Ok. I know this has already confirmed to be fake. But for the thoughts.
Humanoid sliver = sliver planeswalker? Can we? Please?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I fear I won't have much time to play Magic these days.
I get to watch worlds develop around me.
I get to watch great leaders, terrible oppressors, and trend setters rise and fall.
Limited, Standard, Modern, everything is a different playing field I feel I can observe, but will not actually touch.
I look forward to the stories I will hear.
And more so to the ones I will watch unfold first hand.
Isn't the unknown exciting?
If they make it, and make it at a low cost, control players will just throw their cards in the air and go "That's it, I'm out, GG." and go play Xbox Live instead.
Heck, anyone would do that, really - a card that grants all Slivers you control Hexproof? That's seriously broken. All you would need is some token generating Sliver + Poplulate effects and you've pretty much won.
*Sighs* Here we go again...
Board wipes > slivers. Shroud doesn't help here, why would hexproof? I'm not a competitive player, and my experience is limited to EDH, but even with a whole swarm of shrouded, flying, unblockable, regenerating, hasted and magpie-like horrors, my fellows always found a way to pull the rug from underneath my feet. Even while using the most douchebaggish of control strategies.
Slivers that were indestructible or had infect--now THAT would be broken.
I do not liked the transform cards from innistrad, fused from DGM, flip from kamigawa, the new phyrexian style from SOM or many other things. But I adapted... I only would make a signed protest to wizard for the humanoid sliver (if many other people claims too)...
I do not liked the transform cards from innistrad, fused from DGM, flip from kamigawa, the new phyrexian style from SOM or many other things. But I adapted... I only would make a signed protest to wizard for the humanoid sliver (if many other people claims too)...
A simple Errata saying "Woops! these are not slivers, they are... ehmm.. Splicers! yeah, thats it"
Then M14 hits with an errata that reads "Slivers are splicers, not slivers"
So slivers aren't really a "mechanic" but any possibility these duders count as the returning "mechanic". They certainly are a significant throwback.
I think they count as the returning mechanic. I'd be very surprised if they have an old keyword here like scry/bloodthirst/exalted in the previous sets.
We call all the very amazingly different varieties of goblins the same thing. They are called Slivers because functionally they still demonstrate the behavior that defined Slivers. Creature types aren't based on speciation. After all, can you honestly tell me Mirrodin's Goblins are the same species as Lorwyn's Boggarts?
And this is why elves or goblins with horns aren't elves or goblins anymore. Oh wait...
You (both) are completely right, I thought the Mirrodin goblins (first time around) were still okay, but starting from Kamigawa I was thorougly disgusted by their appearance. However like Volrath states:
Yes. Those goblins all shares the thing that makes them goblins. Curious, dumb and viciously violent. They often have beg ears and large noses.
All the slivers shares is that they like to shares abbilities.. nothing else. They could have had the creature type ally and be done with it.
And also, they are present in a world of magic. Appendages like horns and stuff can be magically incorporated in races of this species. However, I'm sure that if limbless goblins or elves would show up people would complain too.
Creatures like Stromkirk Captain are very much lords in everything but creature type
Yeah... yeah.. That was not the point I was making. My point was that the lords as a creature type are phased out cus it doesn't make sense anymore. If you strip down everything of a sliver that previously defined a sliver, why would you still call them slivers?
Remind me again why people are trying to argue against the Sliver's evolution in a fantasy-based universe with real world science?
Because we identify ourselves with the fantasy world. It should follow a path of logic. If a situation in magic describes an apple falling from someones hand, we expect this will be pulled towards the planet because of gravity. If an explanation surfaces that evolution is the driver of change than this goes hand in hand with speciation. If however, they used the argument, magic has changed their appearance the claim would not be as strong as it is now.
Because people work a lot harder at finding reasons as to why to dislike something rather than attempt to accept something for what it is
Euh.. no.. First of all, reason above. Secondly, having an other opinion does not make us bad persons. We do not have to accept everything for what it is. If something is stupid for valid reasons we may complain if we use arguments. Sneers like this to stop people from disliking ideas is just too simple. Constructive critique is good, attempt to accept that.
