While I agree, people need to remember this is a mtg universe and not actual Greek mythology.
I'm not disputing that, but I do think there is a significant difference between choosing zombie over shade and, say, adding leonin in. The latter is a MTG addition needed to round out the creature types required by the five color paradigm. It more or less works because leonin can be made to fit with the flavor. The former is choosing an off flavor element when there is an on flavor element available, which weakens the consistency of the theme needlessly.
I suppose the justification is that zombies are a more relevant creature type, but eh.
Karametra's multiple duties are evocative of Athena who had different personas for various domains, Pallas Athena for her civic duties, Athena Nike for her athletic prowess, Athena Promachos for battle, etc.
That's actually true of all of the major gods. The specific roles given to Karametra correspond to the major themes of Hestia and Demeter.
In the artwork that has been released so far of Theros, the architecture shows some evidence of arches (especially in ruins). Arches are characteristically Roman, and not Greek.
He knows this. He's being intentionally unclear so he can correct you in a reply.
He's talking about the 2 combat damage it would normally deal and then choosing to draw a card. That would be the same as casting Electrolyze targeting a player, dealing the full 2 damage to the player.
Or, he was actually perfectly clear but all the people replying to him gave intentionally uncharitable readings so that they would get the "points" for correcting, even though if they read more carefully they would realize their corrections were unnecessary and irrelevant. Which is pretty much half the posts on this forum.
This card is a little bit flat for both Vorthos and Melvin reasons. I associate Izzet with a bit of wackiness, whereas this card is all about sheer (boring) efficiency, so there's a hollow flavor. Also the combination of unblockability with a combat damage trigger (as opposed to an attack trigger) seems inelegant from a design perspective.
Ain, you can bash this around however you like, but this very quote below is why I care enough. When MTGSalvation confirms something, people view it as something important, no matter how truly UNimportant it is in the scope of things. You can rationalize the psychology of it however you want to, but that doesn't change the one thing which hinges the debate:
MTGSalvation confirms something when it's confirmed, not when it's likely.
That's actually necessarily untrue in a trivial sense. You're never going to get away from things being likely. You could be holding a shockland from a RTR pack in your hand and it would only be likely that you're not dreaming. Or whatever other scenario of possible (but not plausible) doubt; the point being that your arbitrarily setting a standard of confirmation that is still a matter of likelihood. It's more practical to confirm things when they are beyond reasonable doubt.
You're right in that we've never had anything written on a stone tablet or even in a guide, it's just one of those things that veterans abide by, and the mods are quick to slap wrists over. If we weren't in transition for a Rumor Mill mod, I would think that it would have even happened in here by now.
Two things with what you've said above though...
No one here is DOUBTING anything. They just are playing by the "rules" of the Rumor Mill that have helped keep things comfortable for years. Old habits die hard. I also haven't heard any CHASTISING going on outside of the one dude who called people idiots. I certainly am not calling names or saying anyone is WRONG. All I'm saying is I'm not labeling this art as 100% Shockland Rumor Mill Spoiler-put-up-ready-and-confirmed. Because it isn't. It will be in a few days though!
And normally, I don't have an issue with those rules, as in fact most of the cases where people jumped to conclusions in the past really were unfounded. But the criteria may be too strict if we're generalizing it to cover this situation, where there are both strong coherence and evidence based factors to conclude shocklands. But you are doubting, by definition (the "rules" you mention are epistemological criteria for knowledge; if the criteria aren't met, the rules say to doubt). Certainly it seems to me that voicing doubt in a public forum suggests that you think other people should share your opinion, but they shouldn't if it is unreasonable. Pragmatically, it makes little sense to interpret the discussion with an overly strong sense of the word "confirm" which would effectively make MTGS pretty redundant to wizards.com, especially since from Timespiral on, indirect spoilers have become scarce (with a few exceptions). People have got to be allowed to make modest inferences.
Anyway, I'm not committing to some position that MTGS ought to put the cards on the spoiler. But if they did I don't think they could be faulted even if they were wrong.
