I honestly believe the card makes 8Rack Tier 1-2. The deck is already decent, then you add that massive value and its pretty insane. Lots of leylines of sanctity will get played after that.
Won't it just be a dead card mid/late game, just like Liliana's Caress, though? From what I understand, Caress is avoided for the deck because it does nothing once you've started controlling your enemy's hand, and it's not like Waste Not will have anything that doesn't prevent this from happening...
I mean, if the trade off of potentially getting a creature/bonus mana (to then chain more discard)/card advantage early on is enough I can see it, but I'm just not convinced it won't have the same issues that Caress/Megrim have.
DFC are a 1 on Maro's storm scale (1-10, lower is better, where the number indicates likelihood of being reprinted in a standard legal set, and the storm mechanic is a 10), and I'm really looking forward to seeing them again.
DFC are a 1 on Maro's storm scale (1-10, lower is better, where the number indicates likelihood of being reprinted in a standard legal set, and the storm mechanic is a 10), and I'm really looking forward to seeing them again.
What? I thought Maro said DFCs proved to be too expensive to print.
DFC are a 1 on Maro's storm scale (1-10, lower is better, where the number indicates likelihood of being reprinted in a standard legal set, and the storm mechanic is a 10), and I'm really looking forward to seeing them again.
What? I thought Maro said DFCs proved to be too expensive to print.
No. They do require a bit more set up on the printing press than normal MTG cards and there is probably be some additional costs associated with that but I don't think it's cost prohibitive for WOTC. What MaRo has said is that because they require that special set up on press that they'll probably never do them as one-ofs for promos or ancillary products. They would have to do an entire set based around DFCs in order to justify the costs.
I thought Maro said DFCs proved to be too expensive to print.
It is expensive, but that just prevent them from reprinting single cards. DFCs are considered a design success and market research tells they were very popular.
I can't find the Blogatog post where he gives it 1 and according to the Storm Scale thread it has been both a 1 and a 3, but I believe the 3 must be with costs in mind.
Kamigawa flip cards are ugly and impractical, but DFCs as printed are one of the biggest mistakes Wizards ever made. I like the gameplay mechanic of transforming the cards, but you do not print cards for a game with a randomized deck that don't have the uniform card back. Period.
lol
As proven by surveys and the sales of innistrad, DFC are one of the most popular mechanics of all time. So yeah, you can do it. Use sleeves or the special checklist cards that made.
This is the most common response to my claim, even though it is a total non-answer that doesn't prove anything. It is both a fallacy and displays a lack of abstraction. Firstly, something being popular does not mean that it is good. It mostly says that it sells well. Justin Bieber has platinum hits and millions of fans. Does that mean that he is a great musician? No. Secondly, we need to distinguish between a gameplay mechanic (transform) and the physical form of double faced cards (cards with not backside) here. Transform played well - especially the werewolves. It was a great mechanic and I liked it a lot. People who were filling out those surveys you cite had most likely the gameplay of those cards in mind. The phyiscal form of those cards is a separate matter entirely. Most people just don't make the necessary distinction between "Hey, I love how these cards play! What a great mechanic!" and "All cards that are meant to be shuffled together in the same deck must have the same cardback. Anything else is an absolute no-go.".
And yes, using opaque sleeves or checklist cards are workarounds, but they are both ugly workarounds that only try to remedy the initial mistake of printing cards with no uniform cardback.
using opaque sleeves or checklist cards are workarounds, but they are both ugly workarounds that only try to remedy the initial mistake of printing cards with no uniform cardback.
I would guess between 50 and 75 % of all players play opaque sleeves anyways. And as pointed out, checklist cards were included in each booster for those who prefer to play without sleeves or with transparent sleeves.
I played with a few different DFCs during standard and are playing Delver of Secrets in legacy atm, and I really don't see how these cards are a problem. Playing with opaque sleeves or a checklist card is no different from bringing appropriate tokens for your deck.
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
The reason I heard was the printing technology can read the bottom of the new frames to identify cards to prevent packaging errors. (Like the Rootbound Defenses that was spoiled early through a packaging error.)
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
First, I want to point out that the 8th edition frame has been tweaked numerous times for various purposes: Timeshifted cards, gold and hybrid mana, Planeswalkers, Miracles, Extended Art, colorless, color indicators, etc. So this isn't the first change, although it is the first major change.
