Why does EVERY guild except Selesnya have something nice to say about Izzet in the "Attitude Towards Other Guilds" section? I know Izzet is the most populat, but it seems kinda fishy to me.
Because Jace is kinda Izzet friend and despite the guild's popularity among players (part of it due Niv-Mizzet) there is a new Jace book on the market, so make the connections: Izzet HAS to be SUPER NICE because of him.
But he isn't Izzet friend. And, Izzet is shaping to be the antagonist of thi set
Why does EVERY guild except Selesnya have something nice to say about Izzet in the "Attitude Towards Other Guilds" section? I know Izzet is the most populat, but it seems kinda fishy to me.
Because Jace is kinda Izzet friend and despite the guild's popularity among players (part of it due Niv-Mizzet) there is a new Jace book on the market, so make the connections: Izzet HAS to be SUPER NICE because of him.
But he isn't Izzet friend. And, Izzet is shaping to be the antagonist of thi set
This is not what "antagonist" means; an "antagonist" is any individual, group or force which attempts to stall or reduce the progress of the "protagonist." In shortest terms, the "antagonist" tries to stop the story from occuring, the "protagonist" attempts to drive the story forward. Nivvy is just some guy who has a story to tell, and has been running all of Ravnica for the last 10,000 years to do it. This doesn't make him the "antagonist," nor even the "villain."
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Why does EVERY guild except Selesnya have something nice to say about Izzet in the "Attitude Towards Other Guilds" section? I know Izzet is the most populat, but it seems kinda fishy to me.
Because Jace is kinda Izzet friend and despite the guild's popularity among players (part of it due Niv-Mizzet) there is a new Jace book on the market, so make the connections: Izzet HAS to be SUPER NICE because of him.
But he isn't Izzet friend. And, Izzet is shaping to be the antagonist of thi set
This is not what "antagonist" means; an "antagonist" is any individual, group or force which attempts to stall or reduce the progress of the "protagonist." In shortest terms, the "antagonist" tries to stop the story from occuring, the "protagonist" attempts to drive the story forward. Nivvy is just some guy who has a story to tell, and has been running all of Ravnica for the last 10,000 years to do it. This doesn't make him the "antagonist," nor even the "villain."
Well, Niv-Mizzet and his guild do get a special role in the third set which makes him a major character. From the sound of "Dragon's Maze" and the descriptions of his massive secret plan for Ravnica, Niv sounds like our best bet for villain. He's not "just some guy who has a story to tell" when he's plotting something larger than any other guild's plans. Plus, the Izzet guild mechanic is the only one (so far) that allows them to fight multiple guilds at once (relevant under NWO).
Why does EVERY guild except Selesnya have something nice to say about Izzet in the "Attitude Towards Other Guilds" section? I know Izzet is the most populat, but it seems kinda fishy to me.
Because Jace is kinda Izzet friend and despite the guild's popularity among players (part of it due Niv-Mizzet) there is a new Jace book on the market, so make the connections: Izzet HAS to be SUPER NICE because of him.
But he isn't Izzet friend. And, Izzet is shaping to be the antagonist of thi set
This is not what "antagonist" means; an "antagonist" is any individual, group or force which attempts to stall or reduce the progress of the "protagonist." In shortest terms, the "antagonist" tries to stop the story from occuring, the "protagonist" attempts to drive the story forward. Nivvy is just some guy who has a story to tell, and has been running all of Ravnica for the last 10,000 years to do it. This doesn't make him the "antagonist," nor even the "villain."
Well, Niv-Mizzet and his guild do get a special role in the third set which makes him a major character. From the sound of "Dragon's Maze" and the descriptions of his massive secret plan for Ravnica, Niv sounds like our best bet for villain. He's not "just some guy who has a story to tell" when he's plotting something larger than any other guild's plans. Plus, the Izzet guild mechanic is the only one (so far) that allows them to fight multiple guilds at once (relevant under NWO).
I'm gonna ignore the bit about the "NWO," for reasons simple websearches should reveal.
