Changing the card back is a no go purely on the basis that it would require sleeves for anyone who wants to play anything but standard or limited. Entrenched players may already be accustomed to using sleeves and posting opinions on forums, but the casual crowd is not. I remember when I first started playing Magic. Nobody I knew used sleeves, nor could we afford them. Lack of access to sleeves is the same reason why checklist cards exist for DFCs, except you can't print checklist cards for a whole set.
This is a change that would kill Magic.
Changing packaging is fine. Changing digital card appearance is fine. Changing the back of physical cards is not.
: The Gathering is clunky, but it never bothered me before. I don't care if they start leaving it off of packaging or whatever. Branding, branding, capitalism, capitalism. I don't care about their piddling brand, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't change the game.
Changing the card back on the other hand would be catastrophic for me personally. I would have to cut off my cube from including new cards, or invest in a lot of expensive sleeves. That gives me serious incentive not to buy new cards. Penny-sleeves are the way to go if you have thousands of cards to sleeve, and unsleeved kitchen-table Magic is the core of the game. DFCs rocked the boat on that one, but most people are satisfied to play in-deck proxies, or just not use them.
I understand aesthetic criticism of the card-backs, but gameplay is always more important than aesthetics. Also, changing aesthetics to be hip and now is how you get things that look dated in a decade anyway.
I don't really like the idea of changing the card backs. It just kind of invites a level of cheating. The Arabian nights back was originally going to be the same color as the packs. They were really inconsistent with the printing back in the day for a number of reasons. Back when type 2 was a thing, and had a restricted list, people used to cheat their opponents strip mine to the top and pray it was their only land. There was a point where playing alpha cards was frowned upon for similar reasons. And unless your sleeves are black or brown, you can still make out the back of the cards. I stopped grinding after the third time I thought mtg was going to die. Now I'm a filthy casual, so I don't really care much either way, it just wouldn't be a good idea to change the card backs of a 25 year old game. People had fits each time the front of the cards changed, and that has zero impact on the game. Changing the backs would wreak havoc on organized play. Even with sleeves most pros still used the checklist cards, and I doubt it was their choice. The new invocations don't even look like magic cards. If that's the direction they're going in, I could see a full card overhaul, including the back. Those things are mad fugly, though so I hope it doesn't happen.
If magic was an entirely digital product, and card-back was an arbitrary thing (such as in hearthstone) then they would have changed it ages ago.
Regardless of whether we love it or not, it's dated and much less inviting to a new audience than one would like for an internationally sold product. It could definitely do with an update.
But as others have mentioned, in paper magic this causes all kinds of issues & isn't really feasible. Maybe they could differentiate their online and paper offerings by introducing new card-backs to mtgo. Seems like a win-win to me. People who have nostalgia for the old back could keep it, and players who want something updated or even themed to new sets or events could have the newer option. Right? 0% of anyone finding anything to grumble about there, everyone gets what they want.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Changing the backs would be silly and pointless....****, they're probably going to do it then, aren't they?
I love the backs of M:tG cards, completely disregarding nostalgia reasons. They're fantastic. I've got a soft spot for old school fantasy and sci-fi art, and they hit all the right notes. The backs looking like the cover of a spellbook is great. I don't like the "But they need to be fresh and moooooooodernized" argument. No they don't. Stick to the branding that's worked for 25 years now.
I didn't even know the pen mark was an accident until a few years ago. I thought it was a striation running through stone, and I LOVED that.
To be honest, I don't even like the garish orange Magic logo on advertising. I think it looks gaudy and ugly. The blue has a touch of class and looks nice.
While MtG was originally intended to have different card backs, I think this was a bullet dodged by the early designs and one that should be endeared to continue as is. The argument to change the card back are just well... not justifiable. The pen mark? Coloring? Looking "dated"?
Changing the card back would be the ultimate slap in the face to collectors and players alike. It basically amounts to a "reboot" of the entire game. WotC changed a lot of things about the game, but changing the backs would, seems to me, that WotC has lost confidence in their product but want to try and continue milking the cash cow. It would be the ultimate excuse to once and for all forever drop every format except Standard and never ever look back again.
