- Aur Ain Soph
- Registered User
Member for 15 years, 9 months, and 18 days
Last active Sun, Nov, 5 2017 04:09:46
- 0 Followers
- 3,599 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
Mar 16, 2016Aur Ain Soph posted a message on Mothership Spoilers 3/16 - Jace, Unraveler of Secrets, Olivia, Mobilized for WarThe spoiled Jace has enough similarities to the one OblivionedOne posted to make me think he did have a source who knew something, just not a very reliable one, or there was a glaring miscommunication, or OblivionedOne filled in the gaps of what he knew to present a full card. I get the impression from his somewhat sloppy reports that this is typically the case.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Mar 10, 2016Mikus and Mikaeus could also be names associated with the clergy, like the Pope's name. The phonetic similarity could indicate a shared root, mik*, meaning something in, uh, Innistradi. Though I doubt creative would go into that level of (conscious) detail, it's something generally implied by their similarity as fictional characters.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Edit: Both names are of course references to the archangel Michael, with the spelling consistent with Innistrad's cultural inspirations.
Mar 10, 2016Aur Ain Soph posted a message on Artwork, New Story 'A Gaze Blank and Pitiless' Evil Sigarda?Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from omegadragoonx0 »It is really sounding a lot like the Chain Veil influencing things. Whispers, buzzing, corruption, a desire to wipe out everything - all very Onakke. We know Liliana brought the Chain Veil here, as she is the poster child for the second set. We also all know that no matter the purity of the those who run into its power, the Chain Veil can corrupt them with its dark mana. Look at poor Garruk, Apex Predator. Look at the countless angels Liliana has vaporized with its power. The only other plausible source of this madness is Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker.
Several of the revealed cards so far have been suggestive of the beginning stages of an Eldrazi invasion, particularly since mutated eyeballs and weird fleshy growths and tentacles, for example, would be the sort of thing you'd expect from Emrakul, the corrupter of biological life. Though this trait was only established of Emrakul recently, while she was absent from Zendikar.
The story, as well as several representations of Avacyn so far, with the presence of black in her eyes sounds quite a bit like Phyrexian ichor. In the trailer it appears she's got some black tears even.
Then, Nahiri is pissed off and doing weird lithomancy stuff. Tamiyo's got notes on the Moon being weird and its connection to the sea.
Those are all plausible and perhaps related causes. Though the Chain Veil is also possible. Perhaps Garruk was in the forest when Avacyn rescued the kid, corrupting her in some way. If the strength of the curse was so strong that it overwhelmed the Cursemute, that would explain it failing for werewolves. Enchantment on enchantment action like that is a bit easier to understand than it happening as a result of Phyrexian corruption, by comparison, though Avacyn could have simply rescinded her magic.
As for Nicol Bolas: sweet Jesus, I hope not. This is the least interesting option. Please no.
So there are some serious possibilities, or really, permutations of all the different clues we have so far. As is proper for a mystery block.
Sep 2, 2014Posted in: The Rumor Mill
I'm not offended by you disagreeing with me. I would welcome criticism and discussion if you would be thoughtful and actually engage what I wrote. I was offended by the fact that you disregarded the whole of what I said in order to apodeictically assert an extreme opposing position which itself should not be taken seriously. I'm offended by the fact that any time anyone says anything even slightly nuanced, they get shouted down and derailed by others in this way. This is not good conduct and I shouldn't have to deal with it, so I was confrontational.
Sep 1, 2014Posted in: The Rumor Mill
It wasn't unnecessary. Your post was legitimately offensive and pointless (your response is, additionally, anti-intellectual prejudice), I stated my honest opinion about it in the nicest and clearest way possible.
My point is this: the vast, vast majority of "evocativeness", "memorability" or "distinctiveness" comes through the avenues I mentioned above.
I doubt that, and even if that were the case, so what?
What tiny fraction the card's type slot adds to these is, in my opinion, nowhere near worth the sacrifice in card interaction, which is the primary function of the type line.
It's not very realistic to suggest that it has a primary function, which is overly polarizing. It's more rational to realize that there are mechanical criteria and flavor criteria to be weighed on a case by case basis. The card interaction itself is minimal enough that the "sacrifice" can't amount to much, considering that there's a potential for other types of interactions instead, so the value here has to fall in favor of the flavor. Otherwise, your logic would dictate that no new creature types should ever be made.
Naga are purely Buddhist/Hindu creatures,
That's incorrect. They've become a staple of general fantasy that in some cases more or less closely follow their real-world inspiration.
so either A) they won't receive much support in the future since "Eastern" sets are rare, and they're just throwing Vorthoses a bone or B) they'll start showing up in "Western" planes, which is flavourfully strange and doesn't address the weird symmetry (why not separate birds and Aven? Aven are just as different from birds as Naga are from snakes).
It's not really that much more strange than Gorgons or Djinn on Ravnica, it's nowhere near the case that types always have culturally specific settings. And aven, on the other hand, are something original to Magic, so there's no real world flavor being lost by typing them as birds. An alternative like "garuda" might be better, but only if you're wanting that extra effect.
Edit: Furthermore, the naga type has more potential for becoming popular as a type than snake does, since it's less bland and generic, and the more popular a type the more likely to be revisited. Thus the more card interactivity created by the mechanic via its flavor impact.
