I don't like DFCs at all honestly. I'm the minority but I just can't stand them. I'd prefer if the Legendary could be sacrificed when its condition is met and you get to place the PW version from your hand/deck onto the battlefield, instead. IMO.
If I'm being perfectly honest, I would have preferred the legendary and planeswalker versions to be entirely separate. I know that's dumb since the whole set is themed on leveling up and igniting sparks and all that. But for some reason it would have been more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable for me if the cards were just two separate entities. They could also make the creature versions a little more complex and perhaps even powerful if it didn't also have to transform into/fetch a walker.
Yes, but that would use up 5 extra mythic spots, leaving out 5 other cool mythics. And it would cause problems in draft, drafting two specific mythics is nearly impossible, making the 'walker version a dead pick if it required the creature to be sac'd.
I also wonder if this means Huntmaster of the fells and delver in next Modern Masters
Well, strictly speaking the next Modern Masters is MM2015, which won't contain anything from Innistrad. Assuming you meant the subsequent Modern Masters, I figure it's possible they'll just have a separate DFC sheet like in Innistrad and Dark Ascension. They could make Werewolves a draftable archetype and find 20 DFCs to reprint easily enough.
Highly unlikely. There were only around 30 DFCs in the Innistrad blocks, so finding 20 to reprint wouldn't be easy, especially in a Modern Masters set. Delver and Huntmaster would definitely make the cut. Maybe Mayor of Avabruck too, if they did decide to make Werewolves draftable (which would be very limiting) and reprinted Champion of the Parish alongside it. Not many DFCs besides those deserve to be in Modern Masters.
I also wonder if this means Huntmaster of the fells and delver in next Modern Masters
Well, strictly speaking the next Modern Masters is MM2015, which won't contain anything from Innistrad. Assuming you meant the subsequent Modern Masters, I figure it's possible they'll just have a separate DFC sheet like in Innistrad and Dark Ascension. They could make Werewolves a draftable archetype and find 20 DFCs to reprint easily enough.
Highly unlikely. There were only around 30 DFCs in the Innistrad blocks, so finding 20 to reprint wouldn't be easy, especially in a Modern Masters set. Delver and Huntmaster would definitely make the cut. Maybe Mayor of Avabruck too, if they did decide to make Werewolves draftable (which would be very limiting) and reprinted Champion of the Parish alongside it. Not many DFCs besides those deserve to be in Modern Masters.
I think you're confused about what constitutes "deserving" to be in Modern Masters. You seem to think that all 20 cards would have to be chase rares. It is necessary that every Modern Masters set has significant amounts of draft fodder at the lower rarities so that it can be a compelling draft format. If, for the sake of argument, werewolves was one of the archetypes in Modern Masters 2017, they'd need to fill those common and uncommon slots with unexciting but functional werewolves. Innistrad's double-faced sheet had 7 commons, 6 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. The total number of werewolves in Innistrad and Dark Ascension was 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. So there's plenty of wiggle room if they wanted to even out the colours a bit or remove genuinely unprintable werewolves (not sure which those would be, though). They won't be reprinting 20 rares on that sheet, but they could certainly find 20 cards to reprint if they wanted.
Does anyone have any idea when to expect a Jace spoiler? I love Liliana, so the Liliana DFC has me excited! But my darling likes Jace, and I want to start putting together a deck.
I don't like DFCs at all honestly. I'm the minority but I just can't stand them. I'd prefer if the Legendary could be sacrificed when its condition is met and you get to place the PW version from your hand/deck onto the battlefield, instead. IMO.
If I'm being perfectly honest, I would have preferred the legendary and planeswalker versions to be entirely separate. I know that's dumb since the whole set is themed on leveling up and igniting sparks and all that. But for some reason it would have been more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable for me if the cards were just two separate entities. They could also make the creature versions a little more complex and perhaps even powerful if it didn't also have to transform into/fetch a walker.
Yes, but that would use up 5 extra mythic spots, leaving out 5 other cool mythics. And it would cause problems in draft, drafting two specific mythics is nearly impossible, making the 'walker version a dead pick if it required the creature to be sac'd.
You misunderstand, I meant I'd prefer the legendary creatures not turn into their planeswalkers at all. They'd just be two completely separate cards representing the same character at different points in their lives. But I agree about taking up extra mythic slots.
