WotC implied we're not going to get strong dual lands in the upcoming block because fixing for standard is already great--borderline obnoxious. Downgrading from the M10/Innistrad check-lands to a Nimbus Maze cycle would help keep manabases in check. Also, Nimbus Maze ("nimbus"=it's latin, 1. cloud, 2. atmosphere about a god on earth) itself checks out in terms of flavor, so there's no reason they couldn't straight reprint it and make it a cycle. It wouldn't be a selling point for the set but, you know, they'd be dual lands?
Dimir Charm is eh, but at least I can tell what the heck the art is now.
I hate the art on Experiment One. Sorry. With the original I was like "holy crap, this is a human ooze!" With this one I'm like "it looks like some dumb cartoon fish/octopus"
Ghor-Clan is awesome.
How could you not tell what the art was? It's deadly not to recognize it.
You can't. In modern culture, at least, they are virtually interchangeable for any average person. That said, based on the fact that the setting and culture of Theros is Greek-inspired, not Roman-inspired, it's fairly easy to say that the gods were inspired directly by the Greek pantheon, and therefore indirectly by the Roman gods.
To a certain extent, Theros is obviously still an interpretation, so I wouldn't be surprised if the creative team have borrowed small Roman elements for art and world-building alongside the heavy Greek influences, if just to add Classical visual cues. Of course, we've got Krakens in the set, which were never in Greek antiquity (outside of possibly influences from Ceto).
This. The word Jupiter is actually a bastardization of Zeus Pater - father Zeus. The Romans did worship many of the same exact gods, the problem here is that people take that to mean the cultures, history, and general atmosphere of these disparate times and areas are interchangeable. They are not. I've had to explain this time and again, but Roman religion goes far beyond the Greek pantheon.
I quit Magic. I'm so done with Wizards. This is a total outrage.
They could make a card called "Jesus Christ" and I'd be fine with it. I mean, a regenerating human druid with Islandwalk? Not bad.
He doesn't regenerate himself, he regenerates the rest of your creatures when he dies. If you were to put him into your graveyard from play, instead exile him to your sideboard until someone casts Day of Judgment.
having kraken in a greek setting isn't historical inaccurate. yeah, kraken originally was a giant octopus from northern europe, but it's not anymore. in magic especially, kraken means just a giant sea monster. look at the second kraken printed, tidal kraken, it doesn't even have tentacles. so in theros/mythological greece there are a lot of sea monsters and in magic they are krakens
I'm willing to concede quite a bit when it comes to fantasy design. This is a fantasy game first and foremost, right? We also have pictures of legged merfolk, and that doesn't really jibe with either mythology. My major point has always been that there is nothing to indicate Roman cultural elements are present in this block, not that it strictly adheres to mythology propagated by the Greek Heroic Age (though the names and art do strongly support that). That being the case, there is absolutely nothing to tie the content of this block with its codename, nor is there enough to validate the perpetual misuse of the term "Greco-Roman."
Ok, apparently the poerty/history book comparison apparently wasn't really fitting. But even if it was formularic, it was still more personal than a simple recording of events (this, of course, only applies if the the recording of the events wasn't actually for another purpose, like Bellum Gallicum)
Also, if the only source we have on a topic is Roman, how can we assume that the author told those myths exactly as the Greeks knew them. Doesn't it make more sense to assume he "romanized" them a little, so his Roman audience can more easily relate to it.
Authorial bias is always the biggest hurdle when it comes to historiography, and we can't really make assumptions either way. It would certainly be anachronistic if that's the case, and it's something we definitely try to avoid with historical texts in this day and age. Did you read what I said about Gibbon? He literally wrote the book on Roman history, and while it's true that modern historians don't always see eye to eye with him, nobody would dare confuse 6th century Rome with 18th century England based on his writings.
History in ancient times isn't what we now understand as history. Literally 'historia' (in Greek) just means 'story'. Most historians regarded there 'history' as such, like Herodotos. There are exceptions (like Thucydydes), but you really can't say history books in ancient times tried to be objective as a rule
This. Poetry was both extremely formal and academic at least up through the Renaissance.
The difference is that a lot of what we know about ancient Greece, we only know from Roman sources. Also, there is a huge difference between poetry and a history book. Poetry is heavily influenced by the writer, a history book tries to be objective.
Again, what does it matter who we know it from? I'm still not hearing a good argument (or any argument, really) as to why that's germane. "But Beave, what about the Virgil connection?!?" OK. The Aeneid was deliberately styled off of Homer. Are we conveniently ignoring his contributions to classical culture and mythology?
@FlossedBeaver: They're not going to be historically accurate. They're basing the set off popcultural views on ancient greece. That's why there are krakens in the block. And Popculture thinks that greece=greco-roman. They're going to add roman influences when they think the audience expects them. That's also the reason why mtg angels don't look like this.
We've been down this road before, and while it's still a fair point, there's more than enough design space for both Greek and Roman settings that it would be foolish for Wizards to blow their wad in a solitary block. If they decide to do it anyways it's because it suits them, not because of public expectation.
I'll be the first to admit it if I'm wrong, but what I've seen so far is pretty conclusive.
