I think the reason Innistrad didn't feel as derivative is the fact that most of the references were already things that have been bandied about in pop culture, and in Magic. Olivia Voldaren wasn't too blatant not because she was a female, but because the concept of a big important vampire is not singular to Dracula, nor new to Magic. I would never have known she was based on Dracula. Was Baron Sengir based on Dracula too? Or Sorin? They're not any less Dracula-like than Olivia. The only way to say "THIS IS DRACULA" would be to make card called "Count Devulac" or something. In reality, all of them play on a cultural trope largely derived from Dracula (much more than the larger vampire mythos). In a way it's SO derivative that it's not derivative anymore.
It's only when you get really specific that it starts to feel problematic. Civilized Scholar/Homicidal Brute demonstrates this. That could only come from Jekyll and Hyde, or from the Incredible Hulk, which is a direct reference to Jekyll and Hyde.
For these reasons, things like Merlin and Knights of Camelot won't feel all that weird, since we've seen LOTS of cards on that model. We would be fools to not acknowledge the cultural importance of Merlin on existing cards. Heck, our entire western concept of wizards uses Merlin as a base. So their Merlin will actually just feel like yet another legendary wizard.
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. As long as the Merlin card isn't called something like "Marllin Walld, Magus of the Crown" then because their legend is so pervasive it won't feel like a copy? I can kind of get behind this idea, it feels very fuzzy on how parodied or expanded something has to be to reach that level but I can accept that one or two known popular reboots aren't enough and it has to more feel like a default even if based on a singular item.
By the way, as far as I could find Both the Baron and Sorin were designed around the concept that Dracula has made pervasive, the aristocratic vampire lord. While Olivia was them sitting down and going "we need a Dracula card in our gothic horror set".
Actually The Dark had Frankenstein's Monster. Innistrad wasnt nearly as blatant as this, not even close.
How blatant is too blatant? Obviously, nothing recent is as blatant as Frankenstein's Monster or most of arabian nights because magic does its own thing now. One person in this thread said King Macar, the Gold-Cursed was too blatant but Invisible Stalker wasn't and sighted the fact that one was legendary as the reason it was too blatant while the other was fine. This particular line sounds asinine but I don't think everyone has the same line.
Olivia Voldaren has been sighted as not too blatant because she if female. However, everything else about her was designed topdown as count Dracula. They turn other creatures into vampires and they exert control over vampires, both classic Dracula skills. So why is she not too blatant? Is it the simple yet obvious change? If such an unimportant change is enough to make it not blatant I'll call bull on this line as well. I'll admit that the entire Skabb culture derived from Frankenstein's monster is fairly different, other than the base of a put together body animated via alchemy. One was seen as a monster upon completion while the other is still seen as an art to be perfected and brought to a higher level. Geralf was conceived as a "what if Frankenstien liked his monster and wanted to make more" and then evolved from that and that is a fairly significant change compared to "Female Dracula(Wait, you mean Carmilla{Elizabeth Bathory})"
Flaxen Intruder seems far closer to Geralf than Olivia with a "What if Goldilocks was actually hunting the bears rather than simply wandering" That is a significant twist so why is it being called out as too blatant? I and several people understand that at some point things become too obvious like Frankenstein's Monster, but we also don't understand where the people who are upset at certain things draw their lines because when they give out specifics they appear contradictory to us.
A local vendor claims Wizards raised the price on all Magic products. As a result he increases the preorder price by roughly 20%. Has anyone else heard about this action by Wizards or is the guy using this excuse to make extra profit?
Edit:this should be from throne onwards.
I'm unsure what you mean by local Vender, is that a store or a warehouse or what? Wizards hasn't sold directly to stores for a year now. There has been no larger mention anywhere that I could find. So likely options are:
Your store's distributor is hiking their prices and your store is passing the costs down to you.
Your store is simply increasing prices because they need/want to.
Your store's manager is terrible and they didn't understand something told to them and then made decisions based on this false information that caused them to raise prices.
This is the first place that is dealing with a roll-out of a price hike and others will follow.
I think one of the reasons why Innistrad does not feel like a parody is because they didn't make mtg equivalents of well known characters. For example, Invisible Stalker is not a legendary creature, implying there are many other invisible rogues running around Nephalia. Also a invisible man does not feel so out of place in mtg anyway, so it ends being not too much on the nose.