Yeah I think it comes down to the word "CONFIRM." Here in Rumor Mill land, it gets gobbled up by anyone and thrown around like crazy. Look in speculation, people say "OMG DOES THIS CONFIRM X?" for the silliest of things. When something is properly confirmed by Rumor Mill standards, we have a magazine spoil, a party spoil like at PAX, a Mothership spoil, or a "trusted source" which is someone who has either given us spoils in the past, or has proven to a Mod that they have "real" information.
These pictures, while compelling and obviously for land cards, are not CONFIRMED by those standards, which we have had here in the Rumor Mill since we've started back around Darksteel/5th Dawn.
When someone starts a thread, and uses the title in a somewhat misleading way... people take this info, run around town saying it's "for sure" and "confirmed." That's fine, but then some of those same folks end up throwing hissy fits and complaining about WOTC when it was their own damn fault for not waiting the couple of days it took to get some proper information to indeed prove they are what they appear.
It's not about not believing the evidence... but these pieces of art are not confirmed to be shocklands by Rumor Mill standards. Those standards have held up well for us over many years, and those of us who have been around that long to enjoy spoiler seasons have no reason to question a process that works. All it takes is one of our little rumor monkeys to appear and whisper to a mod that they are indeed shocklands (or seeing them at PAX party), and we can put this to bed.
Truthfully though, this same arguement is happening all over the internet, and the same thing is being said by others. "These look like shocks, but this is not confirmed information."
I don't think that MTGS has had consistent standards for spoiling cards (or making other general predictions, for that matter) in the time range you've mentioned at all. In any case, the policy that MTGS employs in putting cards on the spoiler list is at least somewhat independent of what people are really talking about in the sense of the word "confirm" they're using. The real issue is: are we justified in believing that shocklands are in RTR or are there plausible reasons for doubting this? If they're aren't plausible reasons for doubt, voicing doubt is unreasonable. The decision to put cards on the spoiler is separate from this; I don't think individuals are bound to drawing conclusions based on whether MTGS decides to make a spoiler official or not.
Anyway, I have no stake in the reprinting of shocklands at all. I already have all that I'll ever need. If anything, I would prefer them to print other playable lands so that my non-standard manabases can become even more awesome and consistent. The issue of excessive skepticism is purely academic for me. Chastising people for drawing conclusions that may, as you estimate with 1% probability, be wrong is simply an improper and uncritical way of thinking.
You can take it to that level fine, and we can go into a completely off rail conversation about Bigfoot, UFOs, and Baby Jesus... but this is a card game with nothing on the line but someone saying "cool art, likely Shocklands, but this isn't CONFIRMED by definition."
A point which is rather trivial considering this is a spoiler site, not a site for posting tautologies.
Edit: Anyway, there is something on the line in general for you. If you find it suitable to be irrationally skeptical in one situation, chances are that affects your judgment in other situations that do matter. It makes more sense to always be as rational as possible.
You guys go right ahead and prance around in your "hooray for shocklands being back" dance... but there is NOTHING wrong with some of us waiting the official proof that will likely come tomorrow night.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. It's called unreasonable skepticism. If you applied the same kind of standards of certainty in knowledge to everything, you wouldn't be able to know much at all. Shocklands aren't confirmed in the sense that we haven't been given that full information from the official source, but we can cogently induce the likelihood of shocklands beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't make an inference to any kind of new information unless there's something more in your conclusion than is in your premises. That doesn't mean that the conclusion can't be wrong, but then, we have confidence in a virtually endless number of things that could be wrong and we still are justified in believing them and taking action based on that belief.
A little bit disappointed by Selesnya losing all the crystal elements they had in original Ravnica. Those porcelain decorations make them a bit too similar to white Phyrexians, just with vines instead of flesh. I guess crystal elementals were not beautiful enough for the new age of Conclave that cares about beauty a lot more.
They also seem to be fond of using some Russian/Slavic words for Ravnica. The "Slon" in "Troslon" means "Elephant" in Russian, and "Mat'" in "Mat'Selesnya" means "Mother" (though that one has been around since original Ravnica, I believe).