*Cheers out loud and applauds until hands turn red*
I'm sure he heard you, at least your pain and cheering wasn't in vain. *Oh wait*
Interesting that you hurt yourself for something as trivial as a light discussion on the changed appearance of a creature type of a cardgame, although I'm sure it contributed a lot in the discussion.
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
Da heck is this bolliocks?
THAT IS NOT A SLIVER.
Sure its got the creature type but it could have been Demigods for all we could have known instead of Slivers.
These new Slivers are a bloody abomination that need to go die in fire.
Why change what is tried and true in its FOURTH VERSION of the same tribe when its previous THREE were unchanged and accepted?
THIS represents how perfectly BLAND and UNINSPIRED the artwork is in how it can be used for something so UNRELATED to the true roots. Oh sure some of them have a scythe, but not all of them do and they are no longer the faceless beaked entities with an ALIEN body that I had come to know.
I do NOT accept that these are the new Slivers, they are pieces of uninspired GARBAGE.
Yeah I do know I am raging, yes I am mad bro, you know why? Because they RUINED another iconic part of MTG.
Apparently that user Goblin Techies was somewhat right in that I would even feel PUNISHED for even running my monored Sliver Deck against these new ATROCITIES because they LEECH off of my Slivers.
Its not a matter of just making something popular for a few design tweakings, its that they almost COMPLETELY changed the look of Slivers. If it weren't for the fact that some had a scythe, no one here could tell you otherwise that what we are looking at is even a Sliver at ALL.
Warring Hives of Slivers? Where does this bolliocks even come from? Slivers were in their past three versions, ALWAYS A SINGLE HIVE.
This is a spit in the face to anyone who played and enjoyed the Slivers in their original art. No amount of text of [you control] or increased power and toughness can make up for that. These new Slivers can go to heck for all I care.
Also, the separate hive reasoning for the change in how they work falls flat on its face and proven wrong when I, as a planeswalker, can summon Slivers from different planes and they still share abilities. These new 'slivers' shouldn't if that were the case.
Warring Hives of Slivers? Where does this bolliocks even come from? Slivers were in their past three versions, ALWAYS A SINGLE HIVE.
Dude, chill...
Similar to the Slivers, the Zergs from Starcraft all responded to a singular entity or hive mind, the overmind. When the overmind was destroyed, there was a Zerg civil war among the cerebrates (seconds in command to the overmind).
There can be a resonable explanation as to why the sliver's "society" fragmented (:p) into several hives. Heck, even the change in global to just "you control" effects might be reflecting this.
In fact, these may be only a single Hive with a different, separatist evolution path, and we may very well see the original slivers somewhere else (in case WoTC decides to back down to peer pressure)
Also, the separate hive reasoning for the change in how they work falls flat on its face and proven wrong when I, as a planeswalker, can summon Slivers from different planes and they still share abilities. These new 'slivers' shouldn't if that were the case.
As a player, you can summon nicol bolas at will, have himequiphimself, load his *** into a mortar and fire him at a brick wall. I think we pretty much stablished that in-game mechanics don't relate well to the in-universe flavor.
Board wipes > slivers. Shroud doesn't help here, why would hexproof? I'm not a competitive player, and my experience is limited to EDH, but even with a whole swarm of shrouded, flying, unblockable, regenerating, hasted and magpie-like horrors, my fellows always found a way to pull the rug from underneath my feet. Even while using the most douchebaggish of control strategies.
Slivers that were indestructible or had infect--now THAT would be broken.
They may someday print something like:
"Sojourner Sliver 2UW
Creature - Sliver
Slivers you control gain: UW, sacrifice this creature: Slivers you control phase out until end of turn."
Yeah... yeah.. That was not the point I was making. My point was that the lords as a creature type are phased out cus it doesn't make sense anymore. If you strip down everything of a sliver that previously defined a sliver, why would you still call them slivers?
