10/21/2011 LD: "A History of Undeath"

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.

The poll is actually interesting as it hinges on a lot of possible variables.

I vote for the zombies in the long run though.

If both vampires and zombies exist at the same time, Humanity is most likely not long for this world...which means the Vampires will run out of food regardless of how many zombies they can kill.

Granted, this doesn't seem to be the case on Innistrad, in which case I vote for the Vampires.
Zombies will rule the world, because Vampires will all starve to death. :D
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
Would you consider the Vampire's stealing life as another mechanical way to do Vampires? I mean since the Vampire push back during Zendikar we've had at least one gaining you life each set.
I can vote in the poll! Yay!

To celebrate, I will explain my vote (which was Vampires).

Zombies are only good in numbers. Individually, they're slow and very vulnerable (given enough time, they'll rot on their own). If zombies occurred in real life (at least the slow, shambly kind) instead of in the movies, they wouldn't stand a chance, because in the real world you wouldn't stop to scream and let them catch you; instead, you'd run. And they don't exactly have the option to be stealthy, with the whole rotting thing, and the inability to speak.

Vampires, on the other hand, are good individually. They're better than humans in almost every way (with their enhanced strength, toughness, lifespan) unlike zombies, who are stronger but otherwise worse than humans. Vampires wouldn't necessarily run out of food: vampires, unlike zombies, retain their intelligence, which means they'd recognize the danger of extincting humanity and elect to domesticate them, keeping them around as cattle. Also, unlike zombies, vampires can playact as a regular human in order to get close to their victim.

Finally, in a fight of vampire vs. zombie, well, the zombie can be killed by almost anything, whereas the vampire is only vulnerable to a stake through the heart, typically.

Also, in terms of Magic, I prefer vampires because they allow us to see more shades of Black than "mindless, shambling undead". Zombies are fodder; vampires are characters.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
I'd say because zombies as a whole are dumb, they wouldn't have powerful magic of ANY sort. Except maybe for a small number of Necromancers. Meanwhile Vampires and Humans are going to have powerful mages of some sort. Plus if worse came to worse, humans would set up some sort of deal with vampires - one of the main areas on Innistrad they talk about how humans wtih good blood live in a golden cage for the vampires, in exchange for supplying the vampires with their blood. Some sort of deal like this would be set up between humans and vampires if zombies threatened them both. (Threaten the vampires by virtue of killing their food source.)

So, I'd say vampires. The sort version is if vampires and zombies exist at the same time, (and humans, which are a constant pretty much anywhere but Lorwyn/Shadowmoor) then you have two forces fighting for the survival of humans - humans AND vampires.

Also, I love the second poll. Can you vote in this poll?

Reminds me of something from when I was younger - if your not here, raise your hand.

...

I should have voted no for shenanagins.
Love the second poll. Thanks for the laugh.
76125763 wrote:
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
Unfortunately, it also doesn't play very well. How often will your opponent allow a creature to get into combat with a ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Sengir Vampire if it's obvious the Vampire will win? Are you supposed to play ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Giant Growths to win fights with ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Serra Angels and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Air Elementals?


Yes, obviously.  You don't have to be terribly bright to figure that synergy out.  What would have been ideal is if there had been a black version of Giant Growth that works only on vampires and similarly appropriate black creatures, along with maybe a black version of Lure (though Nettling Imp was flavorful enough, apart from being a little demon instead of a humanoid Renfield who more obviously goes with the vampire).
This one is also hungry every turn, but it slakes its thirst by taking a bite out of you. It is also randomly blue. That made sense in context in Ravnica, but looking back, it seems a bit out of place.


Blue is easily an appropriate secondary color for vampires, who are notorious schemers and often have mental powers of various sorts.  Black encompasses those tropes, but then black encompasses everything, that's part of the parasitism angle it does.  Nearly everything any other color can be corrupted and polluted into a black equivalent (even if the black equivalent of enchantment-destruction has so far been "kill the player who controls the enchantment").
This fellow, originally from Rise of the Eldrazi, likes eating things just as much as ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Ravenous Vampire and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Sengir Vampire. It seems to be worse at keeping them down, though, as the boost it gets from them doesn't last very long.


I really wish Wizards of the Coast employees would pay attention to the genders of the cards they worked so hard to create.
This one walks through the swamps. This makes sense, because they live in a bog. I guess. Sometimes it is best not to think too much about these things.


