MTGNexus

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm super confused by which cards are legal and which ones aren't. Is it literally just the little holo watermark at the middle of the bottom of the card? Because that will be super annoying for new players especially.

Assuming I understood the publications correctly; if the holo watermark is acorn shaped, it is "silver boardered". If it has the standard oval icon, then it's a normal card. It's extremely obscure unless you know to look at it.

My previous comment was along the line of saying that Krark's Other Thumb and other similar borderline one-off effects can be in this set, but black-boardered. That is an upside that I really like. The method is...painfully obtuse, in my opinion

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm super confused by which cards are legal and which ones aren't. Is it literally just the little holo watermark at the middle of the bottom of the card? Because that will be super annoying for new players especially.

I mean why can't all the cards be silver bordered? Is it a simple question of revenue for WOTC? Black bordered cards are worth more?

Silver Bordered cards are, by definition, not tournament legal. They cannot print tournament legal silver bordered cards. And as I went into above, mixing borders inside a product is... difficult at best, especially at the scale they have to work with. So their options are A) print more silver bordered cards that are 100% workable within normal, black bordered rules and deal with constant complaints about the inability to use those in commander, or B) print it as a black bordered set with some sort of indication (the acorn holofoil stamp) as to which cards are not tournament playable.

And as a more general comment: If the "new player" you're worried about is into magic enough to own these cards, but casual enough that they're unaware they're illegal in tournaments... what's the actual issue here? Is the assumption that new players are going to show up in droves to play their Killer Cosplay decks at tournaments? Otherwise, if it's casual games... what's the harm in allowing them to be played more frequently?

One concern I'll call out is that the power level / testing of previous Un-sets has been pretty inconsistent. The most recent batch (Unsanctioned) seemed to be pretty well-balanced - I'm not aware of any issues with Alexander Clamilton or Acornelia, Fashionable Filcher. However, the Unstable batch prior brought stuff like The Grand Calcutron and X, which need a fair amount of functional errata to function properly.

Mookie wrote: ↑

2 years ago

One concern I'll call out is that the power level / testing of previous Un-sets has been pretty inconsistent. The most recent batch (Unsanctioned) seemed to be pretty well-balanced - I'm not aware of any issues with Alexander Clamilton or Acornelia, Fashionable Filcher. However, the Unstable batch prior brought stuff like The Grand Calcutron and X, which need a fair amount of functional errata to function properly.

Also worth noting that both would 100% have Acorn stamps on them, since neither works within Black Border rules.

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm super confused by which cards are legal and which ones aren't. Is it literally just the little holo watermark at the middle of the bottom of the card? Because that will be super annoying for new players especially.

I mean why can't all the cards be silver bordered? Is it a simple question of revenue for WOTC? Black bordered cards are worth more?

What I don't like is the questions all these uncards raise in other formats. Water Gun Balloon Game makes me unironically wonder what color is pink and whether I can get protection from it. This I do not enjoy.

Mookie wrote: ↑

2 years ago

One concern I'll call out is that the power level / testing of previous Un-sets has been pretty inconsistent. The most recent batch (Unsanctioned) seemed to be pretty well-balanced - I'm not aware of any issues with Alexander Clamilton or Acornelia, Fashionable Filcher. However, the Unstable batch prior brought stuff like The Grand Calcutron and X, which need a fair amount of functional errata to function properly.

This was somewhat addressed by MaRo in his article:

Second, early on, I went to Aaron Forsythe, my boss, and asked if I could lead this set from the beginning of design to the end (exploratory, vision, and set design), and he said I could as long as I listened to my play designers, as card balance is not my strength. Those two play designers were Donald Smith Jr. and JC Tao, and they helped me immensely in making this a fun, balanced set.

Wallycaine wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Silver Bordered cards are, by definition, not tournament legal. They cannot print tournament legal silver bordered cards. And as I went into above, mixing borders inside a product is... difficult at best, especially at the scale they have to work with. So their options are A) print more silver bordered cards that are 100% workable within normal, black bordered rules and deal with constant complaints about the inability to use those in commander, or B) print it as a black bordered set with some sort of indication (the acorn holofoil stamp) as to which cards are not tournament playable. be played more frequently?

Why do they need to print cards with "black bordered rules" in un-sets in the first place? I thought the whole point was for these to be silly and spoof cards.

