Damnation reprint
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Aug. 11, 2014, 2:45 p.m. by ChiefBell
Today the list of cards included in from the vault: annihilation was released. You can find it here. Notably absent was Damnation , however within the paragraph explaining the reasoning for Upheaval being included, the author had this to say -
"with From the Vault specifically, I do a lot of long-range planning. I knew that Annihilation was going to be the next year and wanted to represent iconic cards that represented devastation from across Magic's history......Something important to keep in mind: If something is missing from one of these, there's a good reason. It's not that we just completely miss obvious things, but that we have the entire picture of Magic's future to work with and know where something is going to fit better. If you really want something to appear again, stay patient. If it's something that's realistically reprintable, there's a good chance you can expect to see it eventually."
What do you think of this? Has he basically said - "stay patient, Damnation is coming"?
Seems likely that it'll show up somewhere soon. The real question is whether it'll get a reprint in a standard legal set or not. It'll most likely to be a part of the forthcoming black commander deck, but I'm holding out hope that it makes it's way into the KTK block.
August 11, 2014 2:58 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #5
"If it's something that's realistically reprintable" sounds like not going to happen. It also sounds like it may show up in MM2 though.
August 11, 2014 3:25 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #6
"we don't print cards that are that frustrating and that powerful in Standard sets anymore. However, for those same reasons, we didn't want to put it into a product like Commander or Planechase, because those kinds of cards tend to be so frustrating we don't want newer players to walk right into them and become frustrated." - talking about Smokestack in the above article.
August 11, 2014 3:34 p.m.
Ohthenoises says... #7
The difference between them is Smokestack can be incredibly frustrating to play with because it's a tax effect.
Damnation is a one shot "boom, shit dies, do not pass go."
Honestly Damnation is much easier to play around. Especially with all of the indestructible shenanigans running around.
August 11, 2014 4:01 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ - you're referring to a card thats almost completely worse than Supreme Verdict
August 11, 2014 4:06 p.m.
I'd say the best bet is Khans. There will be a void left by Supreme Verdict after rotation and sweepers keep the control meta healthy. Either Khans or MMA2 if/when that ever gets printed.
August 11, 2014 4:13 p.m.
There is also a lot of talk of Sultai or Abzen (Abzan?) getting the control role - both of which include black. Given that Abzan is about endurance they seem a likely bet.
August 11, 2014 4:15 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #11
I don't get how Armageddon has less religious connotations than Wrath of God ?
August 11, 2014 4:27 p.m.
Because Armageddon is just a word that religions have hijacked. It's just a word with a latin root that insinuates any end of world situation. It doesnt necessarily have any religious connotations
August 11, 2014 4:32 p.m.
ThorneSupremicy says... #13
my bet is that it is in khans, Azban is the new control colors, so it fits right in.
August 11, 2014 4:34 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #14
Actually, ChiefBell you have that backwards. Armageddon (original root Hebrew, through Greek, through Latin, to English) was originally used in the religious prophecies to denote a specific future battle - then it got co-opted into general language. It's origins are actually quite specific.
Contrast that with Wrath of God which is fundamentally general - it could be refering to any god or any religion.
August 11, 2014 5:05 p.m.
omnipotato says... #15
August 11, 2014 5:18 p.m.
Well thats certainly interesting but doesn't give it a religious connotation. A battle isn't necessarily linked to worship or the bible, although it might be contained therein. The great Roman census is described in the Bible for example, but it's not necessarily a religious event. I think I try to contrast between events that are described in religious texts and particular religious events. If you see what I mean.
August 11, 2014 5:18 p.m.
I see what you mean ChiefBell. I also agree...All events in a religious text are not intrinsically religious themselves. However, does it make any difference that the battle in question, referred to as Armageddon, depicts Jesus Christ returning as a warrior king to quite literally vanquish Death itself and judge all of humanity? That does sound strictly more religious to me.
Named_Tawyny, Wrath of God, strictly speaking as an English teacher here, refers to a proper noun (God), as opposed to a common noun (god). Also, there would need to be another part of speech there denoting Wrath of a God, or this God in order to denote a meaning to a general god. That said...has WotC ever made strictly Christian cards before. I'm not sure that I have seen many that step into this territory.
