Search options (Page 6 of 18)

Unless I'm mistaken, Scryfall is based on mtgjson, so you wouldn't get much advantage using one over the other, data-wise.

And yes, I wouldn't bother with Multiverse IDs. Scryfall has a unique ID for every variant they list; much more robust to use that.

Notably, Scryfall has not as of yet introduced any form of differentiation scheme for etched foils. It'll be interesting to see if they do, and if so, what they come up with.

Jokes aside, I actually agree! As much as I'm personally turned off by the endless variants they're producing, it at least makes it manageable when they all have unique collector numbers. Ah well, c'est la vie!

Valid point I hadn't thought of! But my question then is: Does that even matter? This is already possible with the regular foil flag -- people can mark BETA cards as foil (LoL!), while simultaneously adding foil-only cards like FTV and various promos without setting the foil flag. We're now crossing into the realm of user error, and there's only so much that a software can be expected to compensate for that. And in this case, compensating for it entails compromising data integrity, imho.

I would also wonder about representation. How would you make it clear, at a glance, that a given card is from the Etched Mystical Archive edition instead of the regular Mystical Archive? Can't use the "red promo" icon, as that's already overused. If you use the same set icon as regular MA, there's no visual differentiation. So now you've set yourself the onerous task of having to devise a unique but recognizable edition icon every time WotC decides to do this to us! Heh

So yeah, I still think a flag is the cleanest and most accurate solution, and I personally wouldn't worry about people accidentally (or intentionally) misrepresenting their cards, anymore than we can control them marking all of their cards as Mint.

Actually there are! It's just extremely subtle, even more so than the regular MA cards. It was specifically pointed out by Gavin Verhey (a WotC employee, in case you haven't heard of him) in his collector box unboxing video. And you can buy them.

There's no way to see the price on your Inventory page before adding the card, no. You have to go to the card's info page as you've been doing. But my guess is you're simply curious about cards' prices when you add them, so seeing the price after adding would be acceptable?

If so, then you can do that easily enough. In your Inventory, open the Columns dropdown and add the Last Updated column. Sort by that column, and now every time you add a new card, it'll show up at the top of the list, so you can quickly check its price!

None of the tokens have been added to Deckbox yet, as the tokens were just revealed Thursday. I'm sure the whole set of them will be added soon!

WotC announced the tokens for Strixhaven and Commander 2021. Aside from the nine single-sided tokens in Strixhaven, there are six double-sided tokens from the "college boosters" in the following combinations:

• Elemental (#2) // Fractal (#3)

• Elemental (#2) // Spirit (#6)

• Elemental (#2) // Treasure (#7)

• Fractal (#3) // Pest (#5)

• Inkling (#4) // Pest (#5)

• Inkling (#4) // Spirit (#6)

The Commander 2021 token faces weren't explicitly listed out in the article, so I'm posting the details here (these are confirmed to be in the correct collector number order):

1. Eldrazi

2. Drake

3. Fish

4. Kraken

5. Whale

6. Token: Champion of Wits

7. Demon

8. Horror

9. Zombie

10. Beast (3/3)

11. Beast (4/4)

12. Boar

13. Elephant

14. Frog Lizard

15. Fungus Beast

16. Hydra

17. Insect

18. Saproling

19. Wurm

20. Elemental

21. Spirit

22. Construct (*/*)

23. Construct (0/0)

24. Food

25. Golem (flying)

26. Golem (trample)

27. Golem (vigilance)

28. Myr

29. Thopter

30. Copy

And here's all the C21 double-sided token combinations. Note that some token faces use Strixhaven tokens.

• Eldrazi (C21 #1) // Token: Champion of Wits (C21 #6)

• Drake (C21 #2) // Elemental (STX #2)

• Fish (C21 #3) // Beast (C21 #10)

• Kraken (C21 #4) // Wurm (C21 #19)

• Whale (C21 #5) // Beast (C21 #10)

• Demon (C21 #7) // Fungus Beast (C21 #15)

• Horror (C21 #8) // Zombie (C21 #9)

• Zombie (C21 #9) // Spirit (C21 #21)

• Beast (C21 #11) // Insect (C21 #17)

• Boar (C21 #12) // Hydra (C21 #16)

• Elephant (C21 #13) // Frog Lizard (C21 #14)

• Saproling (C21 #18) // Food (C21 #24)

• Elemental (C21 #20) // Copy (C21 #30)

• Fractal (STX #3) // Copy (C21 #30)

• *** Inkling (STX #4) // Treasure (STX #7)

• Pest (STX #5) // Food (C21 #24)

• Construct (C21 #22) // Treasure (STX #7)

• Construct (C21 #23) // Copy (C21 #30)

• Golem (C21 #25) // Thopter (C21 #29)

• Golem (C21 #26) // Thopter (C21 #29)

• Golem (C21 #27) // Thopter (C21 #29)

• Myr (C21 #28) // Treasure (STX #7)

*** Both of the faces of the Inkling // Treasure token are from Strixhaven, so it will probably overlap with a foil double-sided token from the main set's collector boosters.

Good catch!

Did you submit a support ticket as well? Sebi reads the forums, but I'm guessing it's probably more guaranteed to be seen by him as a ticket.

@Zimm42 and @Hamish — You guys are very welcome! I'm glad it is helping so many people.

