The reason the other urza lands have the tower/mine/etc is because the cards actually REFER ro having an mine/power plant/tower in play, which need them to have the type line as such. No card cares about whether "Urza's Factory" lands are in play, so it doesn't need the factory type. It does however need the Urza's type from a flavor standpoint, as cards that change land type (or allow you to choose a form of landwalk) actually accept the "Urza's" type as n option. So you can have cards with "Urza's" landwalk. This would make it weird to have someone playing a factory and not have your "Urza's" landwalk creature be unblockable.
As for the layout of the gargoyle totem text, as has been stated before, the unique nature of the chronatog's second ability explains why it has a second paragraph and the gargoyle totem's doesn't. If anything this fact screams "REAL" to me more than anything, as someone who had gone to all this trouble to take photos from different angles etc, would have formatted the totem to match the chronatog totem layout just to avoid this kind of controversy. However it takes someone who actually understands the reason chronatog totem was worded the way it is to see that the gargoyle totem is IN FACT worded properly.
That said, they could still be fake--but ask yourself, would you rather have Gargoyle Totem or Shocker Totem?
Oh - about the factory - can ANYONE translate the subtype on the image that we have? I know it had one, i just cant recall what it was. Still, this guy is a terrible faker. And about my fake - yeh, photoshop and an image of someone holding 3 cards.
They subtype translates to simly "Urza's" if you translate it directly, though the factory could be implied as a lot is left unsaid in Japanese and I'm not sure typically how much they put on magic cards though I would think it would be there. It could be more spelled out when in English and esp because the type will probably not matter.
Also notice this:
You'll notice the "english" version's picture is a lot more zoomed in. The entire right side is cut off compared to the Japanese version.
I took that and put it in paint. I then used the eye-dropper tool and got this:
It's purple.
Again, it does appear purple(and not a very deep shade, sorta like plumb), but the quality of the shot, can make hue, tone , depth, color, contrast, completely different than what is should be.(and that could even make the case, for you) Take a picture of a common expansion symbol, brighten it, blurr it, use a camera phone, and likely you will get paint telling you it's purple. (But in reality , it's not, and you know it) When you take a picture of someone, do they not get red eye sometimes? Do they actually have red eyes? It's simply the camera getting the flash back from your retina through the pupil. But it appears red. Again, this is a black symbol. And it appears purple.
They subtype translates to simly "Urza's" if you translate it directly, though the factory could be implied as a lot is left unsaid in Japanese and I'm not sure typically how much they put on magic cards though I would think it would be there. It could be more spelled out when in English and esp because the type will probably not matter.
I agree, it would most likey be written on the card, since the rules of the game pretty much require that everything be spelled out, not interpreted according to the nuances of a particular language.
Also notice this:
That's a very good shot of it. I don't think it's zoomed, so much as shifted right. If you look at the left side with the columns it becomes clear. Guess that means these are most likely fake.
Again, it does appear purple(and not a very deep shade, sorta like plumb), but the quality of the shot, can make hue, tone , depth, color, contrast, completely different than what is should be.(and that could even make the case, for you) Take a picture of a common expansion symbol, brighten it, blurr it, use a camera phone, and likely you will get paint telling you it's purple. (But in reality , it's not, and you know it) When you take a picture of someone, do they not get red eye sometimes? Do they actually have red eyes? It's simply the camera getting the flash back from your retina through the pupil. But it appears red. Again, this is a black symbol. And it appears purple.
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
Again, this is a black symbol. And it appears purple.
Wow. I mean, wow. I always wondered what kind of people subscribe to the flat earth theory.
Whether or not the "purple symbol" will be on printed cards from Wizards, I kinda thought most people could tell that the pic uploaded by the original poster definately had a purple symbol on it.
My personal belief is that they're fake - simply from the "odds are" camp and the cropped art on the factory. That said, they are more than likely accurate mock ups of what we will see in a month.
I agree, it would most likey be written on the card, since the rules of the game pretty much require that everything be spelled out, not interpreted according to the nuances of a particular language.
That's a very good shot of it. I don't think it's zoomed, so much as shifted right. If you look at the left side with the columns it becomes clear. Guess that means these are most likely fake.
