|2 activation cost (duo) -> 5 attack + Deflagration ability

Note that the activation cost is always greater in these direct weapon comparisons.

Activation Costs
Earthquake: 3|2 duo > 3|2 mono
Reverse Time: 3|3* mono > 2|1 mono
Deflagration: 3|2 duo > 3|2 mono
*Eternity could have had a -1activation cost upgrade rather than the atypical -1 casting cost upgrade

As for the +1 card:
It either functions as "+1 net card and destroy x quanta" (if the creature is worth replaying) or as kill target creature (if the creature is not worth replaying)

PS: White Nymph can be explained by the difference in value between healing and regeneration.

[Jenkar]

As a note : most nymph skills have a cost different to the alchemy card they correspond to. The exceptions are the golden one, the auburn one, the red one and possibly the turquoise one.

This, imo, is because some skills, when repeated, gain far more advantage than when not repeated. And vice versa. Alfatoxin's small cost as a skill is because it's a spell that's useful one time then serves nearly no purpose, for example.

[Anarook]

I'm too busy laughing at the "eternity is balanced becasue it can be destroyed with PC arguement.
Did anyone stop to think that PC is currently underused? That several elements don't have PC? That many deck types don't run any PC?
I know this is the wrong place for it, this is a discussion on rewind, but it's directly related to eternity so 
Now let's continue, the eternity/rewind is OP for 2 key reasons:
1) Forced draw denial
2) It ignores creature HP - a point zanz was very adamant about

Sure eternity can be destoryed by PC, but ooh say what if you didn't have any PC in your hand or on the field - not an uncommon situation. Perhaps you have one somehwere else in your deck, but alas you'll probably never draw it because your opponent is going to continue to rewind again and again and again.

CC is creature control, not deck control, see where I'm going here?