Because they are still Slivers?
So for you the one defining thing about Slivers was that their stat/ability boosts were global?
Remind me again why people are trying to argue against the Sliver's evolution in a fantasy-based universe with real world science?
Because it ends up going against my suspension of disbelief as to what differentiates each species within the this fantasy world. Despite the fact that this all exists in a crazy fantasy world filled with magic it still needs to run on internal logic that makes sense to people. If every time we had re-experienced Slivers they were given a radically different look to show how they evolved in the environment you wouldn't have people mad about this iteration because there was precedent that they dramatically changed form every time they came back, although I would question the choice of name if this were the case.
Instead we have had 3 different iterations of Slivers that all used a basic body shape to represent themselves so people have a specific look in their mind as to how they are supposed to be represented. In addition, since the Sliver's revival by the riptide project it was 200 years before we saw them again and in that time they continued to have have a unique, consistent body shape in all that time. Now you may be saying well those are the Slivers from Rath, these are the Slivers from Shandalar. To which I say that if the species has diverged this much they have ceased to belong to the same species at this point (it doesn't help that the name no longer makes any sense in the context of their new form).
This isn't even mentioning that these creatures seem to lack any internal consistency between each other to the point that I wouldn't even place them as being part of the same species. Oh yes there is supposed to be moving exoskeleton parts that allow them to reshape their bodies or something like that. Well that should have been more obviously clear because I wasn't able to see that at all just looking at them.
You have only seen 6 of them, wait till you see the rest before judging. Also am I the only one who likes this new art? No I'm not, hell it's almost even according to the poll
Exactly, this card didn't got an errata or whatever (and I'm sure with reasons and blabla). It was fixed by printing a card with a new name. So now they are "fixing" slivers. The mechanic is different and the art is nothing alike slivers because they have "evolved". Begs the questions, why still call them slivers?
It was dropped due to inconsistency between card names and the use of this type, gender issues (Lady being the correct female form), and so it would not be confused with the so-called "lord" abilities of creatures who grant effects to other creatures according to their creature types, colors, or other attributes.
I'm sure I'm wrong about this one. Nice off you to clear out the reason of change, doesn't change my argument I was stressing though. Lords (creature type before someone misunderstands again) aren't printed anymore because they don't fit the game anymore. Slivers apparently don't either, why call them slivers?
I've got the answer to this question. A clue: shift 4.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
It is indeed a game. A game that we love. A game i have been playing since 1997. And they are ruining a part that i enjoyed about it. A part of the game that a lot of people enjoyed. And bassicly what you are saying to all these people is to suck it up? That's not what a great game makes.
Ok so you enjoyed, lets say, slivers worm look.... they put legs on some and arms on others...... lets say there is a story behind this... whatever it is, you whine and cry before even knowing the reasoning behind this?
I remember that the game abandond Merfolk in Odessey. But people where complaining back then like they are complaining now. They want(ed) a part of magic that was taken back
And always will, some wants them to return, some wants yawgmoth to return, some wants urza to return.... everybody has his personal preferences, but the magic world needs to change and evolve, i dont want to play the same stuff year after year, ppl is terrified when something changes but sometimes this changes are for good.
Also, by your deffinition, a pink flying unicorn that poops sparkles is a vampire as long as it says so in the typeline.
Yes, they can create a universe where anything could be represented by any stuff... obviously they wont do that because is stupid just like the argument.
Imagine that im a vampire fan, and then i see the zendikar vampires, i could whine about their looks, they are not vampires! because they have spiky things on their shoulders! i dont want them to be vampires! somebody make them stop!...... that is how some of the posters of this forum sound
1). The look different.
2). Mechanic has changed
3). They have evolved according to the development team.
So, these are not slivers anymore.
The mechanic just isn't symmetrical, it still functions on the same basis that Slivers help other Slivers.