"Villain" =/= "Antagonist" -- moreover, villainy in this world would certainly require that there be something about the goal or objective that is opposite some implied goal for the betterment of the realm, plane, existence, or whatever. We have NO information on Niv's goal, intentions, or even its relative value to the plane or Niv himself. Just that there IS a goal, there IS a plan, and that it is involving the entire plane's progress from the formation of the Guildpact to now. In many ways, this makes Niv the protagonist.
Now, mind you that I've been ignoring the little story vignettes posted on this website for a while now; this has nothing to do with the overall story that they offer, or its relation to the overall tale being told with the blocks. My perspective stems from the broad, full-picture argument that is supplied when the two blocks' histories are mentioned, and the partial backstory is told in part of the first blocks' books, which I have read. In these, note that the roles of protagonist/antagonist are a bit fuzzy, as they tend to be in what are essentially mystery stories:
We follow a character, but that does not make him the protagonist; we follow the trail provided by the criminal, which drives the story, which may make HIM the protagonist; we follow the goal of the criminal who doesn't want to be caught, and so obscures his followers' paths, which makes him the antagonist; or we follow the trail being left behind which the criminal leaves to bring the investigator to him, either for a confrontation or, as in some stories, to be caught ... which makes them both protagonists to the narrative's antagonist. You see where I'm going with this?
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
I understand what you're saying about the antagonist, and I agree, but I didn't say anything about that at all. Antagonist =/= villain. We can't really consider the original Ravnica blocks since so much is being hand-waved away (like the introduction of the Simic and the disappearance of the East European influence on Ravnica). It's like a totally new plane based on Ravnica. I'm just saying that, with the information so far supplied by MaRo and the vignettes (haven't read the e-book), it sounds like Niv's goal is against the total betterment of the plane (to me).
Also, what are you talking about with NWO? Rosewater stated that New World Order includes making game mechanics more relevant through the story (like the inability to remove poison counters or how infect and proliferate are separate), as a search could reveal. That's why the guilds have more flavorful mechanics this time (also why Boros is getting something that's completely different from Radiance). I don't see why you're ignoring it without consideration.
"New World Order," or "Novum Ordo Seclorum" is a phrase that refers to 1. a sociopolitical movement in which a post-enlightenment universal governmental philosophy is endorsed, in which it is desired that a single polity expands throughout the world (ours, mind you), or 2. a reference to a series of conspiracy theories generally involving the Illuminati, etc.
So, either the term is used in the context of a broad, expansive and essentially over-riding philosophy which shall constrain all future design regardless of its effects or because of them -- for good or for ill of us, the consumers; or it's a broad wink at a world-spanning conspiracy theory about essential one-polity governmental control (which, when it comes to the United States, has been linked to a document called Project for a New American Century which had such esteemed signatories as essentially most of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations). If either, it is pretentious, egoistical, and if anything reflective of a disconnect between its history as a company devoted to its fanbase and consumers, and a corporation that uses its consumers as prey. This may or may not have started when Hasbro bought 'em out.
I don't care if any of this is true, but there is a major sense of egoism about the "NWO" crap, and corporate jingoism. Perhaps for those not immersed in such (I worked for Kroger for 8 years, yeeesh) this may seem like nothing, but for those of us who ARE integrated with corporations, it smacks of stupidity.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
"New World Order," or "Novum Ordo Seclorum" is a phrase that refers to 1. a sociopolitical movement in which a post-enlightenment universal governmental philosophy is endorsed, in which it is desired that a single polity expands throughout the world (ours, mind you), or 2. a reference to a series of conspiracy theories generally involving the Illuminati, etc.
So, either the term is used in the context of a broad, expansive and essentially over-riding philosophy which shall constrain all future design regardless of its effects or because of them -- for good or for ill of us, the consumers; or it's a broad wink at a world-spanning conspiracy theory about essential one-polity governmental control (which, when it comes to the United States, has been linked to a document called Project for a New American Century which had such esteemed signatories as essentially most of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations). If either, it is pretentious, egoistical, and if anything reflective of a disconnect between its history as a company devoted to its fanbase and consumers, and a corporation that uses its consumers as prey. This may or may not have started when Hasbro bought 'em out.