@cepragassen and @beliard — I'm thinking of doing a poll, though I'm not sure where it would get the most exposure, to see what the community would overall prefer for default condition. Already just between you two, there's already disagreement between Mint vs NM. That's the whole reason I didn't include a condition in the first place — some people will be using it to add still-sealed products (mint) while others will be adding precons they've played with with their kids a ton (LP-MP). However, since two people have expressed desire for a default condition, it's possible more people than just you guys would prefer some condition to none.

As NamespaceV has already said, most find it easiest to use a spreadsheet program like Excel. His warnings are valid, although I personally haven't had any issues with Excel-modified CSVs not working with Deckbox in a long time. My personal approach was to export a CSV from Deckbox, and then just copy/modify that CSV since I know it works. Haven't had an issue since! I wouldn't recommend using Excel to create a CSV from scratch, but opening and modifying the CSVs you've downloaded from this resource should be safe.

In case you need further clarification, in the spreadsheet, simply type the label "Condition" in row 1 of a new column (doesn't actually matter where; to the right of "Language" will work fine). And then fully type out the condition name, in this case simply "Mint". Note that if you ever need to add other conditions, you have to use Deckbox's specific syntax (notably "Good (Lightly Played)"; you can't just use "Lightly Played"). An incorrect condition label will throw an error.

FYI — CSVs for the 2021 Challenger Decks are incoming! With the sheer volume of products WotC has been throwing at us, I honestly forgot about those decks until my preordered set of them arrived in the mail today. LoL. Sorry for the delay! Always feel free to leave a comment to check in with me.

Absolutely! I 100% agree with you, and wasn't trying to imply Sebi does a subpar job. I've been quick to sing his praises many times. I also believe that given a long enough timeframe, most features will be added / improved as we would desire. But for those who don't want to wait and need more than what Deckbox offers, I was presenting a realistic option as things currently stand. I think your last sentence is the key -- Deckbox is a jack-of-all-trades so won't be as phenomenal in areas that other tools, like Scryfall, single-mindedly focus on. And that's not at all a knock on Deckbox. It's amazing for what it is. If people want a full-featured search engine, they should look to Scryfall. But Deckbox's search will fulfill a majority of user's most common needs.

I'm in the same boat and have actually been considering posting this sort of memo. Life's just been too busy for me to get my act together!! But I'm definitely interested.

I don't have as big of a collection, probably around 45k, but about 10k of that is duplicates past a playset. I'm mostly interested in trading bulk (though not all my extras are strictly bulk, with a good handful in the $2-$5 range). It may seem counter-intuitive, but I actually feel way better outright buying (rather than trading for) a single $100 card than I do 200 cards averaging 50 cents. It's surprisingly expensive to fill out playsets of bulk cards, and they feel way worse to buy!

Question for you: Are you trying to collect reprint sets like Masters sets or precons like Duel Decks? I'm actually not, unless the card has artwork that can't be found in a regular expansion. If you are, would you be willing to do one-for-one trades of the same card, just from different editions? This question also applies to things like Core Sets that often have the same card with the same art.

I second this advice. Basically, it comes down to two things: 1) how you prefer to browse your collection and/or build decks, and 2) how much you plan to expand your collection.

To the first: If you prefer doing it by flipping through physical cards, then using an organization that lends itself to your needs is best. Opinions vary, but some people like sorting by color first, either just by the card's cost, or by its color identity. They then might have secondary and tertiary sorting within each color (I've heard of people using card type, CMC, even rarity). Some like sorting by card type first, keeping creatures and instants separate, for instance. Basically, it should mirror your deck building process. Do you like to start with a mana curve in mind, and need your cards sorted by CMC? Do you like to build commander and need to focus on specific color identities? Etc.

If you prefer doing it on a computer, then it's best to sort your cards by set first, secondarily by collector number. This is me. I don't have good eyesight, so I like the ability to zoom in on cards and lists. I'd rather do all the work virtually, and only when I'm ready to actually put the deck into sleeves do I print the list (sorted by edition) and go find the cards. By having my physical collection sorted by edition, it's super fast and easy for me to grab the right box, flip to where the card's sorted within that edition, and take it out. Similarly easy to put them back. Yes, it can be a little annoying if I need e.g. 4x Llanowar Elves, but only have 1-2 from each edition I own, as then I have to grab from multiple editions. But I find this an acceptable tradeoff for all the benefits this system gives me.

To the second: If you plan to keep a small collection that's focused mostly on cards you'd actually use in decks, then a deck-building-first approach is probably perfectly scalable and sustainable, and will be most user-friendly. The main drawback of sorting cards by color / card type / etc first is what scramasax said -- you end up having to reorganize the contents of your boxes and binders much more frequently. But if it's a small collection (and yes, 3k cards is pretty small in the grand scheme of things), that's not really that painful.

If you want to expand your collection to owning copies of cards from a set just to have them, whether for full blown "set collecting" or something more vague like "all the art I like", and you think you'll cross over into the 10k and up range, then sorting by edition first starts becoming MUCH more sustainable. Again, this is me. I have 30k something cards, and I can't imagine trying to keep up with non-edition groupings. The only cards I don't have in my edition boxes are the "money cards", which I've pulled out and keep in a safer place. But these are still sorted by set / collector number within that storage system, so when I go from Deckbox to boxes, I'll know where to find it regardless.

Hope this breakdown helps give you a direction to try!