Non-human planeswalkers exist. Hell, Emrakul is one. Not represented by a planeswalker card, but given the way she just went "bye!" and left Zendikar, to travel to another plane, she is by definition a planeswalker.
Plane travelers and Planeswalkers are not the same thing. Emrakul doesn't have a Spark.
The basics, for Yawgmoth's sake!
Doesn't she? Just because we've not been told she does? For all we know she came into existence with her spark ignited.
Yawgmoth doesn't count, he was specifically called out as "not a plansewalker".
Doesn't mean they're not on par or superior to plansewalkers though. To put it in other terms, if the Blind Eternities are an ocean, planeswalkers can swim, but Eldrazi are fish.
One could even misinterpret that to mean that Eldrazi are flying planeswalkers
Sure. They may be on par, or even superior to, planeswalkers. I agree with that. I also agree that they might get misinterpreted as planeswalkers. But planeswalkers they are not. Eldrazi are native to the Blind Eternities and they can travel between planes, but do not count as planeswalkers, since they don't have sparks. So their traveling is similar to that of Elder Dragons. This distinction was far more relevant pre-Mending I think. But we were given this information in the past and if it changes in any way, it's going to count as a retcon and half the people here (myself included) are going to whine about it like bratty infants they (we) are at least for a few months.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
standard: BUG The Baron (it doesn't work, but I try anyway)
Ulamog and kozilek may have Ben corrupted planeswalker corrupted by Emrakul.
And Ugin may have known the planeswalkers before they got corrupted. which is probably the true reason he was mad at them for killing them. Probably way to far in corruption but maybe Ugin was trying to find a cure.
And the Ula, cosi, emeria story from the statues, probably just rumors from Nahiri (atleast I think that's how I went in the story diden't dig to far in the magic story.)
Any way Ula and Cosi may have Ben there real names.
For those who are having a hard time understanding Lovecraftian Cosmic Horror, it is about insignificance and Nihilism. The monsters of Lovecraft are not even comprehensible. For instance, Cthulhu and the city of R'lhey are so powerful they actively warp space into a non-euclidean geometry, The very sight of Cthulhu was said to drive people mad. Furthermore, they cannot be stopped. Creatures as lowly as humans are too insignificant to stop them. It is like an ant attempting to stop an elephant front stepping on its hive. No amount of resistance can stop them as we are just too small. Too insignificant.
The Eldrazi on the other hand are not so. BFZ shows they can be defeated. That with enough effort they can be halted like any other threat. This removes the main central focus of true Cosmic Horror. I saw this as well when Paizo made stats for Cthulhu. Many people complained because that means if he has stats, he can be comprehended, and thus defeated, which goes against canon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
For those who are having a hard time understanding Lovecraftian Cosmic Horror, it is about insignificance and Nihilism. The monsters of Lovecraft are not even comprehensible. For instance, Cthulhu and the city of R'lhey are so powerful they actively warp space into a non-euclidean geometry, The very sight of Cthulhu was said to drive people mad. Furthermore, they cannot be stopped. Creatures as lowly as humans are too insignificant to stop them. It is like an ant attempting to stop an elephant front stepping on its hive. No amount of resistance can stop them as we are just too small. Too insignificant.
The Eldrazi on the other hand are not so. BFZ shows they can be defeated. That with enough effort they can be halted like any other threat. This removes the main central focus of true Cosmic Horror. I saw this as well when Paizo made stats for Cthulhu. Many people complained because that means if he has stats, he can be comprehended, and thus defeated, which goes against canon.
This. The Eldrazi are inspired by Lovecraftian monsters and cosmic horror, but don't really fit into either category cleanly. The reason they don't has more to do with the fact that our POV characters are planeswalkers, who traverse the non-euclidean void between planes as a matter of course. One of the main reasons that inspire the feelings of insignificance in cosmic horror is that the monsters come from far beyond anything that even vaguely resembles our frame of reference. In Magic, our main characters regularly travel through the Blind Eternities, and though the void between worlds is impossible to understand fully, they have some concept of what it is and how the Eldrazi interact with planes. If our POV was a plane-bound being with no concept of planeswalkers, other planes, the Blind Eternities, or any of the things from off-plane that don't follow the rules of the only plane our POV character knows; then the Eldrazi would actually be Lovecraftian cosmic horrors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
If you can't be bothered to do any of that: Cosmic horror is fiction informed by Lovecraft's philosophy of cosmicism, which asserts that human beings -- their lives, works, sentiments and ideals -- are insignificant against the immensity of time and space and the backdrop of a blind, alien and uncaring universe. It's important in literary history because it essentially made Lovecraft the Copernicus of fiction.