I would've liked them to just go with double faced cards as a returning mechanic but I'll settle for my Duel Sided Legend2Walkers. As I've said before I think this is a neat way to add more planeswalkers as commanders and I'm excited to see what new mechanics we get. Too bad we'll have to wait until June to likely see any spoilers.
Its funny to read all the positive comments now about the prospect of having DFCs in the future and remembering how negative everyone was about them when they were first announced to be in ISD.
I have to admit I thought the idea of DFCs was silly when they were first anounced too but ended up really enjoying a lot them. I have at least 7 of them in my cube that I can think of off the top of my head.
Much ink has already been spilled discussing how much better DFCs play than how they look at first blush. I think most people were alarmed at the breaking of an as-yet unbroken rule. Once people got to play with them they realised the concerns they had weren't such a big deal (well, most people feel that way, as you can see there are still some in this thread who have a different opinion).
The problem with DFCs is not a matter of how the cards look or if somebody likes them. It's that they are terrible, terrible game design, since they are literally unplayable as printed. Printing Magic cards without the uniform card back is not simply breaking an as-yet unbroken rule, it is breaking an unbreakable rule. You can not randomize a deck of cards unless all card backs look the same. Since you have to randomize your deck at the start of each game, a deck that contains even a single card with a clearly distinct back side (like a DFC) makes the deck literally unplayable.
Sure, they somewhat awkwardly worked in practice, because you could use one of two possible accessories to use DFCs without making your deck unplayable: Opaque sleeves (which really have to be 100% opaque - thousands of players suffered match losses for playing with "marked cards, pattern" due to accidentally using colored, but not fully opaque sleeves) or checklist cards (which are butt-ugly, don't contain all the information about the card they stand for and need you to have the actual card close by in a special kind of sideboard). So, even though you could make DFCs work in practice, they introduced a lot of problems that just aren't there with cards that have the standard, uniform card back. You know, cards that are actually playable on their own.
Criticising DFCs gets often discredited as simply not liking them for aesthecial reasons, when they are actually criticised for being one of the worst design decisions Wizards ever made. Printing and selling unplayable cards is a big deal.
Its funny to read all the positive comments now about the prospect of having DFCs in the future and remembering how negative everyone was about them when they were first announced to be in ISD.
I have to admit I thought the idea of DFCs was silly when they were first anounced too but ended up really enjoying a lot them. I have at least 7 of them in my cube that I can think of off the top of my head.
Much ink has already been spilled discussing how much better DFCs play than how they look at first blush. I think most people were alarmed at the breaking of an as-yet unbroken rule. Once people got to play with them they realised the concerns they had weren't such a big deal (well, most people feel that way, as you can see there are still some in this thread who have a different opinion).
The problem with DFCs is not a matter of how the cards look or if somebody likes them. It's that they are terrible, terrible game design, since they are literally unplayable as printed. Printing Magic cards without the uniform card back is not simply breaking an as-yet unbroken rule, it is breaking an unbreakable rule. You can not randomize a deck of cards unless all card backs look the same. Since you have to randomize your deck at the start of each game, a deck that contains even a single card with a clearly distinct back side (like a DFC) makes the deck literally unplayable.
Sure, they somewhat awkwardly worked in practice, because you could use one of two possible accessories to use DFCs without making your deck unplayable: Opaque sleeves (which really have to be 100% opaque - thousands of players suffered match losses for playing with "marked cards, pattern" due to accidentally using colored, but not fully opaque sleeves) or checklist cards (which are butt-ugly, don't contain all the information about the card they stand for and need you to have the actual card close by in a special kind of sideboard). So, even though you could make DFCs work in practice, they introduced a lot of problems that just aren't there with cards that have the standard, uniform card back. You know, cards that are actually playable on their own.
Criticising DFCs gets often discredited as simply not liking them for aesthecial reasons, when they are actually criticised for being one of the worst design decisions Wizards ever made. Printing and selling unplayable cards is a big deal.
No, your criticism is not being misinterpreted as aesthetics (when did I even mention aesthetics in my post?). Your criticisms just actually are that trivial. Using the checklists or sleeves (or both) is not that big a deal. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but you have to understand at this point that you're on the wrong side of history there. The rest of us have tried it and are perfectly fine with it.
