Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
When looking for a specific effect in a color as part of a color combination, I often combine color requirements, e.g. "ci<=bur ci>=u", which finds all blue cards in the Grixis shard (so U, UB, UR, and UBR cards).
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
wait, wait, I usually use "is:booster", and the result is DIFFERENT
I know Hinterland Sanctifier is in one of the jumpstart packs, but I have no idea why it's "in the set" here.I tried this out for Foundations and found that the following 12 cards are part of the set but not in boosters: (gameaper) set:fdn -in:booster
Why aren't those cards in boosters? What's going on?
surely the difference is at most marginal...wait, wait, I usually use "is:booster", and the result is DIFFERENT
...no, I don't know either. Well, beyond "fancy alternate art is included in the latter".
The difference is because "is:booster" will OK the card if it has ever shown up in a booster in any set, while "in:booster" appears to be more specific to the set itself (at least, that's what it looks like after playing around a bit).
To see this, search for "Angelic Destiny" in:booster and then for "Angelic Destiny" is:booster. The first search should give you the Foundations version of the card (since that was the most recent time it was in a booster), while the second search will give you the Magic 2012 version of the card (since that was the last time it showed up as part of a standard draft booster).
As for why those twelve specific cards aren't "in:booster" for Foundations... I don't know, but if I had to hazard a guess it's because they're cards that only appear in the Starter Set and Beginner's Box and that have never appeared in a normal booster slot in any set they've been in. That feels like unintended behavior (as far as I can tell Angelic Destiny shouldn't be in:booster because it's just in the Starter Set), but I blame that on the set being weirdly massive.
To see this, search for "Angelic Destiny" in:booster and then for "Angelic Destiny" is:booster. The first search should give you the Foundations version of the card (since that was the most recent time it was in a booster), while the second search will give you the Magic 2012 version of the card (since that was the last time it showed up as part of a standard draft booster).
As for why those twelve specific cards aren't "in:booster" for Foundations... I don't know, but if I had to hazard a guess it's because they're cards that only appear in the Starter Set and Beginner's Box and that have never appeared in a normal booster slot in any set they've been in. That feels like unintended behavior (as far as I can tell Angelic Destiny shouldn't be in:booster because it's just in the Starter Set), but I blame that on the set being weirdly massive.
Is by chance anyone here attending the Cube Open potsdam in january? It's like the Cubecon in the US, just here in germany and I guess not quite as big but there are two dates each year, the other one being in hamburg. I'll go for the first time next month. Fingers crossed my cube gets chosen for any kind of event.
https://mtg-cube.de/cubeopen-potsdam-2/
It's sold out but there is a waiting list in case some people get sick or something. Would still recommend registering.
It's sold out but there is a waiting list in case some people get sick or something. Would still recommend registering.
They restyled the UI from the ground up in a new framework. Give feedback! https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgcube/comments/1hfy85m/cube_cobra_update_100/
I got interviewed on Recross the Paths this week
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zCOq4QmRH9sAsGiufkeP6?si=fe524e3552a24bae
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zCOq4QmRH9sAsGiufkeP6?si=fe524e3552a24bae
It bugs me that Wighto the Reliq is not only a funhouse mirror version of Knighto the Reliq, but it's also a much more efficient base body. I feel like running them both in the same cube, makes the new one overshadow the old one, enough that it feels less like homage and more like a dunk.
Yeah, why does it cost two AND has vigilance? Why not just make it cost 3 and switch from land to creature, that'd be great anyway
It is a dunk. It was suppose to be a dunk.
The new design style from Wizards of the Coast we’ve seen for only a few (couple?) years.
Obsolete cards that use to be beloved staples that are no longer powerful enough for older formats like Modern, Commander and Legacy… they get new version that are bland and powerful. Flavorless. Just printed to bring those old cards like Psychatog back into modern gaming.
Same goes for cards that are too powerful for some formats. They also get new version. Here can we mention for instance Recurring Nightmare.
I've been putting together a set cube of original Innistrad using a 4/2/1/1 ratio of C/U/R/M, and I was pondering doing the same thing for a general non-retail level cube. For an example having 4 mana leak, 2 counterspell, 1 cryptic command as the core of a counterspell suite instead of 7 slightly different singletons.
The question I have is: how can I indicate to players how many duplicates there are (i.e. how common the card is) - is rarity the only option? One can make proxies with the appropriate rarity if required to avoid being restricted by printings, but that's not very elegant. Coloured dots on the sleeves as "rarity" markers?
The question I have is: how can I indicate to players how many duplicates there are (i.e. how common the card is) - is rarity the only option? One can make proxies with the appropriate rarity if required to avoid being restricted by printings, but that's not very elegant. Coloured dots on the sleeves as "rarity" markers?
Big fan of inner sleeve bottom left corner colored dot stickers for solving these kinds of problems. Unobtrusive and simple to understand. I'd go with something like black/blue/white/grey or something to make it color blind friendly (which set symbols AREN'T ugh)
ignore what i said and do this
Thanks, extra markers on inner sleeves makes a lot of sense. Colours + shapes is a good combo for maximum readiblity, and nothing on commons is a very sensible effort saving! I wasn't intending to have rares and mythics at different frequencies, but the different treatment idea is very cool! It would be neat if you could do it without dots or other additional components - commons get nothing, uncommons are foil, rares get alt art? They do enough reprints that you could maybe use old border/new border as a distinction.
Some interesting shapes to put on the cards might be a black "4," a silver "2," and a gold or red "1." (I've often considered doing this for "Onslaught Remastered" or something.)
I think you will regret this decision if you follow through on this.
Not only are you locking yourself out from all the rare cards that gets spoiled that doesn’t have an alt art. You are also doing the same to commons and uncommons alt art variants. I also believe that it doesn’t signal very well to the players. Don’t know if that is your intend.
Finally.. if you’re simply going to divide the cards are rarity then they already have a clear sign on the card: the set symbol color. I was thinking the solution to mark your cards was only relevant if you deviate from rarity splits.