Imported Strixhaven: School of Mages: https://deckbox.org/editions/609-strixhaven-school-of-mages
Imported Strixhaven Mystical Archive: https://deckbox.org/editions/613-strixhaven-mystical-archive
Imported Commander 2021: https://deckbox.org/editions/612-commander-2021

Thanks as always for importing the new sets, Sebi!

Just wondering if the updates to 'The List' arriving for/with the Strixhaven release are on your radar to add in at some point?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/updating-list-strixhaven-school-mages-2021-03-25
https://deckbox.org/editions/592-the-list

Thank you for having the new set in early!

Wondering, though, when Promo Pack: Kaldheim will be up. Still waiting.

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.

CSV files have been added for Commander 2021 and Challenger Decks 2021. Enjoy!

[color=blue]@Sebi[/color] — How do you feel about adding a new "foil etched" flag? Or do you have another idea about how to handle the foiling variants?

This wasn't an issue in the first iteration with Commander Legends, since WotC gave all the foil-etched variants their own collector numbers (e.g. regular/foil Sakashima was #89 whilst foil-etched Sakashima was #561). Unfortunately, this is no longer true with the advent of Mystical Archive. Whether a card is regular, foil, or foil etched, it will have the same collector number regardless.

Stores such as TCGPlayer resolve this with parenthetical descriptors at the end of card names, a practice Deckbox has thus far been able to avoid (for which I'm glad). In the past, Deckbox has resolved this by using its own made-up collector numbers,* a practice I also don't believe is good. And when Deckbox hasn't implemented some form of differentiation scheme, it creates what I'll call the Tahngarth, Talruum Hero issue, in which the version of that card that gets imported by default from a CSV is the special alt-art foil of that card instead of the regular one. Because the card name, edition, and collector number all match, Deckbox has a hard time differentiating. This also notably occurs with the basic lands from BFZ — during CSV import, some default to fullart, some default to non-fullart.

Since the prices on foil-etched vs regular foil may be wildly different, it'll be important that these variants can be differentiated and properly linked to accurate pricing sources. And I predict these examples will only become more and more prevalent as WotC continues to push flashy variants. May as well get ahead of the game now!

_____________________
* At least in original Zendikar, in which the non-fullart basics were given collector numbers 250-269, even though the printed card simply appended "a" to the fullart variant's collector number, e.g. Plains #230 and Plains #230a.

@meldon44 I just saw this post of yours, and I asked the same thing in a new forum post.

I'm not sure how to catalogue the etched foils in the current system, so I'm open to suggestions. A separate group (e.g. Strixhaven Mystical Archive Etched Foils) may be necessary, unless there's a viable workaround.

Thank you!

Solseek wrote:I'm not sure how to catalogue the etched foils in the current system, so I'm open to suggestions.

For now, it's mostly important for you to be able to track it in some meaningful way, so the easiest would be using one of the deprecated flags (like "promo") in addition to the "foil" flag. This will both make them stand out in your inventory and also make them easier to filter for and edit if/when there's a more official system added to Deckbox.

If you plan to list them for trade, though, then you would want to mention this homebrewed system in your profile.

Solseek wrote:A separate group (e.g. Strixhaven Mystical Archive Etched Foils) may be necessary, unless there's a viable workaround.

A separate edition would be a relatively easy solution for Sebi to implement quickly, and works just fine as a short-term solution.

My main concern is that, long-term, if WotC keeps pumping out these types of variants, Deckbox's edition list will get clogged up with a bunch of "editions" that don't actually exist. It's best to stick with the official designations (i.e. edition code and collector number) whenever possible.

I personally think just implementing another flag would not only be the most accurate, but also the most clear. When scanning through a list of cards, it would be a lot easier to tell a card is etched by seeing a special icon than by having to hover over the edition icon to see that the edition's name includes "etched". Someone good with graphic design could take the current foil symbol and make it look more etched via embossing or a stained-glass styling or something. And it could be differentiated in CSV files as well, by simply typing "etched" in the Foil column.

The only part I don't know about is pricing, as I have no idea how Sebi has that setup in the database. But he's able to link and fetch separate prices for foils vs non-foils, so presumably he could do the same with etched foils.

meldon44 wrote:I personally think just implementing another flag would not only be the most accurate, but also the most clear. When scanning through a list of cards, it would be a lot easier to tell a card is etched by seeing a special icon than by having to hover over the edition icon to see that the edition's name includes "etched".

