CCL Messageboard

So, as I'm sure we all know, All of the pre-numbering system MtG sets with alternate art for the same card were listed as variants of the same "number," despite no number being given. This is fine for most sets, but it leads to problems with the Coldsnap reprints of Ice Age and Alliances cards. As these cards go by the modern numbering system, each variant has its own number, so the numbers on the cards themselves do not match the numbers for that variant in the database.

Personally, I would very much like to see ALL sets use the modern numbering system, with each variant getting their own card number. This of course would lead to arguments over which variant gets which number, but 1) that argument already exists with which variant is A and which variant is B and 2) the official MtG Encyclopedia settles that argument quite nicely in my opinion as it covers all pre-numbering system sets.

However, I also understand how much work and confusion this may cause for everyone who has already added all of their cards to their own collections in-app, so I won't argue that we do this for ALL pre-number sets, just with Ice Age and Alliances.

Fortunately, the only cards in the Ice Age set that had variants were the basic lands, so that should simplify things greatly.

UNfortunately, Alliances had MANY variants, starting from the very first card, Carrier Pigeons, so that one will be quite a bit of work to get it right in the end.

I would like to get everyone's thoughts (especially admin and approvers' thoughts) on all of this, and I can even provide links to the relevant pages of the Encyclopedia I mentioned.

I'm not following. If Coldsnap is a reprint and new release, isn't that a completely new title from a CCL standpoint? If so, follow the card number.



I wouldn't recommend re-inventing the wheel if there is a standard which could be followed in the MTG Encylopedia. But since I know nothing about MTG cards or the Encyclopedia, I'd take your input.



Re-numbering cards won't (negatively) impact collections. It will simply change the number of the "issue".



Shuffling around numbering can be a big task - often easier as an admin than a user.

Those links would be helpful. I wouldn't assume there are many super knowledgeable MTG admins.

Coldsnap is a little confusing. It is a full set all by itself. But it also reprinted some cards from previous sets (Ice Age and Alliances) in the pre-packaged theme decks that were available at the time. WotC retroactively made Ice Age and Alliances part of a "block" with Coldsnap even though they were released years apart (Ice Age in 95, Alliances in 96, and Coldsnap in 2006), hence the need for reprints. Here's a useful description of the reprints:



In my opinion (I've already talked with loganfifty about this), these reprints should should be variants of their Ice Age and Alliances counterparts. The problem he's running into is with the numbering. I don't care so much about that. I say make them variants regardless of whether the Coldsnap numbering matches up the the Ice Age/Alliances numbering in the database.

That makes sense now. Thanks.

Since it's scattered reprints through Ice Age and Alliances sets, I can get behind submitting them as variants.

My biggest question is - how does a MTG collector ID/catalogue these? As part of Coldsnap set OR part of Ice Age / Alliances? That leads to whether they should be a variant OR a part of Coldsnap set.

If we're sticking with variant -
Here's a thought - use the same number in the "Number" Field for the variants, but add the new numbering in the non-Number field.
That way the Coldsnap variants sit with the orginals as a variant, but reflect the Coldsnap numbering. Might have to use single quotes around the non-numbers - I don't recall how that works off the top of my head.

Maybe use a Tag?

I don't play MTG anymore, but when I did, these were thought of as part of Ice Age/Alliances, so I think keeping them as variants is the best way to go.


That's a good possibility. I'm curious to know where the numbering for the reprint lands start. If it's after 373, they could just be added to the end of Ice Age. loganfifty, can you give us the numbers for the reprint land cards?


I think that's a great idea, Howie, and I'm a little upset with myself I didn't think of it first. No matter how these lands are dealt with, a Tag should be applied to all of the reprint cards.

Apologies for the delayed response. Chaos reigns.

As seen with the Snow-Covereds in Coldsnap, the numbering system they came up with for the Ice Age reprints assumes the Snow-Covered lands are listed first, alongside Veldt, as they are considered Rare lands, as opposed to the basic common lands.

The numbering of the reprint basic land cards goes from 369 (Plains version 1) through 383 (Forest version 3), so they were not simply tacked onto the end of the original run.

If you take the original run and list each card individually (369, 370, 371), instead of with variants (A, B, C), you end up with a total number of original Ice Age cards being 383. This is the same number of total cards listed in the reprint set.

The entire issue comes down to the fact that MtG never intended for each version to be thought of as a variant, a point they made quite soundly when they first started numbering their cards and giving each card an individual number instead of 1A/1B/1C, etc. So we basically brought this problem on ourselves when we started listing the older set variants as variants instead of unique issues, something that should have been addressed long ago in my opinion. Putting off a correction simply because it's complicated is just kicking the can down the road. Better to deal with it now than to let it get worse over time.

But, to address the layout of the original run's lands, I'll list them below:

363 Veldt
364 Snow-Covered Plains
365 Snow-Covered Island
366 Snow-Covered Swamp
367 Snow-Covered Mountain
368 Snow-Covered Forest
369 Plains (ver. 1)
370 Plains (ver. 2)
371 Plains (ver. 3)
372 Island (ver. 1)
373 Island (ver. 2)
374 Island (ver. 3)
375 Swamp (ver. 1)
376 Swamp (ver. 2)
377 Swamp (ver. 3)
378 Mountain (ver. 1)
379 Mountain (ver. 2)
380 Mountain (ver. 3)
381 Forest (ver. 1)
382 Forest (ver. 2)
383 Forest (ver. 3)

This is the numbering system I propose, as it is consistent with every other numbered system in MtG, as well as consistent with the placement of Snow-Covered lands as shown in Coldsnap. As for which variant is which, that can be addressed once the numbers have been settled on and should probably be consistent with the card art chosen for the reprinted cards, as those are the ones with the numbers on them already.

If I can get admin consensus, I will go ahead and get started making these changes, first with Ice Age, then with Alliances. I should be able to bypass some of the awkwardness of dealing with card numbers that already exist in the database by starting with renumbering any card that should be numbered 374 and above. Once those are approved, I can work backwards from there.

Or an admin can make the changes themselves in order to bypass the approval delay.

Any objections to this change being implemented?

Oh, and I definitely agree with Howie on adding tags to the reprint cards. Tag them as Coldsnap?

I think I'd go with "Tag: Coldsnap Reprint"

I just got back from my storage unit with the MtG Encyclopedia I had there (what a relief it was to finally find it!) and can start scanning and uploading the relevant pages as they do not appear to be easily found online already. I have a smugmug site I can upload them to and provide a link to here. As soon as they are up, I will provide the link to the unlisted gallery they will be located in.