Everyone uses sleeves. I don't see the problem. What I don't like is taking the cards in and out of sleeves during the game because that wears them down a lot. So I just flip the card over, sleeve and all and expect my opponent to know what it is. Since I only use Delver, its not that hard.
Yeah...that's why I hope DFC stay a rare, special thing. Imagine a deck containing 30 DFC....all this switching back and forth in the sleeves would really suck.
As a werewolf tribal player its not a huge deal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Everyone uses sleeves. I don't see the problem. What I don't like is taking the cards in and out of sleeves during the game because that wears them down a lot. So I just flip the card over, sleeve and all and expect my opponent to know what it is. Since I only use Delver, its not that hard.
I do believe that that is a rules violation since a card flipped over is a 2/2 colorless creature.
I just like seeing DFCs again, even if only on a cycle of Mythics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Everyone uses sleeves. I don't see the problem. What I don't like is taking the cards in and out of sleeves during the game because that wears them down a lot. So I just flip the card over, sleeve and all and expect my opponent to know what it is. Since I only use Delver, its not that hard.
Yeah...that's why I hope DFC stay a rare, special thing. Imagine a deck containing 30 DFC....all this switching back and forth in the sleeves would really suck.
So, never played with DFCs before, as I got into MTG during Born of the Gods. Would it be feasible to have a second copy of the card in a different-colored sleeve (or more cost-effectively, a proxied version of the back side of the card in a different colored sleeve) that could be the transformed representation? Being a different-colored sleeve allows it to be with the other cards but distinct from the sideboard. Alternatively, it might be interesting to try playing with clear sleeves and having an opaque insert, then remove the insert when the card is flipped over. When shuffling your deck, if you forgot to put the insert back in, it'll be quite noticeable. Would either of these solutions be viable?
Everyone uses sleeves. I don't see the problem. What I don't like is taking the cards in and out of sleeves during the game because that wears them down a lot. So I just flip the card over, sleeve and all and expect my opponent to know what it is. Since I only use Delver, its not that hard.
Yeah...that's why I hope DFC stay a rare, special thing. Imagine a deck containing 30 DFC....all this switching back and forth in the sleeves would really suck.
So, never played with DFCs before, as I got into MTG during Born of the Gods. Would it be feasible to have a second copy of the card in a different-colored sleeve (or more cost-effectively, a proxied version of the back side of the card in a different colored sleeve) that could be the transformed representation? Being a different-colored sleeve allows it to be with the other cards but distinct from the sideboard. Alternatively, it might be interesting to try playing with clear sleeves and having an opaque insert, then remove the insert when the card is flipped over. When shuffling your deck, if you forgot to put the insert back in, it'll be quite noticeable. Would either of these solutions be viable?
You can use the checklist card in your deck and have an actual copy of the card in a transparent sleeve for when it's in play.
I also wonder if this means Huntmaster of the fells and delver in next Modern Masters
Well, strictly speaking the next Modern Masters is MM2015, which won't contain anything from Innistrad. Assuming you meant the subsequent Modern Masters, I figure it's possible they'll just have a separate DFC sheet like in Innistrad and Dark Ascension. They could make Werewolves a draftable archetype and find 20 DFCs to reprint easily enough.
Highly unlikely. There were only around 30 DFCs in the Innistrad blocks, so finding 20 to reprint wouldn't be easy, especially in a Modern Masters set. Delver and Huntmaster would definitely make the cut. Maybe Mayor of Avabruck too, if they did decide to make Werewolves draftable (which would be very limiting) and reprinted Champion of the Parish alongside it. Not many DFCs besides those deserve to be in Modern Masters.
I think you're confused about what constitutes "deserving" to be in Modern Masters. You seem to think that all 20 cards would have to be chase rares. It is necessary that every Modern Masters set has significant amounts of draft fodder at the lower rarities so that it can be a compelling draft format. If, for the sake of argument, werewolves was one of the archetypes in Modern Masters 2017, they'd need to fill those common and uncommon slots with unexciting but functional werewolves. Innistrad's double-faced sheet had 7 commons, 6 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. The total number of werewolves in Innistrad and Dark Ascension was 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. So there's plenty of wiggle room if they wanted to even out the colours a bit or remove genuinely unprintable werewolves (not sure which those would be, though). They won't be reprinting 20 rares on that sheet, but they could certainly find 20 cards to reprint if they wanted.