Bog Raiders was never really supposed to be a Zombie; it was originally printed in Portal and its art showed that it was clearly a bunch of human ruffians, but Portal cards didn't have printed creature types and I guess whoever looked in the Portal file and grabbed Raiders as a reprint didn't look up its art before deciding what its creature type should become.  Annoyingly this retroactively made the Portal printing of the card a Zombie despite its art.  One of Magic's many embarassing incidents, which I would go back and fix if I had a time machine.
You've probably heard this story already, though, as this happened in design. While cards like ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Ghoulraiser and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Army of the Damned express the "hordes of slow-moving zombies" trope, cards like ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Skaab Ruinator and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Makeshift Mauler represent the other kind of Zombie.


Who is not in fact a zombie at all, at least not in the most famous such story.  The whole point of Victor Frankenstein's experiments was to create LIFE, not undeath.  I don't know if there are any Victorian-age stories where a similar creature was more obviously a mindless undead thing, but certainly if there are, they've remained obscure, while the story of the Modern Prometheus who was tormented and slain by his definitely-not-mindless creation is the one we remember.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
I voted "No" on the second poll.

Let's see how long it takes before the universe collapses.
I really wish Wizards of the Coast employees would pay attention to the genders of the cards they worked so hard to create.

Cardboard doesn't acually have gender.

No mention of Hexmage?  Seriously?  Just a list of the crappy and grossly obsolete Vamp/Zoms?
Hell, half of the cards in the article require a gatherer lookup to even know what it's supposed to be.

Unless this article is really meant to be "Remeber when Sengir was vaguely playable?  Remember how crappy vampires and zombies used to be?  Did you even know that these cards became zombies or vampires in 2005 or so?"... I don't get it.
Ehh...they talk about Headless Horseman like it was originally a zombie, and then call the Whirling Dervish ability the "Slith" ability...have I been playing too long when that seems off to me?
According to Innistrad guidelines, all of Yawgmoth's vat bred Phyrexians should be blue Zombies.
I really wish Wizards of the Coast employees would pay attention to the genders of the cards they worked so hard to create.

Cardboard doesn't acually have gender.

No mention of Hexmage?  Seriously?  Just a list of the crappy and grossly obsolete Vamp/Zoms?
Hell, half of the cards in the article require a gatherer lookup to even know what it's supposed to be.

Unless this article is really meant to be "Remeber when Sengir was vaguely playable?  Remember how crappy vampires and zombies used to be?  Did you even know that these cards became zombies or vampires in 2005 or so?"... I don't get it.



Characters have gender, and while Wizards sometimes swaps the gender of the art on a card, it doesn't make it any less grating.


Article is very blah; "Basically, we can do anything we want, and if it makes sense at the time we're okay with that, even if we look back years later and say 'Why did we do that again?'".  The Moroii were a kind of vampire from the eastern European lore; it doesn't make much sense to you because you aren't very familiar with that lore.  See Psychic Drain or this arcana.

You've probably heard this story already, though, as this happened in design. While cards like ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Ghoulraiser and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Army of the Damned express the "hordes of slow-moving zombies" trope, cards like ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Skaab Ruinator and ..."autoCardWindow(this)" onmouseover="OpenTip(event, this)" class="nodec">Makeshift Mauler represent the other kind of Zombie.


Who is not in fact a zombie at all, at least not in the most famous such story.  The whole point of Victor Frankenstein's experiments was to create LIFE, not undeath.  I don't know if there are any Victorian-age stories where a similar creature was more obviously a mindless undead thing, but certainly if there are, they've remained obscure, while the story of the Modern Prometheus who was tormented and slain by his definitely-not-mindless creation is the one we remember.


This is really splitting hairs. His goal is beside the point if the result is what you and I would identify as undead. Victor Frankenstein's methods were intentionally vague in the original novel, but there are at least some elements of grave-robbing in it. And Wizards has mentioned now and then that they have drawn on horror movies in creating Innistrad as much as Gothic/Victorian/Romantic written fiction. In the Universal film version of the story, the monster is definitely a nearly mindless brute made from reanimated corpses.

And as for creatures that are obviously mindless undead, the first that comes to mind is in H.P. Lovecraft's story "Herbert West--Reanimator", and similar creatures appear in a few other stories of his as well.
I can vote! (he can vote) I can VOTE! (he can vote) I can SIIIIIIIIIIING!!!
Love the second poll. Thanks for the laugh.