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
hahaha. I'm sooo adding that to my tag. priceless.
I'm not saying T or F, but I want the monarch to reply. 11 pages with no explanation is suspicious.
I'm sure he doesn't like everyone screaming FAKE at him. If I risked my ass being sued by Wizards by posting cards, only to get bashed for it, I wouldn't feel abliged to show up again.
Besides, I'm sure people would find something "fake" in his explanations too, even if they were real.
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
Again, it does appear purple(and not a very deep shade, sorta like plumb), but the quality of the shot, can make hue, tone , depth, color, contrast, completely different than what is should be.(and that could even make the case, for you) Take a picture of a common expansion symbol, brighten it, blurr it, use a camera phone, and likely you will get paint telling you it's purple. (But in reality , it's not, and you know it) When you take a picture of someone, do they not get red eye sometimes? Do they actually have red eyes? It's simply the camera getting the flash back from your retina through the pupil. But it appears red. Again, this is a black symbol. And it appears purple.
Alrightie. I saved the purple symbol that Hydro posted, and I took that, took the piece from Celestial Ancient, and placed the purple symbol on it, and blurred it.
"If I do go to heaven, I'll smack god across the face and tell him to get me a grilled-cheeses sandwhich and then say 'Yea what now god!? Say some'in! I dare you!' "
I agree, it would most likey be written on the card, since the rules of the game pretty much require that everything be spelled out, not interpreted according to the nuances of a particular language.
That's a very good shot of it. I don't think it's zoomed, so much as shifted right. If you look at the left side with the columns it becomes clear. Guess that means these are most likely fake.
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
It wasn't to deny the possible existance of such a thing, it was merely an example that a camera, can, make things appear a certain way, though in actuality , it is not. I was not saying a magic card had a retina, however giving an example as to how a camera can give color (red in this case) to something that is black(a pupil). These poor quality pictures, I have no doubt, have poor tint, hue, contrast, wich in turn can make the colors , brightness, black and whites look less than they should.
Wow, no photography majors here, (sometimes I forget I am dealing with narrowminded 13 year olds, who haven't ever taken an art or design class, or photography for that matter, or kissed a girl)
Is it just a coincidence that a card, within a set that has a heavily rumored purple expansion symbol, has what appears to be a purple expansion symbol? Even when the belief was that purple cards would be reprints, and this particular card happens to be a reprint? Maybe we should just subscribe to the belief that what we see isn't real, even though all signs point to 'yes.'
Wow, no photography majors here, (sometimes I forget I am dealing with narrowminded 13 year olds, who haven't ever taken an art or design class, or photography for that matter, or kissed a girl)
Hmm
lets see
we have evidence that thoes picturs are probably fake to start with,
and now your useing your amazing knowldge of how black can look purple in a computer image to prove that the image on that fake card is proof that their is no color purple. . . . ..
That is themost contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
They subtype translates to simly "Urza's" if you translate it directly, though the factory could be implied as a lot is left unsaid in Japanese and I'm not sure typically how much they put on magic cards though I would think it would be there. It could be more spelled out when in English and esp because the type will probably not matter.
Also notice this:
You'll notice the "english" version's picture is a lot more zoomed in. The entire right side is cut off compared to the Japanese version.
Look at the part I boxed in red.
Edit: typo in the tags.
Your scans help point out something else, something ever more damning than this art thing, which really cannot be ignored.
The flavor text on Urza's Factory, which we have yet to translate as far as I know, is a quote from something.
On the Japanese version of the card, the quote attribution is right aligned.
On English versions of the card, the quote attribution SHOULD BE left aligned.
Thread Closed
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
As for the layout of the gargoyle totem text, as has been stated before, the unique nature of the chronatog's second ability explains why it has a second paragraph and the gargoyle totem's doesn't. If anything this fact screams "REAL" to me more than anything, as someone who had gone to all this trouble to take photos from different angles etc, would have formatted the totem to match the chronatog totem layout just to avoid this kind of controversy. However it takes someone who actually understands the reason chronatog totem was worded the way it is to see that the gargoyle totem is IN FACT worded properly.
That said, they could still be fake--but ask yourself, would you rather have Gargoyle Totem or Shocker Totem?
