Talk:Set

Missing sets in the list

There are a number of sets which are not in the list on this page, e.g. Collector's Edition, International Collector's Edition, Introductory Two-Player Set, Summer Edition, where the cards are individually identifiable and should appear on the list. I agree that sets like Revised Gift Pack and even Rivals Quick Start Set should not appear, since none of the cards are distinguishable from earlier appearances. Is there a reason why these sets (and some others) are not included?

Also, Portal Three Kingdoms was released 1999-05 not 1999-07, so appears before Urza's Destiny (whose pre-release was 29-May-1999, see False Prophet promo-foil). So need to swap these two rows, to match the chronology found else where in the Wiki.

Standalone sets vs non-block expansions and the 3 + 1 model

First of I am not sure if standalone set and non-block expansion are synonym. Since standalone implies the that cards from other sets were not taken into account to a certain degree. So I am not really sure if Dominaria really fits the bill of a Standalone expansion, especially since tempest (which belongs to a block) is also named as a standalone set.

However the block model is dead and non-block expansions will be the new standard. I wonder if it would make sense to classify the expensions after Dominaria by Core set (in the sense that the 3 + 1 Model says that three expansions belong to one core set).

The Ixalan block and Dominaria are obviously this weird transition period leading up to Core 2019. But after that "Spaghetti", "Meatballs", and "Milk" will belong to "Cookies" so these three are the "Cookies" sets.

Just a few thoughts I have. Anyone agreeing or disagreeing with these thoughts? - Yandere Sliver 14:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Tempest was made a part of a block after the fact. As this page states, it was created and sold as a standalone set. Its current status as part of a block should not unduly inform our decisions.

I would suggest more or less the same conclusion you came to: if we're going to continue grouping sets at all, group future sets by their release year (not calendar year). That leaves Dominaria to be its own disconnected thing, and the Fall 18, Winter 18, and Spring 19 sets group with Core 2019. --Corveroth (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Dominaria and the Ixalaon block rotating with Core 2019? So wouldn't the Fall 18, Winter 18, and Spring 19 belong to Core 2020?

I was also thinking about the Standalone sets grouping that we currently starting with Arabian_Nights. If we shouldn't rename it to "Early non-block expansions" or something along the line. Since not all standalone sets are part of the group (since Tempest isn't in so it is a bit misleading to call them standalone sets). And if we simply say "non-block expansions", then we can't do the Core set grouping which I think would be a very helpful thing going forward. Because previously blocks were rotating and now the 3+1 are rotating, so it might be helpful to know which 3+1 belong together. - Yandere Sliver 20:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the goal of the classification? To sort sets by thematic group, by rotation date, by product type? --Corveroth (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The grouping in the wiki follows two patterns: by product type and by block.

Everything which doesn't belong to a block will be grouped by product type. That is at least who we currently do it.

However Wizards seem to group the standard legal sets in terms of rotation (which makes perfect sense for standard).

The Tarkir block was a good example. Since they switched to the 2 block model at that time. Khans of Tarkir + Fate Reforged would rotate and later Dragons of Tarkir + Magic Origins. In other words starting with M10 one block would always belongs to a core set.

They then wanted to do rotation faster which was massively unpopular so in the end always 2 blocks would rotate and they then reintroduced Core sets.

Ixalan + Rivals of Ixalan and Dominaria + Core 2019 are a rotation unit again.

So three sets always belong to the Core Set that follows them in terms of standard rotation.

And that was my initial thought that "Spaghetti", "Meatballs", and "Milk" will be grouped together as "Cookies expansions". Essentially these three build a block, without being called one.

Alternatively we could simply use the by product categorization for everything with Dominaria forward and every expansion after that would simply be categorized as "non-block expansion" (again I really don't think standalone set is a "good classification" term by any means.

And I think both ideas have merits. I am just not sure which one has more value to the people visiting the site.

Sorry I am rambling so much but I currently really need someone who reflects my thoughts and asks all the right quests. So thank you. - Yandere Sliver 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

For this page, I would cut the "standalone" heading and collapse this discussion into the "expansion sets" section. Going forward, blocks are a historical footnote. For Template:Sets, I don't think this discussion has suggested any necessary changes. For Template:Infobox set, maybe add a rotation date (compare against Template:TODAY) and "rotates/rotated with" list? --Corveroth (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind replacing the standalone monniker for the modern sets, since standalone has a certain definition indeed. Autonomous, individual, independant, isolated, focussed, self-contained? For the grouping, I would say the rotation seems a good reference point --Hunter (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

100th Set

So Rosewater is calling the fall set the 100th set, but by the count of this wiki, War of the Spark is actually the 100th set. A/B + 81 expansions + 18 Core (released at the time) = 100. Any idea what we may be counting wizards does not?--J spencer93 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

100th Standard legal set... But that would be Core 2020 to my knowledge, because we have 81 expansions and 19 core sets making 100 standard legal sets. - Yandere Sliver 22:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

He may not be counting Beta, which aside from print errors, should have been identical to Alpha. --Corveroth (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Late in getting to this but WOTC don't consider Beta a set, just the second print run of Limited Edition. User-100068615 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)