If we look at the cast of legendary characters of both Innistrad blocks I think not a single one is meant to be the equivalent of anything (I could be wrong). Theros blocks however have stuff like King Macar, the Gold-Cursed and Triad of Fates.
This may sound rude and misguided but from what you're saying here and others have said before it really sounds like your saying "The more stuff I recognize the less I like it." Which due to years of scientific studies we know is the opposite of what people actually feel meaning this is probably more accurately "The less I understand the cooler I think it makes me to like it." I'm not going to look that deeply into Theros and Innistrad and count the number of "direct" translations vs "indirect" but I assume its a lot closer than anyone here realizes.
So keeping with the Arthurian theme, I'm wondering how deep they will go with the mythology and stories. It would be great to have a Green Knight equivalent in the game. I bet we will see an extension of Knight tribal as a as a return of Faeries!
I have some disappointing news for you. First Maro has said that the dive into Arthurian is fairly shallow because the populace doesn't actually know that much. He specifically calls out the Green Knight as something probably not done because no one would recognize it.
Second, he has said faeries play a much smaller role than people are making them out to be.
Does anybody think Wizards will take this opportunity to complete the Swords of X and Y cycle? It’s a good a place as any.
Or maybe two more of the series, saving the last one for later. The set looks like it has an equipment theme to it, so it makes sense.
Maro has confirmed that the Sword of X and Y series will not be completed in standard sets because they want them to be stronger than they allow for standard sets.
I hadn't realized this until this thread. How many people here are familiar with the Series Fate? As in Fate Stay Night, Fate Zero, Fate Apocrypha, or Fate Go? Because of this franchise, I have exclusively thought of King Arthur as Female for over a decade and would be sorely disappointed if MTG's King Arthur is male. I realize this is a minority thought pattern but this thread has lowered my hopes of getting a good King Arthur.
Blogatog confirms it's a planeswalker's home plane. And we know it's something Mark's been trying to do for ten years. So...Vryn?
Based on how the faeries in the art look, I highly doubt it's Vryn. It's probably not Lorwyn, either. Remember, MaRo had confirmed that the next expansion following War of the Spark would take place on a never-before-visited plane.
As for which planeswalker this might be the home plane of...for some reason my money's on Wrenn.
Did any part of Maro's hint allude to us knowing the planeswalker? He said the planeswalker will be the face of the set and that it's their home plane. Nothing in that says we already know the Walker. And maro likes to troll us with these hints.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By the way, as far as I could find Both the Baron and Sorin were designed around the concept that Dracula has made pervasive, the aristocratic vampire lord. While Olivia was them sitting down and going "we need a Dracula card in our gothic horror set".
Olivia Voldaren has been sighted as not too blatant because she if female. However, everything else about her was designed topdown as count Dracula. They turn other creatures into vampires and they exert control over vampires, both classic Dracula skills. So why is she not too blatant? Is it the simple yet obvious change? If such an unimportant change is enough to make it not blatant I'll call bull on this line as well. I'll admit that the entire Skabb culture derived from Frankenstein's monster is fairly different, other than the base of a put together body animated via alchemy. One was seen as a monster upon completion while the other is still seen as an art to be perfected and brought to a higher level. Geralf was conceived as a "what if Frankenstien liked his monster and wanted to make more" and then evolved from that and that is a fairly significant change compared to "Female Dracula(Wait, you mean Carmilla{Elizabeth Bathory})"
Flaxen Intruder seems far closer to Geralf than Olivia with a "What if Goldilocks was actually hunting the bears rather than simply wandering" That is a significant twist so why is it being called out as too blatant? I and several people understand that at some point things become too obvious like Frankenstein's Monster, but we also don't understand where the people who are upset at certain things draw their lines because when they give out specifics they appear contradictory to us.
Your store's distributor is hiking their prices and your store is passing the costs down to you.
Your store is simply increasing prices because they need/want to.
Your store's manager is terrible and they didn't understand something told to them and then made decisions based on this false information that caused them to raise prices.
This is the first place that is dealing with a roll-out of a price hike and others will follow.
Second, he has said faeries play a much smaller role than people are making them out to be.