Im pretty sure it says "Uruza no", that means "Urza's"
They subtype translates to simly "Urza's" if you translate it directly, though the factory could be implied as a lot is left unsaid in Japanese and I'm not sure typically how much they put on magic cards though I would think it would be there. It could be more spelled out when in English and esp because the type will probably not matter.
Also notice this:
You'll notice the "english" version's picture is a lot more zoomed in. The entire right side is cut off compared to the Japanese version.
Look at the part I boxed in red.
Edit: typo in the tags.
My Altered Art Gallery
Again, it does appear purple(and not a very deep shade, sorta like plumb), but the quality of the shot, can make hue, tone , depth, color, contrast, completely different than what is should be.(and that could even make the case, for you) Take a picture of a common expansion symbol, brighten it, blurr it, use a camera phone, and likely you will get paint telling you it's purple. (But in reality , it's not, and you know it) When you take a picture of someone, do they not get red eye sometimes? Do they actually have red eyes? It's simply the camera getting the flash back from your retina through the pupil. But it appears red. Again, this is a black symbol. And it appears purple.
I agree, it would most likey be written on the card, since the rules of the game pretty much require that everything be spelled out, not interpreted according to the nuances of a particular language.
That's a very good shot of it. I don't think it's zoomed, so much as shifted right. If you look at the left side with the columns it becomes clear. Guess that means these are most likely fake.
That is the most contrived explanation I think I have ever seen to deny the existence of the purple rarity symbol. AFAIK, Magic expansion symbols do not have retinas.
Wow. I mean, wow. I always wondered what kind of people subscribe to the flat earth theory.
Whether or not the "purple symbol" will be on printed cards from Wizards, I kinda thought most people could tell that the pic uploaded by the original poster definately had a purple symbol on it.
My personal belief is that they're fake - simply from the "odds are" camp and the cropped art on the factory. That said, they are more than likely accurate mock ups of what we will see in a month.
Most of the time, when there is no overwhelming evidence to why cards are fake, they are usually real.
I'm calling real, and I don't think I've ever been wrong.
Hopefully my streak can continue, I like Plated Sliver.
Avatar courtesy of a_passer_bye, and signature courtesy of R&Doom, both at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe. Awesome job!
Back in the game, ready to rock some M:tG again.
hahaha. I'm sooo adding that to my tag. priceless.
I'm sure he doesn't like everyone screaming FAKE at him. If I risked my ass being sued by Wizards by posting cards, only to get bashed for it, I wouldn't feel abliged to show up again.
Besides, I'm sure people would find something "fake" in his explanations too, even if they were real.
Actualy with roughly 8 pages of worth of fake and general bashing in that 11 pages Im not surprised that the guy never bothered to show up again.
SIGED!
Alrightie. I saved the purple symbol that Hydro posted, and I took that, took the piece from Celestial Ancient, and placed the purple symbol on it, and blurred it.
Almost exactly the same.
MTG Rules Advisor
Winner of Weekly Contest Week 39.
It wasn't to deny the possible existance of such a thing, it was merely an example that a camera, can, make things appear a certain way, though in actuality , it is not. I was not saying a magic card had a retina, however giving an example as to how a camera can give color (red in this case) to something that is black(a pupil). These poor quality pictures, I have no doubt, have poor tint, hue, contrast, wich in turn can make the colors , brightness, black and whites look less than they should.
Is it just a coincidence that a card, within a set that has a heavily rumored purple expansion symbol, has what appears to be a purple expansion symbol? Even when the belief was that purple cards would be reprints, and this particular card happens to be a reprint? Maybe we should just subscribe to the belief that what we see isn't real, even though all signs point to 'yes.'
Hmm
lets see
we have evidence that thoes picturs are probably fake to start with,
and now your useing your amazing knowldge of how black can look purple in a computer image to prove that the image on that fake card is proof that their is no color purple. . . . ..
Your scans help point out something else, something ever more damning than this art thing, which really cannot be ignored.
The flavor text on Urza's Factory, which we have yet to translate as far as I know, is a quote from something.
On the Japanese version of the card, the quote attribution is right aligned.
On English versions of the card, the quote attribution SHOULD BE left aligned.
Thread Closed
Twitter