It is relevant to the next sentence, because it makes it appear that a Titan will appear as a 7/7 uncommon. Just putting "Titans" in there, just because we know the word, can affect speculation negatively.
I really don't see how. What you're doing here is the very definition of arguing semantics.
Irregardless of the fact that replacing the word is pointless (because it doesn't significantly change anything the paragraph says), I have yet to see you suggest any words that have better justification that "titans" does. All I've seen so far are words that are even more speculative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
What in the hell happened to this thread? It appears to have been deleted, as was another thread questioning why it was deleted. Did it break the forum rules somehow?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by ChibiSwan~!
"Well, well, if it isn't the most diabolical haters this side of the Mississippi." Alters and Commissions at [URL="noodlesndoodlesalters.tumblr.com/"]Noodles & Doodles Alters[/URL]!
Have a helicopter drop you off out front. Light your cigar with a small Indonesian boy holding a black lotus. Then bust out a craw wurm deck with no sleeves. Raw dog shuffle, loose terribly, flip the table, leave in a hovercraft.
The people that play legacy / vintage always amuse me. They want their formats to be represented more. They want more tournaments. But when anyone suggests allowing more people access to the formats by reprinting cards, the same people start screaming about the reprint policy.
I really don't see how. What you're doing here is the very definition of arguing semantics.
Irregardless of the fact that replacing the word is pointless (because it doesn't significantly change anything the paragraph says), I have yet to see you suggest any words that have better justification that "titans" does. All I've seen so far are words that are even more speculative.
I'm definitely going to have to agree with Goryus here, even if he's using the not-a-word "irregardless."
Irregardless of the fact that replacing the word is pointless (because it doesn't significantly change anything the paragraph says), I have yet to see you suggest any words that have better justification that "titans" does. All I've seen so far are words that are even more speculative.
I just showed you that it's not "titans," and that it would have to be "Titans." Rosewater was very careful to note what was singular, what was plural, and what was proper. The only way to justify "titans," as the missing word is to suggest Rosewater made a mistake.
I've offered suggestions which do match up better with the hint, but obviously they're just speculative. I don't need to come up with a replacement to say that there's the wrong head on Brontosaurus. You seem to be content that whatever it is, it doesn't "significantly change" they way the dinosaur looks. I'm saying a particular puzzle piece doesn't fit, take it out because it goes somewhere else (regardless of how significant it turns out to be).
If we agree that the right word is titans, "all" would seem an odd wording if there there are only three in total. As such, either it's not titans, or there are (a lot) more than just three of them.
What in the hell happened to this thread? It appears to have been deleted, as was another thread questioning why it was deleted. Did it break the forum rules somehow?
Well, I just made another thread, so...we'll see if I get that PM.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Venser »
They can't even comprehend nature. How could they improve it?
What in the hell happened to this thread? It appears to have been deleted, as was another thread questioning why it was deleted. Did it break the forum rules somehow?
If a thread is deleted, there is a good reason for it.
If threads made asking why the thread was deleted are also deleted, there is a good reason for it.
Feel free to discuss the little bits of stuff from the thread, but don't make a new thread for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I just showed you that it's not "titans," and that it would have to be "Titans." Rosewater was very careful to note what was singular, what was plural, and what was proper. The only way to justify "titans," as the missing word is to suggest Rosewater made a mistake.
"Titans" is simply not a proper noun, and the capitalization used for the word is inconsistent. It fits as a describer, is consistent with the lore and relevant to both the next sentence and the rest of the paragraph.
I've offered suggestions which do match up better with the hint, but obviously they're just speculative.
In fact, you have not. The words you suggested have absolutely no justifaction supporting them at all, and thus cannot match the hints better. They are pure speculation, and could just as easily be any other word.
I don't need to come up with a replacement to say that there's the wrong head on Brontosaurus. You seem to be content that whatever it is, it doesn't "significantly change" they way the dinosaur looks. I'm saying a particular puzzle piece doesn't fit, take it out because it goes somewhere else (regardless of how significant it turns out to be).
