I'm hyped for Castaway Jace not because it's Jace (though I'm usually neutral to the character himself), but because the ultimate means that they're finally starting to unlock that design space with Jace's illusion magic that they ignored on his cards before.
It's neither pure coincidence nor official Magic art. If you look at the artist's gallery, she did a few pseudo-magic artworks for gamermats. She uses the general setting and artistic direction without actually using anything definite about the setting. Check out her 'Kaladesh' art and her two 'Amonkhet' artworks. You can tell what they're based on, but they're definitely not "Magic" Magic.
So still no guns in Magic? Even on a pirate world? What a wasted opportunity... Were there any guns in Magic except Portal Second Age?
I don't think having a gun would require actual card representation in any ability, except maybe on specific guns that are equipments giving some tap ability to deal damage. A creature's power is already an abstraction of how they fight, whether they do with a gun, bow, sword, magic or otherwise doesn't matter. So I think there will be guns, at least creatively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
So still no guns in Magic? Even on a pirate world? What a wasted opportunity... Were there any guns in Magic except Portal Second Age?
To answer your question, some Phyrexians had gun-like weapons during the invasion of Dominaria, but other than that and the laser-like ray cannons that Phyrexian skyships and the Weatherlight had, not really, no.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lapsed DCI Rules Advisor - Retired from playing but still hanging around
So still no guns in Magic? Even on a pirate world? What a wasted opportunity... Were there any guns in Magic except Portal Second Age?
To answer your question, some Phyrexians had gun-like weapons during the invasion of Dominaria, but other than that and the laser-like ray cannons that Phyrexian skyships and the Weatherlight had, not really, no.
Cannon were also used on Kaladesh. The COnsulate's flagship actually did utilize them(though not necessarily firing) in the story at one point after the Gatewatch appeared.
Mark has stated that guns take away the aesthetic that Magic has developed, as well as a policy against having them in game (which personally find silly, but w/e). Largely they want their characters to be "Spellslingers" and not "gunslingers". Cannon and beamweapons can be said to be powered by a magical force, stored or otherwise.
Right, so in summary: flying laser battleships yes, electrical super scientists yes, genetic engineering yes, basically the Borg from Star Trek yes, guns no.
In fairness, I can understand that aesthetic choice, even if I don't really agree with it.
Right, so in summary: flying laser battleships yes, electrical super scientists yes, genetic engineering yes, basically the Borg from Star Trek yes, guns no.
In fairness, I can understand that aesthetic choice, even if I don't really agree with it.
MTG is already blurring the line between magic fantasy and science fiction as-is, especially with artifact themes.
I don't mind guns being in the game personally, but I can kinda understand why they don't want to cross that particular line.
I'd love it if the Western plane had mages who dueled each other by firering magical blasts/bullets by doing finger guns.
We have bows, thats what magic uses for guns and help ties the game to fantasy more. The silver bullet trope was seen in Innistrad with Wolfhunter's Quiver, so I could see Cowboys using mini bow or something similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Pianna used a cross bow that fired bolts of white mana rather then actual bolts. It functioned like a gun but was still distinctly fantasy, so it's not function but form that magic wants to keep clear.
Mark Rosewater actually did once speculated on possibly doing a block/set with a Western theme. In fact, although I don't know where to find the post, this same post contained the basic idea of Ixalan (pirates, dinosaurs... IIRC the idea of combining the two came later). Anyway, I definitely disagree with the idea that Magic's aesthetic fundamentally disallows guns; at the very least, I think that if the company ever did do a plane with a Western motif, the established aesthetics of that genre demands six-shooters. A crossbow just won't fit on your hip. Magic's previous art and standards can't be the only deciding factor when choosing an aesthetic for a plane. The "established aesthetic" of Magic has to evolve and sometimes compromise to allow new ideas. They couldn't do Theros and Amonkhet properly until they allowed "God" to be a creature type. So count me as disappointed that Ixalan is averse to even showing proper cannons. Fantasy harpoon guns just look dumb to me.
While I kind of think that "magical guns" are not much different from so many other "technologies" that exist on Mirrodin or Kaladesh and as thus would feel perfectly fine in Magic, there wereholsterable crossbows in Innistrad.
While I kind of think that "magical guns" are not much different from so many other "technologies" that exist on Mirrodin or Kaladesh and as thus would feel perfectly fine in Magic, there wereholsterable crossbows in Innistrad.