I really don't understand why they would print these with the same collector number... very annoying of them :D.

Your solution sounds good in principle but adding it as a flag has the confusing problem that people could just mark any printing as "etched", regardless if it exists or not. Having it as a separate edition would be easier to have it be "consistent with reality".

I agree about there being too many editions, I think there's already too many and with how many promos Wotc is printing it's clear whatever we do with etched, this is going to be a problem regardless... So in principle I'm leaning towards a separate edition, although I don't really like it...

sebi wrote:I really don't understand why they would print these with the same collector number... very annoying of them :D

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!

sebi wrote:Your solution sounds good in principle but adding it as a flag has the confusing problem that people could just mark any printing as "etched", regardless if it exists or not.

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.

Side question: Can your pricing system easily support not loading prices for erroneous cards, leaving it N/A? If so, that would be a way to help users identify cards that don't exist as well as discourage incorrectly using flags (since I think most users really enjoy seeing the value displayed). Obviously it's not a perfect solution (the perfect solution would be to hard-set flag values when there's only one option available). For instance, there'd be "N/A" overlap with brand new cards that simply don't have prices yet. But it would be more accurate (cards that don't exist can't have prices) while potentially decreasing user error. Just throwing the idea out there, in case it's viable!

meldon44 wrote:Side question: Can your pricing system easily support not loading prices for erroneous cards, leaving it N/A? If so, that would be a way to help users identify cards that don't exist as well as discourage incorrectly using flags (since I think most users really enjoy seeing the value displayed). Obviously it's not a perfect solution (the perfect solution would be to hard-set flag values when there's only one option available). For instance, there'd be "N/A" overlap with brand new cards that simply don't have prices yet. But it would be more accurate (cards that don't exist can't have prices) while potentially decreasing user error. Just throwing the idea out there, in case it's viable!

I don't know if that is possible tbh. I, of course, don't know the backend of deckbox but with so many variations of card and how different systems track things is it difficult syncing up systems. I know archidekt can't for the life of them figure one version of a card from another between card kingdom and tcg player pricing. Unless you are going to assign every card a scryfall id and use them for pricing it would be difficult to match things up, but even then Scryfall misses prices on things.

The real issue is WotC doesn't give out a multiverse id for all card variants. You can go to Gatherer and look up Temple of Deceit and you will see 2 versions (one from Theros and one from Theros Beyond Death) with 2 multiverse ID even though you also have the planeswalker stamped version and the borderless version (or is that an extended art version?? I'm not sure.). Then you go to Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider and you can see 3 variations with 3 different IDs (which is again missing at least the planeswalker stamp). But then you go to Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger which the gatherer doesn't have the version from The List. I don't know if maybe mtgJSON fixes some of these issues???

As with most things WotC does it is a mess

ic0n67 wrote:I don't know if maybe mtgJSON fixes some of these issues???

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.

meldon44 wrote:

ic0n67 wrote:I don't know if maybe mtgJSON fixes some of these issues???

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.

I think any application/website that uses mtgJSON is waiting for them to decide how to handle it. Other apps I use that use mtgJSON are having similar deficiencies here.

EDIT: Also want to add that I agree with meldon's idea and reasoning. We're gonna keep getting these funky variants, it seems.

My two cents: I like the idea of keeping cards with the same expansion symbol and card number in one place (for collection and selling/buying reasons), which I believe necessitates adding an "Etched" or "Etched Foil" tag.

I believe the cleanest solution would be to develop an etched flag, and the most common across the internet is Foil-Etched. This is a trend that is obviously not going anywhere anytime soon.

+1 for an additional Foil Etched flag.
There's already multiple possibilities for users to wrongly flag cards (foils in sets that don't have them, languages that don't exist for that set...) so, unless sebi wants to implement multiple criteria to enable or disable type flags based on card and edition, which can be a clusterf**k retrospectively, that is something better left for users to manage.
In order to minimize mistakes, like users accidentally picking Foil Etched instead of Foil, use a different flag icon and maybe avoid placing the Foil Etched option right below the regular Foil in the drop down.

