No blasphemy intended...

[BugsySig]

Rai #0 was the first appearance. EW 4 is first appearance in costume.

KV

[MarkRoseHFX]

Rai #0 was the first appearance. EW 4 is first appearance in costume.

KV

End of discussion imo right here

I think the only thing blasphemous about this poll is where the hell is the ice cream option?

or you could have at least added Bacon in there Dr Solar

[Dr. Solar]

Rai #0 was the first appearance. EW 4 is first appearance in costume.

KV

End of discussion imo right here

Except this is incorrect. Bloodshot appears in costume in Rai #0. If Rai #0 is his "first appearance", it is also his first appearance in costume. The printed page doesn't lie.

The only thing I have not been able to confirm is that Eternal Warrior #4 came out a few weeks before Rai #0. We can deduce that it did, but I have seen no confirmation of this.

[gynta]

Years ago I made a pdf file about differences between the Previews solicitations of the first 3 post-unity months and the books as they were published. These solicitations were written when Shooter was still in charge, but when the books were published he was already fired.
You can find the file here: http://www.valiantfan.com/valiant/postunit.pdf
It's mostly names that were changed: Bloodshot would have been Rising Spirit.
There were no publishing dates given at that time, so no help there, but if EW 4 came out before Rai 0, then EW 4 is the first appearance because he is listed as guest-star.

[magnusr]

Card FA9 is about Rai 0.

With picture thanks to Dan's site:


/Magnus

[BugsySig]

Card FA9 is about Rai 0.

With picture thanks to Dan's site:


/Magnus

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Also, is it safe to assume Rai 0 was written (or laid out) before any other post-unity books, such as EW4?

[David_Cody]

Dan rocks! And that's not blasphemy, that's a fact.

[drmirage]

According to Wikipedia. First appearance Eternal Warrior #4 (November 1992) 1st cameo; Rai 0 (November 1992) 1st full appearance Can anyone confirm this with Jim Shooter, Don Perlin or Kevin VanHook? Where's MoTa when you need him.

[Aram]

So I can only guess that Rai 0 was the intended first appearance, but EW 4 is the Technical first appearance due to hitting the market 2 weeks earlier?

What about Rai? First appearance is Magnus 5, but technically Magnus 4 is on a card?

[Zaphod]

There is so little mention of Ninjak in here? Why does Ninjak not have his own card...oh...right...

[Dr. Solar]

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Actually, it is very easy to argue with that. I own a comic book that I bought in 1992, a couple weeks before I bought Rai #0. It has Bloodshot in it. I bought both off the stands. I bought one before the other. The first was Eternal Warrior #4. A couple weeks later was Rai #0. Both have Bloodshot in it.

I am perfectly fine with considering Rai #0 the First Appearance of Bloodshot, just like I consider Hulk #181 the First Appearance of Wolverine. Just don't tell me those are the first appearances of those characters.

[BugsySig]

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Actually, it is very easy to argue with that. I own a comic book that I bought in 1992, a couple weeks before I bought Rai #0. It has Bloodshot in it. I bought both off the stands. I bought one before the other. The first was Eternal Warrior #4. A couple weeks later was Rai #0. Both have Bloodshot in it.

I am perfectly fine with considering Rai #0 the First Appearance of Bloodshot, just like I consider Hulk #181 the First Appearance of Wolverine. Just don't tell me those are the first appearances of those characters.

1. You OTV guys can argue with anything

2. What do you mean that's not the first appearance of Wolverine?

[Blood of Heroes]

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Actually, it is very easy to argue with that. I own a comic book that I bought in 1992, a couple weeks before I bought Rai #0. It has Bloodshot in it. I bought both off the stands. I bought one before the other. The first was Eternal Warrior #4. A couple weeks later was Rai #0. Both have Bloodshot in it.

I am perfectly fine with considering Rai #0 the First Appearance of Bloodshot, just like I consider Hulk #181 the First Appearance of Wolverine. Just don't tell me those are the first appearances of those characters.

YEAH!!!