Magic 'guns' are probably going to happen at some point, if you don't count what has happened already as magic 'guns'. The thing we will probably never get is anything that even remotely resembles a revolver, which is what a lot of people expect/want out of a wild west theme.
I haven't read the book, but the Thran never used guns or cannons?
About guns being "outlawed" in all the multiverse, it seems very silly. Infinite planes, and nobody has tried putting together guano and sulphure?
Is this another inexplicable trope "fantasy is fantasy", just like when George Martin said that in Westeros gunpoweder elements don't exist (which is impossible)?
I haven't read the book, but the Thran never used guns or cannons?
About guns being "outlawed" in all the multiverse, it seems very silly. Infinite planes, and nobody has tried putting together guano and sulphure?
Is this another inexplicable trope "fantasy is fantasy", just like when George Martin said that in Westeros gunpoweder elements don't exist (which is impossible)?
You assume that technological progress is a straight line when in reality it has been shown multiple times not to be the case.
Furthermore, I think the mere existence of magic creates a sort of threshold for which technologies are viable. Why create guns if you can simply shoot lightning and fire from your fingertips? Or summon an elemental that does that for you? I mean, technology remaining stagnant in fantasy settings is a staple for like... forever.
While I kind of think that "magical guns" are not much different from so many other "technologies" that exist on Mirrodin or Kaladesh and as thus would feel perfectly fine in Magic, there wereholsterable crossbows in Innistrad.
Those are the bolts that are holstered, not the crossbows themselves. There is a reason for that: the limbs of the bow are in the way. There are a lot of weapons you can wear on your hip, including traditional bows mind you! At least, I've heard that cavalry in parts of Asia did so. But not crossbows. It doesn't work out well. If it did, you would expect that someone would have done it historically. But it didn't, and that is why history records that wheelock pistols were considered terrifying when they first appeared. It was the first time real crossbow-like firepower could be easily worn or even concealed on your person.
Personally, whenever I see hand crossbows in fantasy artwork I die a little inside. Hand crossbows like that exist (and existed historically too), but are very low poundage. Its an inevitable result of scaling down the weapon. They are basically meant to be toys, and always have been. I guess you can chalk this up to me knowing waaaay too much about how weaponry works in real life, but I am what I am.
Quote from "Flisch" »
Furthermore, I think the mere existence of magic creates a sort of threshold for which technologies are viable. Why create guns if you can simply shoot lightning and fire from your fingertips? Or summon an elemental that does that for you? I mean, technology remaining stagnant in fantasy settings is a staple for like... forever.
The question refutes itself. Why does anyone in fantasy use weapons like swords and arrows when they can cast spells? Probably because not everyone can cast spells. And those that can, in Magic, are limited by the color of magic they access. Green, White, and Blue don't get burn spells.
Plus Kaladesh was all about technological advancement in a fantasy setting. I think that Magic, as well as a few other franchises like Final Fantasy, shows that fantasy does not have to shun technological motifs just because it isn't traditional.
Quote from "user_938036" »
Magic 'guns' are probably going to happen at some point, if you don't count what has happened already as magic 'guns'. The thing we will probably never get is anything that even remotely resembles a revolver, which is what a lot of people expect/want out of a wild west theme.
I don't even think they need to look like revolvers per-say, as long as they resemble a proper gun. They could take inspiration from 18'th century airguns that had round bottles underneath (which in fact are what I think the non-human guns in Portal: Second Age were supposed to look like) so long as the aesthetic of the genre is respected. You can kind of get away with pirates who don't have muskets because the cutlass is so iconic of the era even if its disappointing. But I definitely draw the line at cowboys with crossbows. Its just silly.
Quote from "Firebead_elvenhair" »
I haven't read the book, but the Thran never used guns or cannons?
Oh no, actually the Thrawn are the inventors of all those Urza-era rayguns. Keep in mind that Phyrexia is basically what was left of the Thrawn after Yawgmoth was done destroying their civilization.
About guns being "outlawed" in all the multiverse, it seems very silly. Infinite planes, and nobody has tried putting together guano and sulphure?
Is this another inexplicable trope "fantasy is fantasy", just like when George Martin said that in Westeros gunpoweder elements don't exist (which is impossible)?
