Sorin's clothes are the same as his original appearance. Every other planeswalker that has changed colors at some point also had a change of wardrobe as well. This makes it very easy to identify which "version" of the character you're seeing just by looking at them. If Sorin were actually getting a WB card for some inexplicable reason, he would have different clothes as well, to make clear the distinction between that that version and mono-black Sorin.
I think this is an excellent point to make but I feel like thanks to Lilliana Vess and Veil we have a bit of a Square Vs. Rectangle situation now.
Lilliana changed her clothes but not her color, she is still as B as she ever was. It could be that her wardrobe needed a bit of an upgrade so now was the time to do it but it now means that a wardrobe change doesn't always mean a change of colors.
You can however look at Jace and Chandra and see that over their 3 versions each neither of them have changed clothes at all. This tells me that without a change in clothes or appearance there isn't a change in color.
In summery if base appearance changes they MAY change colors but might not.
If however like Sorin they don't change then there is a very slim chance of color change.
To those claiming that the Sorin art may not be for his card. Show me an example of a deck box art released for a magic block that wasn't. Then there is the matter of how easily his sword could extend out of the PW frame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
You can however look at Jace and Chandra and see that over their 3 versions each neither of them have changed clothes at all. This tells me that without a change in clothes or appearance there isn't a change in color.
Not entirely true. Chandra's costume has had some minor adjustment. It wasn't a full wardrobe upgrade, but her clothes have changed.
Not entirely true. Chandra's costume has had some minor adjustment. It wasn't a full wardrobe upgrade, but her clothes have changed.
"At all" was maybe a bit too strong of a thing to say.
Garruk did change a bit between his first and second versions, but those changes can be explained by different artists painting each of the pieces.
Chandra may not have the same stitches in the same places but the important things (like her goggles) are all still there.
If Sorrin was wearing priestly robes, or got rid of his chest plate I could see talk about him changing colors. But the key elements are all still there so I really don't think Sorrin has changed much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Clothes can change without the 'walker changing colors, yeah, but it makes no sense for the 'walker to change colors without changing clothes (from a character design perspective).
"At all" was maybe a bit too strong of a thing to say.
Garruk did change a bit between his first and second versions, but those changes can be explained by different artists painting each of the pieces.
Chandra may not have the same stitches in the same places but the important things (like her goggles) are all still there.
If Sorrin was wearing priestly robes, or got rid of his chest plate I could see talk about him changing colors. But the key elements are all still there so I really don't think Sorrin has changed much.
Well, she went from having dual gauntlets with heavy shoulderpads to just having one each of the two on one side. The goggles are still there, but I was mostly just playing devil's advocate.
For the record too, I don't feel the M12 walkers to be indicative of anything, given they're core set and divorced from both timeline and setting. They stand out, and have no placement, so I wouldn't try and argue changes with them. If you're going to forward the different artists doing different things, you'd have to justify the differences on the cards that had variant printings. (Like comparing Lorwyn Garruk to Duel Deck Garruk.)
Anyways, I don't think Sorin has changed at all. I think people are stretching wherever they can to try and justify their wants and wishes. A lot of the arguments made for him changing have been terribly strenuous.
There's literally no species more appropriate for that sort of treatment than Vampires, really. Vampirism has been used as a metaphor for lust and sexuality in fiction for ages. These are egotistical and hedonistic creatures by nature, and have great wealth at their disposal and comparatively little use for protective clothing or armor due to their natural strength and resilience. Not to mention that every human who is made into a vampire is chosen for, among other qualities, their physical attractiveness. So you have an entire culture made up of gorgeous, super-human, lusty aristocrats. This is one case where I think the use of exaggeratedly sexy and impractical fantasy character design is pretty well justified. The rest of the time? Not so much. But this is a case where it actually has a reason for why it should be there.
...
Nosferatu begs to differ.
There has been a lot - a LOT - of focus on the possible metaphor of "piercing and taking life energy" with sex.
Yet, there was once a time when vampires where actually cool without being all swedish top models being blasé. They were monsters, and the fact that they fed on humans was terrifying, not sexy. You know, the instinct to be terrified with the idea of being eaten alive if a fierce one.
They are stronger than humans, but not invincible; they tend to live longer and end up rich, but so do the Highlanders, and they are not all the same like modern "style" vampires. They are not necessarily hedonistic - they feed from blood, so they can be seen as predators if the author so desire, or even victims to their curse de facto, not gifted with the best excuse to be languid. Victims and possibly paranoid, since they are forced to live in secret and in grave danger - if cought, they'd suffer a bastial vengeance from the humans he preyed upon.