August 11, 2014 5:31 p.m.
omnipotato says... #19
Armageddon:
the place where the final battle will be fought between the forces of good and evil (probably so called in reference to the battlefield of Megiddo. Rev. 16:16).
the last and completely destructive battle: The arms race can lead to Armageddon.
any great and crucial conflict.
The card name can be referring to definition 2 or 3. Though it has roots in religion, there are secular uses for the same word.
August 11, 2014 5:38 p.m.
That's not the oxford English dictionary.
Definition one is based on a colloquialism that was coined by a guy in 1800. The word armageddon is not described in the bible as the end of the world, rather it refers to the place. The connotations of a religious battle were figurative and made up by some guy and tacked onto the word. Remember that the word means a place - not a battle originally. Yes the conflict meaning emerged in popular usage but it's original usage in religious texts has nothing to do with that. Just because a guy uses a word metaphorically can't make it religious because it's not thus defined in any reliable sources. People can shape common language but they can't shape specialist language like religious or scientific terms.
August 11, 2014 5:47 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #21
capriom85 As a student of languages, you'd also note Wizards standard formatting for card titles - unless Research Assistant and Bile Blight (the first two cards I grabbed) also refer to somebody named Assistant and somebody else named Blight, we can't take the capitalisation of 'God' to be anything more than standard title caps.
It is odd though, (these few exceptions aside) that Wizards has made sets loosely based on a number of religions (most recently, Greek) but nothing in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic spectrum.
August 11, 2014 5:48 p.m.
Although it's fumny that people have given religious connotations to a word that should NOT be there based on a mistranslated metaphor made up by some guy in 1800.
August 11, 2014 5:49 p.m.
Considering there's no four mana boardwipe in Theros or M15, I wouldn't be surprised if Damnation
will be reprinted in Khans.
There's been a four-mana boardwipe in every Standard format since...forever?
Wrath of God was from Alpha to 10th. Edition. 10th. was released in 2007 and rotated in 2008.
Damnation was in Planar Chaos, which rotated out in October 2008.
Day of Judgment was in Zendikar (October 2009), M11 (released in July 2010), and M12.
Mutilate was in M13.
Supreme Verdict has existed where Day of Judgment hasn't.
The only time I can remember a Standard that didn't have a four-mana boardwipe was from the time when Damnation rotated out in October 2008 to when Day of Judgment rotated in October 2009. That would be Lorwyn/Shadowmoor-Shards of Alara-Magic 2010 Standard. However, that was a format that had Cryptic Command , Maelstrom Pulse , Volcanic Fallout , Pyroclasm , Jund Charm , Zealous Persecution ...in other words, a plethora of mass removal and cards to stabilize the board.
August 11, 2014 5:56 p.m.
UpsetYoMama says... #25
Actually, there were cards rooted in Islam. For example, Army of Allah . You just have to go back a ways.
August 11, 2014 6:21 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #27
Ahh yes, Arabian Nights. More pan-arabian that Islamic, from what I remember, but yeah, a couple specifically Islamic cards. Thanks for the reminder. =)
August 11, 2014 6:23 p.m.
omnipotato says... #28
Dictionary.com > everything
That's exactly what definition 1 says. "The PLACE where the final battle will be fought..." The important thing is that the English definition of the word (I'm sure if you check the Oxford dictionary, it will have multiple definitions similar to what I posted) has evolved to mean any kind of huge conflict or disaster, and where the word came from is irrelevant in everyday usage.
August 11, 2014 6:36 p.m.
PreZchoICE1 says... #29
great set this is, looking forward to getting my hands on the copy I already pre-ordered. Im glad that [Damnation] isnt seeing a reprint here tbh. I feel for all you new budget conscious players, however considering [Wrath of God] got a big nod here, I can understand why it didnt make sense to give [Damnation] a spot.
In reality [Damnation] is just a color shifted [Wrath of God], and for it to see a reprint I think we need to see similiar conditions in whatever set it would see a second printing.
I feel like the people who are complaining about it not being in here are just squeaky wheels thirsting for some grease. I have a feeling if people would just be patient they will discover it will see reprint either in the mid or end of khans block. Im almost certain it wont be in the first khans set as I was told by a very very good source that there is 3 'sweeps' already seeing print there.
