Baseless? I was offering possible reasons for why they made a single 4 colour card that's not part of a cycle in the same set.
Baseless because it's not the first time WotC do stand-alone 4color cards in premiere or supplemental sets (Omnath, Atraxa, Aragorn,etc.) so yeah, seems pretty baseless to me.
I have to agree with Flisch that this seems like the perfect place to be making speculative guesses. It also seems pretty odd to go in on someone for baseless speculation when just a few posts up you were baselessly speculating that the card would not only be a Nephilim, but a legendary Nephilim; and not only a legendary Nephilim, but a legendary Nephilim with "Partner with a Nephilim" which is a variation of the Partner mechanic that has never been done before. You might not agree with his theory, and that's cool, but everyone here is speculating based on the very little information that we have from Maro's post.
and did I miss anything or no adventure enchantments at all in this leak?
I think the new permanent type with adventure is "Legendary" with Beluna Grandsquall. I don't remember there being any legendaries in Throne of Eldraine with adventure, but I could be misremembering.
I feel like the reprinted Planeswalker card is probably Liliana of the veil. In the worldbuilding video they showed her cart art but didn't give the name for it like they had done with Karn, Living Legacy. That would lead me to believe that the name of her card will be a big reveal, which would definitely be the case with the reprint.
Alternatively, it could be that her name has big story implications and possibly makes mention of the Raven Man's true identity and they just didn't want to spoil story-beats in the panel. But then again, they talked about things that I would consider spoilers for the main story, so that doesn't seem like a concern for them.
I'm a little confused by your argument here. Earlier it seemed you were suggesting that the art is overtly sexual like the Chandra/Liliana art, which most people seemed to strongly disagree with. And now you're pointing to this four year old Blogatog post which, if anything, seems to hurt your argument.
If Wizards is making a conscious effort to move away from art that would make a subset of players feel uncomfortable and they are printing a card with this art, then it seems to me that suggests they don't believe this art would make people feel uncomfortable. Likely because they don't see it as overtly sexual.
Their are people for and against it. I want WotC to have at least some kind of consistency in their art-policy and not flip/flop around, depending on what they want to pander to.
The kind of quality control that goes into Secret Lair is a lot less (so artists get more "freedom" to decide, they probably dont censor it as much as they do on Magic cards, and a lot of them are censored in the process of making them, its a lot of cleavage thats covered up on art, and some changes for other markets, like China that dont want human skulls, so they often avoid that from the get go, rather than making new art just for the chinese language version of the card, which they otherwise often did as well).
Consistency is the matter at hand.
The mark post makes clear that they wanted to drastically reduce potential sexual depictions on card art, as they got complains.
Here they abandoned that, and they already get the heat for it (clearly not as much in this thread, but there are vocal people about it that welcome the pandering, and nobody insults them and they are fine to like the product, as are people to critique the product).
I think I understand what you're saying, but it seems like your argument is still stemming from your opinion that the art is overtly sexual. Again, I feel that the fact the art is being printed shows that Wizards does not view it as problematic artwork. And while you may see a lack of consistency in WotC policies and decisions, I think it might be more accurate to say that WotC's decisions are not consistent with your values and opinions.
I'm not too sure if I understand what you're suggesting with Gathering Throng. Are you saying that Wizards should have covered-up the two men in the background for the official version of the art in the same manner that they covered up the cleavage? If so, I feel as though these are very different examples. While I would argue that breasts and cleavage are not inherently sexual, I do understand that the broader view of society is that they are so I can at least understand the logic behind the censorship. Conversely, I do not see anything sexual about the two men in the background of Bearscape; whether it be in my own views or the views of society at large. Intimate? Sure. Romantic? Probably. But sexual seems like a stretch to me. Granted, that's just my opinion, and your opinion differs. But again, the fact that it's being printed suggests that WotC's opinion is closer to mine.
Comment from mark himself, just that you get an idea.
I'm a little confused by your argument here. Earlier it seemed you were suggesting that the art is overtly sexual like the Chandra/Liliana art, which most people seemed to strongly disagree with. And now you're pointing to this four year old Blogatog post which, if anything, seems to hurt your argument.
If Wizards is making a conscious effort to move away from art that would make a subset of players feel uncomfortable and they are printing a card with this art, then it seems to me that suggests they don't believe this art would make people feel uncomfortable. Likely because they don't see it as overtly sexual.
Of course it is a reference to Michiko and Kyodai, FFS. One has aspects of snake (Kyodai), the other is regal (Michiko). It calls back to the end of Guardian, where they were described (post-ascension) in the very same way. Who else would it be?
I think you're right that it's WotC retconning, but given the ambiguity in the novel it could easily be what 5colors suggested above and that the Sister of Flesh role isn't static, but passed down with the role of emperor. So it would still be the Sisters of Flesh and Stone, just not Michiko. It may not be a hard retcon, because there is nothing from past lore being explicitly contradicted or changed, but I'd still consider it to be a bit of a retcon because I highly doubt that's what was intended when the novel was written.