I only hope this doesn't happen because I want something to look forward to in 2014. Everyone seems to think that we'll have every major reprint in the books either in Commander, FTV, or Theros. Realistically, that's not how WOTC works though, and they need to save some things for next year, and the year after that. They blew a HUGE wad with MMA. People keep forgetting this and are asking for more presents the day after Xmas.
There really aren't that many more staples that desperately need reprints, though. Do you really feel that it's necessary to wait another year (or longer) just for a handful of cards to get printed in another 230 card dedicated Modern set? That doesn't make sense.
Thats fine. Ill agree with that. Still a good catch. Im not highly educated in history... and can still feel good about myself. Still... for us un educated people... good catch. And congratulations FlossedBeaver for being so educated.
I could have gone to UCSC instead of UCLA, but I have too much self-respect.
"Huey Dewey Louie" i don't know about the theme but it's CLEARLY hinting to the return of banding
No no no, you're all wrong. You guys are missing the DuckTales connection, where there was a character named Launchpad. So, Huey / Dewey / Louis is clearly the "flying matters" block. I'm calling the Moat reprint now.
I hope they print cards with indisputable Roman influence (not Greek, but Roman) simply so that I can see Flossed Beaver's head explode.
Maybe Theros was a plane found by, or created by two planewalker brothers. Theo and Ross. Or possibly Theros has a great military leader named Seazar, who is assassinated by another man of power named Broodtusk in the midst of a civil war.
Nothing against you Mr. Beaver, but you have to admit; if Maro comes out and says "Theros is will be a Greco-Roman set since they are essentially the same exact culture", you would jump off a bridge.
Maybe it could be founded by Ross and Chandler instead. That, at least, would make more sense than what some people have been saying.
*GASP* Really? Man, it's almost like I've said that repeatedly!
No seriously. You're *****ing about period contamination at the
Forget it. It's like arguing with a brick wall that moves goal posts.
Good lord. If you're trying to compare what I'm saying about Shakespeare and the block theme to what you're saying about Ovid and Virgil, it just doesn't work. You haven't come anywhere close to saying what I have.
Holy Christ. Do you genuinely not know where Friends / Romans / Countrymen comes from? I'm not attaching Shakespeare to anything, but he wrote the line. That's an easily verifiable fact.
I didn't know the Greeks spoke Latin.
How could you not tell what the art was? It's deadly not to recognize it.
This. The word Jupiter is actually a bastardization of Zeus Pater - father Zeus. The Romans did worship many of the same exact gods, the problem here is that people take that to mean the cultures, history, and general atmosphere of these disparate times and areas are interchangeable. They are not. I've had to explain this time and again, but Roman religion goes far beyond the Greek pantheon.
He doesn't regenerate himself, he regenerates the rest of your creatures when he dies. If you were to put him into your graveyard from play, instead exile him to your sideboard until someone casts Day of Judgment.
I'm willing to concede quite a bit when it comes to fantasy design. This is a fantasy game first and foremost, right? We also have pictures of legged merfolk, and that doesn't really jibe with either mythology. My major point has always been that there is nothing to indicate Roman cultural elements are present in this block, not that it strictly adheres to mythology propagated by the Greek Heroic Age (though the names and art do strongly support that). That being the case, there is absolutely nothing to tie the content of this block with its codename, nor is there enough to validate the perpetual misuse of the term "Greco-Roman."
Authorial bias is always the biggest hurdle when it comes to historiography, and we can't really make assumptions either way. It would certainly be anachronistic if that's the case, and it's something we definitely try to avoid with historical texts in this day and age. Did you read what I said about Gibbon? He literally wrote the book on Roman history, and while it's true that modern historians don't always see eye to eye with him, nobody would dare confuse 6th century Rome with 18th century England based on his writings.
This. Poetry was both extremely formal and academic at least up through the Renaissance.
Again, what does it matter who we know it from? I'm still not hearing a good argument (or any argument, really) as to why that's germane. "But Beave, what about the Virgil connection?!?" OK. The Aeneid was deliberately styled off of Homer. Are we conveniently ignoring his contributions to classical culture and mythology?
We've been down this road before, and while it's still a fair point, there's more than enough design space for both Greek and Roman settings that it would be foolish for Wizards to blow their wad in a solitary block. If they decide to do it anyways it's because it suits them, not because of public expectation.
I'll be the first to admit it if I'm wrong, but what I've seen so far is pretty conclusive.
There really aren't that many more staples that desperately need reprints, though. Do you really feel that it's necessary to wait another year (or longer) just for a handful of cards to get printed in another 230 card dedicated Modern set? That doesn't make sense.
I could have gone to UCSC instead of UCLA, but I have too much self-respect.
No no no, you're all wrong. You guys are missing the DuckTales connection, where there was a character named Launchpad. So, Huey / Dewey / Louis is clearly the "flying matters" block. I'm calling the Moat reprint now.
Maybe it could be founded by Ross and Chandler instead. That, at least, would make more sense than what some people have been saying.
Good lord. If you're trying to compare what I'm saying about Shakespeare and the block theme to what you're saying about Ovid and Virgil, it just doesn't work. You haven't come anywhere close to saying what I have.