Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.
The citation is in: Brady Dommermuth. "Ask Wizards - October 2006", Wizards of the Coast, October 31, 2006. |
[edit] Onslaught expansion symbol
January 10, 2003 Q: "Could you explain what the expansion symbol for Onslaught is? Is it a spider? If it is, why?" --Nate Jungemann
A: From Brady Dommermuth, Magic creative director: "Thanks for your question. The symbol represents a 2/2 colorless creature that could morph into a normal creature. In other words, it's what face-down cards look like while they're in play, before they become something else. We call them 'clay spiders' here at Wizards, although they don't really have an official name. For a better view of these creatures, take a look at Disruptive Pitmage, Serpentine Basilisk, and Skittish Valesk. All three are morph creatures that have just been summoned through the clay-like forms.
"On the R&D creative side, morph creatures were a challenge. They're 2/2 and they can attack, so clearly they're not just eggs or cocoons of some kind. And they don't have any color or abilities, so they're not just sneaky versions of the creatures they can become. They must be able to move around and attack.
"Enter Ixidor. The Onslaught story features a mad wizard named Ixidor who can bring things into being by simply imagining them. So we decided that Ixidor would be the master -- maybe even the discoverer -- of this new method of summoning. The 'clay spiders' represent Ixidor's magically sculpted creatures, and each one carries an 'aether signature' through which a creature can be summoned. (The creatures aren't actually stuffed inside the clay. It's like a walking gateway for summoning.)
"PS: The Break Open card doesn't exactly fit into my explanation above. Okay, okay, it contradicts it. We didn't expect the illustration to look like a Cephalid was literally stuffed inside the morph creature. So, um, just pretend it's a metaphor for the spell's effect. Yeah, that's it." Copyright Wizards of the Coast[1]
[edit] Unhinged expansion symbol
I was going to add it to the list, but I'm not sure whether to describe it as a U or a horseshoe. Does anyone else actually know which it is? αγδεε(τ) 01:18, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
[edit] Links to pages about numbers?
I don't understand. Why do we need those? I'm removing the links. Not pertinent to the article. Ambush Commander 20:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- As it says on the page, "All expansion sets, and all core sets Sixth Edition and afterwards, are identified by an expansion symbol printed on the right side of cards, below the art and above the text box." Core sets starting with Sixth Edition gained expansion symbols; Sixth Edition used a Roman numeral; the sets afterwards have used Arabic numerals. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:55, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Magic: The Gathering Sets Project
How about doing an article about every Magic set? That's what I'm going to do. Some help is needed though. See User:Grue/MTGSets for more information. Grue 09:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Unhinged under Unglued?
I don't believe that this is a proper labeling for the Un- sets. Inside several articles written about Unhinged that specifically state that although this set followed the un- convention to show that the set was playful, the Unhinged set should be regarded as a seperate entity from Unglued.
- Why is it called Unhinged and not Unglued II?
- Because this set is more than merely an extension of Unglued, we felt it deserved to have its own identity. The "un" naming convention was used to convey that the set will follow in the playful, break-the-rules spirit of Unglued.
Furthermore, the Card Set page does not group Unglued and Unhinged together. They're all lumped together and a section called Special Sets, which are seperate. At the very least they should be labled "Joke Sets" or perhaps simply "Special Sets" and Vanguard among others should be added.
- Makes sense. Had I noticed they were both under "Unglued", I would've made the change myself. However, I agree with naming the group "Special Sets" and including Vanguard. In that case, though, what else should be added under that category? Chronicles and Renaissance don't really seem like they each deserve an individual article so should they be merged together and included under "Special Sets"? Or, as they're tournament-legal, should they be under yet another category? At any rate, I don't think the change was especially "controversial". Good move. — αγδεε(τ) 03:04, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
Chronicles should not be moved away from where it currently is. The reason is that it is DCI-sanctioned-tournament-legal, so it should be kept with the other tournament legal sets. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Also, regarding Unglued: see the Wizards page for Unhinged [2], wherein Unhinged is referred to as the "Unglued expansion". The quote given above about Unhinged having a separate identity: yes, it does have a separate identity, in the sense that each set, even within a block, has a separate identity. However, in most players' minds, Unglued and Unhinged are very much associated. The term "joke sets" looks unprofessional in an encyclopedia, and Unglued and Unhinged are often mixed together when people play. Thus, I am restoring the heading. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Just a few more words to what I'm saying: the three Portal sets are not, technically speaking, a "block". But they are associated, which is why they are grouped together. Notice that the word "block" is not used in the heading, the way it is in the heading of Odyssey block, for example. For the same reason, it's okay to group Unglued and Unhinged together under Unglued; the heading doesn't use the word "block". Also, just think about it this way: when someone who's been away from MTG for a few years asks what this new set Unhinged is that they're hearing so much about, what's the simplest, clearest, and most common way people answer? Yeah, with the two words "Unglued II." —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:41, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... I can see where you are coming from. Would Un- Sets still be unprofessional? Because even though Joke Sets may not be the best term to describe them, I don't believe listing them under Unglued is valid. Furthermore, we should actually restructure the page so that we have two extra sets: Starter Sets and Special Sets, in my opinion, in order to accurately portray the sets. And considering the former MTG player, I think that the Un- naming convention is more than enough to indicate to them that these two sets are similar, and if we group them together, the distinction will be clear enough to make the association. I'm not reverting it back for the time being though. Ambush Commander 03:29, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Portal is Legal Under DCI starting 10/20/05
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/resources/sfrvintage
The above URL explains it all.
[edit] Expansion symbols
Is there some reason we don't have graphics of each set's expansion symbol? It seems like a really easy change to make, and quite clearly under fair-use as far as copyright issues go. --Khaim 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Not sure myself, but it makes sense to have it. I guess the only way to find out is to upload all of the set symbols and try to use them, and see who gets angry :) --habitue 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
They're all already uploaded on the respective page for each set, they'd just need to be linked. Last time this was brought up at the wikiproject, it was mentioned that on the set page it was probably fair use, anywhere it probably wasn't. I think a page giving an overview of all sets would be appropriate, especially to someone trying to figure out what symbol goes where. (I would also argue that the template listing all the sets could use them too, but maybe that's overboard.) -- Norvy (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Symbols for alpha, beta, unlimited, 3e, and 4e
The symbols should be removed claiming to represent alpha, beta, unlimited, Third Edition, and Fourth Edition. None of those symbols are on the cards. Tempshill 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- They're the symbols Wizards of the Coast uses to identify the sets and cards in them, and are designated as the official expansion symbols. The fact that they weren't actually on the cards is irrelevant.-Polotet 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ask Wizards again
Wikipedia got hit at Ask Wizards again, this time for this article on October 31st. -- saberwyn 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future Sight Symbol
Revealed Future Sight's logo and symbol. But it's the rare (gold) version, how to get the common (black) one? 201.50.157.246 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