Do the new issues appear online anywhere? Lage on Amonkhet seems odd, you'd think she would be lured to an icy plane. Frankly, Lage should outrank New Phyrexia and I highly doubt she'd be compleated. She's a multiverse-level demigod. I'm pleased this nonsense isn't canon.
Why would it make more sense for her to be lured to an icy plane? My understanding of the Marit Lage history may be off, but I didn't think there was anything inherently ice-related about her, just that she ended up getting trapped in ice when she came to Dominaria. I get that all we know we really knew about her outside the Boom comics was that she was trapped in the ice, but unless I'm missing something I don't really see why luring her to an icy plane would make more sense than Amonkhet.
I didn't see it elsewhere in the thread (and if I just missed it, I apologize) but one of the cards shown at the end of the stream to advertise Double Feature is new.
Torens, Fist of the Angels 1GW
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric (R)
Training
Whenever you cast a creature spell, create a 1/1 Green and White Human Soldier creature token with Training.
2/2
A legendary character returns, but now as a Vampire
I know it's a super longshot, but maybe it's Sorin being de-sparked and being just a vampire creature? The teaser says a legendary character, not a creature, so maybe he's a DFC with a planeswalker on the front and a creature on the back?
That being said, I HIGHLY doubt it would happen, but it might be a cool story beat if Sorin somehow gives up his spark to fix the eternal night issue, what with his whole "Innistrad needs balancer, the humans can't just get slaughtered by the monsters" ideology. I also haven't finished the Midnight Hunt stories yet, so there could easily be something that points away from that.
It wasn't wildly unpopular... People really liked the idea, they wanted it to be good... but it wasn't so they didn't keep playing it long term.
Its a WHEN because people WANT it... just like the decided that despite Tribal being BAD, people still played it so they decided to make a set based on tribal and it was super popular... so Planechase is a WHEN, because they understand there is a desire for a good Planechase... but it is a minor when because PC2 was a disappointment due to people getting tired of PC1 before it came out.
Has there any clear statement that Planechase 2012 was a disappointment? Again I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not aware of anything being said that would point to that being a definitive fact. It's entirely anecdotal, but I worked at an LGS when Planechase 2012 came out and it sold far above our expectations. I know you're saying that you saw comments after Planechase 2012 that a third Planechase wasn't coming soon, but that doesn't necessarily mean Planechase 2012 was a disappointment in terms of sales or reception. It could just as easily be that the previous year's Commander Pre-Cons were extremely popular causing them to shift to using Commander decks as the summer multiplayer product, or that other ideas came up which they wanted to explore, like Conspiracy and Battlebond.
I'm not trying to say that anything you're saying is wrong, but it just seems like you're saying certain things are objectively true when there isn't anything to support them. And I get that a lack of statement from WotC saying Planechase was disliked or disappointment financially doesn't mean that it was especially well-liked or financially successful. But if we have no actual information from Wizards, then all anyone can offer is there personal experiences and observations, which definitely aren't objective facts.
I don't conduct market research, and WotC doesn't publish theirs... but Mark Rosewater has made comments in the past about planechase's sales and such... a quick search isn't showing anything glaring at the moment but if it was popular and lasting then the answer here: https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/183033726313/ifwhen-more-planechase
wouldn't be 'minor'...
If it was as wildly unpopular as you're saying, then wouldn't the answer be "if" rather than "when"?
Most people dislike it once the novelty wears off because it steals the game or spoils their win (spike), or because it makes everything else not matter (many Timmies and most Johnnies).
Is this a known fact? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious if there's been any statement from WotC that says that. This is only my experience, but the majority of people who played at my LGS were big fans of planechase with those who disliked it strongly disliking it. So I'm wondering whether or not there's been any official statement to that effect.
uh Remember Japanese packaging of innistrad that got leak
that’s now real because the wrenn and seven card art matches one of those packs perfectly and few other arts matches some of the packages.
so where I’m going with this
Teferi is here as well
I don't think you're wrong that he'll be here, but I also don't think it's a sure thing that he's in the set. Remember back when there was the leak for Ixalan block product images (but I think the sets had different names?) with the proper art for Vraska and Huatli and new art for Ajani. People expected him to be in the block, but WotC changed things up later in design. That could have happened here as well. It's unlikely, but possible so I don't think we can say anything with certainty.
I have to agree with Flisch that this seems like the perfect place to be making speculative guesses. It also seems pretty odd to go in on someone for baseless speculation when just a few posts up you were baselessly speculating that the card would not only be a Nephilim, but a legendary Nephilim; and not only a legendary Nephilim, but a legendary Nephilim with "Partner with a Nephilim" which is a variation of the Partner mechanic that has never been done before. You might not agree with his theory, and that's cool, but everyone here is speculating based on the very little information that we have from Maro's post.
You're absolutely right, that's my mistake, thanks!
I think the new permanent type with adventure is "Legendary" with Beluna Grandsquall. I don't remember there being any legendaries in Throne of Eldraine with adventure, but I could be misremembering.