According to WotC, the reasons are 1. new custom font they control, 2. holofoil stamp on rares and mythics to make counterfeiting harder, 3. machine-readable collector info on the bottom to prevent packaging errors, 4. slightly larger artwork and text box (frankly I think they'd eliminate the black border completely if they could), and 5. designed by credits.
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
Ugh the white frames were hideous and I didn't even like em back then. This is liking old things because they're old and/or it bothers you having different frames mixed up in your deck because you only play legacy and don't really care beyond that format.
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
Ugh the white frames were hideous and I didn't even like em back then. This is liking old things because they're old and/or it bothers you having different frames mixed up in your deck because you only play legacy and don't really care beyond that format.
I like using white border basic land in my decks that run fetches. It makes them quick to find. Always liked how the white border cards made the cards like pop out more. The only issues is dirt shows easily.
The new border puts too much weight at the bottom of the card visually. I don't like it.
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
Ugh the white frames were hideous and I didn't even like em back then. This is liking old things because they're old and/or it bothers you having different frames mixed up in your deck because you only play legacy and don't really care beyond that format.
I like using white border basic land in my decks that run fetches. It makes them quick to find. Always liked how the white border cards made the cards like pop out more. The only issues is dirt shows easily.
The new border puts too much weight at the bottom of the card visually. I don't like it.
Isn't this good news for fair enough that is indeed another reason to use them. I stand corrected haha.
According to WotC, the reasons are 1. new custom font they control, 2. holofoil stamp on rares and mythics to make counterfeiting harder, 3. machine-readable collector info on the bottom to prevent packaging errors, 4. slightly larger artwork and text box (frankly I think they'd eliminate the black border completely if they could), and 5. designed by credits.
First, why do they need a new font? The current font seems to be perfectly acceptable, to me. Second, I do agree that a holofoil stamp seems to be a good idea, but it shall not interfere with an entire card being foil, will it? Third, I can understand that, but why is the black border thicker at the bottom? Would it not have been possible to have the machine-readable information while keeping the border the same size?
According to WotC, the reasons are 1. new custom font they control, 2. holofoil stamp on rares and mythics to make counterfeiting harder, 3. machine-readable collector info on the bottom to prevent packaging errors, 4. slightly larger artwork and text box (frankly I think they'd eliminate the black border completely if they could), and 5. designed by credits.
First, why do they need a new font? The current font seems to be perfectly acceptable, to me. Second, I do agree that a holofoil stamp seems to be a good idea, but it shall not interfere with an entire card being foil, will it? Third, I can understand that, but why is the black border thicker at the bottom? Would it not have been possible to have the machine-readable information while keeping the border the same size?
They didn't really say what the advantages are of a new font, but it's actually quite common for big corporations to make them. It won't help them vis-a-vis counterfeitting, but it would allow them to license the electronic version of the font, so it could be a revenue generator for them if magic web sites, video games, etc. want to use the font.
They haven't shown how the foil stamp interacts with a full-foil card but they must have already considered that so it won't be a problem.
As for the thicker border at the bottom, if you look at this mockup you can see that you can restore the old border but only by collapsing all the card indexing info on one line. It's possible that WotC has plans for that space and thus doesn't want to constrain themselves with only one line of text.
Having looked at several images of the new border, while I agree it might not be the best solution, it's not too jarring and you can get accustomed to it quickly.
I am certain that I have already asked this question, but why is WotC changing the card frame again? What was wrong with the Eighth Edition-style frame? This change seems to be arbitrary and pointless, to me.
Ugh the white frames were hideous and I didn't even like em back then. This is liking old things because they're old and/or it bothers you having different frames mixed up in your deck because you only play legacy and don't really care beyond that format.
I like using white border basic land in my decks that run fetches. It makes them quick to find. Always liked how the white border cards made the cards like pop out more. The only issues is dirt shows easily.
The new border puts too much weight at the bottom of the card visually. I don't like it.
Isn't this good news for fair enough that is indeed another reason to use them. I stand corrected haha.
There is also one other benefit to white border card they do not show nicks on the edge of the card as easily. White borders were probably cheaper too for wizards since they don't need as much black ink. I don't care either way too much. There both fine it just bugs some people to have different borders.
I actually like the new redesign, it's good relatively speaking, of course nothing beats the old border. The only complaint I have is in the typesetting, I find that it's too high and creates the illusion that the label text isn't centered well enough.