All emotions aside... talking about this logically.
First off...
For their specific regions, have any of the CCGs changed their card backs during the life of the CCG? Even Nintendo kept the same card back on their U.S. Pokemon cards after WotC no longer printed them. I recall LotR (?) changed their backs but the new version was incompatible with the old anyways. Anyone else? Keep in mind, I'm not asking about different regions with their different backs.
Secondly... what studies and surveys? I have never heard people say the card backs were a factor negatively influencing the purchase of MtG. People talk about it of course, but I have never heard a potential player say, "these card backs are awful, I'm not buying the game." Or "these backs are so annoying, I'm quitting the game."
Pokémon had different card back for Japanese and English.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
While MtG was originally intended to have different card backs, I think this was a bullet dodged by the early designs and one that should be endeared to continue as is. The argument to change the card back are just well... not justifiable. The pen mark? Coloring? Looking "dated"?
Changing the card back would be the ultimate slap in the face to collectors and players alike. It basically amounts to a "reboot" of the entire game. WotC changed a lot of things about the game, but changing the backs would, seems to me, that WotC has lost confidence in their product but want to try and continue milking the cash cow. It would be the ultimate excuse to once and for all forever drop every format except Standard and never ever look back again.
All emotions aside... talking about this logically.
First off...
For their specific regions, have any of the CCGs changed their card backs during the life of the CCG? Even Nintendo kept the same card back on their U.S. Pokemon cards after WotC no longer printed them. I recall LotR (?) changed their backs but the new version was incompatible with the old anyways. Anyone else? Keep in mind, I'm not asking about different regions with their different backs.
Secondly... what studies and surveys? I have never heard people say the card backs were a factor negatively influencing the purchase of MtG. People talk about it of course, but I have never heard a potential player say, "these card backs are awful, I'm not buying the game." Or "these backs are so annoying, I'm quitting the game."
Pokémon had different card back for Japanese and English.
That's because the game is Japanese and kept the Pocket Monster name (yeah, it turns out the Japanese trademark for Pokemon is actually Pocket Monsters, Pokemon being a trademarked contraction; That differs from Digimon, who actually got the name Digimon mainly trademarked), so the English cards need to reflect the English name. Same with Yu-Gi-Oh, which is a totally different game in Japan than in America, with even different banlists and all that. Hell, you can't play in America with Japanese YGO cards (those are OCG, while America has TCG). Magic's case is different and, according to what I read, not gonna happen (It's something that goes on and off for the supplementary material, like Modern Masters). Until a main set appears with the change, it's left as an experiment, nothing more, and Magic remains as "Magic: the Gathering" until further notice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Let's get Random! Forum Set Make! (W/B)(U/R)(B/G)(R/W)(G/U)Mornad Broken (Active)(W/B)(U/R)(B/G)(R/W)(G/U)
While MtG was originally intended to have different card backs, I think this was a bullet dodged by the early designs and one that should be endeared to continue as is. The argument to change the card back are just well... not justifiable. The pen mark? Coloring? Looking "dated"?
Changing the card back would be the ultimate slap in the face to collectors and players alike. It basically amounts to a "reboot" of the entire game. WotC changed a lot of things about the game, but changing the backs would, seems to me, that WotC has lost confidence in their product but want to try and continue milking the cash cow. It would be the ultimate excuse to once and for all forever drop every format except Standard and never ever look back again.
All emotions aside... talking about this logically.
First off...
For their specific regions, have any of the CCGs changed their card backs during the life of the CCG? Even Nintendo kept the same card back on their U.S. Pokemon cards after WotC no longer printed them. I recall LotR (?) changed their backs but the new version was incompatible with the old anyways. Anyone else? Keep in mind, I'm not asking about different regions with their different backs.
Secondly... what studies and surveys? I have never heard people say the card backs were a factor negatively influencing the purchase of MtG. People talk about it of course, but I have never heard a potential player say, "these card backs are awful, I'm not buying the game." Or "these backs are so annoying, I'm quitting the game."