I would say another option here would be to C.) keep everything non-black border rules and print them all in silver border.

If they want to print cards with black bordered rules just print them in the multitude of normal sets. what's the issue with that?

Wallycaine wrote: ↑

2 years ago

And as a more general comment: If the "new player" you're worried about is into magic enough to own these cards, but casual enough that they're unaware they're illegal in tournaments... what's the actual issue here? Is the assumption that new players are going to show up in droves to play their Killer Cosplay decks at tournaments? Otherwise, if it's casual games... what's the harm in allowing them to be played more frequently?

It's just not enough of a difference. I go to draft a set and i am supposed to decipher which cards are legal to play in my decks based on a very minor difference in the holo stamp? I just think that is really silly.

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Wallycaine wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Silver Bordered cards are, by definition, not tournament legal. They cannot print tournament legal silver bordered cards. And as I went into above, mixing borders inside a product is... difficult at best, especially at the scale they have to work with. So their options are A) print more silver bordered cards that are 100% workable within normal, black bordered rules and deal with constant complaints about the inability to use those in commander, or B) print it as a black bordered set with some sort of indication (the acorn holofoil stamp) as to which cards are not tournament playable. be played more frequently?

Why do they need to print cards with "black bordered rules" in un-sets in the first place? I thought the whole point was for these to be silly and spoof cards.

I would say another option here would be to C.) keep everything non-black border rules and print them all in silver border.

If they want to print cards with black bordered rules just print them in the multitude of normal sets. what's the issue with that?

I'd invite you to look at the set Unstable. By far their most successful Un-set, because they built it to be drafted with itself. Now count how many of those cards work *completely within black border rules*! Especially now that Dice Rolling is explictly black bordered, it's the majority of them. It's impossible to make a coherent set out of exclusively things that are "silver bordered", especially as black border magic continues to eat up design space. So no, C) is not an option.

Edit: Just to see, I tried out my suggestion. Going by what Mark Rosewater said (Dice Rolling, Contraptions, and Host/Augment are all within black border rules), I counted 33 cards out of the first 100 cards in unstable that would actually get a an acorn watermark. So 66% of a fairly random sample of cards from Unstable are "black border".

TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm super confused by which cards are legal and which ones aren't. Is it literally just the little holo watermark at the middle of the bottom of the card? Because that will be super annoying for new players especially.

I mean why can't all the cards be silver bordered? Is it a simple question of revenue for WOTC? Black bordered cards are worth more?

What I don't like is the questions all these uncards raise in other formats. Water Gun Balloon Game makes me unironically wonder what color is pink and whether I can get protection from it. This I do not enjoy.

As noted earlier, Water Gun Balloon Game is not coming to eternal legality. Pink continues not to exist in black border magic.

Wallycaine wrote: ↑

2 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RowanKeltizar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm super confused by which cards are legal and which ones aren't. Is it literally just the little holo watermark at the middle of the bottom of the card? Because that will be super annoying for new players especially.

I mean why can't all the cards be silver bordered? Is it a simple question of revenue for WOTC? Black bordered cards are worth more?

What I don't like is the questions all these uncards raise in other formats. Water Gun Balloon Game makes me unironically wonder what color is pink and whether I can get protection from it. This I do not enjoy.

As noted earlier, Water Gun Balloon Game is not coming to eternal legality. Pink continues not to exist in black border magic.

My favorite comment about this card:

I think a water mark would have been a better idea

So Acorn is the new silver-bordered. Eh, a bit fiddly, but at least better than a line of text reading "not tournament legal" somewhere.

I think players, even new ones, will soon get used to it.

Edit: And a little common sense. If the card says to twerk, I'm gonna assume it's Acorn.

Edit 2: Another advantage is that it allows them to reprint the Eternal cards in other formats. Like I can easily see Saw in Half reprinted in an Innistrad set, for example.

Edit 3: Oh wait I see the confusion. The card image for Water Gun Balloon Game shows it with an oval holostamp.

All is well, that acorn seems pretty distinguishable from the oval stamp.

What's so confusing about looking at a hologram's shape? Genuinely confused at all the people complaining, acorn = not legal. It's really not that complicated.

Admittedly, the WOTC team is creating confusion by spoiling Water Gun Balloon Game with an Oval hologram when it will actually have an acorn hologram, but that has nothing to do with the system they developed.