I can accept one or a few vampires being hedonistic, sadistic dandi figures. Hell, some humans are. Probably the untouchable ones, the ones that are related to the noblesse, etc. That's why they are so "cool" and "beautiful" and "blasé" and care so little about everything - not because of their curse.
But every one of them? It's just boring (and destroyed a monster I loved when I was a child to me).
There has been a lot - a LOT - of focus on the possible metaphor of "piercing and taking life energy" with sex.
Yet, there was once a time when vampires where actually cool without being all swedish top models being blasé. They were monsters, and the fact that they fed on humans was terrifying, not sexy. You know, the instinct to be terrified with the idea of being eaten alive if a fierce one.
They are stronger than humans, but not invincible; they tend to live longer and end up rich, but so do the Highlanders, and they are not all the same like modern "style" vampires. They are not necessarily hedonistic - they feed from blood, so they can be seen as predators if the author so desire, or even victims to their curse de facto, not gifted with the best excuse to be languid. Victims and possibly paranoid, since they are forced to live in secret and in grave danger - if cought, they'd suffer a bastial vengeance from the humans he preyed upon.
I can accept one or a few vampires being hedonistic, sadistic dandi figures. Hell, some humans are. Probably the untouchable ones, the ones that are related to the noblesse, etc. That's why they are so "cool" and "beautiful" and "blasé" and care so little about everything - not because of their curse.
But every one of them? It's just boring (and destroyed a monster I loved when I was a child to me).
You're saying this as if the vampires on Innistrad aren't meant to be terrifying. The fact that they're attractive serves both to attract prey more easily, but also because the vampires themselves are obsessed with beauty and perfection.The vampires aren't beautiful because of their curse, they're cursed BECAUSE they're beautiful. However, their partying usually ends VERY scarily for the humans, see--the King/Queen of vampires. The fact that they feed on humans IS seen as terrifying here.
It's also worth mentioning that it's the red vampires that are associated with this lifestyle more--black ones are usually older and more subdued. Vampires aren't seen on Innistrad as sex symbols, they're still first and foremost monsters. If you want the 'victim of the curse' bit, that's where the Innistrad Werewolves come in. That's one of their central themes. They're not going to repeat this with the vampires.
Clothes can change without the 'walker changing colors, yeah, but it makes no sense for the 'walker to change colors without changing clothes (from a character design perspective).
Exactly
When I go out with friends and we are probably hitting a bar I wear very different clothes then I do if I am meeting with a client to discuss the logo I'm doing for them. Both of those sets are different from what I would wear to go to a funeral.
As much as we don't know we do it, we wear different things to different types of gatherings. If I am going somewhere as a raging avenger then I will be equipped for war, but if I am going to steal something I'm going to be dressed lightly in things that won't make noise.
This Sorrin is wearing almost (if not) the same stuff as his last card so I really don't see him being much different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
You're saying this as if the vampires on Innistrad aren't meant to be terrifying. The fact that they're attractive serves both to attract prey more easily, but also because the vampires themselves are obsessed with beauty and perfection.The vampires aren't beautiful because of their curse, they're cursed BECAUSE they're beautiful. However, their partying usually ends VERY scarily for the humans, see--the King/Queen of vampires. The fact that they feed on humans IS seen as terrifying here.
It's also worth mentioning that it's the red vampires that are associated with this lifestyle more--black ones are usually older and more subdued. Vampires aren't seen on Innistrad as sex symbols, they're still first and foremost monsters. If you want the 'victim of the curse' bit, that's where the Innistrad Werewolves come in. That's one of their central themes. They're not going to repeat this with the vampires.
Actually one of the reasons for the actual image vampires get is exactly the overlaping with werewolves; if you remember, the first big turning point was interview with a vampire (so they were more sexy, less bestial, complete oposite to Nosferatu). Then Vampire (the RPG) arrived, with the World of Darkness filled with Vampires, Werewolves, Mages, etc.
So they had to make sure "races" didn't overlap, give them specific identity. Werewolves no longer were insane bestial cursed men, trying to devour you - they were shamanistic creatures trying to defend Gaea. Vampires were no longer bestial creatures lurking in the shadows to prey on you while you were asleep, they were sexy beasts that look like supermodels and behave like glorified teenagers (c'mon, ther life is "consuming" beautiful people and social competition with other beautiful vampires. It's like grey's anatomy without the ugly female cast).