Alternatively, it could be that her name has big story implications and possibly makes mention of the Raven Man's true identity and they just didn't want to spoil story-beats in the panel. But then again, they talked about things that I would consider spoilers for the main story, so that doesn't seem like a concern for them.
I think I understand what you're saying, but it seems like your argument is still stemming from your opinion that the art is overtly sexual. Again, I feel that the fact the art is being printed shows that Wizards does not view it as problematic artwork. And while you may see a lack of consistency in WotC policies and decisions, I think it might be more accurate to say that WotC's decisions are not consistent with your values and opinions.
I'm not too sure if I understand what you're suggesting with Gathering Throng. Are you saying that Wizards should have covered-up the two men in the background for the official version of the art in the same manner that they covered up the cleavage? If so, I feel as though these are very different examples. While I would argue that breasts and cleavage are not inherently sexual, I do understand that the broader view of society is that they are so I can at least understand the logic behind the censorship. Conversely, I do not see anything sexual about the two men in the background of Bearscape; whether it be in my own views or the views of society at large. Intimate? Sure. Romantic? Probably. But sexual seems like a stretch to me. Granted, that's just my opinion, and your opinion differs. But again, the fact that it's being printed suggests that WotC's opinion is closer to mine.
I'm a little confused by your argument here. Earlier it seemed you were suggesting that the art is overtly sexual like the Chandra/Liliana art, which most people seemed to strongly disagree with. And now you're pointing to this four year old Blogatog post which, if anything, seems to hurt your argument.
If Wizards is making a conscious effort to move away from art that would make a subset of players feel uncomfortable and they are printing a card with this art, then it seems to me that suggests they don't believe this art would make people feel uncomfortable. Likely because they don't see it as overtly sexual.
I think you're right that it's WotC retconning, but given the ambiguity in the novel it could easily be what 5colors suggested above and that the Sister of Flesh role isn't static, but passed down with the role of emperor. So it would still be the Sisters of Flesh and Stone, just not Michiko. It may not be a hard retcon, because there is nothing from past lore being explicitly contradicted or changed, but I'd still consider it to be a bit of a retcon because I highly doubt that's what was intended when the novel was written.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Tezzeret go to Strixhaven in his one-shot spin-off and mess around with Liliana there?
Why would it make more sense for her to be lured to an icy plane? My understanding of the Marit Lage history may be off, but I didn't think there was anything inherently ice-related about her, just that she ended up getting trapped in ice when she came to Dominaria. I get that all we know we really knew about her outside the Boom comics was that she was trapped in the ice, but unless I'm missing something I don't really see why luring her to an icy plane would make more sense than Amonkhet.
Torens, Fist of the Angels 1GW
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric (R)
Training
Whenever you cast a creature spell, create a 1/1 Green and White Human Soldier creature token with Training.
2/2
I know it's a super longshot, but maybe it's Sorin being de-sparked and being just a vampire creature? The teaser says a legendary character, not a creature, so maybe he's a DFC with a planeswalker on the front and a creature on the back?
That being said, I HIGHLY doubt it would happen, but it might be a cool story beat if Sorin somehow gives up his spark to fix the eternal night issue, what with his whole "Innistrad needs balancer, the humans can't just get slaughtered by the monsters" ideology. I also haven't finished the Midnight Hunt stories yet, so there could easily be something that points away from that.
Has there any clear statement that Planechase 2012 was a disappointment? Again I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not aware of anything being said that would point to that being a definitive fact. It's entirely anecdotal, but I worked at an LGS when Planechase 2012 came out and it sold far above our expectations. I know you're saying that you saw comments after Planechase 2012 that a third Planechase wasn't coming soon, but that doesn't necessarily mean Planechase 2012 was a disappointment in terms of sales or reception. It could just as easily be that the previous year's Commander Pre-Cons were extremely popular causing them to shift to using Commander decks as the summer multiplayer product, or that other ideas came up which they wanted to explore, like Conspiracy and Battlebond.
I'm not trying to say that anything you're saying is wrong, but it just seems like you're saying certain things are objectively true when there isn't anything to support them. And I get that a lack of statement from WotC saying Planechase was disliked or disappointment financially doesn't mean that it was especially well-liked or financially successful. But if we have no actual information from Wizards, then all anyone can offer is there personal experiences and observations, which definitely aren't objective facts.
If it was as wildly unpopular as you're saying, then wouldn't the answer be "if" rather than "when"?
Is this a known fact? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious if there's been any statement from WotC that says that. This is only my experience, but the majority of people who played at my LGS were big fans of planechase with those who disliked it strongly disliking it. So I'm wondering whether or not there's been any official statement to that effect.
I don't think you're wrong that he'll be here, but I also don't think it's a sure thing that he's in the set. Remember back when there was the leak for Ixalan block product images (but I think the sets had different names?) with the proper art for Vraska and Huatli and new art for Ajani. People expected him to be in the block, but WotC changed things up later in design. That could have happened here as well. It's unlikely, but possible so I don't think we can say anything with certainty.