[Blood of Heroes]

2. What do you mean that's not the first appearance of Wolverine?

Hulk 180

[BugsySig]

2. What do you mean that's not the first appearance of Wolverine?

Hulk 180

I am in shock




No, I understand the cameo in EW4, I just mean its hard to argue for record keeping purposes the first appearance of a character when the publisher insists on it. Just like with Wolverine or Carnage or Dr. Mirage or Shadowman or...

[Blood of Heroes]

No, I understand the cameo in EW4, I just mean its hard to argue for record keeping purposes the first appearance of a character when the publisher insists on it.

Does that mean he's right?

[BugsySig]

No, I understand the cameo in EW4, I just mean its hard to argue for record keeping purposes the first appearance of a character when the publisher insists on it.

Does that mean he's right?

Can a publisher be wrong?



















OMG I just couldn't hold it in...sorry...I'm going to need a minute...

[Blood of Heroes]

[Zaphod]

nm

[jmatt]

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Actually, it is very easy to argue with that. I own a comic book that I bought in 1992, a couple weeks before I bought Rai #0. It has Bloodshot in it. I bought both off the stands. I bought one before the other. The first was Eternal Warrior #4. A couple weeks later was Rai #0. Both have Bloodshot in it.

I am perfectly fine with considering Rai #0 the First Appearance of Bloodshot, just like I consider Hulk #181 the First Appearance of Wolverine. Just don't tell me those are the first appearances of those characters.

I'm with you. The publisher doesn't get to decide, the readers do. Words have meanings; first is first, and EW #4 appeared before Rai #0.

They are entitled to call it the first Official Appearance if they'd like but ultimately the readers and collectors decide.

[Dr. Solar]

1. You OTV guys can argue with anything

Ha ha ha! Pretty much

[Elveen]

So once again, Valiant considers Rai 0 as the first appearance. Hard to argue with that.

Actually, it is very easy to argue with that. I own a comic book that I bought in 1992, a couple weeks before I bought Rai #0. It has Bloodshot in it. I bought both off the stands. I bought one before the other. The first was Eternal Warrior #4. A couple weeks later was Rai #0. Both have Bloodshot in it.

I am perfectly fine with considering Rai #0 the First Appearance of Bloodshot, just like I consider Hulk #181 the First Appearance of Wolverine. Just don't tell me those are the first appearances of those characters.

1. You OTV guys can argue with anything

No we cant.

[magnusr]

1. You OTV guys can argue with anything

No we cant.

/Magnus

[Ramses818]

The publisher is wrong. What they intended (Rai 0 to be the first app.) and what happened (Eternal Warrior 4) is not debatable. They wrote and published their books. Their error does not change that. They simply need to correct their records. This was a laughable debate at best when the cards came out because it was so well known. My understanding at the time (and this was a long time ago, lol, so my memory may be off) was that Rai 0 was supposed to come out before EW4 but they didn't get it done (some debate over the polishing of the book, of course that is all conjecture!) . And this debate can be had with many other characters...Rai first app. Magnus 4 card. That is his first published app in a Valiant book. First Ninjak, in costume or not. First Wolverine, Bishop, Gambit, heck even the first Eternal Warrior can be debated because you can argue it wasn't in a book you paid for! We can even argue that New Valiant first app. vs. Old Valiant first app! O.k. I think I have stirred the pot enough...lol.

Bloodshot 1st app.... EW #4. Nuff said.

[kevinbastos]

I always was ticked as a kid - by first appearances. Cameo is a dumb word - and not accurate - but that 'last panel' appearance has become so comic book cliche - and I don't just mean in comics. The cliffhanger at the end of an episode, last season has been used. Michone (sp?) at the end of the second season of Walking Dead, kinda thing. It's EVERYWHERE.

I think we just need some KIND of way to call that - glimpse - at the end of the book.

Then - to argue further - would the Shadowman 'first appearance' be X-O Manowar 4, right? Even though his First Appearance wouldn't be until Shadowman 1.

This is getting silly.

Wake me up when my Hulk 180 is worth a bunch more money.

Until then, I have both first appearances in my somewhere-ness.