Exactly, this card didn't got an errata or whatever (and I'm sure with reasons and blabla). It was fixed by printing a card with a new name. So now they are "fixing" slivers. The mechanic is different and the art is nothing alike slivers because they have "evolved". Begs the questions, why still call them slivers?
Those reasons matter: they couldn't call it Armadillo Cloak because the name was already taken and this one isn't a reprint. In fact, MaRo has told us that it was supposed to be Armadillo Cloak until someone pointed out late in development that actually Armadillo Cloak worked differently.
The new Slivers are very much still Slivers but yes, they have evolved: their core identity features (assimilation, hive-mind and ability sharing with other Slivers) however remain unchanged hence they remain Slivers. The fact that the effect isn't global is a reflection of the changes in Magic at large, not in Slivers.
I would be curious to see if they also print any slivers that are detrimental to your opponents' slivers ala "Slivers you don't control..." I think that would make the lack of symmetry more interesting than just hoarding abilities to yourself.
I would be curious to see if they also print any slivers that are detrimental to your opponents' slivers ala "Slivers you don't control..." I think that would make the lack of symmetry more interesting than just hoarding abilities to yourself.
We here at WOTC believed these three creature types needed to evolve so that you cannot look them in the eye which is why their looks have drastically changed.
The new ones are all right, its just they kinda fall flat on their face in terms of why they needed to be changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Failed Opression Stories:
Legend of Korra
Return to Ravnica
(Not that the stories or character are inhernetly bad, but that they failed to further delve into the topic. Like Gateless/Non-Benders feeling opressed by the Guilds/Benders that sought a revolution but it became less of importance according to the story.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh my God, yes..Yes.. so much yes.
Signature and Avatar by Inkfox Aesthetics
Humanoid sliver = sliver planeswalker? Can we? Please?
I get to watch great leaders, terrible oppressors, and trend setters rise and fall.
Limited, Standard, Modern, everything is a different playing field I feel I can observe, but will not actually touch.
I look forward to the stories I will hear.
And more so to the ones I will watch unfold first hand.
Isn't the unknown exciting?
*Sighs* Here we go again...
Board wipes > slivers. Shroud doesn't help here, why would hexproof? I'm not a competitive player, and my experience is limited to EDH, but even with a whole swarm of shrouded, flying, unblockable, regenerating, hasted and magpie-like horrors, my fellows always found a way to pull the rug from underneath my feet. Even while using the most douchebaggish of control strategies.
Slivers that were indestructible or had infect--now THAT would be broken.
[Horde] Phyrexia ascendant - The Virus
WUBRG - [Primer] Sliver Overlord - The Swarm - WUBRG
A simple Errata saying "Woops! these are not slivers, they are... ehmm.. Splicers! yeah, thats it"
Then M14 hits with an errata that reads "Slivers are splicers, not slivers"
Problem solved?:D
http://alteredartmagic.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicolarre
or in my Humble Alter Gallery at DeviantArt: http://nicolarre.deviantart.com/gallery/
If these slivers are really that negatively recieved, we just won't see slivers ever again.
Commander:
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
BR Olivia Voldaren
BRG Shattergang Brothers
GUR Riku of Two Reflections
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
I think they count as the returning mechanic. I'd be very surprised if they have an old keyword here like scry/bloodthirst/exalted in the previous sets.
You (both) are completely right, I thought the Mirrodin goblins (first time around) were still okay, but starting from Kamigawa I was thorougly disgusted by their appearance. However like Volrath states:
And also, they are present in a world of magic. Appendages like horns and stuff can be magically incorporated in races of this species. However, I'm sure that if limbless goblins or elves would show up people would complain too.
------------------------------------------------------
Yeah... yeah.. That was not the point I was making. My point was that the lords as a creature type are phased out cus it doesn't make sense anymore. If you strip down everything of a sliver that previously defined a sliver, why would you still call them slivers?
