Just want to say that Gold borders should start at 3 or more colors and 2 color cards should adopt the hybrid borders, they look nice and lend themselves better to color identity. That's my opinion, what do you think?
Eerrr... the frame should remain consistent. Gold frames have a very distinct meaning different from the hybrid frames in Magic and I do not care for changing the colors purely for "aesthetics" as you suggest. In other words, the frames have always had meaning and removing that meaning, however well intentioned, will just create another color fiasco.
Eerrr... the borders should remain consistent. Gold borders have a very distinct meaning different from the hybrid border in Magic and I do not care for changing the colors purely for "aesthetics" as you suggest. In other words, the borders have always had meaning and removing that meaning, however well intentioned, will just create another color fiasco.
Is there a functional difference between a card that is RW and a card that is R/W R/W ?
Eerrr... the borders should remain consistent. Gold borders have a very distinct meaning different from the hybrid border in Magic and I do not care for changing the colors purely for "aesthetics" as you suggest. In other words, the borders have always had meaning and removing that meaning, however well intentioned, will just create another color fiasco.
Is there a functional difference between a card that is RW and a card that is R/W R/W ?
The frame has been about what the card is, not necessarily what the card does. There is a difference. Albeit one that is very rarely, if ever, specifically leveraged with modern printings.
To wit, a card that is requires to cast. Gold.
A card that is can be paid in any combination of or or . Not gold. It's a heck of a lot easier to cast a card with those kind of options.
As for what the card does, there is a WotC article that explains the differences. I'll see if I can find it.
I've played since Exodus was the newest set on the shelf and I appreciate your willingness to help, my question was slightly rhetorical however.
For example if Glittering Wish stated look for a "Gold" card, there would be an issue. As far as I know this is strictly an aesthetics issue (correct me if I'm wrong). And aesthetics is a big thing for me. I know players are largely divided but there's a reason that cards with more desirable art versions sell for more money and it's because aesthetics is a big deal to some.
I for example have a W/B/G "Bant" Deck. Casual, but a large number of cards in it are gold. A few are hybrid and I can't help but see how much nicer the hybrid cards look over the gold ones.
We all have our desires to see the game do this or that.
I'm of the very strong opinion that aesthetics should never ignore function (and a bunch of other things). This comes from the near deadly (I would use another word, but then I might get a notice) experiences of trying to build a UI when your art designer thinks that moving 25px x 25px buttons are a good idea.
To be fair. WotC has moved to a preference for using a color indicator, instead of the frame, when cards care about color and there is no cost. They try anyways. JThat's why Glittering Wish doesn't ask for a Gold card. Technically, there is no such thing. You can't get Gold mana. Pink, sort of. Not Gold.
But I digress. Sometimes function has to precede form. I can easily and quickly flick through my deck for specific details such as gold or bi-color if that's what I want. Start mixing them up and that's another annoyance to deal with. As interesting as Dryad Arbor, any of the Future Sight, or the Amonkhet Masterpieces* are, they've introduced an additional layer to most games.
* To be clear. I don't have anything specific against any of the cards I pointed out. In a vacuum, cards like Future Sight ones look great... if the entire deck has the same frame. My problem was always in the larger context of the game where there is a completely different front, these cards flat out look awful and they interfere with gameplay in some cases. If WotC had printed the colors in reverse gold<->bi-color and the OP was hypothetically suggesting the opposite, my stance would be the same.
By the same token, I'm actually not a fan of the Legendary frames because WotC has failed to remain consistent with its use.
We all have our desires to see the game do this or that.
I'm of the very strong opinion that aesthetics should never ignore function (and a bunch of other things). This comes from the near deadly (I would use another word, but then I might get a notice) experiences of trying to build a UI when your art designer thinks that moving 25px x 25px buttons are a good idea.
To be fair. WotC has moved to a preference for using a color indicator, instead of the frame, when cards care about color and there is no cost. They try anyways. JThat's why Glittering Wish doesn't ask for a Gold card. Technically, there is no such thing. You can't get Gold mana. Pink, sort of. Not Gold.
But I digress. Sometimes function has to precede form. I can easily and quickly flick through my deck for specific details such as gold or bi-color if that's what I want. Start mixing them up and that's another annoyance to deal with. As interesting as Dryad Arbor, any of the Future Sight, or the Amonkhet Masterpieces* are, they've introduced an additional layer to most games.
* To be clear. I don't have anything specific against any of the cards I pointed out. In a vacuum, cards like Future Sight ones look great... if the entire deck has the same frame. My problem was always in the larger context of the game where there is a completely different front, these cards flat out look awful and they interfere with gameplay in some cases. If WotC had printed the colors in reverse gold<->bi-color and the OP was hypothetically suggesting the opposite, my stance would be the same.
By the same token, I'm actually not a fan of the Legendary frames because WotC has failed to remain consistent with its use.
I hate the Legendary frames too. We can agree on that. I'll still try and persuade you on the border issue.
Check out the text box on Sulfurous springs & graven cairns they are inline with my preference and inconsistent with 2 color = gold
And think about how much nicer blazing specter Would look included in a deck with them, and alongside let's say ashenmoor liege
Consistency is a big part of aesthetics, it's been well over 10 years since I downright refused to play with white bordered cards. As for "sorting issues" I can deal with those I prefer my game look good outside of the box. You can still flick through your deck for a gold card, or a bi colored card. Technically it might make it easier to flick through your deck for a card type, since right now almost no cards are Bi-color and far to many ( IMO ) are gold. As for inconsistency within a deck. A player who cares about this issue at all has probably gone out of their way to make sure all cards of a playset within his/her deck have been sought out by personal preference, we all do it even down to our basics.