PS its none of your business, and Im not saying anymore about it.
August 11, 2014 6:48 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #30
@PreZchoICE1 the way you ended your post is rather arrogant and abrupt. Though you should probably expect someone to badger you about it. Could you at least expand on why you refuse to say more? Otherwise, I calling your bluff.
The problem with Damnation is that it's a card that sees play in other formats. Modern players are especially wanting the reprint to help to some pressure off a growing barrier to entry. There are also the issue with the fetch lands (let's not go there), but Modern is growing and players are starting to ask for easier access to cards since the barrier to entry is becoming somewhat ridiculous.
August 11, 2014 7:14 p.m.
PreZchoICE1 says... #31
@CanadianShinobi I talked to a member of the R&D team at a recent PTQ. They were giving me some very specific info about what we would see in Khans and Commander 2014. I dont mean to be arrogant but I would like to keep it abrupt simply because many of the things I was told have yet to be spoiled. I value a relationship I built with said member and I tried to keep things as vague as I could. Thats about as much as I want to say on the topic.
Imo Damnation isn't a card that is blocking new players from entering into modern. You hit the nail on the head when you brought up fetches, but I wont dwell on that.
I hold a firm belief that the rise of EDH has really put a crimp on Modern because staple cards (see Damnation) are seeing play in yet another format, thus putting them into even higher demand than normal. Personally I dont see that as a sole reason to just start mass reproduction of old print runs.
August 11, 2014 8:16 p.m.
Named_Tawyny, you misread my post. It's the absence of adverbs such as "a" or "this" that make God the proper noun, not simply it's capitalization. I see the lack of Judeo-Christian-Islamic based sets mainly as an attempt to a old that powder keg. There are not many Greeks, for example, left to be offended at the portrayal of their gods. It may be a little more delicate when contending with 3 of the world's most popular religions. They get away with angels and devil's because they are secular figures as well, but can you just imagine the backlash in a game that assigns power and toughness to the likes of figures such as Mohammad, Peter, or Moses? It may just be as simple as Wizards playing it safe, no matter how cool the lore may be for something like that, we probably won't be seeing tribal Israelite decks at pro tour Torah any time soon.
omnipotato and ChiefBell, the final battle will take place on the Plains outside the city in Israel, Megiddo, literally "ar Megiddo", which = "armageddon". However this is just a card game so let's not read too far into its religious or political implications. So you are both fairly right. Too much interpretation goes into things like the Bible, though, but the term "armageddon" is pretty Judeo-Christian.....bending highly to the Christian realm.
August 11, 2014 10:11 p.m.
jr92_2000, sorry....we will not be seeing Bruce Willis or Steven Tyler with MtG iterations. Which may be for the best...
August 11, 2014 10:15 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #34
capriom85 I understood that point as well, I just disagree. The indefinite article is not needed to make it not a proper now. "Death by Cake" (were it a card) doesn't necessarily mean that it was a specific cake, just cake in general. Likewise Force of Will need not be ''Force of a Will" or "Force of some Will" for us to understand that it's not Will Smith countering the spell.
Especially given the general omnipresence of many gods, I don't think an indefinite article is needed for it to be correct.
(Also : weee! Literary and language discussions on TappedOut. Fun!)
August 11, 2014 10:44 p.m.
I think, Named_Tawyny, that my problem with Wrath of God assuming the role of Wrath of any god is that your examples, Death by Cake and Force of Will, work only because of the type of noun you have chosen. Will and even cake can fall into a category in which each can mean a specific will or cake or the collective meaning of all the will in the world or all the cake in the world. My issue lies with the indefinite singularity of the noun god. It makes the card title Wrath of God indefinitely about one singular god, because the concept of all gods cannot be expressed through just "god". While your examples are correct, the fall prey to a very specific grammar rule in which, in this case, something else is needed to identify "which god". While it may not refer specifically to the Judeo-Christian God, it does indeed refer to God as a specific deity, because of the structure of the noun "god" specifically. Even though we can interchangeably use god or God to denote proper and common nouns we cannot use it convey collective meaning in the way we can use will and cake. It would be as incorrect as saying "word of book"; it just begs a specification of which book. This rule is very hard for foreign speaking people to grasp when learning English because this rule does.not exist in many languages (aren't we so lucky to speak one of the most complex languages in the modern world). If we were to use the same method to decipher a hypothetical card named "Council of War" we can find that this one works. Even though war is a singular noun it can be used to collectively describe the concept of war. It is.not referring indefinitely to a singular specific event of war.