I don't care if any of this is true, but there is a major sense of egoism about the "NWO" crap, and corporate jingoism. Perhaps for those not immersed in such (I worked for Kroger for 8 years, yeeesh) this may seem like nothing, but for those of us who ARE integrated with corporations, it smacks of stupidity.
Ummmm... You really should have done a websearch. NWO is the term for the new era of Magic as opposed to the old. Sometime before the new card frames, the MtG staff decided that their entire policy needed revamping and created the NWO as their card-making standard. It includes making sure that cards don't step out of their color identity like in the past (e.g. High Tide, Dark Ritual), making MtG more intuitive, and a whole bunch of other things. Wizards created the Modern format to only use NWO cards since pre-NWO cards were all over the place.
"New World Order," or "Novum Ordo Seclorum" is a phrase that refers to 1. a sociopolitical movement in which a post-enlightenment universal governmental philosophy is endorsed, in which it is desired that a single polity expands throughout the world (ours, mind you), or 2. a reference to a series of conspiracy theories generally involving the Illuminati, etc.
So, either the term is used in the context of a broad, expansive and essentially over-riding philosophy which shall constrain all future design regardless of its effects or because of them -- for good or for ill of us, the consumers; or it's a broad wink at a world-spanning conspiracy theory about essential one-polity governmental control (which, when it comes to the United States, has been linked to a document called Project for a New American Century which had such esteemed signatories as essentially most of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations). If either, it is pretentious, egoistical, and if anything reflective of a disconnect between its history as a company devoted to its fanbase and consumers, and a corporation that uses its consumers as prey. This may or may not have started when Hasbro bought 'em out.
I don't care if any of this is true, but there is a major sense of egoism about the "NWO" crap, and corporate jingoism. Perhaps for those not immersed in such (I worked for Kroger for 8 years, yeeesh) this may seem like nothing, but for those of us who ARE integrated with corporations, it smacks of stupidity.
Ummmm... You really should have done a websearch. NWO is the term for the new era of Magic as opposed to the old. Sometime before the new card frames, the MtG staff decided that their entire policy needed revamping and created the NWO as their card-making standard. It includes making sure that cards don't step out of their color identity like in the past (e.g. High Tide, Dark Ritual), making MtG more intuitive, and a whole bunch of other things. Wizards created the Modern format to only use NWO cards since pre-NWO cards were all over the place.
I'm a cynic, and I approve of this article. With one caveat. Stop using "New World Order." That phrase does not mean what you think it means (or rather, has come to mean).
That said, I actually praised the vanilla-ness of M10 when it came out, and the appearance of wonderful things like Woolly Thoctar . Great stuff. My personal former teaching method when educating new players had been to use simple, mostly vanilla product, and this was something that has been affirmed a long, log time ago through feedback on this site since, like, Mirrodin.
On the other[]hand, it lead [sic] to a small problem: It affirms that the jump to a five-rarity system (basic land, common, uncommon, rare, mythic) is, in more ways than one, an attempt to place cards out of the hands of newer players, but not always for the sake of complexity. The balance is that new players, upon opening a Titan or somewhat, if not immediately pounced unawares by "newb predators" will vastly enjoy the experience of gaining this card. I know I did, and I'm not new and am at least well-versed in the art of cutthroat. Sadly, it meant that the push towards these cards at mythic is two-, if not three-fold, and this is being justified wholly on the backs of new players to the suffering of casual. The key? Limited.
Limited being used as the metric for viability of play, complexity, and quality of the cards hurts, because it is pushed. One could, rather, create products that can be sold on the cheap that include the less complex elements of M10 while at the same time including trinkets like a Titan (or not). This site, and others, show that limited is, if anything the sole concern for the Magic professional series, while casual, being less pronounced but more numerous, falls behind. These players prefer the complex cards much, much more, and in greater quantities. Such a distribution in the way product is released is painful to us. I am glad, however, that recently this has been changed with the development of new products aimed at us casuals (Commander and Premium Deck Series being two).
All in all, however, good stuff.
P.S.: MaRo ... start playing EDH. Inform yourself.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