If possible can we get The List and Art Series added for STX?

+1 for an additional Foil Etched flag.

+1 for adding an etched flag.

I'm also here to add that I think adding the Foil-Etched Flag is the cleanest and simplest solution.

+1 for an etched flag

I'm still waiting to be able to properly add my Mystical Archive etched cards.

I came across a few tokens from Strixhaven that does not appear to be supported:

Avatar
Treasure
Rowan, Scholar of Sparks

Likely I am just missing something, but I thought I would ask here...

Celtic68 wrote:I came across a few tokens from Strixhaven that does not appear to be supported: [...] Likely I am just missing something, but I thought I would ask here...[/...]

You're not missing anything. Sebi just hasn't had a chance to get the tokens imported yet. Should be soon.

meldon44 wrote: You're not missing anything. Sebi just hasn't had a chance to get the tokens imported yet. Should be soon.

Ah ok - now I know I am not going loony.

Thanks!

+1 for a foil etched flag :)

+1 for an etched flag :)

UPDATE

Scryfall has now implemented its solution, which is honestly one I didn't even think of: They kept the etched variants part of the main Mystical Archives edition, but gave them unique (made-up) collector numbers (as in, not printed on the physical cards) by appending an "e" to the number. E.g. You have Counterspell #15 (for regular and foil) and Counterspell #15e (for foil-etched).

As a purist, I dislike this solution for the same reasons I dislike appending "(Foil Etched)" to the card name a la TCGPlayer, or creating a fake edition like Mystical Archive Foil Etched. However, as a pragmatist, I can see how this solves the problem without causing any practical issues.

Unfortunately, Deckbox's current database schema doesn't support non-integer collector numbers. This has caused Sebi problems in the past, notably in the edition Unstable, which featured a LOT of cards that had the same name and collector number, yet had different rules text / flavor text / artwork. Same is true for the cards I mentioned before, like ZEN and BFZ basic lands (should have e.g. both #250 and #250a) and Tahngarth, Talruum Hero (should have #74 and #74★). Sebi's solution for Unstable was to append parenthetical indicators to the card's name (not preferred long-term). In contrast, his solution for ZEN basics was to use "made-up" collector numbers beyond 249, while for BFZ, he did not do this, so the versions get mixed up upon CSV import.

I still believe a foil-etched flag, that can be linked to a pricing source, is the best solution. Scryfall doesn't utilize flags in this way, so the solution they came up with is likely the only one that would work for them. That said, if Sebi finds adding the foil-etched flag to be too difficult in the current database setup, then using "made-up" collector numbers would be an acceptable solution. Changing his database tables from INT to VARCHAR for the collector number would be more ideal long-term, but again, if that would present too many difficulties, then utilizing collector numbers beyond what Wizards uses (so #127 - #252 in the case of Mystical Archives) would still allow CSV imports to differentiate between the variants, unlike what happens with BFZ basics.

TL;DR — A foil-etched flag is still the best solution for Deckbox's unique interface, but implementing unique collector numbers like Scryfall has done can work too. If Sebi wants to do it like Scryfall, then he has to change the collector number's data type in his database. Otherwise, he will have to use collector numbers outside of the official Wizards ones.

meldon44 wrote:TL;DR — A foil-etched flag is still the best solution for Deckbox's unique interface, but implementing unique collector numbers like Scryfall has done can work too. If Sebi wants to do it like Scryfall, then he has to change the collector number's data type in his database. Otherwise, he will have to use collector numbers outside of the official Wizards ones.

Interesting solution, but yeah sounds like a flag would be simpler, as there's a chance that WoTC will do etched foils in this manor again in future.

As far as people setting items as etched even though such a thing doesn't exist is already an issue with any other tag. I can set my revised cards to foil if I want.

I do like etched tag as a solution as long as the connection to various pricings can be figured out.

As an alternative, someone was saying that the cataloging system doesn't like alpha characters. How about decimals?
Card 56/250 is the regular printing while Card 56.1/250 is the etched version? You could have up to 10 different versions of the card by using one place value after the decimal, 100 if you use a second place value 56.01/250. Preparing for when Wizards completely goes overboard and starts etching random letters in the flavor text or something....