Our group has a silver border cube and it's hard to express how triggering it is that they're eliminating this.

Kinda skimmed the article because I mostly dislike unsets after the fiasco that was unstable draft, but does this:

If a card has an oval security stamp (or no security stamp at lower rarities), it's legal in eternal formats (which includes Commander, Legacy, and Vintage).

Mean that UB is equivalent to un cards, I.e. it requires buy-in from the group to be used?

If so, then idgaf how they differentiate these things, I'm 100% in favour of it.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Kinda skimmed the article because I mostly dislike unsets after the fiasco that was unstable draft, but does this:

If a card has an oval security stamp (or no security stamp at lower rarities), it's legal in eternal formats (which includes Commander, Legacy, and Vintage).

Mean that UB is equivalent to un cards, I.e. it requires buy-in from the group to be used?

If so, then idgaf how they differentiate these things, I'm 100% in favour of it.

No. That was a description of the legality within Unfinity, not a general game rule. Universe Beyond cards remain legal in the formats they're legal in.

Given how they've been crowbarring away at the themes and tone of the game, I do think they will lead to a consensus forming against non-multiverse cards. I see a lot of people who don't call themselves vorthos deciding that they don't want to play with The Space Family Goblinson on a regular basis, and they're finding common ground with people who don't want to play with Negan on a regular basis.

Also, I think the difference between this new wave of non-Multiverse cards and the prior tradition of doing alt-arts and proxies is that the latter builds towards self-expression and thematic deckbuilding, where the latter corrodes them. The guy who'd altered their Nicol Bolas to be Darth Vader or whatever, they're actively paying to reduce the trade value of their card; they're investing in a specific idea and vision of the deck they want to play and the stories they want to tell with it. WotC printing the next Smothering Tithe and calling it Bozo's Clown Shoes (I am sure they will do something like this in Unfinity) is trying to disrupt players ability to self-express through the game and build on the stories and themes they want to tell. This isn't just "Boots on an ooze" type flavor glitches, these are cards that in-and-of-themselves are designed to make a farce of the game. Nor is it just an attempt to add some humor for those that want it; there are plenty of lighthearted or humorous cards and decks you can build, at all power levels, that still feel like Magic.

These are cards that WotC doesn't want in their Multiverse, but they want at your table.

Dunadain wrote: ↑

2 years ago

What's so confusing about looking at a hologram's shape? Genuinely confused at all the people complaining, acorn = not legal. It's really not that complicated.

Admittedly, the WOTC team is creating confusion by spoiling Water Gun Balloon Game with an Oval hologram when it will actually have an acorn hologram, but that has nothing to do with the system they developed.

The system isn't particularly complicated. Although it overlaps with a different system so it gets a little weird (Rare/Mythic - Stamp, Uncommon/Common - No stamp - well, now except....). Also, it's 1 specific shape being nonlegal, whereas other specific shapes - the triangles for universes beyond, are legal. There's obviously potential for confusion there.

But it's not overly complex, the problem isn't confusion about how it works. Once explained, it's straightforward.

I'm reminded of this: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2003-10-31 - The Artifact/White card issue when they switched to the new frames with 8th edition.

Look, we're used to ignoring the bottom of cards. We're used to ignoring the little hologram. Now it's something to pay attention to? Sure, if you are focused and looking for that specific thing, it's pretty straightforward. But when generally handling and sorting cards, it's just not where people look.

I have a decent number of UN-cards. I really liked drafting UNstable. I have my remnants from way back when I drafted UNhinged. Those cards stand out as what they are, because the silver border is very distinct, and it screams - "Hey, these are different". A little holofoil on the bottom of the card that I'm used to ignoring being shaped differently is not going to stand out.

If someone wants to check the legality of an UNfinity card, this system works fine.
If someone just comes across an UNfinity card, this doesn't stand out. They are going to have to stop and think, "Is this card legal?" and check. That's annoying. Not the end of the world, but annoying.
If someone comes across an UNfinity card and doesn't know anything about it, they are going to assume its legal. This is drastically different than any other UN-card, where they are going to come across is and immediately see that the card is different because of the border and want to know why/how.

That's the problem with the indicator.

This change smells like someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remove the stigma without actually changing what the cards are.

"Hey, we made these silver border cards that are basically just jokes, aren't they fun?"

"Sure, I guess, but most people don't want to play with joke cards…"

"I see, so it's the border that's the problem."

"Uh….."

Uncards are to table humor as joke-books are to wit.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

This change smells like someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remove the stigma without actually changing what the cards are.

"Hey, we made these silver border cards that are basically just jokes, aren't they fun?"

"Sure, I guess, but most people don't want to play with joke cards…"

"I see, so it's the border that's the problem."

"Uh….."

I don't think this is fair.

Look, it's hard to argue for the purity of the Magic IP if you have Universe Beyond cards running around. Also, plenty of the jokes that are just humor could see print in any Magic set. You can't say the won't do puns like Beast in Show, when they have already printed Apes of Rath in blackborder.

As for gameplay, while absurd or unusual, plenty of the cards make for interesting gameplay. I would love to be able to build a deck that uses something like Zzzyxas's Abyss. Some of the silver border cards are really fun to play as cards and not just jokes. I wouldn't want to inflict things like Skull Saucer on myself or others most of the time, but the Augment gameplay is actually really neat.

Moreover, cards are meant to be played with. It sort of sucks to have cards that could be played, but aren't legal. Yes, you can Rule 0 some things, but others are a big ask. If it works (not everything UN does), having it be default legal just makes sense and is better for most people. Letting people play with the cards they buy is a good thing. So blackbordering the cards that can be blackborder seems like a great change to me (I realize everyone won't love it, as everything has its detractors, but I would expect it to be popular as a whole).

I just think they screwed up in the demarcation of the nonlegal cards.

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Look, it's hard to argue for the purity of the Magic IP if you have Universe Beyond cards running around.

I mean, we don't like those either. There was a massive push to get the RC to ban them in EDH, and WotC caved and agreed to print real versions of the cards that fit with the lore and tone of the game. Sucked then, sucks now.

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Also, plenty of the jokes that are just humor could see print in any Magic set. You can't say the won't do puns like Beast in Show, when they have already printed Apes of Rath in blackborder.

That's part of my post. There are already have humorous designs in black border, both cards that are supposed to be funny to read, and cards that are designed to be "wacky" or chaotic in play. These new Unfinity cards are explicitly stuff WotC doesn't want in their setting (it's all their IP, there's no reason it can't be part of the Multiverse) for tonal and thematic reasons. The general tone and theme of my games matters more to me than the tone and theme of WotC's brand.

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Yes, you can Rule 0 some things, but others are a big ask.

"This thing is a big ask for my playgroup, so it should just be the default"
If that's not what you mean, clarify.

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

So blackbordering the cards that can be blackborder

Already, one of the three new cards revealed for black border (Saw in Half) has created more unintuitive rulings than most expansions. Clearly, the decision to make these black-border was made late enough in the set that it didn't get the sort of rules QA that real black-border cards are subject to.

BeneTleilax wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Yes, you can Rule 0 some things, but others are a big ask.

"This thing is a big ask for my playgroup, so it should just be the default"
If that's not what you mean, clarify.

I don't have a regular playgroup. It's a big ask to show up at a store and ask to play with something silver border. I don't think anyone should have a problem with a Dr. Julius Jumblemorph deck, as it can work within the rules, but it's not worth building if I don't know if people are going to object. Asking people to deal with things like Cheatyface is a no go, and should remain that way. There's no reason anyone should object to something like Jackknight and yet you can't count on that.

BeneTleilax wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

So blackbordering the cards that can be blackborder

Already, one of the three new cards revealed for black border (Saw in Half) has created more unintuitive rulings than most expansions. Clearly, the decision to make these black-border was made late enough in the set that it didn't get the sort of rules QA that real black-border cards are subject to.

I haven't seen a single ruling regarding Saw in Half, just tons of ridiculous and fun combos. Can you be more specific what problematic rules interactions are with that card? It looks powerful, but I don't see any rules issues.

Sharpened wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I haven't seen a single ruling regarding Saw in Half, just tons of ridiculous and fun combos. Can you be more specific what problematic rules interactions are with that card? It looks powerful, but I don't see any rules issues.

Speaking of rulings, my favorite so far is if you saw a Little Girl in half, you get two full grown women (i.e. 1/1).