Talk:Coldsnap

Extended

My understanding is that Extended has nothing to do with the number of sets, it's just basically everything after IPA created specifically for MTGO. Am I wrong? Cyberodin

This is more or less correct. Recently, Extended has been on a 'three-year rotation', meaning that the next rotation of Extended will ditch Invasion, Odyssey, and Onslaught to include all sets from Mirrodin forward. NorrYtt 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Coldsnap?

The name of the set is a bit weird, but what I mean is, why did they decide to "finish" the ICe Age block, when it was technically already finished? Homelands was considered by many and I believe by Wizards themselves to be the third/second expansion of the Ice Age block; so it was finished. So what made them replace Homelands with Coldsnap? I don't buy the "Ice Age was not finished so we had to finish it" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.51.27 (talk • contribs)

First of all: Homelands sucks. Secondly: It is true that Homelands was only the second version of the third Ice Age set. A basic draft of Coldsnap did exist back then, but for some reason it was scrapped, and Homelands was made instead - however, Homelands was never meant to be part of Ice Age - it was only made part of the block later, when R&D decided to introduce the system of three-set blocks. Initially, the Ice Age block consisted of just Ice Age and Alliances. The reason they are making Coldsnap now is because Homelands doesn't fit with Ice Age/Alliances thematically, and because it sucks. --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I thought it turned out that they made up all that crap about Coldsnap being an old set? - --Tahngarth 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did. However, it is true that Homelands was never really meant to be the third set for the Ice Age bloc; it never fit in in any way. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I was simply talking about how someone in this discussion mentioned an "old draft for Coldsnap", which I'm pretty sure never existed.

Notable Cards

I wonder of Braid of Fire ought to be mentioned here? This seems pretty unique to me, another neat demonstration of what Coldsnap is doing with upkeeps.

"1R (2), Enchantment

Cumulative upkeep-Add {R} to your mana pool."

--Dchudz 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm adding it to the list, which is pretty short, anyway. --David Youngberg 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of some Notable Cards

I would just like to ask on why half of the notable cards present on previous edits are now gone. And this case of removing notable cards hasn't appeared throughout the days of Ravnica block (that is the farthest I can remeber). Could someone explain on this? If no explanation present I would like to suggest putting them back, thanks. ~~ Wakipudeo ~~

I deleted three (not half) of them because I regarded them as non-notable. The whole section was kind of poorly written as well. I removed Jokulmorder because "really big creature" isn't especially notable, and the fact that it was something of a throwback to the "let's print bigger and bigger creatures" isn't more notable than any of the other throwbacks. Wall of Shards is just a cheap wall that gains opponents life. It's kind of an interesting tradeoff, but no more interesting than most of the set. Allosaurus Rider doesn't become notable because it was the prerelease card. The rest of the cards do stuff that's either new and exciting or, in the case of Vanish Into Memory, the third ever player designed card. Croctotheface 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... very well, I can agree to your reasons. Thanks for explaining.
Though, you may want to browse through other MTG expansion topics to recheck the notable cards present; who knows, a topic of a particular set may have too many or too few interesting cards. Thanks. ~~ Wakipudeo ~~

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I just came across this article and thought it needed some cleaning up. If I get a chance, I'll look over some of the others as well. Croctotheface 11:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also legal in

The article forgot to mention that Coldsnap is also legal in Coldsnap-ONLY limited tournaments (like sealed deck or draft tournaments); I think Mark Rosewater spoke of this and the reasons for it not too long ago (could have been someone else). So it's kind of a Coldsnap Expansion format; it's different from the Ice Age Block format. Can someone add this; or correct me if I'm wrong?

set size errors

I changed the set breakdown to match the actual distribution of commons/unc./rares, instead of the incorrect figure which was in a wizards pre-release announcement. Actual set breakdown is 40R/55U/60C, incorrect figure was 40R/50U/65C.

Notable Cards?

I don't think most of the cards listed as "notable cards" are actually notable; Haakon isn't listed and several of them aren't really "notable" in that people don't pay much attention to them. Who came up with the list anyway? Titanium Dragon 08:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who did initially, but I did a fair bit of trimming at some point. On one hand, I agree with you, but on another, it's important not to equate "notable" with "sees play in Standard". If you want to make changes, go ahead, but don't bloat the section too much, and don't just replace non-tier 1 cards with tier 1 cards. Croctotheface 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It was also released on Magic: The Gathering Online on August 14, becoming the first expansion ever to be legal for Constructed tournament play on Magic Online before its paper version was."

This is false, it takes a month once a set is released on Magic Online for it to become tournament legal.

C-class

Only thing it needs to solidify C-class is the addition of <ref></ref> tags. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]