If you agree that the change is irrelevent, then I think we are done here. There is no further point in arguing semantics. You are free to post your speculation however you want in your own interpretation of the hint, but I am under no obligation to accept your speculation and change my own accordingly, particularly when you have no substantive arguments to backup your preferred wordings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
"Titans" is simply not a proper noun, and the capitalization used for the word is inconsistent. It fits as a describer, is consistent with the lore and relevant to both the next sentence and the rest of the paragraph.
It simply is a proper noun. The capitalization is consistent in the source where we got "Titans." Using it as a describer is inconsistent with the source because it is used as a title. Strangely, it seems you have been using "Titans" in all your interpretations of the hint. Is it a goblin or a Goblin?
If you agree that the change is irrelevent, then I think we are done here. There is no further point in arguing semantics.
You are confusing significance with relevance. The "7/7 at uncommon" may well turn out to be an Eldrazi Titan, but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to point out that the hint cannot be "titan." Using that word prejudices speculation about the Titans (and what the set is built around) and means "the 7/7" must be one (and implies a lot about the Titans). It is relevant to using the hint to gain understanding of the set and it could be significant to our understanding of the nature of the Titans.
You are free to post your speculation however you want in your own interpretation of the hint, but I am under no obligation to accept your speculation and change my own accordingly, particularly when you have no substantive arguments to backup your preferred wordings.
Once again, I'm pointing out that speculation of "titan" is incorrect. I'm not asking you to accept any other "preferred" speculation, I'm not invested in any theory, really. I think everyone has done a really great job of analyzing the Rosewater hint, I just take exception with one word.
If this is accurate, we have confirmation of the "titans" speculation. According to the description, the set is A) based on a race of Eldrazi "titans," and B) the word titans is not capitalized.
Rise of the Eldrazi is going to be a set built around the Eldrazi creatures, all of which have no color and are big. For example, there are two Eldrazi creatures at an opponent, the smaller of which is 7/7. All of the Eldrazis have a new ability called homage(my thought). Creatures with homage have a cost; whenever a creature with homage attacks, the creature's controller must tap that that many creatures. The Eldrazis are very powerful but there are cards that can create 0/1 creature tokens called Minion manufacturers in that can be good to add one mana to your mana pool and will help you be able to play the Eldrazis. In addition, the creature has a ability called goblin goblin. You may spend X on creatures with goblin goblin to improve their power and toughness. This Limited ability cost is much better than the one in Goblin.
Let's give it a shot: Rise of the Eldrazi s is going to be a set built around the Eldrazis, all of which have no color and are creatures. For example, there are two Eldrazis at mana cost , the bigger/smaller of which is 7/7. All of the Eldrazis have a new ability called keyword. Creatures with keyword have a triggered ability; whenever a creature with keywordconditions, the defending player must sacrifice that many creatures. The Eldrazis are very expensive but there are ones that can create 0/1 tokens called Brood Lineage that can be sacrificed to add one mana to your mana pool and will help you be able to cast the Eldrazis. In addition, the Brood Lineage has a new keyword called multikick 2 . You may spend extra on the Brood Lineage with resource to improve their powers and toughnesses. This Limited version of multikick is much cheaper than the one in Worldwake.
By far the best I seen yet. Keyword for sacrifice permanents is the mechanic Annihilate.
I'd like to introduce you to someone. His name is Wall of Omens. Say hi, Wall of Omens!
So, Wall of Omens, how do you think you're going to affect standard? What's that, you say? You're going to slot right into an already-established UW Control archetype, and improve the deck's matchup against Jund significantly? Wow, bold words there Wall of Omens.
Rise of the Eldrazi(s) is going to be a set built around the Eldrazicreatures, all of which have no color and are expensive. For example, there are two Eldrazi(s) at 10, the smaller of which is 7/7. All of the Eldrazi(s) have a new Ability called AngerX. Creatures with AngerX have a temper; whenever a creature with AngerXattacks, the defendingplayer must sacrifice that many permanents. The Eldrazi(s) are very expensive but there are cards that can create 0/1 tokens called manahedrons that can be tapped to add one colorlessmana to your manapool and will help you be able to cast the Eldrazi(s). In addition, the set has a new symbol called GrayMana. You may spend colorless on spells with GrayMana to improve their strengths and abilities. This Limited symbol is much cooler than the one in Coldsnap.