Really, its a holdover of a bunch of baggage the Fantasy genre has had a hard time shaking itself of. First there was Tolkien's dislike of guns because of his experiences during WWI, so only Orcs had gunpowder in his work. It goes without saying that even Magic apes Tolkien some of the time. Then there is the persistent myth that guns immediately made medieval armor obsolete overnight. Nevermind the historical origin of the term "bulletproof." So when Magic's creative team put guns in Portal: Second Age's artwork, there was a bunch of players who complained about both of these things and creative made a hasty and permanent decision never to revisit such imagery.
Then MaRo decided to speculate on someday doing a Western themed setting, and well, that runs right into the question of which aesthetic is stronger, the genre aesthetic or the aesthetic that is supposedly quintessential "M:tG"? Personally, I don't think the latter really exists in the same sense as the former because the game is ever-evolving whereas the Western is based on a time period (if only loosely). But that's my opinion.
Those are the bolts that are holstered, not the crossbows themselves.
There is more Innistrad artwork about proper holstered crossbows, with folded in limbs. Unfortunately, I don't recall which cards they were. There was a thread here, though.
There is a reason for that: the limbs of the bow are in the way. There are a lot of weapons you can wear on your hip, including traditional bows mind you! At least, I've heard that cavalry in parts of Asia did so. But not crossbows. It doesn't work out well. If it did, you would expect that someone would have done it historically. But it didn't, and that is why history records that wheelock pistols were considered terrifying when they first appeared. It was the first time real crossbow-like firepower could be easily worn or even concealed on your person.
And dragons shouldn't be able to fly according to the laws of physics. What's your point?
The question refutes itself. Why does anyone in fantasy use weapons like swords and arrows when they can cast spells? Probably because not everyone can cast spells. And those that can, in Magic, are limited by the color of magic they access. Green, White, and Blue don't get burn spells.
Inventing swords is infinitely easier than inventing guns though.
Plus Kaladesh was all about technological advancement in a fantasy setting. I think that Magic, as well as a few other franchises like Final Fantasy, shows that fantasy does not have to shun technological motifs just because it isn't traditional.
W-What? Magic is at its core traditional fantasy, with some bleeding in Mirrodin and Kaladesh. Comparing that to Final Fantasy is like comparing Star Trek to Warhammer 40k.
The funny thing is, I'm not even particularly against guns in Magic. I just don't think these arguments are very convincing. While I don't understand why Wizards is so against them, I also don't see why people are so mad at their exclusion. Guns are not really all that interesting in a visual medium like Magic. How do you picture a gunfight in card art? You can show an arrow speeding towards an enemy, but how do you show a bullet, without it becoming too "Matrixey"? You can show just the moment before an enemy is hit by a sword, but how do you show that a person holding a gun is just about to pull the trigger? Sure, there may be some options, but they are much more limited than people think they are. Gunfights work best in a moving visual (and auditory!) medium like movies and video games. But Magic isn't that.
Nevertheless having guns for one set might work out, especially if the setting demands it (like Wild West). As I said, I don't understand why Wizards is so adamantly against it. My first guess would be possible censorship in other cultures, but since it's never brought up, that doesn't appear to be the reason.
And dragons shouldn't be able to fly according to the laws of physics. What's your point?
That dragons don't exist and crossbows do. You can invent whatever excuses you want when it comes to dragons, precisely because they don't exist. They are part of the fantasy. But crossbows do exist, and for people who know how they work it simply isn't possible to completely put their working mechanism or physics out of mind. You fold the limbs in, you make them even weaker and introduce two failure points where the bow would break. You try holstering them another way, it becomes obviously inconvenient. I can't ignore these things completely.
Ask anyone who practices HEMA why they groan about oversized swords in fiction, and you get a similar response: to anyone who has handled a real sword, an oversized sword just looks silly. Which is a problem because the artist usually wants to provoke the opposite response. They are supposed to look awesome and make the guy wielding it awesome by association. Its also the same reason that people frequently mock ridiculous wardrobes in fantasy and superhero fiction (like boob-plates): since everyone wears clothes, everyone can identify non-functional or even impossible outfits at a glance. While you could justify it with magic, most people will dismiss you and move on before you have the chance. This is why you shouldn't make a habit of depicting non-functional objects wherever possible. People will notice.
Plus, You put a pistol crossbow in the hands of someone wearing 17'th century clothes, and give it a pistol grip just to make sure its obviously a stand in for a flintlock, and you draw attention to that detail. Verisimilitude requires making little details like that innocuous. People likely complained about Portal: Second Age in part because it looked anachronistic for a knight to hold a pistol (and it somewhat was), but Innistrad resembles the late 17'th and early 18'th centuries. I don't think anyone would have complained in that context. But people like me totally do notice the crossbows.