But to me that made vampires boring, the "teen drive" was so strong it led to several problems - the prejudice against Vampire:The Masquerade players, since a lot of players really overdid it, and later on the Twilight series (it was obvious to grab a myth that, in modern form, was about seduction, sex and social powerplay and serve it, watered down, to preteen girls).
Again, one or a few vampires behaving that way? Ok, some humans do. All? Being snob, beautiful, hedonistic, etc, are not racial traits in my book.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alea iacta est
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
I don't understand the griping over digital art. Art is art. I use photoshop to paint and ink daily and it takes just the same amount of skill to work with it that any other medium requires. But it lets you do things that you just cant do in other mediums. It gives you much sleeker and well defined images than traditional mediums, and the photo realism only helps add to the believability and atmosphere of the sets. I feel the gripe with artwork has nothing to do with the artists skills or execution but is focused towards people not enjoying the concept of the piece.
Well yeah, of course. It's just like music. The vast majority of people like what they happen to like, not what had the most effort put into it
Exactly, Noukkers.
I don't hate all digital art. That would be like saying I don't like all acrylic, watercolor, or any other medium of art that's out there. I think there are styles of digital art that are executed better than others. While I used to like Argyle's work, I think its become too cartoony and smooth looking. For the mood and atmosphere of Magic, I don't see cartoony fitting in with my personal taste in the artwork. I know there must be a huge amount of work that goes into the digital medium, but some of it is done better than others. The Argyle art is just not doing it for me.
If you want to get really technical, the first story to feature the vampire socialite from which we draw most definitions of modern vampires was written by John William Polidori in 1819 (though mistakenly credited to Lord Byron). It served as the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula, though the latter has far far more exposure.
While I do appreciate the aristocratic vampire trope in literature and the game of Magic, I feel like vampires need a new direction. They should be redefined, and I don't mean in a sparkly Twilight kind of way. Magic could very well be the medium to provide a fresh look at them. It is difficult to freshen up something as old as the vampire, but the game of Magic should attempt to push the boundaries of tropes, not merely perpetuate the existing ones. The creative team at wizards does this whenever it comes up with new planes for us to discover and they do a superb job. I think they have the ability to go further. Wizards, please give us a new look at vampires.
I don't like the Sorin art. I hate the smoke, I hate his expression, and holding a sword like that, especially with that hand position, and that kind of sword, is incredibly awkward. Though, I will say, for a piece I don't approve of, it still does look nice.
I like the play mat a lot, and already have the money put aside to buy it immediately. I want the card that has that deck box art, but I only use plain colored deck boxes, so....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
1. Good Decks Play With Good Cards
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
The art for that mat is definitely for a BW legendary vampire!
Except for the fact that we've been told there won't be any color bleed amongst the creatures. The tribes are going to stay in the colors they already are in.
For everyone complaining about the sword....Its resting on his shoulder. The blade is under his collar
The way he's gripping it is still unnaturally goofy to me, regardless of whether he's resting it on his shoulder or not.
If he was resting the base of the grip in the palm of his hand instead, then that particular aspect of the art would appeal much more to me. It's not terrible art, it's just.... odd
It's just me or there isn't a beginning nor an end of that snake? It's just a single endless animal o_O
BTW, it's been a lot since Eldrazis, we needed some more tentacle jokes...
Based on her having no iris in her eyes at all and from what i can see the vampire on INN all have the Sorin motif for their eyes, I think she is actually part of the "snake".
Based on her having no iris in her eyes at all and from what i can see the vampire on INN all have the Sorin motif for their eyes, I think she is actually part of the "snake".
A thought that just hit me is that she could be a "cultist" from a cult other then for Grislebrand (sp?). Maybe she worships a snake like demon.
It's not unreasonable to think that other demons are worshiped on Innistrad. It would also fit the "humans getting darker" clue that we got with Village Cannibals for humans to show up a bit more in B.
Yes this means that her card could be a low power common/uncommon but lets all take a moment to remember Maritime Guard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
While I do appreciate the aristocratic vampire trope in literature and the game of Magic, I feel like vampires need a new direction. They should be redefined, and I don't mean in a sparkly Twilight kind of way. Magic could very well be the medium to provide a fresh look at them. It is difficult to freshen up something as old as the vampire, but the game of Magic should attempt to push the boundaries of tropes, not merely perpetuate the existing ones. The creative team at wizards does this whenever it comes up with new planes for us to discover and they do a superb job. I think they have the ability to go further. Wizards, please give us a new look at vampires.
