probably billions and billions and potentially trillions of beings
I mean if you count birds and stuff sure but surely the population of people isn't so large. I though Ravnica was a bit smaller than Earth.
Even if Ravnica is considerably smaller than Earth, its population of thinking beings would have to be tremendous - a trillion is probably a conservative estimate. Numerous sources indicate that a vast majority of the plane is completely covered by a teeming cityscape, one which rises higher in places than the height of terrestrial skyscrapers and extends deep beneath the surface. Even if one factors in the Gruul wastes and thinly populated areas like the furnace zones depicted on Ravnica Mountains, the plane would have to have a population far, far great than Earth's.
This is an valuable reference and entertaining read, willpell. Still, I'm really not sure why you're getting so stuck on the contradictions inherent to playing cards from both Lorwyn and Shadowmoor or Khans of Tarkir and Dragons of Tarkir. Evocative, consistent flavor is important, and I'd venture that worldbuilding and story are just as important to the overall legacy of a block as mechanical precedent-setting and card playability, but in virtually any game, there has to be a disconnect between lore and mechanics, or both suffer for it. I would be pleased to see Wizards actually explain what effect Sarkhan's adventures on Tarkir had on the larger Multiverse or clarify Lorwyn/Shadowmoor's fate, but in the interim I have no qualms about Nath and Ashling the Extinguisher in the same deck.
You are correct, that is what it appears to be. Nevertheless, firearms have not been a part of Magic for a long time, and they certainly aren't an aspect of a world as recent as Innistrad. Putting aside the long-standing convention with Magic's creative department, there are no other guns depicted on cards within the block - if they did exist on the plane, it would be very strange that, of the hundreds of soldiers and human militiamen depicted on cards, only two random guys seem to employ them.
Either the item in question is a very weirdly shaped crossbow, or its a simple mistake on the artist's part. They happen, as Olivia Voldaren can attest.
But we already have guns. A lot of them were in Portal (see Vengeance for a great example), but not all of them. Hell, Goblin Sharpshooter has a Gatling gun! For something more recent, Innistrad clearly has pistols (Gather the Townsfolk).
Where are there pistols in the promo artwork (or standard) for Gather the Townsfolk? The promo has a guy pointing at the blood smear, but he's clearly not holding a gun.
Edit: Ah, I see what you're talking about in the standard artwork. The handles of the weapons do make them look like pistols, but I don't recall there being any other weapons of that kind depicted in the rest of the block. Either the objects in question are oddly shaped knife / crossbow handles, or there was a mistake on the part of the artist.
Why are there no white-aligned devoid cards? You stated that, like in Alara, you don't like it when 4 colors do something but not the 5th, regarding the Naya 5-power ability not being keyworded since Esper's mechanic wasn't.
I am a big believer in aesthetics and balance. Sometimes though the goal is to make things feel off kilter and then you can use that response to generate a feel.
One could interpret this statement to mean that the absence of white Eldrazi, this intentional imbalance in the color pie, is specifically meant to draw attention to the lack of something in the setting. This would tie in quite nicely with the disappearance of Emrakul and/or Kozilek. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next set sees Kozilek rising up to counterattack with a phalanx of white spawn in his wake.
Just to add to the placement of Thunderclap Wyvern on Vryn, since no one stated it explicitly, there are mage-rings visible peeking above the clouds at the bottom of the art.
As I recall, Avacyn is also fundamentally different from the other angels native to the plane. As on most planes, despite begin manifestations of mana, angels from Innistrad are sentient creatures similar to humans or elves - Avacyn is a semi-sentient magical construct who is only capable of acting and communicating within the parameters Sorin designed into her. So, for example, while one could have a conversation about more or less anything with, say, Sigarda, Avacyn behaves more like an advanced computer program.
Armored Grandmother (page 13) may not be a very good card as printed, but its ability is interesting, elegant, and to my knowledge completely novel in the context of the actual game. I hope to see it on an actual card someday.