Inventing swords is infinitely easier than inventing guns though.
No, actually, it isn't. Once you know the recipe to black powder, you realize its amazing that it wasn't discovered sooner in history. All the ingredients are quite easily accessible in nature. Guns and bombs could have existed in the bronze age. In fact, some people think Archimedes managed to create a steam powered cannon, and although there is no proof it could have been done. In fact, black powder is so simple it could have been made with stone age technology. The first guns used by the Chinese were made out of bamboo. Its a coincidence that iron swords came first. And that's without mentioning air guns... if you want to propel a bullet out of a tube, no chemicals are even needed.
W-What? Magic is at its core traditional fantasy, with some bleeding in Mirrodin and Kaladesh. Comparing that to Final Fantasy is like comparing Star Trek to Warhammer 40k.
I'm not comparing anything to anything. I'm using Final Fantasy and Kaladesh to demonstrate something about Fantasy and its relationship with technology. Besides, there are tons of other Magic sets that challenge traditional fantasy conventions, like Antiquities, everything related to Phyrexia, Ravinca, Kamigawa, Lorwynn, etc. Each challenges the Fantasy genre in a different way. I personally consider this tendency to be one of the hallmarks of Magic and what makes it stand out from most other fantasy games.
Also, as an aside, Warhammer 40K makes a lot more sense if you assume its a parody/satire of highly optimistic science fiction like Asimov's Foundation and Star Trek. Or at least, so I've been told (I'm not a big 40K fan, but the argument makes sense to me). Also, several of the Weatherlight crewmembers were inspired directly from the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation (eg. Karn is Data, Gerrard is Riker, Tahngarth is Worf, etc.) Sometimes, things that appear dissimilar are nonetheless quite comparable.
The funny thing is, I'm not even particularly against guns in Magic. I just don't think these arguments are very convincing. While I don't understand why Wizards is so against them, I also don't see why people are so mad at their exclusion. Guns are not really all that interesting in a visual medium like Magic. How do you picture a gunfight in card art? You can show an arrow speeding towards an enemy, but how do you show a bullet, without it becoming too "Matrixey"? You can show just the moment before an enemy is hit by a sword, but how do you show that a person holding a gun is just about to pull the trigger? Sure, there may be some options, but they are much more limited than people think they are. Gunfights work best in a moving visual (and auditory!) medium like movies and video games. But Magic isn't that.
Like I said, I'm not even mad. With Ixilan (and Innistrad as well) I'm just disappointed. Its a genre aversion I feel is based on a historical misunderstanding and mindless copying of the genre's foundational works. Its not a problem in Tolkien's work because of the context he was writing in, but it becomes a problem when everyone else does it even in other contexts. I would be a lot more irate if they ever did come out with that hypothetical Western plane and disregarded the Western's genre conventions, though. Better for them to never do it at all than to do it a disservice. I mean, one of my favorite non-collectable card games is Bang!, so I know that its not that impossible to depict these motifs in card form. A lot of artists in Magic don't depict motion anyway, they paint in styles that are very static or timeless. Which is fine for the West. And looking at Portal: Second Age, I think they did a good job with the motif. I mean, there simply is no better artwork for Vengeance than the image of a woman with a rifle standing over the corpse of a giant.
Its a challenge, but I would hope that they wouldn't shy away from a challenge.
And hey, there are other Western images that don't require it, like Native American culture, frontiersmen with bowie knives, honest-to-god grizzlie bears...
Nevertheless having guns for one set might work out, especially if the setting demands it (like Wild West). As I said, I don't understand why Wizards is so adamantly against it. My first guess would be possible censorship in other cultures, but since it's never brought up, that doesn't appear to be the reason.
I think its just stubbornness. They made a declaration more than ten years ago, and they don't want to admit it might have been a hasty decision.
Nevertheless having guns for one set might work out, especially if the setting demands it (like Wild West). As I said, I don't understand why Wizards is so adamantly against it. My first guess would be possible censorship in other cultures, but since it's never brought up, that doesn't appear to be the reason.
I think its just stubbornness. They made a declaration more than ten years ago, and they don't want to admit it might have been a hasty decision.
If you asked someone like MaRo right now, I'm pretty sure the answer would just be "because people did not like it" and that (sadly) is a very good reason for them to not try a second time. It's the same deal as with the "failed planes".
