Strixhaven, Commander 2021 (Page 1 of 2)

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/a … 2021-03-25
https://deckbox.org/editions/592-the-list

Last edited by thedwan (2021-04-14 03:01:21)

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.

@Sebi — 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Last edited by redwildrider (2021-04-23 20:46:51)

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.

Last edited by StoneValley (2021-04-28 02:58:36)

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

+1 for adding an etched flag.

+1 for an etched flag

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

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