I agree and disagree with you, man. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it if they wanted to. I'm saying it's very unlikely. Sure, there's plenty of cards of all rarities that play to the strategy, Immerwolf, Wolfir Avenger and Young Wolf. And plenty of cool DFCs to help push it like Reckless Waif and Scorned Villager. Not 20, but a few. Reprinting 20 would be reprinting about 2/3s of the original cards. They might as well be reprinting them all if that was the case. But they may be willing to produce DFCs in smaller quantities now, as Origins has shown so they could reprint a few. Not 20, but a few.
But if Innistrad is in the next one, then I'm assuming RTR is in the next one too, maybe Theros and Khans too, I don't know how they do that. None of them have Werewolves to support the strategy, so as I said, they'd be limited in what they could put in. Instead, they'll probably do a Gruul Ramp strategy for RG. They'd be able to include monsters from Theros and big Gruul boys from Ravnica. Even better would be Ferocious from Khans, if Khans is included. Many Werewolves would fit into a Ferocious strategy, but Ferocious creatures would be harder to fit in a Werewolf strategy.
I also wonder if this means Huntmaster of the fells and delver in next Modern Masters
Well, strictly speaking the next Modern Masters is MM2015, which won't contain anything from Innistrad. Assuming you meant the subsequent Modern Masters, I figure it's possible they'll just have a separate DFC sheet like in Innistrad and Dark Ascension. They could make Werewolves a draftable archetype and find 20 DFCs to reprint easily enough.
Highly unlikely. There were only around 30 DFCs in the Innistrad blocks, so finding 20 to reprint wouldn't be easy, especially in a Modern Masters set. Delver and Huntmaster would definitely make the cut. Maybe Mayor of Avabruck too, if they did decide to make Werewolves draftable (which would be very limiting) and reprinted Champion of the Parish alongside it. Not many DFCs besides those deserve to be in Modern Masters.
I think you're confused about what constitutes "deserving" to be in Modern Masters. You seem to think that all 20 cards would have to be chase rares. It is necessary that every Modern Masters set has significant amounts of draft fodder at the lower rarities so that it can be a compelling draft format. If, for the sake of argument, werewolves was one of the archetypes in Modern Masters 2017, they'd need to fill those common and uncommon slots with unexciting but functional werewolves. Innistrad's double-faced sheet had 7 commons, 6 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. The total number of werewolves in Innistrad and Dark Ascension was 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. So there's plenty of wiggle room if they wanted to even out the colours a bit or remove genuinely unprintable werewolves (not sure which those would be, though). They won't be reprinting 20 rares on that sheet, but they could certainly find 20 cards to reprint if they wanted.
I agree and disagree with you, man. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it if they wanted to. I'm saying it's very unlikely. Sure, there's plenty of cards of all rarities that play to the strategy, Immerwolf, Wolfir Avenger and Young Wolf. And plenty of cool DFCs to help push it like Reckless Waif and Scorned Villager. Not 20, but a few. Reprinting 20 would be reprinting about 2/3s of the original cards. They might as well be reprinting them all if that was the case. But they may be willing to produce DFCs in smaller quantities now, as Origins has shown so they could reprint a few. Not 20, but a few.
But if Innistrad is in the next one, then I'm assuming RTR is in the next one too, maybe Theros and Khans too, I don't know how they do that. None of them have Werewolves to support the strategy, so as I said, they'd be limited in what they could put in. Instead, they'll probably do a Gruul Ramp strategy for RG. They'd be able to include monsters from Theros and big Gruul boys from Ravnica. Even better would be Ferocious from Khans, if Khans is included. Many Werewolves would fit into a Ferocious strategy, but Ferocious creatures would be harder to fit in a Werewolf strategy.
Look at the archetypes in the original Modern Masters. Many of them pulled from relatively small pools of "on theme" cards. I don't see any problem with werewolves drawing primarily from Innistrad block, just as for instance Rebels and Saprolings drew primarily from Time Spiral. I also think it's a mistake to view reprints in terms of what is not reprinted. It doesn't matter if it's two thirds or two percent of the potential on-theme cards, what matters is if it makes sense as a draftable archetype. Now it's perfectly possible to argue that werewolves would not qualify under these criteria but you're not doing that, you're assuming there are quotas and requirements of how many cards from a given archetype must be from each set and what proportion of the original pool they are and I think that's just false. Really, we're discussing this with absolutely no information, not even whether the set we're discussing will even exist, so it's inevitably going to be imprecise. Werewolves is a possible archetype they could reprint, with the bonus that it would give them an excuse to reprint Delver, but it's entirely possible that they end up building a set that doesn't accommodate them. I don't agree that anything we know at this stage precludes that, though, and certainly not the fact that all werewolves are from Innistrad or that there are only 33 double faced cards.