That dragons don't exist and crossbows do. You can invent whatever excuses you want when it comes to dragons, precisely because they don't exist. They are part of the fantasy. But crossbows do exist, and for people who know how they work it simply isn't possible to completely put their working mechanism or physics out of mind. You fold the limbs in, you make them even weaker and introduce two failure points where the bow would break. You try holstering them another way, it becomes obviously inconvenient. I can't ignore these things completely.
So wait, for flying animals (which exist in real life, mind you) you are willing to suspend your disbelief in the laws of physics, but you're not willing to do so when it comes to weapons?
No, actually, it isn't. Once you know the recipe to black powder, you realize its amazing that it wasn't discovered sooner in history. All the ingredients are quite easily accessible in nature. Guns and bombs could have existed in the bronze age. In fact, some people think Archimedes managed to create a steam powered cannon, and although there is no proof it could have been done. In fact, black powder is so simple it could have been made with stone age technology. The first guns used by the Chinese were made out of bamboo. Its a coincidence that iron swords came first. And that's without mentioning air guns... if you want to propel a bullet out of a tube, no chemicals are even needed.
Swords have their conceptual base all the way back to bifaces. Essentially, as soon as you have built your first thing that has a sharp edge, you keep doing the same thing, possibly with other materials. The process of shaping metal into a sharp edge may be different from shaping a stone into a sharp edge, but the abstract thought behind it is similar: Create a sharp edge from a hard material. Gunpowder on the other hand has no such basis anywhere, until it is invented. Flammable oil comes closest, but the process behind creating an explosive isn't mechanical but chemical and as thus harder to translate to a different process. Creating black powder may be easy, but coming up with it, unless you accidentally stumble upon its explosive properties or you're actively searching for a suitable explosive after already having found a different one (which brings us back to the first problem), is very very difficult, if not impossible.
Furthermore, to make a sword all you need (apart from the knowledge) is the materials, hammer and an anvil. In order to create a cannon you need to have casting moulds, which is another step further in terms of complexity. Not to mention that handguns are even more difficult, due to all the small bits and pieces.
It is not a coincidence that swords came before cannons. It may, at best, be a coincidence that metal working came before black powder, but even that may be stretching it.
Like I said, I'm not even mad. With Ixilan (and Innistrad as well) I'm just disappointed. Its a genre aversion I feel is based on a historical misunderstanding and mindless copying of the genre's foundational works. Its not a problem in Tolkien's work because of the context he was writing in, but it becomes a problem when everyone else does it even in other contexts. I would be a lot more irate if they ever did come out with that hypothetical Western plane and disregarded the Western's genre conventions, though. Better for them to never do it at all than to do it a disservice. I mean, one of my favorite non-collectable card games is Bang!, so I know that its not that impossible to depict these motifs in card form. A lot of artists in Magic don't depict motion anyway, they paint in styles that are very static or timeless. Which is fine for the West. And looking at Portal: Second Age, I think they did a good job with the motif. I mean, there simply is no better artwork for Vengeance than the image of a woman with a rifle standing over the corpse of a giant.
I don't really see it as a problem to exclude black powder or guns in a fantasy setting, especially if it's an original one. Why would Game of Thrones have to have gunpowder? I don't see the reason. It's a different world, it has a different history. It's the same reason why some people like steampunk. They like it, because it is different from reality, in a way that doesn't really change the laws of physics (too much).
As for Portal: Second Age, I do agree that it never felt odd to me, but I also don't think it would have hurt the setting if guns were removed. I really don't feel strongly either way. I don't really connect pirates with guns as much as cannons, so I'm perfectly fine if there will be no guns. For a Wild West world, it is a bit more tricky, but to be honest, if they come up with a suitable replacement to do the trope, I really don't mind. You say that one of the hallmarks of Magic is to challenge the (traditional*) fantasy genre, but on the other hand you say that they have to copy what already exists. Deviating from something existing is good in one case but bad in another?
*Seeing as fantasy is more than just tolkienesque traditional fantasy, I felt the need to make the distinction.
I think its just stubbornness. They made a declaration more than ten years ago, and they don't want to admit it might have been a hasty decision.
Wizards doesn't really have a long track record of stubborness. The only thing that only half applies is the reserved list, but that's less about stubborness and more about potential legal and image issues.
So still no guns in Magic? Even on a pirate world? What a wasted opportunity... Were there any guns in Magic except Portal Second Age?
