Talk:Set: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>Corveroth |
>Yandere-sliver No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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). | 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 | 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? - [[User:Yanderesliver|Yandere Sliver]] [[File:H09 symbol.png|16px|link=User talk:Yanderesliver]] 14:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | Just a few thoughts I have. Anyone agreeing or disagreeing with these thoughts? - [[User:Yanderesliver|Yandere Sliver]] [[File:H09 symbol.png|16px|link=User talk:Yanderesliver]] 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. | : 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''. --[[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk:Corveroth|talk]]) 20:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | : 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''. --[[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk: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 inn 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. - [[User:Yanderesliver|Yandere Sliver]] [[File:H09 symbol.png|16px|link=User talk:Yanderesliver]] 20:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:48, 24 March 2018
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 inn 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)