Everyone uses sleeves. I don't see the problem. What I don't like is taking the cards in and out of sleeves during the game because that wears them down a lot. So I just flip the card over, sleeve and all and expect my opponent to know what it is. Since I only use Delver, its not that hard.
Yeah...that's why I hope DFC stay a rare, special thing. Imagine a deck containing 30 DFC....all this switching back and forth in the sleeves would really suck.
So, never played with DFCs before, as I got into MTG during Born of the Gods. Would it be feasible to have a second copy of the card in a different-colored sleeve (or more cost-effectively, a proxied version of the back side of the card in a different colored sleeve) that could be the transformed representation? Being a different-colored sleeve allows it to be with the other cards but distinct from the sideboard. Alternatively, it might be interesting to try playing with clear sleeves and having an opaque insert, then remove the insert when the card is flipped over. When shuffling your deck, if you forgot to put the insert back in, it'll be quite noticeable. Would either of these solutions be viable?
You can use the checklist card in your deck and have an actual copy of the card in a transparent sleeve for when it's in play.
Well, right, but I'm thinking of ways to avoid taking the card in and out of its sleeve as well as not have to use a checklist card. Maybe the simplest version would be for Wizards to create a proxy version that would be in the Token slot for each of the DFCs. In other words, we'd have a Liliana, Heretical Healer proxy version that would have a normal MTG card back to it (and some kind of way to know from the front that it was the proxy version) and would only be tournament legal if you then had the real version to replace it with on the board in a clear sleeve after casting. Barring that, if someone doesn't want to use the checklist card or flip the card by taking it out of its sleeve, the options I presented are potential options. Just didn't know if anyone had ever tried either before.
Well, right, but I'm thinking of ways to avoid taking the card in and out of its sleeve as well as not have to use a checklist card. Maybe the simplest version would be for Wizards to create a proxy version that would be in the Token slot for each of the DFCs. In other words, we'd have a Liliana, Heretical Healer proxy version that would have a normal MTG card back to it (and some kind of way to know from the front that it was the proxy version) and would only be tournament legal if you then had the real version to replace it with on the board in a clear sleeve after casting. Barring that, if someone doesn't want to use the checklist card or flip the card by taking it out of its sleeve, the options I presented are potential options. Just didn't know if anyone had ever tried either before.
I don't see how this is any better than a checklist card.
Well, right, but I'm thinking of ways to avoid taking the card in and out of its sleeve as well as not have to use a checklist card. Maybe the simplest version would be for Wizards to create a proxy version that would be in the Token slot for each of the DFCs. In other words, we'd have a Liliana, Heretical Healer proxy version that would have a normal MTG card back to it (and some kind of way to know from the front that it was the proxy version) and would only be tournament legal if you then had the real version to replace it with on the board in a clear sleeve after casting. Barring that, if someone doesn't want to use the checklist card or flip the card by taking it out of its sleeve, the options I presented are potential options. Just didn't know if anyone had ever tried either before.
I don't see how this is any better than a checklist card.
It's better in the sense that a checklist card doesn't show anything about the card you're casting other than it's casting cost. You'd have to keep referencing the card you've checklisted to make sure you strategize correctly if you don't have it memorized. A proxied version would tell you what the card does and would also be clearly labeled as a proxy. To JohnnyDegenerate's point, it may be confusing to new players, but DFCs are somewhat confusing in general, especially with Morph/Manifest/Megamorph in at the same time. Case in point, you tell a new player that a DFC always has a face-up, never a face-down, and cannot be flipped down by anything (like Ixidron)... yet they can Manifest it "face-down." I don't see how a proxied version of the upside face-up is more confusing than that, but it could definitely be an additional source of confusion if not handled properly.