It's neither pure coincidence nor official Magic art. If you look at the artist's gallery, she did a few pseudo-magic artworks for gamermats. She uses the general setting and artistic direction without actually using anything definite about the setting. Check out her 'Kaladesh' art and her two 'Amonkhet' artworks. You can tell what they're based on, but they're definitely not "Magic" Magic.
I don't think having a gun would require actual card representation in any ability, except maybe on specific guns that are equipments giving some tap ability to deal damage. A creature's power is already an abstraction of how they fight, whether they do with a gun, bow, sword, magic or otherwise doesn't matter. So I think there will be guns, at least creatively.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
To answer your question, some Phyrexians had gun-like weapons during the invasion of Dominaria, but other than that and the laser-like ray cannons that Phyrexian skyships and the Weatherlight had, not really, no.
Cannon were also used on Kaladesh. The COnsulate's flagship actually did utilize them(though not necessarily firing) in the story at one point after the Gatewatch appeared.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/search/guns
In fairness, I can understand that aesthetic choice, even if I don't really agree with it.
MTG is already blurring the line between magic fantasy and science fiction as-is, especially with artifact themes.
I don't mind guns being in the game personally, but I can kinda understand why they don't want to cross that particular line.
We have bows, thats what magic uses for guns and help ties the game to fantasy more. The silver bullet trope was seen in Innistrad with Wolfhunter's Quiver, so I could see Cowboys using mini bow or something similar.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
While I kind of think that "magical guns" are not much different from so many other "technologies" that exist on Mirrodin or Kaladesh and as thus would feel perfectly fine in Magic, there were holsterable crossbows in Innistrad.
[Or] Oro = Spanish word for gold, used in central Mexico.
[Az] Aztec = A culture in central Mexico.
[Ca] Oaxaca = A city in central Mexico.
Really they thought we wouldn't notice that???
About guns being "outlawed" in all the multiverse, it seems very silly. Infinite planes, and nobody has tried putting together guano and sulphure?
Is this another inexplicable trope "fantasy is fantasy", just like when George Martin said that in Westeros gunpoweder elements don't exist (which is impossible)?
You assume that technological progress is a straight line when in reality it has been shown multiple times not to be the case.
Furthermore, I think the mere existence of magic creates a sort of threshold for which technologies are viable. Why create guns if you can simply shoot lightning and fire from your fingertips? Or summon an elemental that does that for you? I mean, technology remaining stagnant in fantasy settings is a staple for like... forever.
Those are the bolts that are holstered, not the crossbows themselves. There is a reason for that: the limbs of the bow are in the way. There are a lot of weapons you can wear on your hip, including traditional bows mind you! At least, I've heard that cavalry in parts of Asia did so. But not crossbows. It doesn't work out well. If it did, you would expect that someone would have done it historically. But it didn't, and that is why history records that wheelock pistols were considered terrifying when they first appeared. It was the first time real crossbow-like firepower could be easily worn or even concealed on your person.
Personally, whenever I see hand crossbows in fantasy artwork I die a little inside. Hand crossbows like that exist (and existed historically too), but are very low poundage. Its an inevitable result of scaling down the weapon. They are basically meant to be toys, and always have been. I guess you can chalk this up to me knowing waaaay too much about how weaponry works in real life, but I am what I am.
The question refutes itself. Why does anyone in fantasy use weapons like swords and arrows when they can cast spells? Probably because not everyone can cast spells. And those that can, in Magic, are limited by the color of magic they access. Green, White, and Blue don't get burn spells.
Plus Kaladesh was all about technological advancement in a fantasy setting. I think that Magic, as well as a few other franchises like Final Fantasy, shows that fantasy does not have to shun technological motifs just because it isn't traditional.
I don't even think they need to look like revolvers per-say, as long as they resemble a proper gun. They could take inspiration from 18'th century airguns that had round bottles underneath (which in fact are what I think the non-human guns in Portal: Second Age were supposed to look like) so long as the aesthetic of the genre is respected. You can kind of get away with pirates who don't have muskets because the cutlass is so iconic of the era even if its disappointing. But I definitely draw the line at cowboys with crossbows. Its just silly.
Oh no, actually the Thrawn are the inventors of all those Urza-era rayguns. Keep in mind that Phyrexia is basically what was left of the Thrawn after Yawgmoth was done destroying their civilization.