To this, I can only shrug. The word Lovecraftian doesn't really mean anything anymore.
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
For those who are having a hard time understanding Lovecraftian Cosmic Horror, it is about insignificance and Nihilism. The monsters of Lovecraft are not even comprehensible. For instance, Cthulhu and the city of R'lhey are so powerful they actively warp space into a non-euclidean geometry, The very sight of Cthulhu was said to drive people mad. Furthermore, they cannot be stopped. Creatures as lowly as humans are too insignificant to stop them. It is like an ant attempting to stop an elephant front stepping on its hive. No amount of resistance can stop them as we are just too small. Too insignificant.
The Eldrazi on the other hand are not so. BFZ shows they can be defeated. That with enough effort they can be halted like any other threat. This removes the main central focus of true Cosmic Horror. I saw this as well when Paizo made stats for Cthulhu. Many people complained because that means if he has stats, he can be comprehended, and thus defeated, which goes against canon.
This. The Eldrazi are inspired by Lovecraftian monsters and cosmic horror, but don't really fit into either category cleanly. The reason they don't has more to do with the fact that our POV characters are planeswalkers, who traverse the non-euclidean void between planes as a matter of course. One of the main reasons that inspire the feelings of insignificance in cosmic horror is that the monsters come from far beyond anything that even vaguely resembles our frame of reference. In Magic, our main characters regularly travel through the Blind Eternities, and though the void between worlds is impossible to understand fully, they have some concept of what it is and how the Eldrazi interact with planes. If our POV was a plane-bound being with no concept of planeswalkers, other planes, the Blind Eternities, or any of the things from off-plane that don't follow the rules of the only plane our POV character knows; then the Eldrazi would actually be Lovecraftian cosmic horrors.
It's exactly that which is what I'm liking about EMN, that's what Emrakul's being portrayed as. Admittedly akin to one of the weaker Old Ones, maybe Jenkins-killable, but still and Old One.
Just wait, Odric comes out of nowhere and goes full "Old Man Henderson."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
I for one find the whole "but it isn't real cosmic horror!" thing pretty tiring.
If things get popular, the categories they represent are bound to expand. That's just how it is. Not everyone is going to bother to say "something inspired by lovecraftian cosmic horror" when they talk about Eldrazi in Magic or whatever the Alien monsters in Bloodborne are called. The term "cosmic horror" is now being used in a wider sense in that it describes a story that features overwhelmingly powerful alien creatures, themes of insanity and madness etc. I can understand fans being upset when someone describes settings that only incorporate some of the original cosmis horror elements as "lovecraftian", because that term clearly points to that author and therefore his specific ideas. But they also have to accept that its impossible to maintain such stern conditions on a genre that grows increasingly popular. "Reinterpretations" will happen and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.
That being said, I really hope that EMN isn't filled with Eldrazi. With cards like Wretched Gryff being spoiled, it's kinda hard to be optimistic though...
I for one find the whole "but it isn't real cosmic horror!" thing pretty tiring.
If things get popular, the categories they represent are bound to expand. That's just how it is. Not everyone is going to bother to say "something inspired by lovecraftian cosmic horror" when they talk about Eldrazi in Magic or whatever the Alien monsters in Bloodborne are called. The term "cosmic horror" is now being used in a wider sense in that it describes a story that features overwhelmingly powerful alien creatures, themes of insanity and madness etc. I can understand fans being upset when someone describes settings that only incorporate some of the original cosmis horror elements as "lovecraftian", because that term clearly points to that author and therefore his specific ideas. But they also have to accept that its impossible to maintain such stern conditions on a genre that grows increasingly popular. "Reinterpretations" will happen and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.
That being said, I really hope that EMN isn't filled with Eldrazi. With cards like Wretched Gryff being spoiled, it's kinda hard to be optimistic though...
This. It would be cumbersome to say "Wow I am really liking this cosmic horror that isn't really cosmic horror per the original rules that Lovecraft set up!" everytime. Many have added to the Cthulhu mythos, Ramsey, Der lethal, etc etc. It's understood that this set is not exactly Lovecraftian, but is supposed to echo some of those themes. Magic obviously has to take some license, as playing an unbeatable Eldrazi would not lead to fun times. (Besides, that's essentially what Oldrakul was.)
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
"I'm been proven wrong, so everyone else is a super-geek and I'm too cool for that"
Public Mod Note
(Marquisd):
Suspended for trolling
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
"I'm been proven wrong, so everyone else is a super-geek and I'm too cool for that"
Really, Teysa_Karlov? How exactly have I been proven wrong?