I'm not sure if citing lands is a good choice in this context. Two or more color lands have never been consistent in terms of their frames. Even basic lands have been changed time and time again. While I greatly favor the straight up mana symbol over the older text format, I actually prefer the older land frames over the new land frames.
Oh... I also like the white border cards. But it has nothing to at all to do with aesthetics or even function.
The hybrid border is an aesthetic choice that helps highlighting a mechanic of the card. Pretty much the same way as Vehicles have a specific border instead of the regular artifact or current legendary (non-planeswalkers) permanents have a crown flourish on the top.
While I agree that the hybrid border is nicer to look at than the golden border in most cases, it informs you that the card you have in hand works slightly differently than a regular multicolor card at a glance.
Having the two frames separated has an actual function outside of the game rules and using the hybrid frame for everything would remove that function.
The hybrid border is an aesthetic choice that helps highlighting a mechanic of the card. Pretty much the same way as Vehicles have a specific border instead of the regular artifact or current legendary (non-planeswalkers) permanents have a crown flourish on the top.
While I agree that the hybrid border is nicer to look at than the golden border in most cases, it informs you that the card you have in hand works slightly differently than a regular multicolor card at a glance.
Having the two frames separated has an actual function outside of the game rules and using the hybrid frame for everything would remove that function.
This comment nails it on the head. That and everything SavannahLion said. Functionality has to take precedence over form(IMHO).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Edit: to use the correct nomenclature
Is there a functional difference between a card that is RW and a card that is R/W R/W ?
The frame has been about what the card is, not necessarily what the card does. There is a difference. Albeit one that is very rarely, if ever, specifically leveraged with modern printings.
To wit, a card that is requires to cast. Gold.
A card that is can be paid in any combination of or or . Not gold. It's a heck of a lot easier to cast a card with those kind of options.
As for what the card does, there is a WotC article that explains the differences. I'll see if I can find it.
I could've sworn Maro talks about it too, and without all the uh... nonsense, but I can't find it.
For example if Glittering Wish stated look for a "Gold" card, there would be an issue. As far as I know this is strictly an aesthetics issue (correct me if I'm wrong). And aesthetics is a big thing for me. I know players are largely divided but there's a reason that cards with more desirable art versions sell for more money and it's because aesthetics is a big deal to some.
I for example have a W/B/G "Bant" Deck. Casual, but a large number of cards in it are gold. A few are hybrid and I can't help but see how much nicer the hybrid cards look over the gold ones.
If I had it my way.
Ironically I like glittering wish as a gold card
We all have our desires to see the game do this or that.
I'm of the very strong opinion that aesthetics should never ignore function (and a bunch of other things). This comes from the near deadly (I would use another word, but then I might get a notice) experiences of trying to build a UI when your art designer thinks that moving 25px x 25px buttons are a good idea.
To be fair. WotC has moved to a preference for using a color indicator, instead of the frame, when cards care about color and there is no cost. They try anyways. JThat's why Glittering Wish doesn't ask for a Gold card. Technically, there is no such thing. You can't get Gold mana. Pink, sort of. Not Gold.
But I digress. Sometimes function has to precede form. I can easily and quickly flick through my deck for specific details such as gold or bi-color if that's what I want. Start mixing them up and that's another annoyance to deal with. As interesting as Dryad Arbor, any of the Future Sight, or the Amonkhet Masterpieces* are, they've introduced an additional layer to most games.
* To be clear. I don't have anything specific against any of the cards I pointed out. In a vacuum, cards like Future Sight ones look great... if the entire deck has the same frame. My problem was always in the larger context of the game where there is a completely different front, these cards flat out look awful and they interfere with gameplay in some cases. If WotC had printed the colors in reverse gold<->bi-color and the OP was hypothetically suggesting the opposite, my stance would be the same.
By the same token, I'm actually not a fan of the Legendary frames because WotC has failed to remain consistent with its use.
I hate the Legendary frames too. We can agree on that. I'll still try and persuade you on the border issue.
Check out the text box on Sulfurous springs & graven cairns they are inline with my preference and inconsistent with 2 color = gold
And think about how much nicer blazing specter Would look included in a deck with them, and alongside let's say ashenmoor liege
Consistency is a big part of aesthetics, it's been well over 10 years since I downright refused to play with white bordered cards. As for "sorting issues" I can deal with those I prefer my game look good outside of the box. You can still flick through your deck for a gold card, or a bi colored card. Technically it might make it easier to flick through your deck for a card type, since right now almost no cards are Bi-color and far to many ( IMO ) are gold. As for inconsistency within a deck. A player who cares about this issue at all has probably gone out of their way to make sure all cards of a playset within his/her deck have been sought out by personal preference, we all do it even down to our basics.
I'm not sure if citing lands is a good choice in this context. Two or more color lands have never been consistent in terms of their frames. Even basic lands have been changed time and time again. While I greatly favor the straight up mana symbol over the older text format, I actually prefer the older land frames over the new land frames.
Oh... I also like the white border cards. But it has nothing to at all to do with aesthetics or even function.
While I agree that the hybrid border is nicer to look at than the golden border in most cases, it informs you that the card you have in hand works slightly differently than a regular multicolor card at a glance.
Having the two frames separated has an actual function outside of the game rules and using the hybrid frame for everything would remove that function.
This comment nails it on the head. That and everything SavannahLion said. Functionality has to take precedence over form(IMHO).