------------------------------------------------------
Because we identify ourselves with the fantasy world. It should follow a path of logic. If a situation in magic describes an apple falling from someones hand, we expect this will be pulled towards the planet because of gravity. If an explanation surfaces that evolution is the driver of change than this goes hand in hand with speciation. If however, they used the argument, magic has changed their appearance the claim would not be as strong as it is now.
Euh.. no.. First of all, reason above. Secondly, having an other opinion does not make us bad persons. We do not have to accept everything for what it is. If something is stupid for valid reasons we may complain if we use arguments. Sneers like this to stop people from disliking ideas is just too simple. Constructive critique is good, attempt to accept that.
I'm sure he heard you, at least your pain and cheering wasn't in vain. *Oh wait*
Interesting that you hurt yourself for something as trivial as a light discussion on the changed appearance of a creature type of a cardgame, although I'm sure it contributed a lot in the discussion.
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
THAT IS NOT A SLIVER.
Sure its got the creature type but it could have been Demigods for all we could have known instead of Slivers.
These new Slivers are a bloody abomination that need to go die in fire.
Why change what is tried and true in its FOURTH VERSION of the same tribe when its previous THREE were unchanged and accepted?
THIS represents how perfectly BLAND and UNINSPIRED the artwork is in how it can be used for something so UNRELATED to the true roots. Oh sure some of them have a scythe, but not all of them do and they are no longer the faceless beaked entities with an ALIEN body that I had come to know.
I do NOT accept that these are the new Slivers, they are pieces of uninspired GARBAGE.
Yeah I do know I am raging, yes I am mad bro, you know why? Because they RUINED another iconic part of MTG.
Apparently that user Goblin Techies was somewhat right in that I would even feel PUNISHED for even running my monored Sliver Deck against these new ATROCITIES because they LEECH off of my Slivers.
Its not a matter of just making something popular for a few design tweakings, its that they almost COMPLETELY changed the look of Slivers. If it weren't for the fact that some had a scythe, no one here could tell you otherwise that what we are looking at is even a Sliver at ALL.
Warring Hives of Slivers? Where does this bolliocks even come from? Slivers were in their past three versions, ALWAYS A SINGLE HIVE.
This is a spit in the face to anyone who played and enjoyed the Slivers in their original art. No amount of text of [you control] or increased power and toughness can make up for that. These new Slivers can go to heck for all I care.
Dude, chill...
Similar to the Slivers, the Zergs from Starcraft all responded to a singular entity or hive mind, the overmind. When the overmind was destroyed, there was a Zerg civil war among the cerebrates (seconds in command to the overmind).
There can be a resonable explanation as to why the sliver's "society" fragmented (:p) into several hives. Heck, even the change in global to just "you control" effects might be reflecting this.
In fact, these may be only a single Hive with a different, separatist evolution path, and we may very well see the original slivers somewhere else (in case WoTC decides to back down to peer pressure)
As a player, you can summon nicol bolas at will, have him equip himself, load his *** into a mortar and fire him at a brick wall. I think we pretty much stablished that in-game mechanics don't relate well to the in-universe flavor.
http://alteredartmagic.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicolarre
or in my Humble Alter Gallery at DeviantArt: http://nicolarre.deviantart.com/gallery/
Or simply they stop printing them (if they are now). And use the paperboard from the already printed slivers for anything more, like mcdonald's meat.
They may someday print something like:
"Sojourner Sliver 2UW
Creature - Sliver
Slivers you control gain: UW, sacrifice this creature: Slivers you control phase out until end of turn."
Just for the epic brokeness, lol
Weird Idea of the Month (Standard)
RGWNaya Token CommandoWGR
Rate/discuss my decks :D(almost all formats)
Standard
Orzhov Voltron Superheroes
Modern
Infectors
Legacy
UGBack to Square OneGU
EDH
GWURafiq of the Many Wins (1vs1)UWG
Jarad's Turbo Suicidal Squad (Multiplayer)
Pauper
Are you Afraid of Ghosts? You Better Be!
Because they are still Slivers?