Most people just don't make the necessary distinction between "Hey, I love how these cards play! What a great mechanic!" and "All cards that are meant to be shuffled together in the same deck must have the same cardback. Anything else is an absolute no-go.".
They probably don't make this "necessary" distinction since it is something you made up and only exists in your own mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Won't it just be a dead card mid/late game, just like Liliana's Caress, though? From what I understand, Caress is avoided for the deck because it does nothing once you've started controlling your enemy's hand, and it's not like Waste Not will have anything that doesn't prevent this from happening...
I mean, if the trade off of potentially getting a creature/bonus mana (to then chain more discard)/card advantage early on is enough I can see it, but I'm just not convinced it won't have the same issues that Caress/Megrim have.
What? I thought Maro said DFCs proved to be too expensive to print.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffNo. They do require a bit more set up on the printing press than normal MTG cards and there is probably be some additional costs associated with that but I don't think it's cost prohibitive for WOTC. What MaRo has said is that because they require that special set up on press that they'll probably never do them as one-ofs for promos or ancillary products. They would have to do an entire set based around DFCs in order to justify the costs.
I can't find the Blogatog post where he gives it 1 and according to the Storm Scale thread it has been both a 1 and a 3, but I believe the 3 must be with costs in mind.
And yes, using opaque sleeves or checklist cards are workarounds, but they are both ugly workarounds that only try to remedy the initial mistake of printing cards with no uniform cardback.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
I played with a few different DFCs during standard and are playing Delver of Secrets in legacy atm, and I really don't see how these cards are a problem. Playing with opaque sleeves or a checklist card is no different from bringing appropriate tokens for your deck.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
The reason I heard was the printing technology can read the bottom of the new frames to identify cards to prevent packaging errors. (Like the Rootbound Defenses that was spoiled early through a packaging error.)
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
First, I want to point out that the 8th edition frame has been tweaked numerous times for various purposes: Timeshifted cards, gold and hybrid mana, Planeswalkers, Miracles, Extended Art, colorless, color indicators, etc. So this isn't the first change, although it is the first major change.
According to WotC, the reasons are 1. new custom font they control, 2. holofoil stamp on rares and mythics to make counterfeiting harder, 3. machine-readable collector info on the bottom to prevent packaging errors, 4. slightly larger artwork and text box (frankly I think they'd eliminate the black border completely if they could), and 5. designed by credits.
Ugh the white frames were hideous and I didn't even like em back then. This is liking old things because they're old and/or it bothers you having different frames mixed up in your deck because you only play legacy and don't really care beyond that format.
I like using white border basic land in my decks that run fetches. It makes them quick to find. Always liked how the white border cards made the cards like pop out more. The only issues is dirt shows easily.
The new border puts too much weight at the bottom of the card visually. I don't like it.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Isn't this good news for fair enough that is indeed another reason to use them. I stand corrected haha.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
First, why do they need a new font? The current font seems to be perfectly acceptable, to me. Second, I do agree that a holofoil stamp seems to be a good idea, but it shall not interfere with an entire card being foil, will it? Third, I can understand that, but why is the black border thicker at the bottom? Would it not have been possible to have the machine-readable information while keeping the border the same size?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
They didn't really say what the advantages are of a new font, but it's actually quite common for big corporations to make them. It won't help them vis-a-vis counterfeitting, but it would allow them to license the electronic version of the font, so it could be a revenue generator for them if magic web sites, video games, etc. want to use the font.
They haven't shown how the foil stamp interacts with a full-foil card but they must have already considered that so it won't be a problem.
As for the thicker border at the bottom, if you look at this mockup you can see that you can restore the old border but only by collapsing all the card indexing info on one line. It's possible that WotC has plans for that space and thus doesn't want to constrain themselves with only one line of text.
Having looked at several images of the new border, while I agree it might not be the best solution, it's not too jarring and you can get accustomed to it quickly.
There is also one other benefit to white border card they do not show nicks on the edge of the card as easily. White borders were probably cheaper too for wizards since they don't need as much black ink. I don't care either way too much. There both fine it just bugs some people to have different borders.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
When asking for if something was stolen on Kamigawa:
Have some irony:
I don't have their new font but it will look something like this I bet.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Or I might get some and then hate it with a passion. You never know with these things
When asking for if something was stolen on Kamigawa:
Have some irony:
They probably don't make this "necessary" distinction since it is something you made up and only exists in your own mind.