Pokémon had different card back for Japanese and English.
I specifically wrote, "Keep in mind, I'm not asking about different regions with their different backs." My post isn't about different card backs for different markets. This is about an existing product with an existing well known card back design (possibly) changing their card back in an existing, well established, market.
In a nutshell, my example wasn't whether Pokemon has diferent card backs for Japan and U.S. but rather that Nintendo made an effort to retain compatibility with the WotC cards. Nintendo could have easily printed the new cards with new card backs back then.
Legend of the Five Rings survived a card back change (a forced change, in their case). It could happen, and the game would go on, but I'm in the "leave it alone" camp. I think the unchanged card back is a testament to the longevity and permanence of the game. In a world where so many CCGs came & went, M:TG was the originator and still reigns supreme.
Changing the name/logo they use on boosters and packaging is whatever, but changing your the card back needs to have a better reason than aesthetics. Looks are subjective anyway. One man's "aesthetically pleasing" is another man's "fugly", and what is "modernized" today is "dated" tomorrow. In this very thread, we have people saying they hate Magic's current card back alongside people saying it's perfect. You think any new back would be any less divisive?
I, for one, would love to see them update the card back. You could still use cards with older backs in formats that would have older and newer cards mixed together, but it could be enforced that sufficiently dense sleeves are used. It's already expected with double faced cards, for instance.
I know this would sound extreme to many people, but so did double-faced cards.
No. Double faced cards have a way to make them legal in any kind of sleeve with checklist cards. The new idea you're proposing has no way of making cards legal in sleeves that are even slightly see through with cards with the different card back. Cheating is already a big enough issue, this just makes it worse. TCG's should NEVER change their card back, period.
@MinaHarcourt: Don't care about collectors? Read this
Didn't they already do this for mm2? I think they might just call it 'Magic' in the future at some point anyway, attention span's too short for kids these days.
dyllbert asked: Maybe not really your department, but is there a reason MM3 only says "Magic" instead of "Magic the Gathering" on all the packaging?
MaRo: Something we’re experimenting with on supplemental products.
unfortunately, trying out different printings and foilings in those products seems to be an experiment as well. MM 3 cards are one ugly, washed out mess.
The idea that the younger generation's attention span is somehow too short to read three word titles is frankly ridiculous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
The main issue with removing "the Gathering" from the name is that it makes the title too generic. Maybe they think the later two words are implied on the current box of Modern Masters?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Didn't they already do this for mm2? I think they might just call it 'Magic' in the future at some point anyway, attention span's too short for kids these days.
dyllbert asked: Maybe not really your department, but is there a reason MM3 only says "Magic" instead of "Magic the Gathering" on all the packaging?
MaRo: Something we’re experimenting with on supplemental products.
unfortunately, trying out different printings and foilings in those products seems to be an experiment as well. MM 3 cards are one ugly, washed out mess.
The idea that the younger generation's attention span is somehow too short to read three word titles is frankly ridiculous.
Some of us are playing with cardboard worth a thousand dollars or more, that's pretty ridiculous too, isn't it? Joking aside, I tried to be funny with a pinch of truth added to it. Put the emphasis on TRIED.
I'm SO SICK of the "too strong for Standard" argument. It's the new "Dies to removal". We can have a two mana 4/4 with a zillion abilities, but we can't just have Accumulated Knowledge. Makes sense.
Ugin is going to get really bad once all the fatties are colourless. I sold all mine. Sell sell sell!
He's going to be absolutely rotten. Hangarback walker has already nerfed him quite significantly. I reckon he'll be $3 junk within 2 months of rotation
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a change that would kill Magic.
Changing packaging is fine. Changing digital card appearance is fine. Changing the back of physical cards is not.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Changing the card back on the other hand would be catastrophic for me personally. I would have to cut off my cube from including new cards, or invest in a lot of expensive sleeves. That gives me serious incentive not to buy new cards. Penny-sleeves are the way to go if you have thousands of cards to sleeve, and unsleeved kitchen-table Magic is the core of the game. DFCs rocked the boat on that one, but most people are satisfied to play in-deck proxies, or just not use them.