So for you the one defining thing about Slivers was that their stat/ability boosts were global?
The new ones are different in that they are "fixed" in the same way Armadillo Cloak was fixed with Unflinching Courage
Because it ends up going against my suspension of disbelief as to what differentiates each species within the this fantasy world. Despite the fact that this all exists in a crazy fantasy world filled with magic it still needs to run on internal logic that makes sense to people. If every time we had re-experienced Slivers they were given a radically different look to show how they evolved in the environment you wouldn't have people mad about this iteration because there was precedent that they dramatically changed form every time they came back, although I would question the choice of name if this were the case.
Instead we have had 3 different iterations of Slivers that all used a basic body shape to represent themselves so people have a specific look in their mind as to how they are supposed to be represented. In addition, since the Sliver's revival by the riptide project it was 200 years before we saw them again and in that time they continued to have have a unique, consistent body shape in all that time. Now you may be saying well those are the Slivers from Rath, these are the Slivers from Shandalar. To which I say that if the species has diverged this much they have ceased to belong to the same species at this point (it doesn't help that the name no longer makes any sense in the context of their new form).
This isn't even mentioning that these creatures seem to lack any internal consistency between each other to the point that I wouldn't even place them as being part of the same species. Oh yes there is supposed to be moving exoskeleton parts that allow them to reshape their bodies or something like that. Well that should have been more obviously clear because I wasn't able to see that at all just looking at them.
Yes, in summation and like earlier mentioned:
1). The look different.
2). Mechanic has changed
3). They have evolved according to the development team.
So, these are not slivers anymore.
Exactly, this card didn't got an errata or whatever (and I'm sure with reasons and blabla). It was fixed by printing a card with a new name. So now they are "fixing" slivers. The mechanic is different and the art is nothing alike slivers because they have "evolved". Begs the questions, why still call them slivers?
I'm sure I'm wrong about this one. Nice off you to clear out the reason of change, doesn't change my argument I was stressing though. Lords (creature type before someone misunderstands again) aren't printed anymore because they don't fit the game anymore. Slivers apparently don't either, why call them slivers?
I've got the answer to this question. A clue: shift 4.
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
Ok so you enjoyed, lets say, slivers worm look.... they put legs on some and arms on others...... lets say there is a story behind this... whatever it is, you whine and cry before even knowing the reasoning behind this?
And always will, some wants them to return, some wants yawgmoth to return, some wants urza to return.... everybody has his personal preferences, but the magic world needs to change and evolve, i dont want to play the same stuff year after year, ppl is terrified when something changes but sometimes this changes are for good.
Yes, they can create a universe where anything could be represented by any stuff... obviously they wont do that because is stupid just like the argument.
Imagine that im a vampire fan, and then i see the zendikar vampires, i could whine about their looks, they are not vampires! because they have spiky things on their shoulders! i dont want them to be vampires! somebody make them stop!...... that is how some of the posters of this forum sound
The mechanic just isn't symmetrical, it still functions on the same basis that Slivers help other Slivers.
Those reasons matter: they couldn't call it Armadillo Cloak because the name was already taken and this one isn't a reprint. In fact, MaRo has told us that it was supposed to be Armadillo Cloak until someone pointed out late in development that actually Armadillo Cloak worked differently.
The new Slivers are very much still Slivers but yes, they have evolved: their core identity features (assimilation, hive-mind and ability sharing with other Slivers) however remain unchanged hence they remain Slivers. The fact that the effect isn't global is a reflection of the changes in Magic at large, not in Slivers.
Draft my cube! (630 cards)
That could be very cool indeed
yeah this will almost never happen
At least they don't look too overpowered.
The new ones are all right, its just they kinda fall flat on their face in terms of why they needed to be changed.
Legend of Korra
Return to Ravnica
(Not that the stories or character are inhernetly bad, but that they failed to further delve into the topic. Like Gateless/Non-Benders feeling opressed by the Guilds/Benders that sought a revolution but it became less of importance according to the story.)