Really, its a holdover of a bunch of baggage the Fantasy genre has had a hard time shaking itself of. First there was Tolkien's dislike of guns because of his experiences during WWI, so only Orcs had gunpowder in his work. It goes without saying that even Magic apes Tolkien some of the time. Then there is the persistent myth that guns immediately made medieval armor obsolete overnight. Nevermind the historical origin of the term "bulletproof." So when Magic's creative team put guns in Portal: Second Age's artwork, there was a bunch of players who complained about both of these things and creative made a hasty and permanent decision never to revisit such imagery.
Then MaRo decided to speculate on someday doing a Western themed setting, and well, that runs right into the question of which aesthetic is stronger, the genre aesthetic or the aesthetic that is supposedly quintessential "M:tG"? Personally, I don't think the latter really exists in the same sense as the former because the game is ever-evolving whereas the Western is based on a time period (if only loosely). But that's my opinion.
There is more Innistrad artwork about proper holstered crossbows, with folded in limbs. Unfortunately, I don't recall which cards they were. There was a thread here, though.
And dragons shouldn't be able to fly according to the laws of physics. What's your point?
Inventing swords is infinitely easier than inventing guns though.
W-What? Magic is at its core traditional fantasy, with some bleeding in Mirrodin and Kaladesh. Comparing that to Final Fantasy is like comparing Star Trek to Warhammer 40k.
The funny thing is, I'm not even particularly against guns in Magic. I just don't think these arguments are very convincing. While I don't understand why Wizards is so against them, I also don't see why people are so mad at their exclusion. Guns are not really all that interesting in a visual medium like Magic. How do you picture a gunfight in card art? You can show an arrow speeding towards an enemy, but how do you show a bullet, without it becoming too "Matrixey"? You can show just the moment before an enemy is hit by a sword, but how do you show that a person holding a gun is just about to pull the trigger? Sure, there may be some options, but they are much more limited than people think they are. Gunfights work best in a moving visual (and auditory!) medium like movies and video games. But Magic isn't that.
Nevertheless having guns for one set might work out, especially if the setting demands it (like Wild West). As I said, I don't understand why Wizards is so adamantly against it. My first guess would be possible censorship in other cultures, but since it's never brought up, that doesn't appear to be the reason.
That dragons don't exist and crossbows do. You can invent whatever excuses you want when it comes to dragons, precisely because they don't exist. They are part of the fantasy. But crossbows do exist, and for people who know how they work it simply isn't possible to completely put their working mechanism or physics out of mind. You fold the limbs in, you make them even weaker and introduce two failure points where the bow would break. You try holstering them another way, it becomes obviously inconvenient. I can't ignore these things completely.
Ask anyone who practices HEMA why they groan about oversized swords in fiction, and you get a similar response: to anyone who has handled a real sword, an oversized sword just looks silly. Which is a problem because the artist usually wants to provoke the opposite response. They are supposed to look awesome and make the guy wielding it awesome by association. Its also the same reason that people frequently mock ridiculous wardrobes in fantasy and superhero fiction (like boob-plates): since everyone wears clothes, everyone can identify non-functional or even impossible outfits at a glance. While you could justify it with magic, most people will dismiss you and move on before you have the chance. This is why you shouldn't make a habit of depicting non-functional objects wherever possible. People will notice.
Plus, You put a pistol crossbow in the hands of someone wearing 17'th century clothes, and give it a pistol grip just to make sure its obviously a stand in for a flintlock, and you draw attention to that detail. Verisimilitude requires making little details like that innocuous. People likely complained about Portal: Second Age in part because it looked anachronistic for a knight to hold a pistol (and it somewhat was), but Innistrad resembles the late 17'th and early 18'th centuries. I don't think anyone would have complained in that context. But people like me totally do notice the crossbows.
No, actually, it isn't. Once you know the recipe to black powder, you realize its amazing that it wasn't discovered sooner in history. All the ingredients are quite easily accessible in nature. Guns and bombs could have existed in the bronze age. In fact, some people think Archimedes managed to create a steam powered cannon, and although there is no proof it could have been done. In fact, black powder is so simple it could have been made with stone age technology. The first guns used by the Chinese were made out of bamboo. Its a coincidence that iron swords came first. And that's without mentioning air guns... if you want to propel a bullet out of a tube, no chemicals are even needed.