I wonder who scripted that opening sequence because it makes absolutely no sense.
I think it's a bit of a throwback to the early MTG commercials. Also, it shows that while the game is based on strategy, the game can change dramatically with the draw of a card. Drawing Terror to kill Shivan Dragon.
It feels a bit like opening a documentary about soccer with a skit where people waddle around with the ball between their knees. They've got only the vaguest idea of what is supposed to be happening. It doesn't really inspire confidence.
Having watched the documentary its doubly weird. They obviously spent a lot of time with actual players. Did no one on the staff learn Magic? I mean they knew enough to use three iconic cards from early in the game but not that you can't attack creatures or that you can't draw a card whenever you want?
I'm not sure how you gathered that from the opening sequence - the first player attacks the second with a Shivan Dragon, and the second player draws and plays a Terror on their turn. That is, in fact, how Magic works.
In any event, in addition to referencing old MTG commericals, as urweak points out, I believe that the two players are running through a game of a custom format (a sort of throw-back vintage that only allows cards up the the mid-nineties, note their weird outfits) that is popular in the area that the documentary was produced.
This is tied in to another and very little known prohibited way of determining a winner: you are not allowed to theorycraft how the game would have played out. This is perhaps the grayest of areas, but it does come up (especially at GPs), and worse still, it essentially changes how the match functions when you're in the middle of the round verses up against time/extra turns. This is the kind of thing that you will have a judge step in and say "don't finish that sentence" or "I need you to stop talking now", because the line between noting your onboard position "I'm representing lethal" and explaining the hypothetical course of the rest of the game can be super-fine at times.
So, by way of example, does this principle mean that a player who is playing a combo deck and is going off - specifically a combo that involves a continuing element of randomness like Eggs rather than a simple series of repeated on-board actions like Twin - isn't allowed to explain the combo to their opponent and indicate that carrying out the necessary sequence will inevitably result in a win? If so, does that mean that Mike Long's famous Cadaverous Bloom / Drain Life bluff was technically illegal?
The OP's point about knowing what a deck needs to function and finding something to fill it is legitimate: both cards in question can function as an incremental advantage engine in longer games, or a final damage boost if you have a curve mostly filled out by small evasive creatures. Foul-Tongue Shriek and Volcanic Rush are similar although more narrow in their application (finishers for aggro decks); both cards are below the power curve and typically require a substantial number of other cards to be effective, but they do effectively break through an opponent's defenses if he or she starts to stabilize and thus are useful(in the absence of better, comparable cards, of course). Still, they're not good cards and I wouldn't pick them up unless there was absolutely nothing else playable for me left in a pack, or if packs three is winding down and I realize I'm completely lacking a means of pushing through damage.
Provided it's on color, I'm getting to the point where I'd take any morph in the set over Zephyr Scribe. The format is simply too fast to plan on playing a weak creature on turn three and then start sinking mana into it. I'll still play the card, mind you, but its only better than filler in the relatively rare control v control matchup.
It seems like every other green deck I play against (including good decks piloted by good players) is packing at least one copy of Servant of the Scale, and I have no idea why. Even if one manages to draft a deck packed with counter synergies, it takes a fair bit of time and effort to make it more than an awkward Bond Beetle. I can see it as a grudging 23rd card or a contingency against Mardu Scout.dec, but nothing more than that.
Are you talking about using a chess clock? I've never heard of any tournament using that kind of system outside of Magic Online, and I'm quite sure its not allowed for in the tournament rules.
I would assume the horns are taken from Atarka warriors who are occasionally shown to have fashioned antlers. No idea why he's wearing them.
Well, that settles the gender question. Thanks.
And that explanation is plausible, although the horns do appear to be charged with mana or magic, which suggests to me that they might have been taken from a living dragon.
I guess the "break off a piece" hypothesis is pretty reasonable lacking any other information.