+1


how can i vote yes AND i only play on mtgo. HELP!  
If both vampires and zombies exist at the same time, Humanity is most likely not long for this world...which means the Vampires will run out of food regardless of how many zombies they can kill.


This was the same reasoning I came up with.  In fact, wasn't this exactly what happened on Grixis?

Vampires, on the other hand, are good individually. They're better than humans in almost every way (with their enhanced strength, toughness, lifespan) unlike zombies, who are stronger but otherwise worse than humans. Vampires wouldn't necessarily run out of food: vampires, unlike zombies, retain their intelligence, which means they'd recognize the danger of extincting humanity and elect to domesticate them, keeping them around as cattle. Also, unlike zombies, vampires can playact as a regular human in order to get close to their victim.


I remember a while back you were talking about white vampires being ones who raise humans as farm animals, so it's interesting to see that flavor text on Dead Weight.

Hm...I'd actually pictured the Vampires vs Zombies fight taking place on a featureless battlefield.  (No items.  Fox only.  Final Destination.)  That being the case, the presence or absence of humans wouldn't be an issue.  The problem for the vampires would be that they can't suck the blood out of zombies (or can they...?  I imagine it would be like biting into a rotten fruit).

Finally, in a fight of vampire vs. zombie, well, the zombie can be killed by almost anything, whereas the vampire is only vulnerable to a stake through the heart, typically.


Um...well, vampires are also vulnerable to sunlight, which generally doesn't bother zombies.

Also, in terms of Magic, I prefer vampires because they allow us to see more shades of Black than "mindless, shambling undead". Zombies are fodder; vampires are characters.


Agreed.  Except with the caveat that, under Magic taxonomy, liches--who'd be "characters" rather than "mindless, shambling undead"--are considered zombies, aren't they?  I was actually really surprised that liches weren't mentioned in the article at all, considering that a lot of the choices for zombies were ones which were grandfathered into the creature type by the Oracle updates.  I can't help but think that if Lich were a Tribal Enchantment — Zombie, it would have a very flavorful interaction with Slayer of the Wicked.

"Did you even know that these cards became zombies or vampires in 2005 or so?"... I don't get it.


I actually felt the same way about the article at first, but then I realized that the article is about how the game attempts to capture the flavor of vampires and zombies through mechanics.  (Actually, when I put it that way, it sounds more like a design article than a development article.)  That being the case, what counts is the flavor of the card, not whether it was always considered a Zombie by the game in mechanical terms, so "Summon Ghoul" and "Summon Horseman" are fair game.

At face value, vampires win.  But it's a pretty vague question because too many variables are unanswered.  How many vampires against how many zombies?  Can the zombies eat vampires (ie, are the vampires rock-hard as they are sometimes portrayed)?  And most importantly, which zombie/vampire versions are we talking about?  Fast zombies as in 28 Days Later?  Do lichs count as zombies as they do in Magic? (a 2,000 year old lich is probably a match for even a large group of vampires).   Are the vampires relatively squishy as in From Dusk Til Dawn?  Heck, in some stories vampires can gain control of other undead (Strahd from Ravenloft, for example), so there would be no fight at all.

Ehh...they talk about Headless Horseman like it was originally a zombie, and then call the Whirling Dervish ability the "Slith" ability...have I been playing too long when that seems off to me?

Mostly everything seems off to you.
OMG click HERE! OMG! How to autocard and use decklist format
--->
For autocarding, write [c][/c] with the name of the card inside it. [c]Island[/c] = Island For linking a card to Gatherer without writting the name of said card for readers, use the autocard brackets together with and equal sign and right the name of the real card. Then put the message you want inside the tags, like you would do with autocarding. Like this: [c=Curse of the Cabal]Captain Never-resolves[/c] = Captain Never-resolves For using the decklist format, follow this: [deck] 4* Terramorphic Expanse 4* Evolving Wilds ... [/deck] It equals:
Real signature, Sblocked for space:
57817638 wrote:
I like storm crow because I really like crows in real life, as an animal, and the card isn't terribly stupid, but packs a good deal of nostalgia and also a chunck of the game's history. So it's perhaps one of the cards I have most affection to, but not because "lol storm crow is bad hurr hurr durr".
Listen to my SoundCloud while you read my signature. The Island, Come And See, The Landlord's Daughter, You'll Not Feel The Drowning - The Decemberists by vimschy IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/rkvR.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/L3es.gif) IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/m71H.gif)
Quotes
56747598 wrote:
57295478 wrote:
Although I do assume you deliberately refer to them (DCI) as The Grand Imperial Convocation of Evil just for the purposes of making them sound like an ancient and terrible conspiracy.
Now, now. 1994 doesn't quite qualify as "ancient".
56734518 wrote:
Oh, it's a brilliant plan. You see, Bolas was travelling through shadowmoor, causing trouble, when he saw a Wickerbough Elder with its stylin' dead scarecrow hat. Now, Bolas being Bolas took the awesome hat and he put it on his head, but even with all his titanic powers of magic he couldn't make it fit. He grabbed some more scarecrows, but then a little kithkin girl asked if he was trying to build a toupee. "BY ALL THE POWERS IN THE MULTIVERSE!" he roared, "I WILL HAVE A HAT WORTHY OF MY GLORY." and so he went through his Dark Lore of Doom (tm) looking for something he could make into a hat that would look as stylish on him as a scarecrow does on a treefolk. He thought about the Phyrexians, but they were covered in goopy oil that would make his nonexistant hair greasy. He Tried out angels for a while but they didn't sit quite right. Then, he looked under "e" (because in the Elder Draconic alphabet, "e" for Eldrazi is right next to "h" for Hat) in his Dark Lore of Doom and saw depictions of the Eldrazi, and all their forms. "THIS SHALL BE MY HAT!" he declared, poking a picture of Emrakul, "AND WITH IT I WILL USHER IN A NEW AGE OF DARKNESS -- ER, I MEAN A NEW AGE OF FASHION!" And so Nicol Bolas masterminded the release of the Eldrazi.
57864098 wrote:
Rhox War Monk just flips pancakes, and if games have told us anything, it's that food = life.
56747598 wrote:
76973988 wrote:
This thread has gotten creepy. XP
Really? Really? The last couple days have been roughly every perverse fetish imaginable, but it only got "creepy" when speculation on Mother of Runes's mob affiliation came up?
76672808 wrote:
57864098 wrote:
57531048 wrote:
Nice mana base. Not really.
Yeah, really. If my deck was going to cost $1000+, I'd at least make it good.
99812049 wrote:
I like to think up what I consider clever names for my decks, only later to be laughed at by my wife. It kills me a little on the inside, but thats what marriage is about.
56816728 wrote:
56854588 wrote:
Of course, the best use [of tolaria west] is transmuting for the real Tolaria. ;)
Absolutely. I used to loose to my buddy's Banding deck for ages, it was then that I found out about Tolaria, and I was finally able win my first game.
70246459 wrote:
WOAH wait wait wait
56957928 wrote:
You know, being shallow and jusdgmental aside, "I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
"I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates
56957928 wrote:
OH MY GOD
109874309 wrote:
The only way I'd cast this card is into a bonfire.
82032421 wrote:
The short answer is that there's no rule barring annoying people from posting, but there a rule barring us from harassing them about it.
56747598 wrote:
Browbeat is a card that is an appropriate deck choice when there's no better idea available. "No better idea available" was pretty much the running theme of Odyssey era.
56874518 wrote:
Or perhaps it was a more straightforward comment indicating a wish for you to be bitten (Perhaps repeatedly) by a small yet highly venomous arachnid.
70246459 wrote:
58280208 wrote:
You're an idiot, and I'm in no mood for silliness.
57817638 wrote:
57145078 wrote:
You just... Vektor it.
That's the answer to everything.
70246459 wrote:
58347268 wrote:
I think the problem is that you don't exist.
This would sound great out of context!
56965458 wrote:
Modern is like playing a new tournament every time : you build a deck, you win with it, don't bother keeping it. Just build another, its key pieces will get banned.
57864098 wrote:
57309598 wrote:
I specifically remember posting a thread when I was just a witty bitty noob.
You make it sound like that's still not the case.
58325628 wrote:
Rap is what happens when the c from crap is taken away.
Doug Beyer:
But sometimes it's also challenging. Because sometimes OH MY GOD, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THING?
141434757 wrote:
Flashforward five thousand years (Click for atmosphere) :
57927608 wrote:
to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Vektor finds a way.
58347268 wrote:
when in rome **** AND PILLAGE
143229641 wrote:
I always find it helpful when im angry to dress up in an owl costume and rub pennies all over my body in front of a full body mirror next to the window.
Dymecoar:
Playing Magic without Blue is like sleeping without any sheets or blankets. You can do it...but why?
Omega137:
Me: "I love the moment when a control deck stabilizes. It feels so... right." Omega137: "I like the life drop part until you get there, it's the MtG variant of bungee jumping"
Zigeif777:
Just do it like Yu-Gi-Oh or monkeys: throw all the crap you got at them and hope it works or else the by-standers (or opponents) just get dirty and pissed.
57471038 wrote:
58258708 wrote:
It's true that Alpha and Beta didn't contain any cards like Tarmogoyf, Darksteel Colossus, or Platinum Angel. It just contained weak, insignificant cards like Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, and Time Walk.
Normally it's difficult to pick up on your jokes/sarcasm. But this one's pretty much out there. Good progress. You have moved up to Humanoid. You'll be Human in no time.
91893448 wrote:
94618431 wrote:
I didn't know Samurai were known to be able to cut down whole armies...
They can when they're using lightsabers!
57129358 wrote:
97980259 wrote:
My wife brought home a baby black squirrel they found on a horse track and cared for it for a few days. We named it Grixis, but it died.
Unearth it!
70246459 wrote:
[/spoiler] And I'm on Magic Arcana. How about you? Oh, by the way, I'm also on From the Lab now. Twice, actually. And now with my own submited decklist!
If both vampires and zombies exist at the same time, Humanity is most likely not long for this world...which means the Vampires will run out of food regardless of how many zombies they can kill.


This was the same reasoning I came up with.  In fact, wasn't this exactly what happened on Grixis?

But zombies, unlike vampires, continue to rot. So without a constant supply of humans to convert into zombies, they'll go extinct on their own. So if we're counting human-extinction as a possibility, then both sides lose.
Of course, I don't think the vampires would allow humans to go extinct. Like was said in an earlier post, they'd team up with the humans in order to destroy the zombies (or more accurately, the crazed necromancers who are summoning them). Or they'd just capture some humans to protect from the zombies in a secure location (read, anywhere with a couple-inch-high-curb, because shamblers tend to trip over those and wouldn't be able to get past them).

I remember a while back you were talking about white vampires being ones who raise humans as farm animals, so it's interesting to see that flavor text on Dead Weight.

It's all in the motivation and, more importantly, the treatment of the humans-as-farm-animals. Sure, if they're effectively tortured, as they are on Dead Weight, then it's not very white, but instead quite black. If they're treated well, like how this week's Savor the Flavor article mentions "humans with tasty blood" are treated, then it'd lean more White, in my opinion: setting up a structured system in which all are taken care of, vampire and human both.
Of course, since vampires in Innistrad are only red or black, they couldn't show a White-aligned treatment of humans on the cards.

Hm...I'd actually pictured the Vampires vs Zombies fight taking place on a featureless battlefield.  (No items.  Fox only.  Final Destination.)  That being the case, the presence or absence of humans wouldn't be an issue.  The problem for the vampires would be that they can't suck the blood out of zombies (or can they...?  I imagine it would be like biting into a rotten fruit).

I imagine that the vampires would get to pick the battleground, seeing as they're actually intelligent whereas the zombies just shamble around. In which case, the sunlight problem would never come up.
Also, the vampires don't need to bite the zombies to kill them. Vampires are incredibly strong, so they'd excel at hand-to-hand combat. They're intelligent enough to use weapons, whereas most zombies aren't. They're also, in some versions (like the Innistrad ones) able to assume different forms (Dracula could become a wolf, a bat, or a fog cloud). This gives them the edge in physical combat as well.
All zombies have going for them is that, even missing a limb or several, they'll keep fighting. But since a zombie without limbs isn't very threatening (the only scary thing at that point is their infectious bite, and vampires are already undead ), fight called in favor of vampires.

Agreed.  Except with the caveat that, under Magic taxonomy, liches--who'd be "characters" rather than "mindless, shambling undead"--are considered zombies, aren't they?  I was actually really surprised that liches weren't mentioned in the article at all, considering that a lot of the choices for zombies were ones which were grandfathered into the creature type by the Oracle updates.

Agreed. There are some versions of Magic zombies that are characters, that have intelligence, and even that can still use magic. However, this is much rarer, usually a one-to-a-plane type deal, whereas all vampires are characters, even if most of them are minor ones. All vampires retain their mind, whereas almost all zombies do not.
Still, I have no problem with Liches. They're one of my favorite "races", in all honesty, even moreso than vampires. Of course, they can never be a characteristic race, on account of their rarity and size (statwise).
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
I always knew segir as the vampire ability. But really dont vampires need to feed or they get weaker mayb like at the end of turn if it didnt make something die or damage a player -1/-1 or else it gets 2 +1/+1 would be more flavorful. Love neonate like it must feed . Or for added flavor sac a non artifact nonvampire guy +1/+1 counter if the sacrificed guy was a human it loses all abilities and enters the battlefield as a vampire
Ever since Vampires became a major tribe like Goblins and Elves, I've surprised at how many ways Vampires can be portrayed mechanically. It wasn't just lifelink and the Sengir ability!

It seems basically anything that deals with other's wounds such as life loss/damage/low life/creature death can feel like a vampire ability, as well as flying and bat transformations.

Olivia Voldaren seems like the most literal translation of a movie vampire into a card so far. But I also like the ones that focuses on only one side of the trope since they allow such a variety of cards.
Goblin Artisans - A Magic Design Blog by GDS2 Contestants and Collaborators
Zombies and vampires are very high-profile and popular categories of undead creatures. Each of them comes with different "rules," a few of which are constant from property to property but many of which are not. Vampires drink blood to survive and have to stay out of the sunlight, but what happens when the sun actually hits them? Does it burn their skin to a crisp, causing immense pain, or does it just make them sparkle?



Tom, the fact that you referenced sparkling vampires in a way that implies that it could even remotely be considered a possibly legitimate characteristic of vampires means that you have lost all credibility on all things geek/nerd related.


Another answer is that there are a ton of different things that Vampires and Zombies have done in lore, and faithfully representing all of them at once on the same card would be impossible. Warp World is about the longest text box we like to make these days due to font size issues, so we just can't fit growing from killing a creature in combat, hurting you a little every turn, turning into a bat, sparkling in the sunlight, and mild mind control on a single card. Luckily, we get to make more than one!



The fact that you did so not once, but twice means that I have lost all respect for you as a human being.

Seriously, stop having anything to do with legitimate undead right now, turn in your geek card (you know, the one all Magic players have by default), and go sign yourself up as a 12 year old girl, because you're done writing anything here that anyone will ever be interested in reading.
Tom, the fact that you referenced sparkling vampires in a way that implies that it could even remotely be considered a possibly legitimate characteristic of vampires means that you have lost all credibility on all things geek/nerd related.

I agree that sparkling vampires aren't legitimate vampires (they're faeries: they glitter, they have magical powers apparently, and they don't actually drink human blood). However, I took him referencing them as a dig, a bit of mockery of those who actually do think such "vampires" are legitimate, so I don't think he's lost any geek cred here.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
sparkling vampires aren't legitimate vampires (they're faeries: they glitter, they have magical powers apparently, and they don't actually drink human blood)


I'm not exactly a Twilight fan but I'm like 90% sure you've got some wires crossed here.
Tom, the fact that you referenced sparkling vampires in a way that implies that it could even remotely be considered a possibly legitimate characteristic of vampires means that you have lost all credibility on all things geek/nerd related.

I agree that sparkling vampires aren't legitimate vampires (they're faeries: they glitter, they have magical powers apparently, and they don't actually drink human blood). However, I took him referencing them as a dig, a bit of mockery of those who actually do think such "vampires" are legitimate, so I don't think he's lost any geek cred here.



Once might be a dig; twice?
 
At the very least, he doesn't understand how to convey sarcasm in the written word, which means he still should be rethinking his activities as a writer.

But I'm not buying it; Tom likes sparklers!
However, I took him referencing them as a dig, a bit of mockery of those who actually do think such "vampires" are legitimate, so I don't think he's lost any geek cred here.



What "vampires" are legitimate anyway? Didn't fantasy hijack them at some point too? Weren't they supposed to be more about lust and less about battle before that?

Once might be a dig; twice?
 
At the very least, he doesn't understand how to convey sarcasm in the written word, which means he still should be rethinking his activities as a writer.

But I'm not buying it; Tom likes sparklers!



How can you read it as anything but sarcasm?

Doesn't him having to turn in his geek card mean he'll get more respect as a human being overall anyway =D