Sep 1, 2014Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Not only are you wrong, you're irrelevant since the entire context of what I wrote addressed mechanical synergy.
Of course creature types contribute to mechanical synergy. That's pretty much a duh statement and demonstrates that you do not have a grasp of the principle of intellectual charity. One big problem with this forum (and nerd culture in general) is the tendency to encourage opportunistic nit-picking behavior, which is really a desperation for something to say.
Mechanical function is not mutually exclusive to serving a flavor function, so in fact what is being disputed is what is prioritized.
Sep 1, 2014I can't believe anyone would prefer "snake" to "naga." Might as well start typing angels as "bird human" to maximize the relevance of their types. I love that they made a new type for nagas... "Cat demon" on the other hand for rakshasas is (would be?) a missed opportunity and an eyesore. Creature types are a way of giving tribes distinct identities. "Snake" is inherently more bland and generic in flavor than "naga," and when you give nagas their own type, it feels more like the evocative myths it references actually come through into the setting. "Snake" and other animal types are suitable for creatures that actually are just animals, but sentient and especially real-world-mythology-inspired races should usually get their own types. Sometimes you'll sacrifice tribal interactions, but nagas are themselves a more memorable type than snake, and fairly versatile as far as being appropriate for fantasy settings, so there's plenty of potential to create their own tribal interactions.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Oct 1, 2013Posted in: Magic Storyline
Except for the fact that you can see up her skirt?
Might that be because you're not the right audience for the fetish?
Exava, Rakdos Blood Witch - If she wasn't so scary I'd call her sexy, but something that aggressive is most certainly not sexualized, particularly not in that pose.
You mean other than appearing topless?
Thassa, God of the Sea - Looks dangerous and unpredictable, clearly beautiful, but neither sexy nor sexualized.
There's also the whole boob armor and cleavage thing you missed several times. And I question the validity of sampling only female legends.
I'm not sure any of your analysis holds weight on this matter, since it seems to be derived from whether your subjectively experience the content as sexualized. It should go without saying that's a non-starter. Nor is it clear that there's a meaningful distinction between "attractive" and "sexualized." In some sense, a character representation that is non-ambiguous about gender is sexualized. To determine whether females are overly sexualized you might compare them to similar representations of males and how likely it is that secondary sexual characteristics and attractiveness are emphasized in one gender vs. another.
Sep 17, 2013I think it may be too reductive to argue for Xenagos being black. You could apply the same reasoning to conclude that Konda ought to have been black because although part of his motivation involved purported white goals, his methods were certainly self-advancing and in the face of the outcome of his actions (the Kami war being the opposite effect of promoting peace and prosperity for his people), he chose to continue his self-advancement over the good of the community.Posted in: Magic Storyline
But Konda wasn't black, he was white. I think it's important that we view this not as a mistake of color identity in terms of the storyline but as speaking to the nature of villains in any color. A protagonist or neutral character represents their color's ideology in such a way as to demonstrate its possibility to promote virtue (in the former case) or to use consistency to make the ideology of the color more explicit (in the latter case). Villains however have made some kind of moral failing, as such, they may actually demonstrate inconsistency with their color (you could argue perhaps if they understood their color's ideology or its application to their context better they would instead be good guys) or the possibility of the color to promote moral failure (perhaps the colors themselves are fundamentally incoherent, or otherwise include contradictory elements).
When you put it that way, a grab for power might not be inherently black in all cases. Perhaps the fact that Xenagos does choose to remain on Theros indicates a non-black factor; if he wanted power for its own sake in the black fashion, then he would prefer to accumulate it infinitely and never settle for self-imposed constraints of an existing system.
Also. I think Xenagos' quote on Annul is about as green as it gets, personally. He's saying the order imposed by the gods is an illusory authority (U), its true nature being form of exploitation (B).
Sep 9, 2013Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from LinkWhy should it disturb you? With all the attractive females in art, it's nice to have some males.
EDIT: Oops, sorry about the double post.
It's not the male part. It's the wanting to bang something that's half goat part.
Sep 9, 2013Aur Ain Soph posted a message on [[THS]] DailyMTG Previews 9/10: Whip of Erebos; Akroan Horse; Heliod's Emissary; etcWell, the elk as an emissary breaks the earlier pattern of them being zodiac animals.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Sep 7, 2013The point is, even if it were the case that they always were large fliers, that would not constitute a reason to present them in a different way if it were appropriate, as with Zendikar forward. And in this setting, it would definitely be appropriate to recast the nature of shades.Posted in: Magic Storyline
Sep 7, 2013Posted in: Magic StorylineQuote from BarinellosYes, and the fact that Magic's shades are not the same as grecian shades. There's a tighter identity for these shades than what the setting can use, particularly since MtG's shades all share a common mechanical identity that defines them. They wouldn't be able to show up in the numbers needed to fill out the slot allotted for them.
The question itself of whether or not shades could ever be a characteristic race assumes that the common mechanical identity heretofore might not be essential to the type. Since shades have only ever been used as a slight variation in creature type, they've mostly followed the tradition started by the first MTG shade, so the mechanic has not been without context. It would be equivalent to saying that vampires cannot be a characteristic race because they have an identity as large fliers, or in other words, it begs the question (i.e., its conclusion is contained in its premises) that shades cannot be characteristic because they are mechanically not characteristic.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.