A New Big Change for Magic? | Moving Forward | Commander's Quarters Uncut | Magic the Gathering



The Commander’s Quarters is your Magic the Gathering source that helps you Command Your Budget! A New Big Change for Magic?

———-

Blogatog: https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/710973481232236544/should-enchantments-have-their-own-frame-yes#notes

———-

Support us directly, get rewards, and join The Commander’s Quarter’s community on our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/commandersquarters

———-

When you are buying decks or individual cards, make sure you are using any of our TCGplayer affiliate links below to help support the channel!

Commander’s Quarters general affiliate link: http://bit.ly/commandersquarters

Commander’s Quarters decklists: http://bit.ly/tcq_all-decklists

———-

Get your official Commander’s Quarters swag at:
http://thecommandersquarters.com/

———-

Follow and reach out to us on social media!

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecommandersquarters
Twitter: https://twitter.com/edhquarters
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecommandersquarters

source

47 thoughts on “A New Big Change for Magic? | Moving Forward | Commander's Quarters Uncut | Magic the Gathering”

  1. I have no problems with border on permanents in webcam Magic. The biggest problem are unreadable Secret Lair printings (The Scarab Gob, MSCHF, …) or other special threatments (DBL, Oil Slick, MID/VOW Fullart Lands, …). The new Elesh Norn has eleven printings, five of them with border, three of them not in Phyrexian and only one of them as no promo. Start printing entchantments with special entchantmentborder is ridiculous after the Rising of Collector Boosters filled with Borderless and Showcase threatments.

    Reply
  2. You just made me notice how wierd it is that the legendary lands have the "legendary top" and they have a color, they shouldn't because lands are colorless. Even if it was identity…Urborg does not have the black color identity, it just mentions swamp.

    So my only issue with special treatments is that they should have consistency. You are just adding an extra layer of "visual rules". As an example a two color card has a thin line with both colors and gold frame. Three colors and above all gold. There are so much permutations that everytime they add a new combination of visual rules it always creates a mess ie colored artifacts, creature/artifact enchantments (if they give enchantments a new treatment) which visual should they have.

    This just reminded me how wierd colored artifacts look when they do them in old frames, you can't even tell it's an artifact, it's just a permanent of that color. They should have used the artifact texture and the color of the card, as they do in new frames

    Reply
  3. There are countless Japanese tcg's that have artful bordered cards to help the game play visually. With so many changes to MTG I'm honestly surprised this is now a consideration. Artifacts were hard to differentiate from white cards back in Mirroden!

    Reply
  4. But we're in for another wave of snow on thursday. Personally, I think legendary should have it's own frame, but that's probably all that needs it's own frame. with secret lair, and special premium frame variants, there's already enough frame variety.

    Reply
  5. That would have been a fantastic idea, years ago. With the overload in treatments, card variants, and reprints with new art, this would likely just get lost in the noise or add to it.

    Reply
  6. For enchantments specifically, it doesn’t matter. I doubt that if they do change the frame that players will care or like it. I doubt wizards would take a genuine approach. If they do change any cards frame, it’ll probably be a meaningless subtle change anyways.

    I do think we should be asking that if the frame for enchantments does actually have a major visual change, then what happens with extended art frames and so on? Will the change cause old framed cards to suddenly go up in price because those frames are now rare and won’t be printed again? Are enchantment cards the beginning or?

    For complete frame changes, they should look at the approach some custom proxies have taken. Maybe take a more board game approach instead of a card game approach. Maybe put their name, artist name, card rarity etc etc on the back of the card allowing a little more freedom on the front.

    Personally I don’t care much. To save time an effort, if I was in charge of this decision at wizards, I’d go with a noticeable change. Nothing major but also nothing subtly lazy either. I would just change part of the frame. I’d change the part where the cards actual card type and sub-type text is. Change that part of the frame to genuinely look specific to the cards type. For mixed card types like legendary enchantment artifact creatures, I’d still give those cards the creature frame and not create an entirely new one just because it says the words enchantment and artifact. It’s foundation is still creature and follows creature card rules. I’d leave planeswalker card frames alone though as those are already unique enough in their look and board presence.

    All in all, why now Wizards? For what?

    Reply
  7. "The majority voted in favor…" No, the majority of THOSE VOTING were in favor. Sure, when it comes to elections, the percentage of those actually voting matters as to the outcome. However, this is an opinion poll with a limited and unbalanced pool of voters, not an actual election, so the numbers in this case really shouldn't be determinative. As you alluded to in this post, perhaps it would be wise to conduct a more accurate poll with a better methodology before making a decision on this.

    And, just for the record, I was initially opposed to this idea, but the reasoning you brought forth has had me change my mind.

    Reply
  8. I don't dislike the idea of different frames. Personally I've never really noticed any issues though. If I wanted to know what enchantments my opponents had I'd just ask them. Also most people sort their board state. Or if the board is just so crowded that even with explaining it's still confusing then I Personally just zone out and play without caring much for the outcome

    Reply
  9. This is the most retarded and least needed change ever.

    It's getting even more stupid as an argument the more I listen to this video…. JUST READ THE WORDS BETWEEN THE PICTURE AND THE CARD TEXT. If Wizards keeps catering to Commander, a format THEY don't even run or have sanctioned events for, where does this absurdity stop?

    Reply
  10. I believe they should incorporate Outlined card placement boxes for cards on the playmats. 1 for Artifacts/Enchantments, 1 for lands, and the other for creatures. 1 Row at the bottom for lands, 1 Column on the left for artifacts/enchantments, the larger size box at the left of the column, and above the row for lands. They could even throw in a column for Graveyard/Exile zone.

    Reply
  11. What about The Theros God's that are Enchantments that become creatures? The issue isn't framing, it's placement. We need to have a consistent load out for where things are placed. You go to your LGS and you'll see dozens of different placements for decks, graveyards, etc. People even tap their lands differently. People just need to be clearer about what they are putting down. Like the rule for Dryad Arbor and how it isn't to be placed with your lands and that rule comes from 1v1, never mind in a 4 player game.

    Reply
  12. Reading the card explains the card…

    Having new Enchantments with specific borders, but the previous 30 years of printings not having the border only adds more confusion to players who aren’t reading the cards.

    I wonder if this question is hinting at Battle cards being really similar to Enchantments, so WotC want to distinguish them?

    Reply
  13. The legendary shrines from NEO have both the legendary frame and the constellation border you mention only being in Theros sets. I think the constellation frame is being used in other sets, but we don't always have enchantment creatures. The easiest thing for me is to see if it has power toughness, or of course if my opponent can lay out their boardstate clearly.

    Reply
  14. I "personally" don't really have this issue nonetheless I like the idea, I also like the idea someone else mentioned in the comments by keeping separate card types in specific zones on the battlefield rather than everything mixed

    Reply
  15. In my pod, any card relevant to everyone is played in front of their creatures and somewhat in the middle of the table (likewise with other players' cards you've "stolen")

    Reply
  16. Wouldn’t the easiest way to do this be to make the bar where it defines type, coloured for the various types, creature, land, spell, etc. it would be easy to make it multi coloured. Quick and easy to ID, all you need to know is your colours and bam, you can tell what it is. Personally, I find it annoying to have to keep asking my opponents, “ok, who has what for spells, creatures, etc” Considering the distance most cards are away from you on a game table, you cannot read them unless you pick them up and doing that slows the game down. Same I feel would go for border changes, anything that you can’t immediately ID from 2-3 feet away is pointless.

    Reply

Leave a Comment