It was actually daved74 who got it wrong, by confusing the word "Lovecraftian" with the term "cosmic horror". He in fact laid out a straw man argument, but I didn't call him on it because I didn't want to go too off-topic.
If you can provide a shred of evidence for daved74 proving me wrong, then I will hold up my hands and apologise to you for being "oh-so-cool". If you can't, then I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me without knowing what you're talking about.
If you don't respond, then this is a sign that you know you messed up, but are not man enough to admit when you're wrong, which would, incidentally, also make you a colossal hypocrite.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwhich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft. Just leave it be.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwhich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft. Just leave it be.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
Norse Mythology is a bit more narrowly defined than something like cosmic horror. I don't really think we're going to see a shift in perception where "Norse" will be shifted to include Greece. That and "Lovecraftian horror" and "cosmic horror" tend to be treated as synonyms for one another, it seems kind of odd to dislike one being used to describe Eldritch Moon and not the other.
As for the criteria being defined, as others have said criteria changes. Cosmic Horror doesn't have to be as strictly defined as it once was. It's the same as saying Harry Potter isn't fantasy because it isn't the same as Lord of the Rings. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate I suppose, but that doesn't make the use of the term inaccurate in this context necessarily.
Whether or not the definition has shifted to the point that Eldritch Moon fits it is also something up for debate, but it's not as though there is a group of people deciding whether or not the word is applicable or not. And people who make Eldritch Moon have described it as cosmic horror as well, which at least shows a more widespread shift in how the word is used than it would have when it was first talked about.
Huh. When you Google cosmic horror, the first thing that pops up is Lovecraftian Horror. Then the TVTropes page for Cosmic Horror, then the wiki page for Cosmicism. Then the wikipedia page for Lovecraftian Horror.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwhich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft. Just leave it be.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
Norse Mythology is a bit more narrowly defined than something like cosmic horror. I don't really think we're going to see a shift in perception where "Norse" will be shifted to include Greece. That and "Lovecraftian horror" and "cosmic horror" tend to be treated as synonyms for one another, it seems kind of odd to dislike one being used to describe Eldritch Moon and not the other.
As for the criteria being defined, as others have said criteria changes. Cosmic Horror doesn't have to be as strictly defined as it once was. It's the same as saying Harry Potter isn't fantasy because it isn't the same as Lord of the Rings. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate I suppose, but that doesn't make the use of the term inaccurate in this context necessarily.
Whether or not the definition has shifted to the point that Eldritch Moon fits it is also something up for debate, but it's not as though there is a group of people deciding whether or not the word is applicable or not. And people who make Eldritch Moon have described it as cosmic horror as well, which at least shows a more widespread shift in how the word is used than it would have when it was first talked about.
Unfortunately, there are some prominent inaccuracies and logical fallacies in your post. For instance LOTR/HP/fantasy is a false equivalence, because cosmic horror is not the work of a single author like LOTR, but is in fact a subgenre unto itself, comprising works outside of Lovecraft, such as Laird Barron and Thomas Ligotti. Also, Lovecraftian horror =/= cosmic horror.
However, I think I'm done with this thread now. People will continue to use the words that they want to use, and it's not going to physically harm me, so I guess it's probably not a big deal. But thanks to all of you who engaged with me on this issue without resorting to snark or name-calling -- a rare thing these days.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
Huh. When you Google cosmic horror, the first thing that pops up is Lovecraftian Horror. Then the TVTropes page for Cosmic Horror, then the wiki page for Cosmicism. Then the wikipedia page for Lovecraftian Horror.
Yep, that's generally what I saw. It's definitely not a niche minority of people equating Cosmic Horror with Lovecraftian Horror, the two terms seem to be used as synonyms fairly consistently. And looking into what some people have labeled "Cosmic Horror" I think Eldritch Moon is fine. I realize that it hardly represents a universal or even necessarily majority agreement, but seeing Kingdom Hearts under the category of "Cosmic Horror" makes me feel like the bar is lower than the strictest sense I've seen of it used.
Eldritch Moon is to Cosmic Horror what Taco Bell is to Mexican Food. It's good, it's close enough to still apply the term, but I ain't arguing that actually is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lycanthropy Awareness Day.
Hoping for a cure, or at least an outbreak.
If anything WotC learnt from Kamigawa, it's that you can afford to be loose with a term if it's the general public's consensus about the term meaning, but to go the other way round would alienate the general player-base (that might not even visit the official website, let alone MTGS).
I mean, traditionally Hydras are swamp-dwelling monsters (or actually, there was probably only one) that utilizes poison, but we got them as pretty much only in RG and they are the iconics of the G because honestly most people only remember it/them for the multi-headed and regeneration aspect.
Ask anyone not familiar with the genre about "Cosmic Horror", you might even get "Monstrosity from Space", considering it has the term "Cosmic" in it. Ask someone not familiar with MTG lore about the Blind Eternities, you might get "Outer Space" as well (which, for clarification is not... the Blind Eternities is the space between dimensions themselves).
The "Hopelessness" aspect of the genre was never meant to manifest, honestly, if you think about the "Superhero" route WotC is trying to go with the Planeswalkers themselves and that route is a lot more mainstream to the general public and difficult to deviate from. It's only hopeless from a non-planeswalker perspective, but the way MTG has been going, those aren't important to the planeswalker's perspective either (and we're supposed to be planeswalkers ourselves, so there's that).
Eldritch Moon is to Cosmic Horror what Taco Bell is to Mexican Food. It's good, it's close enough to still apply the term, but I ain't arguing that actually is.
Continuing the Taco Bell analogy:
Eldritch Moon is also extraordinarily popular
very addictive
and will give you severe intestinal distress
Sure. They may be on par, or even superior to, planeswalkers. I agree with that. I also agree that they might get misinterpreted as planeswalkers. But planeswalkers they are not. Eldrazi are native to the Blind Eternities and they can travel between planes, but do not count as planeswalkers, since they don't have sparks. So their traveling is similar to that of Elder Dragons. This distinction was far more relevant pre-Mending I think. But we were given this information in the past and if it changes in any way, it's going to count as a retcon and half the people here (myself included) are going to whine about it like bratty infants they (we) are at least for a few months.
BUG The Baron (it doesn't work, but I try anyway)
modern:
RGShaman Aggro
legacy:
UHigh Tide
German highlander:
BUG aggro control
EDH:
a positively unhealthy amount of decks
Ulamog and kozilek may have Ben corrupted planeswalker corrupted by Emrakul.
And Ugin may have known the planeswalkers before they got corrupted. which is probably the true reason he was mad at them for killing them. Probably way to far in corruption but maybe Ugin was trying to find a cure.
And the Ula, cosi, emeria story from the statues, probably just rumors from Nahiri (atleast I think that's how I went in the story diden't dig to far in the magic story.)
Any way Ula and Cosi may have Ben there real names.
The Eldrazi on the other hand are not so. BFZ shows they can be defeated. That with enough effort they can be halted like any other threat. This removes the main central focus of true Cosmic Horror. I saw this as well when Paizo made stats for Cthulhu. Many people complained because that means if he has stats, he can be comprehended, and thus defeated, which goes against canon.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
This. The Eldrazi are inspired by Lovecraftian monsters and cosmic horror, but don't really fit into either category cleanly. The reason they don't has more to do with the fact that our POV characters are planeswalkers, who traverse the non-euclidean void between planes as a matter of course. One of the main reasons that inspire the feelings of insignificance in cosmic horror is that the monsters come from far beyond anything that even vaguely resembles our frame of reference. In Magic, our main characters regularly travel through the Blind Eternities, and though the void between worlds is impossible to understand fully, they have some concept of what it is and how the Eldrazi interact with planes. If our POV was a plane-bound being with no concept of planeswalkers, other planes, the Blind Eternities, or any of the things from off-plane that don't follow the rules of the only plane our POV character knows; then the Eldrazi would actually be Lovecraftian cosmic horrors.
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Just wait, Odric comes out of nowhere and goes full "Old Man Henderson."
If things get popular, the categories they represent are bound to expand. That's just how it is. Not everyone is going to bother to say "something inspired by lovecraftian cosmic horror" when they talk about Eldrazi in Magic or whatever the Alien monsters in Bloodborne are called. The term "cosmic horror" is now being used in a wider sense in that it describes a story that features overwhelmingly powerful alien creatures, themes of insanity and madness etc. I can understand fans being upset when someone describes settings that only incorporate some of the original cosmis horror elements as "lovecraftian", because that term clearly points to that author and therefore his specific ideas. But they also have to accept that its impossible to maintain such stern conditions on a genre that grows increasingly popular. "Reinterpretations" will happen and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.
That being said, I really hope that EMN isn't filled with Eldrazi. With cards like Wretched Gryff being spoiled, it's kinda hard to be optimistic though...