Pretty sure they tried to with the tribal, shamanistic Zendikar vampires.
Based on her having no iris in her eyes at all and from what i can see the vampire on INN all have the Sorin motif for their eyes, I think she is actually part of the "snake".
A thousand times, this. I miss my snake-lady sisters from Rav. Stupid Svogthos and Savra.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. Good Decks Play With Good Cards
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
Based on her having no iris in her eyes at all and from what i can see the vampire on INN all have the Sorin motif for their eyes, I think she is actually part of the "snake".
I've got the artwork on my background right now and frankly I just can't see where she would be attached to the "snake".
We can see hair, arms, and although her legs aren't completely there her right shin is clearly covered by a boot. I don't know where you would attach such a serpent to the human form but it seems the logical places are all quite human(ish).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is an excellent point to make but I feel like thanks to Lilliana Vess and Veil we have a bit of a Square Vs. Rectangle situation now.
Lilliana changed her clothes but not her color, she is still as B as she ever was. It could be that her wardrobe needed a bit of an upgrade so now was the time to do it but it now means that a wardrobe change doesn't always mean a change of colors.
You can however look at Jace and Chandra and see that over their 3 versions each neither of them have changed clothes at all. This tells me that without a change in clothes or appearance there isn't a change in color.
In summery if base appearance changes they MAY change colors but might not.
If however like Sorin they don't change then there is a very slim chance of color change.
To those claiming that the Sorin art may not be for his card. Show me an example of a deck box art released for a magic block that wasn't. Then there is the matter of how easily his sword could extend out of the PW frame.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Exceptions to every rule, of course, but on the whole artwork like the new Sorin is not something I am a fan of.
He looks like an actions figure: plastic.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
Not entirely true. Chandra's costume has had some minor adjustment. It wasn't a full wardrobe upgrade, but her clothes have changed.
"At all" was maybe a bit too strong of a thing to say.
Garruk did change a bit between his first and second versions, but those changes can be explained by different artists painting each of the pieces.
Chandra may not have the same stitches in the same places but the important things (like her goggles) are all still there.
If Sorrin was wearing priestly robes, or got rid of his chest plate I could see talk about him changing colors. But the key elements are all still there so I really don't think Sorrin has changed much.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Well, she went from having dual gauntlets with heavy shoulderpads to just having one each of the two on one side. The goggles are still there, but I was mostly just playing devil's advocate.
For the record too, I don't feel the M12 walkers to be indicative of anything, given they're core set and divorced from both timeline and setting. They stand out, and have no placement, so I wouldn't try and argue changes with them. If you're going to forward the different artists doing different things, you'd have to justify the differences on the cards that had variant printings. (Like comparing Lorwyn Garruk to Duel Deck Garruk.)
Anyways, I don't think Sorin has changed at all. I think people are stretching wherever they can to try and justify their wants and wishes. A lot of the arguments made for him changing have been terribly strenuous.
Nosferatu begs to differ.
There has been a lot - a LOT - of focus on the possible metaphor of "piercing and taking life energy" with sex.
Yet, there was once a time when vampires where actually cool without being all swedish top models being blasé. They were monsters, and the fact that they fed on humans was terrifying, not sexy. You know, the instinct to be terrified with the idea of being eaten alive if a fierce one.
They are stronger than humans, but not invincible; they tend to live longer and end up rich, but so do the Highlanders, and they are not all the same like modern "style" vampires. They are not necessarily hedonistic - they feed from blood, so they can be seen as predators if the author so desire, or even victims to their curse de facto, not gifted with the best excuse to be languid. Victims and possibly paranoid, since they are forced to live in secret and in grave danger - if cought, they'd suffer a bastial vengeance from the humans he preyed upon.
I can accept one or a few vampires being hedonistic, sadistic dandi figures. Hell, some humans are. Probably the untouchable ones, the ones that are related to the noblesse, etc. That's why they are so "cool" and "beautiful" and "blasé" and care so little about everything - not because of their curse.
But every one of them? It's just boring (and destroyed a monster I loved when I was a child to me).