Dragon Hunter is quite clearly Dromoka-aligned, down to the watermark and flavor text, and yet he or she is wearing a helmet adorned with the branch-like horns that are a trademark of Dragonlord Atarka and seem to be a motif for her subjects (as in Atarka's Command). One might assume that the warrior in question has decided to adorn his or her helm with the horns of a kill, but I can't recall seeing any dragon associated with Tarkir anywhere small enough to produce horns of a wearable size for a human, and in particular not the Atarka brood, which are among the largest of their species. They can't even be taken from an Atarka hatchling, since Tarkir dragons emerge from Ugin's tempests fully grown. So, unless Dragon Hunter's horns are fragments of a larger whole (which they don't appear to be, at least to my eyes), they must be some kind of crafted affectation... but why would a Dromoka warrior go into battle bearing a symbol of one of her sworn enemies?
Even if Ravnica is considerably smaller than Earth, its population of thinking beings would have to be tremendous - a trillion is probably a conservative estimate. Numerous sources indicate that a vast majority of the plane is completely covered by a teeming cityscape, one which rises higher in places than the height of terrestrial skyscrapers and extends deep beneath the surface. Even if one factors in the Gruul wastes and thinly populated areas like the furnace zones depicted on Ravnica Mountains, the plane would have to have a population far, far great than Earth's.
You are correct, that is what it appears to be. Nevertheless, firearms have not been a part of Magic for a long time, and they certainly aren't an aspect of a world as recent as Innistrad. Putting aside the long-standing convention with Magic's creative department, there are no other guns depicted on cards within the block - if they did exist on the plane, it would be very strange that, of the hundreds of soldiers and human militiamen depicted on cards, only two random guys seem to employ them.
Either the item in question is a very weirdly shaped crossbow, or its a simple mistake on the artist's part. They happen, as Olivia Voldaren can attest.
Where are there pistols in the promo artwork (or standard) for Gather the Townsfolk? The promo has a guy pointing at the blood smear, but he's clearly not holding a gun.
Edit: Ah, I see what you're talking about in the standard artwork. The handles of the weapons do make them look like pistols, but I don't recall there being any other weapons of that kind depicted in the rest of the block. Either the objects in question are oddly shaped knife / crossbow handles, or there was a mistake on the part of the artist.
One could interpret this statement to mean that the absence of white Eldrazi, this intentional imbalance in the color pie, is specifically meant to draw attention to the lack of something in the setting. This would tie in quite nicely with the disappearance of Emrakul and/or Kozilek. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next set sees Kozilek rising up to counterattack with a phalanx of white spawn in his wake.
Also, a direct link to the MTGsalvation source thread.
I'm not sure how you gathered that from the opening sequence - the first player attacks the second with a Shivan Dragon, and the second player draws and plays a Terror on their turn. That is, in fact, how Magic works.
In any event, in addition to referencing old MTG commericals, as urweak points out, I believe that the two players are running through a game of a custom format (a sort of throw-back vintage that only allows cards up the the mid-nineties, note their weird outfits) that is popular in the area that the documentary was produced.
Personally, I think VICE did an excellent job.
So, by way of example, does this principle mean that a player who is playing a combo deck and is going off - specifically a combo that involves a continuing element of randomness like Eggs rather than a simple series of repeated on-board actions like Twin - isn't allowed to explain the combo to their opponent and indicate that carrying out the necessary sequence will inevitably result in a win? If so, does that mean that Mike Long's famous Cadaverous Bloom / Drain Life bluff was technically illegal?
It seems like every other green deck I play against (including good decks piloted by good players) is packing at least one copy of Servant of the Scale, and I have no idea why. Even if one manages to draft a deck packed with counter synergies, it takes a fair bit of time and effort to make it more than an awkward Bond Beetle. I can see it as a grudging 23rd card or a contingency against Mardu Scout.dec, but nothing more than that.
Well, that settles the gender question. Thanks.
And that explanation is plausible, although the horns do appear to be charged with mana or magic, which suggests to me that they might have been taken from a living dragon.
I guess the "break off a piece" hypothesis is pretty reasonable lacking any other information.