It's better in the sense that a checklist card doesn't show anything about the card you're casting other than it's casting cost. You'd have to keep referencing the card you've checklisted to make sure you strategize correctly if you don't have it memorized. A proxied version would tell you what the card does and would also be clearly labeled as a proxy. To JohnnyDegenerate's point, it may be confusing to new players, but DFCs are somewhat confusing in general, especially with Morph/Manifest/Megamorph in at the same time. Case in point, you tell a new player that a DFC always has a face-up, never a face-down, and cannot be flipped down by anything (like Ixidron)... yet they can Manifest it "face-down." I don't see how a proxied version of the upside face-up is more confusing than that, but it could definitely be an additional source of confusion if not handled properly.
Back when I played my Werewolf deck a lot I had actually printed out the back side of my wolves and would just place it on top of it's card whenever I needed to flip it. It worked out quite well and the token backs got wrecked by play and not the actual card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, but that would use up 5 extra mythic spots, leaving out 5 other cool mythics. And it would cause problems in draft, drafting two specific mythics is nearly impossible, making the 'walker version a dead pick if it required the creature to be sac'd.
Highly unlikely. There were only around 30 DFCs in the Innistrad blocks, so finding 20 to reprint wouldn't be easy, especially in a Modern Masters set. Delver and Huntmaster would definitely make the cut. Maybe Mayor of Avabruck too, if they did decide to make Werewolves draftable (which would be very limiting) and reprinted Champion of the Parish alongside it. Not many DFCs besides those deserve to be in Modern Masters.
I think you're confused about what constitutes "deserving" to be in Modern Masters. You seem to think that all 20 cards would have to be chase rares. It is necessary that every Modern Masters set has significant amounts of draft fodder at the lower rarities so that it can be a compelling draft format. If, for the sake of argument, werewolves was one of the archetypes in Modern Masters 2017, they'd need to fill those common and uncommon slots with unexciting but functional werewolves. Innistrad's double-faced sheet had 7 commons, 6 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. The total number of werewolves in Innistrad and Dark Ascension was 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 6 rares and 1 mythic. So there's plenty of wiggle room if they wanted to even out the colours a bit or remove genuinely unprintable werewolves (not sure which those would be, though). They won't be reprinting 20 rares on that sheet, but they could certainly find 20 cards to reprint if they wanted.
You misunderstand, I meant I'd prefer the legendary creatures not turn into their planeswalkers at all. They'd just be two completely separate cards representing the same character at different points in their lives. But I agree about taking up extra mythic slots.
CUBE: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/73964;jsessionid=2DE1F5FF41A24820A137448A2FD5CF8F
I LIKE DRAGONS!
The problem with DFCs is not a matter of how the cards look or if somebody likes them. It's that they are terrible, terrible game design, since they are literally unplayable as printed. Printing Magic cards without the uniform card back is not simply breaking an as-yet unbroken rule, it is breaking an unbreakable rule. You can not randomize a deck of cards unless all card backs look the same. Since you have to randomize your deck at the start of each game, a deck that contains even a single card with a clearly distinct back side (like a DFC) makes the deck literally unplayable.
Sure, they somewhat awkwardly worked in practice, because you could use one of two possible accessories to use DFCs without making your deck unplayable: Opaque sleeves (which really have to be 100% opaque - thousands of players suffered match losses for playing with "marked cards, pattern" due to accidentally using colored, but not fully opaque sleeves) or checklist cards (which are butt-ugly, don't contain all the information about the card they stand for and need you to have the actual card close by in a special kind of sideboard). So, even though you could make DFCs work in practice, they introduced a lot of problems that just aren't there with cards that have the standard, uniform card back. You know, cards that are actually playable on their own.
Criticising DFCs gets often discredited as simply not liking them for aesthecial reasons, when they are actually criticised for being one of the worst design decisions Wizards ever made. Printing and selling unplayable cards is a big deal.
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
No, your criticism is not being misinterpreted as aesthetics (when did I even mention aesthetics in my post?). Your criticisms just actually are that trivial. Using the checklists or sleeves (or both) is not that big a deal. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but you have to understand at this point that you're on the wrong side of history there. The rest of us have tried it and are perfectly fine with it.