Mat'Selesnya is probably a reference to the goddess Ma'at in ancient Egyptian religion (it's a very white-green concept, not unlike Asha from Alara which similarly comes from Zoroastrianism). But yeah, the setting is supposed to be vaguely eastern European so a lot of the names for things are influenced by that.
I liked the crystal aesthetic myself, but I personally thought it would be more appropriate to a different guild... probably Azorius.
I would like to see a new cycle with three activated abilities: one for each color, and the last for the pair such that they are most powerful when played in those colors.
Remember the time frame during which these sets are made. Gisa and Geralf were just random flavor text personalities in the beginning. Their popularity certainly wasn't known until well after upcoming products were well beyond the point of no return.
And I'd much rather have totally new legends that aren't constrained by years of obscure history and lore. I'd much rather new designs have the freedom to be whatever they need to be, rather than trying to pick something relatively close from a pool of old characters, or even worse, having to work top-down from that same pool. There'd be more answers to questions of "Who is X?" but is that worth having an overall worse pool of designs because something cool or fun they want to do just doesn't fit the lore surrounding the old character they're trying to represent?
You severely overestimate the number of people who actually care about old characters getting cards. Yes, I know you're one of them. But catering to your tiny sliver of audience isn't worth tying one's hands for new, evocative visual and mechanical designs for the much, much, much, much, much greater number of players who couldn't tell Urza from Akroma if you put a gun to their head. What would make you happier isn't the same as what is in the best interests of the people making the game, or the audience as a whole. There are plenty of changes to the game that would make me, as an individual, more satisfied, but I'm not going to constantly whine about how I'm being wronged because of it. I'm one person. My needs are not more important than the needs of all players in aggregate, or the needs of Wizards of the Coast, and I'm okay with having a somewhat worse individual experience for the sake of a greater aggregate experience.
I think this is a false dilemma. Sticking with particular legends may restrict designs available to that slot somewhat, but that's virtually never going to be a real issue, especially in a core set where themes themselves are less restrictive.
It's not a matter of doing the marketing numbers game in appealing to Vorthos profiles. The entire quality of the game as a whole improves if all of its elements function together cohesively. If you make legends increasingly irrelevant, as in, the ones you print arbitrarily fit a design scheme and have no significance beyond the cardboard they're printed on, fewer players will care about legends. And ultimately they'll care less about the game, too, if it offers them no substantive narrative (even if they aren't consciously looking for one). The whole premise of a collectible card game based on fantasy tropes is appeal to sentiment.
Printing legends from locations in previous blocks in the core set is a great way to make cards for legends that didn't appear in the block. Like all the legends that didn't end up getting printed in Innistrad... oh wait. None of those here.
Orell reasons that there might be a portal located somewhere on the demiplane. So far you've only explored a part of the area where you're safe from negative energy.
I'm not disputing that, but I do think there is a significant difference between choosing zombie over shade and, say, adding leonin in. The latter is a MTG addition needed to round out the creature types required by the five color paradigm. It more or less works because leonin can be made to fit with the flavor. The former is choosing an off flavor element when there is an on flavor element available, which weakens the consistency of the theme needlessly.
I suppose the justification is that zombies are a more relevant creature type, but eh.
That's actually true of all of the major gods. The specific roles given to Karametra correspond to the major themes of Hestia and Demeter.
Or, he was actually perfectly clear but all the people replying to him gave intentionally uncharitable readings so that they would get the "points" for correcting, even though if they read more carefully they would realize their corrections were unnecessary and irrelevant. Which is pretty much half the posts on this forum.
This card is a little bit flat for both Vorthos and Melvin reasons. I associate Izzet with a bit of wackiness, whereas this card is all about sheer (boring) efficiency, so there's a hollow flavor. Also the combination of unblockability with a combat damage trigger (as opposed to an attack trigger) seems inelegant from a design perspective.
