Talk:Edge of Eternities

Top down?

Admittedly, this is unlikely to be an issue for long, but the article currently describes the set as being 'top down' influenced, while this language has not been used by Wizards themselves and usually has a more specific definition than a set simply having a theme. Lennongrad (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be an accurate reading. The sources describe a theme, but neither citation on that sentence describe the mechanical root of the set. I'll strike those words for now, but if you run into anything else not supported by the references, feel free to edit it yourself! Corveroth (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Once we have all the "Making Magic" articles behind the design of this set, I'm sure we'll have a clearer picture as Bloomburrow was bottom-up but hid its nature very well. Since science fantasy is a more exceptional flavour and since this set appears to have a strong mechanical theme (land matters meets artifact matters), it's going to be hard to make any guesses for now. --Nera Buvelle (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Limited archetypes

TL;DR: PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE "TBA" IN LIMITED ARCHETYPES UNTIL WOTC OFFICIALLY STATES THE OFFICIAL NAMES OF ALL 10 IN AN ARTICLE, ANNOUNCEMENT, STREAM, OR WHATEVER MODE OF COMMUNICATION BECOMES NEEDED IN THESE STRANGE TIMES. FOLLOW THE NOTE'S INSTRUCTIONS OF ITALICIZING AND ? MARKING INSTEAD. THANK YOU!

A problem regarding recent sets is the editing of limited archetypes once gold signposts is revealed. On one hand, signposts themselves should be roughly indicative of what the archetype is, as it is their primary function, so one could reasonable estimate the archetypes from that information alone, never mind subtle hints from WOTC themselves. On the other hand, the function of an online encyclopedia is both a repository of information like its classical version but also (trivially) an answer sheet for someone who just wants a quick Google answer before generative AI consumes us all. As such, the information must be objective at best, but also comprehensive, including intended implications, in the same way that a wiki would discuss archetypes and themes not blatantly stated in narrative fiction.

As such, I am trying a new compromise to this where limited archetypes will by default be the 10 color pairs with the words "TBA" assigned next to them unless obviously otherwise (e.g. Tarkir: Dragonstorm). Speculation will be in italicized with a friendly question mark (?); this should suffice to encapsulate multiple hypotheses (e.g. For EOE, tapped creatures and spacecraft for ), different guesses for different aspects of the archetype (e.g. Aggro vs. Control and also Lands-matter vs. Artifacts-matter), and delineating what is confirmed information instead of a editing competition to see who can take the spot on the line of code, as I'm sure we are all guilty of. Well at least I know I am. --Nera Buvelle (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edge or The Edge

Since the "plane" page emitted the "The", Should we apply the change on every page? --Vorthos666 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It's called "the Edge" and should always be preceded by "the" in running prose (and within infoboxes, in my opinion). "The" shouldn't be capitalized unless it's the start of a sentence. (Source: PW guide.) The article itself is just titled Edge (following a discussion in the Discord yesterday; the relevant policy is WP:THE), so the best way to link it is the [[Edge]]. That said, [[the Edge]] works perfectly well as a redirect. --Inktog (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

More pairs?

I'm not sure if this is correct, but there appear to be more pairs/cycles in the set than are shown on the page.

For example, there is a black common sorcery with void (Temporal Intervention) and a red common sorcery with void (Plasma Bolt) that seems to be intended to be payoffs for the BR archetype. The reason I think they are a pair is that they both mimic the effects of famous staples (Thoughtseize and Lightning Bolt). Furthermore, there is a blue common artifact that draws cards and sacrifices itself for value (Cryogen Relic) and a red common artifact that rummages and sacrifices itself for value (Melded Moxite) that seem to be intended to boost the UR archetype.

There's also one cheap to cast common equipment in white, blue, and green, respectively, that auto-attach on ETB (Squire's Lightblade, Illvoi Light Jammer, and Meltstrider's Gear). I don't know what they are for, maybe to help with double spelling, but they're there.

Oh, and there's also one common that cares about double-spelling in both white and blue (Brightspear Zealot and Illvoi Operative). And after scrolling Scryfall for a bit, I found one common in both white and red that care about two tapped creatures (Flight-Deck Coordinator and Frontline War-Rager). There are probably more pairs (e.g. Kav Landseeker and Galactic Wayfarer).

The other possibility is that they aren't really pairs or cycles, and I'm overthinking it. That's pretty possible. Or maybe they are pairs but aren't really significant enough. I can see that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satchel the SandWing (talk • contribs).

As someone who studies common files a lot, you'll see a ton of it in every set. You'll see it more often when there are fewer color pair overlaps in archetypes or when multicolor gets bigger representation, because then the space gets limited and the payoffs or enablers are stuck to one per color, adding to the perception that they are pairs. See Zendikar Rising for when I (and R&D, I believe) went really deep on things that seem like design cycles. That is all to say that I would believe there should be a higher bar for commons: for example, Appendage Amalgam and Fear of Surveillance has three-and-a-half qualities in common, where the two toughness is the incidental half-quality. Shield (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Cycles

The "Single-pip warpers" and "Double-pip warpers" listed on the cycles table both feel like quite a stretch to me. The black card in each one doesn't have Warp, and Void is more a Morbid variant than an interaction with Warp specifically. Since Warp does appear on black cards, they could easily have made black rares with Warp if they had wanted. Unless I'm missing something, it seems unlikely that these were intentional cycles and not just rares that happened to have Warp. Would there be objections to removing them? -- Ambystoma maculatum (talk) 00:20, 01 August 2025 (UTC)