As a werewolf tribal player its not a huge deal.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I do believe that that is a rules violation since a card flipped over is a 2/2 colorless creature.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
So, never played with DFCs before, as I got into MTG during Born of the Gods. Would it be feasible to have a second copy of the card in a different-colored sleeve (or more cost-effectively, a proxied version of the back side of the card in a different colored sleeve) that could be the transformed representation? Being a different-colored sleeve allows it to be with the other cards but distinct from the sideboard. Alternatively, it might be interesting to try playing with clear sleeves and having an opaque insert, then remove the insert when the card is flipped over. When shuffling your deck, if you forgot to put the insert back in, it'll be quite noticeable. Would either of these solutions be viable?
I agree and disagree with you, man. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it if they wanted to. I'm saying it's very unlikely. Sure, there's plenty of cards of all rarities that play to the strategy, Immerwolf, Wolfir Avenger and Young Wolf. And plenty of cool DFCs to help push it like Reckless Waif and Scorned Villager. Not 20, but a few. Reprinting 20 would be reprinting about 2/3s of the original cards. They might as well be reprinting them all if that was the case. But they may be willing to produce DFCs in smaller quantities now, as Origins has shown so they could reprint a few. Not 20, but a few.
But if Innistrad is in the next one, then I'm assuming RTR is in the next one too, maybe Theros and Khans too, I don't know how they do that. None of them have Werewolves to support the strategy, so as I said, they'd be limited in what they could put in. Instead, they'll probably do a Gruul Ramp strategy for RG. They'd be able to include monsters from Theros and big Gruul boys from Ravnica. Even better would be Ferocious from Khans, if Khans is included. Many Werewolves would fit into a Ferocious strategy, but Ferocious creatures would be harder to fit in a Werewolf strategy.
Look at the archetypes in the original Modern Masters. Many of them pulled from relatively small pools of "on theme" cards. I don't see any problem with werewolves drawing primarily from Innistrad block, just as for instance Rebels and Saprolings drew primarily from Time Spiral. I also think it's a mistake to view reprints in terms of what is not reprinted. It doesn't matter if it's two thirds or two percent of the potential on-theme cards, what matters is if it makes sense as a draftable archetype. Now it's perfectly possible to argue that werewolves would not qualify under these criteria but you're not doing that, you're assuming there are quotas and requirements of how many cards from a given archetype must be from each set and what proportion of the original pool they are and I think that's just false. Really, we're discussing this with absolutely no information, not even whether the set we're discussing will even exist, so it's inevitably going to be imprecise. Werewolves is a possible archetype they could reprint, with the bonus that it would give them an excuse to reprint Delver, but it's entirely possible that they end up building a set that doesn't accommodate them. I don't agree that anything we know at this stage precludes that, though, and certainly not the fact that all werewolves are from Innistrad or that there are only 33 double faced cards.
Well, right, but I'm thinking of ways to avoid taking the card in and out of its sleeve as well as not have to use a checklist card. Maybe the simplest version would be for Wizards to create a proxy version that would be in the Token slot for each of the DFCs. In other words, we'd have a Liliana, Heretical Healer proxy version that would have a normal MTG card back to it (and some kind of way to know from the front that it was the proxy version) and would only be tournament legal if you then had the real version to replace it with on the board in a clear sleeve after casting. Barring that, if someone doesn't want to use the checklist card or flip the card by taking it out of its sleeve, the options I presented are potential options. Just didn't know if anyone had ever tried either before.
I don't see how this is any better than a checklist card.
It's better in the sense that a checklist card doesn't show anything about the card you're casting other than it's casting cost. You'd have to keep referencing the card you've checklisted to make sure you strategize correctly if you don't have it memorized. A proxied version would tell you what the card does and would also be clearly labeled as a proxy. To JohnnyDegenerate's point, it may be confusing to new players, but DFCs are somewhat confusing in general, especially with Morph/Manifest/Megamorph in at the same time. Case in point, you tell a new player that a DFC always has a face-up, never a face-down, and cannot be flipped down by anything (like Ixidron)... yet they can Manifest it "face-down." I don't see how a proxied version of the upside face-up is more confusing than that, but it could definitely be an additional source of confusion if not handled properly.
Should have a normal print run, it is a core set after all.
Back when I played my Werewolf deck a lot I had actually printed out the back side of my wolves and would just place it on top of it's card whenever I needed to flip it. It worked out quite well and the token backs got wrecked by play and not the actual card.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson