Community

Jun 6, 2011 -- 7:44PM, ProfN wrote:

Jun 6, 2011 -- 7:58AM, keiyakins wrote:

I doubt anyone got fired over a   goof that minor. Anyone can figure out Walking Atlas is an artifact; if   it had been printed with the wrong card  frame or with wrong rules  text,  THAT might have justified disciplinary  action, but a goof like  this is  not much worse than forgetting to type  the ^ over El-Hajjaj's  name  (they did something similar on some other  card but I forget which  one  it was so I'm going with the one I can  remember).  Heck, even  "rathi  Berserker" was a worse goof than this.

Well, then, what standards ARE there?  We're not talking about  the  Ernham Djinn where one of them every 500 sheets had a blue border or   some such.  Every single Walking Atlas ever printed was printed wrong!    IIRC WotC had to post an Arcana update just to explain the gaffe and   publicize the oracle errata.  That sort of mistake is embarrassing and   makes the company look incompetent.  The only thing I can think of that   would be *worse* than this would be if they screwed up the card *backs*   somehow, because that would destroy one of the fundamental  underpinnings  of the game from a gameplay perspective.

A goof worth firing someone over would be something akin to Alpha's   Elvish Archers as a 1/2 or Orcish Oriflamme costing - there   was NO way to tell those were errors.  Walking Atlas's artifact frame   creates an obvious hint something is amiss, as is true of the Serendib   Efreets in Revised which were printed on green card frames - they  still  had a blue mana symbol, so there was a tipoff that there was an  error  somewhere on the card.  Atlas is a bit more subtle than that, but  since  the most obvious part of the card (the frame) is correct and only  the  technical info (the typeline) is wrong, it's hard to instinctively  err  during play by assuming the Atlas will survive a Shatterstorm.  If  it  was printed on a green (nonartifact) cardframe but said it was an   artifact, the card would have been technically correct, but everyone   would have played it wrong.

Intuitive first impressions are a MUCH  bigger deal than well-concealed  facts.  So on the goof-up scale, Alpha Oriflamme rates a 4 because you  have no possible way to tell it's wrong, Revised Serendib is a 3 because  there's an obvious error concealing subtle correct info, and Walking  Atlas is only a 2 because there's a well-concealed error that will only  screw you up if you deliberately go looking for it.  (A 1 would be a  purely cosmetic error like leaving a diacritical mark out of a card's  name or having the wrong artist credit, something that never affects  gameplay in the slightest; errors which rated a 5 might include having  the wrong card back or being completely unreadable.)

Jun 10, 2011 -- 9:39AM, milo_bloom wrote:

Agreed, I have it as my  computer desktop wallpaper and it looks much better, though the body  position is still a little odd (her head looks like it was added as an  afterthought after the artist was done drawing her breasts).

I suspect you have hit the nail on the breasts.

Jun 7, 2011 -- 8:32PM, chronokilla wrote:

ProfN,  here I was thinking all angels are asexual, but looked it up after  reading your post and found that while they are considered asexual all  their names are masculine. I learned something today.

Keep in mind that there is at least one reference in the Bible to Angels  (the "sons of God") knocking up the "daughters of Adam".  This doesn't  necessarily prove that they had genitals - it could be a spiritual  immaculate conception kind of deal - but it does kind of shoot down the  "asexual" label as being accurate in anything but a strict anatomical  sense.

Again, not having much theological training, I may be missing  something, but isn't there some old religious thing about the weight of  one's soul determing your salvation status or something? Maybe it's not  as bad of a translation as you think.

I dunno if that was a factor in Judeochristian religion, but it  definitely was in the Egyptian tradition.  So yeah, it sounds like the  idea of the German translation was in the right place - but not being a  Deutschophone I can't judge whether it was actually handled correctly.