As much as I enjoy to parley on these topics, I fear we have hijacked ChiefBell's Damnation
thread and I apologize. I concur, though, Chief. I expect to see a Damnation
reprint in Khans somewhere. Completely fitting for what control will be losing and what colors it looks like will be taking the role of control on in Khans.
August 12, 2014 2:06 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #36
capriom85 I fear we disagree on the nature of the noun 'god' then; from a descriptivist standpoint, I've no issues with seeing it used as a collective noun (see early note regarding omnipresent nature of the concept of godhood). Clearly you do, but that's okay too. =)
But yes, this does seem to have become more of a grammar discussion than a damnation one (although I'd reckon that more than a few people around would consider those synonymous. :p)
If you want to continue the discussion, do feel free to PM me.
August 12, 2014 2:22 a.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #37
August 12, 2014 2:40 a.m.
I'm not sure that Mutilate fits with the wedge theme of Khans. If they are pushing 3 color you won't really be rewarded for having multiple swamps
August 12, 2014 7:14 a.m.
Named_Tawyny, I appreciate your offer for a continuance, and I have enjoyed debating the godness of god, but I fear further discussion on the matter would result in the same stalemate. Grammatically "god" just doesn't work there without naming a singular specified God, but seeing as this is a Magic card and not one of my 8th graders grammar assignments being turned in, I'm not 100% convinced that the rigidity of English grammar absolutely.needs to apply. I see no reason we can't agree to a friendly disagreement on this with neither side claiming defeat. That said, well argued on your stance and thanks again for a different type of debate on Damnation , which I think you hit spot on with how some may view it's relation to grammar. :)
August 12, 2014 7:26 a.m.
The grammar doesn't matter much. All linguistic debates usually end in a stalemate between technical language use and common language use. There's nothing you can do.
The thread hasn't been hijacked much, it's fine.
I guess everyone is predicting that Damnation will come soon.
August 12, 2014 8:07 a.m.
ThorneSupremicy says... #41
ThorneSupremicyAzban is the new control colors
omnipotato says...Not Jeskai?
The Azban mechanical theme is control. The Jeskai Mechanical theme is tricks.
August 12, 2014 10:34 a.m.
ThorneSupremicy says... #42
omnipotato The Azban mechanical theme is control. The Jeskai Mechanical theme is tricks.
August 12, 2014 10:36 a.m.
Well I think that was taken from them focusing on the long game and them respecting endurance. Wizards never said 'control'. Unless I'm mistaken. ....
August 12, 2014 10:47 a.m.
ThorneSupremicy says... #44
ChiefBell omnipotato Check out this! [http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2bstzj/info_khans_of_tarkir/]
August 12, 2014 10:56 a.m.
Is that anything more than speculation though? Sultai and Jeskai both seem like plausible control colors too.
August 12, 2014 11:28 a.m.
ThorneSupremicy says... #46
jr92_2000 ChiefBell omnipotato Wizards had all of that info on their slide show at the SDCC panel.
August 12, 2014 11:42 a.m.
Do we actually have a source or is everyone guessing? Because I read each release that wizards did for the clans on twitter and it didn't mention the word control for abzan.
If anyone has screen shots of the slides I would love to see them. I want to sort through what's been added incorrectly from people and what we actually know from wizards.
August 12, 2014 12:10 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #49
Doesn't look very controlling to me. More of a "we work together to grind you to death" kind of vibe going on.
August 12, 2014 12:21 p.m.
For everyone interested in this debate:
Watch this
He verbally says the word 'control' but it isnt wirtten
GoldGhost012 says... #2
He also said another card needed to be dropped last minute. That's how Decree of Annihilation got its spot.
August 11, 2014 2:49 p.m.