I'm not comparing anything to anything. I'm using Final Fantasy and Kaladesh to demonstrate something about Fantasy and its relationship with technology. Besides, there are tons of other Magic sets that challenge traditional fantasy conventions, like Antiquities, everything related to Phyrexia, Ravinca, Kamigawa, Lorwynn, etc. Each challenges the Fantasy genre in a different way. I personally consider this tendency to be one of the hallmarks of Magic and what makes it stand out from most other fantasy games.
Also, as an aside, Warhammer 40K makes a lot more sense if you assume its a parody/satire of highly optimistic science fiction like Asimov's Foundation and Star Trek. Or at least, so I've been told (I'm not a big 40K fan, but the argument makes sense to me). Also, several of the Weatherlight crewmembers were inspired directly from the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation (eg. Karn is Data, Gerrard is Riker, Tahngarth is Worf, etc.) Sometimes, things that appear dissimilar are nonetheless quite comparable.
Like I said, I'm not even mad. With Ixilan (and Innistrad as well) I'm just disappointed. Its a genre aversion I feel is based on a historical misunderstanding and mindless copying of the genre's foundational works. Its not a problem in Tolkien's work because of the context he was writing in, but it becomes a problem when everyone else does it even in other contexts. I would be a lot more irate if they ever did come out with that hypothetical Western plane and disregarded the Western's genre conventions, though. Better for them to never do it at all than to do it a disservice. I mean, one of my favorite non-collectable card games is Bang!, so I know that its not that impossible to depict these motifs in card form. A lot of artists in Magic don't depict motion anyway, they paint in styles that are very static or timeless. Which is fine for the West. And looking at Portal: Second Age, I think they did a good job with the motif. I mean, there simply is no better artwork for Vengeance than the image of a woman with a rifle standing over the corpse of a giant.
Its a challenge, but I would hope that they wouldn't shy away from a challenge.
And hey, there are other Western images that don't require it, like Native American culture, frontiersmen with bowie knives, honest-to-god grizzlie bears...
I think its just stubbornness. They made a declaration more than ten years ago, and they don't want to admit it might have been a hasty decision.
I think WotC expects us to notice everything. Almost every fantasy property does that. What's wrong with it?
So wait, for flying animals (which exist in real life, mind you) you are willing to suspend your disbelief in the laws of physics, but you're not willing to do so when it comes to weapons?
Swords have their conceptual base all the way back to bifaces. Essentially, as soon as you have built your first thing that has a sharp edge, you keep doing the same thing, possibly with other materials. The process of shaping metal into a sharp edge may be different from shaping a stone into a sharp edge, but the abstract thought behind it is similar: Create a sharp edge from a hard material. Gunpowder on the other hand has no such basis anywhere, until it is invented. Flammable oil comes closest, but the process behind creating an explosive isn't mechanical but chemical and as thus harder to translate to a different process. Creating black powder may be easy, but coming up with it, unless you accidentally stumble upon its explosive properties or you're actively searching for a suitable explosive after already having found a different one (which brings us back to the first problem), is very very difficult, if not impossible.
Furthermore, to make a sword all you need (apart from the knowledge) is the materials, hammer and an anvil. In order to create a cannon you need to have casting moulds, which is another step further in terms of complexity. Not to mention that handguns are even more difficult, due to all the small bits and pieces.
It is not a coincidence that swords came before cannons. It may, at best, be a coincidence that metal working came before black powder, but even that may be stretching it.
I don't really see it as a problem to exclude black powder or guns in a fantasy setting, especially if it's an original one. Why would Game of Thrones have to have gunpowder? I don't see the reason. It's a different world, it has a different history. It's the same reason why some people like steampunk. They like it, because it is different from reality, in a way that doesn't really change the laws of physics (too much).
As for Portal: Second Age, I do agree that it never felt odd to me, but I also don't think it would have hurt the setting if guns were removed. I really don't feel strongly either way. I don't really connect pirates with guns as much as cannons, so I'm perfectly fine if there will be no guns. For a Wild West world, it is a bit more tricky, but to be honest, if they come up with a suitable replacement to do the trope, I really don't mind. You say that one of the hallmarks of Magic is to challenge the (traditional*) fantasy genre, but on the other hand you say that they have to copy what already exists. Deviating from something existing is good in one case but bad in another?
*Seeing as fantasy is more than just tolkienesque traditional fantasy, I felt the need to make the distinction.
Wizards doesn't really have a long track record of stubborness. The only thing that only half applies is the reserved list, but that's less about stubborness and more about potential legal and image issues.