What do you think? I put some of the s's in parenthesis because I believe Eldrazi is plural of Eldrazi. A few things seem out of place, but I have a good feeling about this one. Thoughts, feelings, opinions?
In addition, the set has a new symbol called GrayMana. You may spend colorless on spells with GrayMana to improve their strengths and abilities. This Limited symbol is much cooler than the one in Coldsnap.
The grey mana symbol isn't happening.... ROE is supposed to have a symbol for a Mechanic that has already been around. They are just giving it a symbol.(similar to Tap, untap.) My bet is either "sacrifice this creature" or "sacrifice a creature"
Wizards of the Coasts is going to be a monopoly built around the Poor peoples, all of which have no money and are starving. For example, there are two Addicts at home, the funds of which is 7/7. All of the Addicts have a new expense called Tarmagoyf. Addicts with magic have a Dealer; whenever a addict with credit cards, the magic addict must max-out that many cards. The Addicts are very greedy but there are addicts that can create 0/1 pennies called FNM payment that can be collected to allow one magic addict to your local shop and will help you be able to make the monies. In addition, the addict has a new expense called Baneslayer Angel. You may spend eternity on magic with nothing going to improve their lives and relationships. This Limited world is much worse than the one in real-life.
The grey mana symbol isn't happening.... ROE is supposed to have a symbol for a Mechanic that has already been around. They are just giving it a symbol.(similar to Tap, untap.) My bet is either "sacrifice this creature" or "sacrifice a creature"
This makes sense. "Sacrifice", when used as a cost, is likely getting a symbol like the tap symbol. Will make things a lot less clunky looking, as I'm sure there will be plenty of "x, T, Sacrifice a Creature" or similar kind of things in RoE.
I'm not convinced that a colorless-only mana symbol would ever be introduced. There'd be just too much potential for confusion with the existing generic mana symbol. In fact, I think there's not too many more symbols that could be introduced at this point aside from perhaps a more Zelda-like Pink Heart "pay one life" symbol in a life-total matters block.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Zero.
Worldwake will add new allies.
RoE will have all new mechanics, unrelated to Zendikar, sharing only the setting. (See Shadowmoor)
Twitter
I really don't see how. What you're doing here is the very definition of arguing semantics.
Irregardless of the fact that replacing the word is pointless (because it doesn't significantly change anything the paragraph says), I have yet to see you suggest any words that have better justification that "titans" does. All I've seen so far are words that are even more speculative.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
What in the hell happened to this thread? It appears to have been deleted, as was another thread questioning why it was deleted. Did it break the forum rules somehow?
Sig by ChibiSwan~!
"Well, well, if it isn't the most diabolical haters this side of the Mississippi."
Alters and Commissions at [URL="noodlesndoodlesalters.tumblr.com/"]Noodles & Doodles Alters[/URL]!
Ohhhh dude that totally makes sense now. Its like that in every block?
Appreciate the response
its not that common actually. this is, to my knowledge, the 2nd time something like this will happen. the first is the shadowmoor mini-block.
a lot of the sets will have new keywords and such, but retain similar themes and settings.
I'm definitely going to have to agree with Goryus here, even if he's using the not-a-word "irregardless."
I just showed you that it's not "titans," and that it would have to be "Titans." Rosewater was very careful to note what was singular, what was plural, and what was proper. The only way to justify "titans," as the missing word is to suggest Rosewater made a mistake.
I've offered suggestions which do match up better with the hint, but obviously they're just speculative. I don't need to come up with a replacement to say that there's the wrong head on Brontosaurus. You seem to be content that whatever it is, it doesn't "significantly change" they way the dinosaur looks. I'm saying a particular puzzle piece doesn't fit, take it out because it goes somewhere else (regardless of how significant it turns out to be).
I don't see a problem with "all" referring to 3.
Well, I just made another thread, so...we'll see if I get that PM.
No, seriously, stop getting WWK and RoE confused.
If a thread is deleted, there is a good reason for it.
If threads made asking why the thread was deleted are also deleted, there is a good reason for it.
Feel free to discuss the little bits of stuff from the thread, but don't make a new thread for it.
Twitter
QFTruthiness.
can we get that stickied or something? i mean...come on.