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
You're saying this as if the vampires on Innistrad aren't meant to be terrifying. The fact that they're attractive serves both to attract prey more easily, but also because the vampires themselves are obsessed with beauty and perfection.The vampires aren't beautiful because of their curse, they're cursed BECAUSE they're beautiful. However, their partying usually ends VERY scarily for the humans, see--the King/Queen of vampires. The fact that they feed on humans IS seen as terrifying here.
It's also worth mentioning that it's the red vampires that are associated with this lifestyle more--black ones are usually older and more subdued. Vampires aren't seen on Innistrad as sex symbols, they're still first and foremost monsters. If you want the 'victim of the curse' bit, that's where the Innistrad Werewolves come in. That's one of their central themes. They're not going to repeat this with the vampires.
Exactly
When I go out with friends and we are probably hitting a bar I wear very different clothes then I do if I am meeting with a client to discuss the logo I'm doing for them. Both of those sets are different from what I would wear to go to a funeral.
As much as we don't know we do it, we wear different things to different types of gatherings. If I am going somewhere as a raging avenger then I will be equipped for war, but if I am going to steal something I'm going to be dressed lightly in things that won't make noise.
This Sorrin is wearing almost (if not) the same stuff as his last card so I really don't see him being much different.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Actually one of the reasons for the actual image vampires get is exactly the overlaping with werewolves; if you remember, the first big turning point was interview with a vampire (so they were more sexy, less bestial, complete oposite to Nosferatu). Then Vampire (the RPG) arrived, with the World of Darkness filled with Vampires, Werewolves, Mages, etc.
So they had to make sure "races" didn't overlap, give them specific identity. Werewolves no longer were insane bestial cursed men, trying to devour you - they were shamanistic creatures trying to defend Gaea. Vampires were no longer bestial creatures lurking in the shadows to prey on you while you were asleep, they were sexy beasts that look like supermodels and behave like glorified teenagers (c'mon, ther life is "consuming" beautiful people and social competition with other beautiful vampires. It's like grey's anatomy without the ugly female cast).
But to me that made vampires boring, the "teen drive" was so strong it led to several problems - the prejudice against Vampire:The Masquerade players, since a lot of players really overdid it, and later on the Twilight series (it was obvious to grab a myth that, in modern form, was about seduction, sex and social powerplay and serve it, watered down, to preteen girls).
Again, one or a few vampires behaving that way? Ok, some humans do. All? Being snob, beautiful, hedonistic, etc, are not racial traits in my book.
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
Exactly, Noukkers.
I don't hate all digital art. That would be like saying I don't like all acrylic, watercolor, or any other medium of art that's out there. I think there are styles of digital art that are executed better than others. While I used to like Argyle's work, I think its become too cartoony and smooth looking. For the mood and atmosphere of Magic, I don't see cartoony fitting in with my personal taste in the artwork. I know there must be a huge amount of work that goes into the digital medium, but some of it is done better than others. The Argyle art is just not doing it for me.
I like the play mat a lot, and already have the money put aside to buy it immediately. I want the card that has that deck box art, but I only use plain colored deck boxes, so....
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
"look before you cross the road"
~Cheers
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
~Metamorph
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
Except for the fact that we've been told there won't be any color bleed amongst the creatures. The tribes are going to stay in the colors they already are in.
The way he's gripping it is still unnaturally goofy to me, regardless of whether he's resting it on his shoulder or not.
If he was resting the base of the grip in the palm of his hand instead, then that particular aspect of the art would appeal much more to me. It's not terrible art, it's just.... odd
Based on her having no iris in her eyes at all and from what i can see the vampire on INN all have the Sorin motif for their eyes, I think she is actually part of the "snake".
A thought that just hit me is that she could be a "cultist" from a cult other then for Grislebrand (sp?). Maybe she worships a snake like demon.
It's not unreasonable to think that other demons are worshiped on Innistrad. It would also fit the "humans getting darker" clue that we got with Village Cannibals for humans to show up a bit more in B.
Yes this means that her card could be a low power common/uncommon but lets all take a moment to remember Maritime Guard.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Pretty sure they tried to with the tribal, shamanistic Zendikar vampires.
A thousand times, this. I miss my snake-lady sisters from Rav. Stupid Svogthos and Savra.
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
~Metamorph
I've got the artwork on my background right now and frankly I just can't see where she would be attached to the "snake".
We can see hair, arms, and although her legs aren't completely there her right shin is clearly covered by a boot. I don't know where you would attach such a serpent to the human form but it seems the logical places are all quite human(ish).
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson