Talk:Functional reprint: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>@legacy41915546 No edit summary |
>LegacymtgsalvationUser8147 No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:"Functional reprint" is all dependant on the definition; speaking of which, we want to use a correct one, so, what is a correct definition, and is ours correct? <sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub> <sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup> 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | :"Functional reprint" is all dependant on the definition; speaking of which, we want to use a correct one, so, what is a correct definition, and is ours correct? <sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub> <sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup> 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
==table== | |||
How about different way to sort them out? First column could be original idea of the card, second - the latest functional reprint, and the notes would list f.reprints 'in between' and add any other info required. What do you think? | |||
Revision as of 21:11, 6 July 2010
According to the reserve list, subtype is enough to differentiate between a funcitonal reprint and a new card.VestDan 21:44, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
Here's an interesting link including functional reprints. --MORT (T) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Functional reprint" is all dependant on the definition; speaking of which, we want to use a correct one, so, what is a correct definition, and is ours correct? MM (talk!) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
table
How about different way to sort them out? First column could be original idea of the card, second - the latest functional reprint, and the notes would list f.reprints 'in between' and add any other info required. What do you think?