I understand aesthetic criticism of the card-backs, but gameplay is always more important than aesthetics. Also, changing aesthetics to be hip and now is how you get things that look dated in a decade anyway.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Not only that, but the majority of laymen I have talked to about the game know it by reputation as simply "Magic" or they talk about "Magic cards".
Removing "the gathering" is simply reflecting a common colloquialism. You people need to chill out.
Regardless of whether we love it or not, it's dated and much less inviting to a new audience than one would like for an internationally sold product. It could definitely do with an update.
But as others have mentioned, in paper magic this causes all kinds of issues & isn't really feasible. Maybe they could differentiate their online and paper offerings by introducing new card-backs to mtgo. Seems like a win-win to me. People who have nostalgia for the old back could keep it, and players who want something updated or even themed to new sets or events could have the newer option. Right? 0% of anyone finding anything to grumble about there, everyone gets what they want.
I love the backs of M:tG cards, completely disregarding nostalgia reasons. They're fantastic. I've got a soft spot for old school fantasy and sci-fi art, and they hit all the right notes. The backs looking like the cover of a spellbook is great. I don't like the "But they need to be fresh and moooooooodernized" argument. No they don't. Stick to the branding that's worked for 25 years now.
I didn't even know the pen mark was an accident until a few years ago. I thought it was a striation running through stone, and I LOVED that.
To be honest, I don't even like the garish orange Magic logo on advertising. I think it looks gaudy and ugly. The blue has a touch of class and looks nice.
Pokémon had different card back for Japanese and English.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
That's because the game is Japanese and kept the Pocket Monster name (yeah, it turns out the Japanese trademark for Pokemon is actually Pocket Monsters, Pokemon being a trademarked contraction; That differs from Digimon, who actually got the name Digimon mainly trademarked), so the English cards need to reflect the English name. Same with Yu-Gi-Oh, which is a totally different game in Japan than in America, with even different banlists and all that. Hell, you can't play in America with Japanese YGO cards (those are OCG, while America has TCG). Magic's case is different and, according to what I read, not gonna happen (It's something that goes on and off for the supplementary material, like Modern Masters). Until a main set appears with the change, it's left as an experiment, nothing more, and Magic remains as "Magic: the Gathering" until further notice.
Forum Set Make!
(W/B)(U/R)(B/G)(R/W)(G/U)Mornad Broken (Active)(W/B)(U/R)(B/G)(R/W)(G/U)
My decks:
(R/G)Atarka, the Beastly Dragon Call (EDH)(R/G)
I specifically wrote, "Keep in mind, I'm not asking about different regions with their different backs." My post isn't about different card backs for different markets. This is about an existing product with an existing well known card back design (possibly) changing their card back in an existing, well established, market.
In a nutshell, my example wasn't whether Pokemon has diferent card backs for Japan and U.S. but rather that Nintendo made an effort to retain compatibility with the WotC cards. Nintendo could have easily printed the new cards with new card backs back then.
No. Double faced cards have a way to make them legal in any kind of sleeve with checklist cards. The new idea you're proposing has no way of making cards legal in sleeves that are even slightly see through with cards with the different card back. Cheating is already a big enough issue, this just makes it worse. TCG's should NEVER change their card back, period.
@MinaHarcourt: Don't care about collectors? Read this
Currently Playing:
Retired
-Chandra Nalaar
There is a difference between caring about collectors and caring about people who could sue you and would likely win... who happen to be collectors.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Some of us are playing with cardboard worth a thousand dollars or more, that's pretty ridiculous too, isn't it? Joking aside, I tried to be funny with a pinch of truth added to it. Put the emphasis on TRIED.
thanks to DNC of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the coolest sig
vintage-WBdark timesBW
legacy-BGRJund-51/60BGR
RBBob Sligh 48/60BR
GRone land belcherRG
URBTES-54/60URB
Fun deck-BBBBKobolds stormBBBB
Go home khazix, u just mad cause u can't even hold magic cards due to your BIG MEATY CLAWS!