This. It would be cumbersome to say "Wow I am really liking this cosmic horror that isn't really cosmic horror per the original rules that Lovecraft set up!" everytime. Many have added to the Cthulhu mythos, Ramsey, Der lethal, etc etc. It's understood that this set is not exactly Lovecraftian, but is supposed to echo some of those themes. Magic obviously has to take some license, as playing an unbeatable Eldrazi would not lead to fun times. (Besides, that's essentially what Oldrakul was.)
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
-- The Gatewatch
"I'm been proven wrong, so everyone else is a super-geek and I'm too cool for that"
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Really, Teysa_Karlov? How exactly have I been proven wrong?
It was actually daved74 who got it wrong, by confusing the word "Lovecraftian" with the term "cosmic horror". He in fact laid out a straw man argument, but I didn't call him on it because I didn't want to go too off-topic.
If you can provide a shred of evidence for daved74 proving me wrong, then I will hold up my hands and apologise to you for being "oh-so-cool". If you can't, then I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me without knowing what you're talking about.
If you don't respond, then this is a sign that you know you messed up, but are not man enough to admit when you're wrong, which would, incidentally, also make you a colossal hypocrite.
-- The Gatewatch
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
-- The Gatewatch
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
-- The Gatewatch
Norse Mythology is a bit more narrowly defined than something like cosmic horror. I don't really think we're going to see a shift in perception where "Norse" will be shifted to include Greece. That and "Lovecraftian horror" and "cosmic horror" tend to be treated as synonyms for one another, it seems kind of odd to dislike one being used to describe Eldritch Moon and not the other.
As for the criteria being defined, as others have said criteria changes. Cosmic Horror doesn't have to be as strictly defined as it once was. It's the same as saying Harry Potter isn't fantasy because it isn't the same as Lord of the Rings. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate I suppose, but that doesn't make the use of the term inaccurate in this context necessarily.
Whether or not the definition has shifted to the point that Eldritch Moon fits it is also something up for debate, but it's not as though there is a group of people deciding whether or not the word is applicable or not. And people who make Eldritch Moon have described it as cosmic horror as well, which at least shows a more widespread shift in how the word is used than it would have when it was first talked about.
Unfortunately, there are some prominent inaccuracies and logical fallacies in your post. For instance LOTR/HP/fantasy is a false equivalence, because cosmic horror is not the work of a single author like LOTR, but is in fact a subgenre unto itself, comprising works outside of Lovecraft, such as Laird Barron and Thomas Ligotti. Also, Lovecraftian horror =/= cosmic horror.
However, I think I'm done with this thread now. People will continue to use the words that they want to use, and it's not going to physically harm me, so I guess it's probably not a big deal. But thanks to all of you who engaged with me on this issue without resorting to snark or name-calling -- a rare thing these days.
-- The Gatewatch
Yep, that's generally what I saw. It's definitely not a niche minority of people equating Cosmic Horror with Lovecraftian Horror, the two terms seem to be used as synonyms fairly consistently. And looking into what some people have labeled "Cosmic Horror" I think Eldritch Moon is fine. I realize that it hardly represents a universal or even necessarily majority agreement, but seeing Kingdom Hearts under the category of "Cosmic Horror" makes me feel like the bar is lower than the strictest sense I've seen of it used.
Hoping for a cure, or at least an outbreak.
Level 1 Judge (yay)
I mean, traditionally Hydras are swamp-dwelling monsters (or actually, there was probably only one) that utilizes poison, but we got them as pretty much only in RG and they are the iconics of the G because honestly most people only remember it/them for the multi-headed and regeneration aspect.
Ask anyone not familiar with the genre about "Cosmic Horror", you might even get "Monstrosity from Space", considering it has the term "Cosmic" in it. Ask someone not familiar with MTG lore about the Blind Eternities, you might get "Outer Space" as well (which, for clarification is not... the Blind Eternities is the space between dimensions themselves).
The "Hopelessness" aspect of the genre was never meant to manifest, honestly, if you think about the "Superhero" route WotC is trying to go with the Planeswalkers themselves and that route is a lot more mainstream to the general public and difficult to deviate from. It's only hopeless from a non-planeswalker perspective, but the way MTG has been going, those aren't important to the planeswalker's perspective either (and we're supposed to be planeswalkers ourselves, so there's that).
Why do I have the feeling he lied
We're already almost to 10 edlrazi like cards.
Continuing the Taco Bell analogy:
Eldritch Moon is also extraordinarily popular
very addictive
and will give you severe intestinal distress
Rosewater likes to play with the truth, but he usually doesn't outright lie. Unfortunately, I feel pretty strongly that he is a liar in this case.