That's actually necessarily untrue in a trivial sense. You're never going to get away from things being likely. You could be holding a shockland from a RTR pack in your hand and it would only be likely that you're not dreaming. Or whatever other scenario of possible (but not plausible) doubt; the point being that your arbitrarily setting a standard of confirmation that is still a matter of likelihood. It's more practical to confirm things when they are beyond reasonable doubt.
And normally, I don't have an issue with those rules, as in fact most of the cases where people jumped to conclusions in the past really were unfounded. But the criteria may be too strict if we're generalizing it to cover this situation, where there are both strong coherence and evidence based factors to conclude shocklands. But you are doubting, by definition (the "rules" you mention are epistemological criteria for knowledge; if the criteria aren't met, the rules say to doubt). Certainly it seems to me that voicing doubt in a public forum suggests that you think other people should share your opinion, but they shouldn't if it is unreasonable. Pragmatically, it makes little sense to interpret the discussion with an overly strong sense of the word "confirm" which would effectively make MTGS pretty redundant to wizards.com, especially since from Timespiral on, indirect spoilers have become scarce (with a few exceptions). People have got to be allowed to make modest inferences.
Anyway, I'm not committing to some position that MTGS ought to put the cards on the spoiler. But if they did I don't think they could be faulted even if they were wrong.
I don't think that MTGS has had consistent standards for spoiling cards (or making other general predictions, for that matter) in the time range you've mentioned at all. In any case, the policy that MTGS employs in putting cards on the spoiler list is at least somewhat independent of what people are really talking about in the sense of the word "confirm" they're using. The real issue is: are we justified in believing that shocklands are in RTR or are there plausible reasons for doubting this? If they're aren't plausible reasons for doubt, voicing doubt is unreasonable. The decision to put cards on the spoiler is separate from this; I don't think individuals are bound to drawing conclusions based on whether MTGS decides to make a spoiler official or not.
Anyway, I have no stake in the reprinting of shocklands at all. I already have all that I'll ever need. If anything, I would prefer them to print other playable lands so that my non-standard manabases can become even more awesome and consistent. The issue of excessive skepticism is purely academic for me. Chastising people for drawing conclusions that may, as you estimate with 1% probability, be wrong is simply an improper and uncritical way of thinking.
A point which is rather trivial considering this is a spoiler site, not a site for posting tautologies.
Edit: Anyway, there is something on the line in general for you. If you find it suitable to be irrationally skeptical in one situation, chances are that affects your judgment in other situations that do matter. It makes more sense to always be as rational as possible.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. It's called unreasonable skepticism. If you applied the same kind of standards of certainty in knowledge to everything, you wouldn't be able to know much at all. Shocklands aren't confirmed in the sense that we haven't been given that full information from the official source, but we can cogently induce the likelihood of shocklands beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't make an inference to any kind of new information unless there's something more in your conclusion than is in your premises. That doesn't mean that the conclusion can't be wrong, but then, we have confidence in a virtually endless number of things that could be wrong and we still are justified in believing them and taking action based on that belief.
Mat'Selesnya is probably a reference to the goddess Ma'at in ancient Egyptian religion (it's a very white-green concept, not unlike Asha from Alara which similarly comes from Zoroastrianism). But yeah, the setting is supposed to be vaguely eastern European so a lot of the names for things are influenced by that.
I liked the crystal aesthetic myself, but I personally thought it would be more appropriate to a different guild... probably Azorius.
I think this is a false dilemma. Sticking with particular legends may restrict designs available to that slot somewhat, but that's virtually never going to be a real issue, especially in a core set where themes themselves are less restrictive.
It's not a matter of doing the marketing numbers game in appealing to Vorthos profiles. The entire quality of the game as a whole improves if all of its elements function together cohesively. If you make legends increasingly irrelevant, as in, the ones you print arbitrarily fit a design scheme and have no significance beyond the cardboard they're printed on, fewer players will care about legends. And ultimately they'll care less about the game, too, if it offers them no substantive narrative (even if they aren't consciously looking for one). The whole premise of a collectible card game based on fantasy tropes is appeal to sentiment.
Orell reasons that there might be a portal located somewhere on the demiplane. So far you've only explored a part of the area where you're safe from negative energy.