"Titans" is simply not a proper noun, and the capitalization used for the word is inconsistent. It fits as a describer, is consistent with the lore and relevant to both the next sentence and the rest of the paragraph.
In fact, you have not. The words you suggested have absolutely no justifaction supporting them at all, and thus cannot match the hints better. They are pure speculation, and could just as easily be any other word.
If you agree that the change is irrelevent, then I think we are done here. There is no further point in arguing semantics. You are free to post your speculation however you want in your own interpretation of the hint, but I am under no obligation to accept your speculation and change my own accordingly, particularly when you have no substantive arguments to backup your preferred wordings.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
It simply is a proper noun. The capitalization is consistent in the source where we got "Titans." Using it as a describer is inconsistent with the source because it is used as a title. Strangely, it seems you have been using "Titans" in all your interpretations of the hint. Is it a goblin or a Goblin?
You are confusing significance with relevance. The "7/7 at uncommon" may well turn out to be an Eldrazi Titan, but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to point out that the hint cannot be "titan." Using that word prejudices speculation about the Titans (and what the set is built around) and means "the 7/7" must be one (and implies a lot about the Titans). It is relevant to using the hint to gain understanding of the set and it could be significant to our understanding of the nature of the Titans.
Once again, I'm pointing out that speculation of "titan" is incorrect. I'm not asking you to accept any other "preferred" speculation, I'm not invested in any theory, really. I think everyone has done a really great job of analyzing the Rosewater hint, I just take exception with one word.
If this is accurate, we have confirmation of the "titans" speculation. According to the description, the set is A) based on a race of Eldrazi "titans," and B) the word titans is not capitalized.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Rise of the Eldrazi is going to be a set built around the Eldrazi creatures, all of which have no color and are big. For example, there are two Eldrazi creatures at an opponent, the smaller of which is 7/7. All of the Eldrazis have a new ability called homage(my thought). Creatures with homage have a cost; whenever a creature with homage attacks, the creature's controller must tap that that many creatures. The Eldrazis are very powerful but there are cards that can create 0/1 creature tokens called Minion manufacturers in that can be good to add one mana to your mana pool and will help you be able to play the Eldrazis. In addition, the creature has a ability called goblin goblin. You may spend X on creatures with goblin goblin to improve their power and toughness. This Limited ability cost is much better than the one in Goblin.
Bad, but thats all i could come up with
Nope.
Exactly.
By far the best I seen yet. Keyword for sacrifice permanents is the mechanic Annihilate.
Here's my take:
Rise of the Eldrazi(s) is going to be a set built around the Eldrazi creatures, all of which have no color and are expensive. For example, there are two Eldrazi(s) at 10, the smaller of which is 7/7. All of the Eldrazi(s) have a new Ability called AngerX. Creatures with AngerX have a temper; whenever a creature with AngerX attacks, the defending player must sacrifice that many permanents. The Eldrazi(s) are very expensive but there are cards that can create 0/1 tokens called mana hedrons that can be tapped to add one colorless mana to your mana pool and will help you be able to cast the Eldrazi(s). In addition, the set has a new symbol called Gray Mana. You may spend colorless on spells with Gray Mana to improve their strengths and abilities. This Limited symbol is much cooler than the one in Coldsnap.
What do you think? I put some of the s's in parenthesis because I believe Eldrazi is plural of Eldrazi. A few things seem out of place, but I have a good feeling about this one. Thoughts, feelings, opinions?
Player 1:"Yeah I attack with my 7/7 and you have to sacrifice 7 permanents"
Player 2:"IN RESPONSE I sweep...."
grey mana though...... you may be on to something......
Nope.
Exactly.
The grey mana symbol isn't happening.... ROE is supposed to have a symbol for a Mechanic that has already been around. They are just giving it a symbol.(similar to Tap, untap.) My bet is either "sacrifice this creature" or "sacrifice a creature"
Gfast animals slow shildrenG
51-18-4 (retired as of 6-4-11)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This makes sense. "Sacrifice", when used as a cost, is likely getting a symbol like the tap symbol. Will make things a lot less clunky looking, as I'm sure there will be plenty of "x, T, Sacrifice a Creature" or similar kind of things in RoE.