So, I missed out on a lot of the core sets between 6th edition and around M12ish.
I know I could just look at the spoiler sheets of all the cards that are in every single core set, and just compare and contrast them and see which cards carried over from one set to the next, but, I don't want to spoil the sets for myself, since I enjoy opening booster packs and not already being familiar with all the cards in a pack, so there are some new cards/surprises when I look through a set for the first time.
So, I was wondering if there has ever been any charts posted online that expresses the amount of overlap between the Core sets in a numerical sort of way.
So, to use some random completely fake/made up numbers just to give an example of what I'm even trying to ask for here, I mean something like:
6th Edition: 350 cards
7th Edition: 350 cards; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 279
8th Edition: 357 cards; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 284; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 237
9th Edition: 359 cards; number of cards carried over from 8th Edition: 287; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 241; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 193
10th Edition: 383 cards; number of cards carried over from 9th Edition: 297; number of cards carried over from 8th Edition: 246; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 188; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 145
and so on..
Again, these numbers^^^ are completely fake, I just made them up to give an example of what I'm trying to ask for. So yea, something like this but for all the Core sets that have ever existed from Alpha all the way through Origins, would be awesome.
Of if such a thing doesn't already exist, but anyone is in the mood to take on such a task, it would be very much appreciated!
This was really tricky since I had a hard time groking what you wanted and I had screaming kids and two pests turning what should have been a 30 minutes study into something like two hours. Seriously, every ******* person in my house acts like they're between the ages of 7.
If you need help figuring it out the algorithm does the following. Each named row is the "reference" set, each column is the set we're analyzing as it relates to the reference set.
As you can see row LEA (Limited Edition Alpha) column LEA has 290 unique cards. Basic lands were printed in two variations so they're only counted once. This is why the set counts are slightly slower. Since there were no other sets at the time of its printing, the rest of the row is blank.
Looking at 4ED (Fourth Edition) we can see that 218 cards from Alpha were reprinted.
We can see by 8ED that less than 1/4 of the original Alpha cards were reprinted.
We can see by Origins, only 11 of the original 290 were reprinted. We can safely infer that 5 of these cards are lands. I have no idea what the other 6 are.
I made no effort to analyze for cards that "skipped" sets. For example, if a card was printed early on in a core set, then dropped, then reprinted again in a later core set. I only analyzed based on card name. Nothing done for art or frame changes.
What's really interesting is the the overlap held stable at just slightly over 50% of the previous set until the 'M' series were printed which gradually drops off the number of overlapping core reprints until a mere 10% were reprinted from the previous set.
Holy smokes! That's awesome! Thanks for doing that!
I guess the only other major piece of analysis of the core sets, (which you alluded to), but would be highly inadvisable of a task to do without a computer program, would be to tally up how many cards in each set had never appeared in any MTG set before (as in, were brand new cards airing for the first time in the core set they appear in (or, I guess if someone was really anal, they could do two separate tallies per set, with one being whether the card ever appeared in a core set before, and the other being whether it ever appeared in any MTG set of any kind before).
So, if some computer programmer sees this and knows how to do it in some fast/easy way that only takes a few minutes, go for it if you wish, but, if not, then definitely not, seriously, plz don't, I think it would probably make a person have a mental breakdown probably since it would take so long/be so drudge-work-esque in nature.
Anyway, that was interesting! I had no clue. I thought the carry-over percentages were wayyyyy higher than that (maybe due to a high amount of ever-printed-in-mtg carry-over (or maybe I just got a skewed impression in my memory or something). So, that was cool.
If someone else doesn't do it, I can do that tonight. I haven't updated my tables since before MM3 but that's a trivial exercise. The whole thing, not just the update. I already have set hashes for each card. That last one was kind of hard to grok because I had 15 protein bags demanding my attention nonstop last night.
You want all 200+ paper and online sets, paper only? Core only?
Edit: Oh... I think I understand... so...
Looking at a core set, you want to see if said card existed in a previous printing (future printings are ignored?)
Looking at a core set, whether that card ever appeared in any other set, previous or future printing?
Yeah no problem, I might not have MM/DD/YYYY for all the sets or cards so there might be crossover if two sets were released the same year and I don't have the month.
I might have chronological release order, not sure if I thought to gather that up but I'll look at the data tonight.
Paper Core only is fine with me, but of course you can feel free to do as much or as little as you wish. (If it turns out to be non-trivial or annoying, please don't grind away on my behalf, I'm the type of guy who tends to feel super bad/guilty about stuff like that, lol)
But yea basically I guess I am trying to get a feel for how much of a core set I'm going to already be familiar with (like "damn, I've already seen almost all of these cards before") upon opening a pack of ______ Edition, and finding out if some sets are worse/better than others in that respect. (I'm assuming the earlier editions had more total-carry-over than the later editions, in similar fashion to how they also had more direct-prior-set carry-over as well, but I am curious as to how different the total-carry-over ratios are for the latter sets compared to their minusucule direct-prior-set carry-over's which apparently dipped down to almost nothing by the time we got to Origins).
We can see by Origins, only 11 of the original 290 were reprinted. We can safely infer that 5 of these cards are lands. I have no idea what the other 6 are.
I got inspired by all that work you put in so I tried to find those 6 cards, obviously assuming the other 5 are basic lands. I found five:
Jayemdae Tome
Mahamoti Djinn
Nightmare
Sengir Vampire
Serra Angel
edit: right, so I missed Shivan Dragon.
Nice! These were some of my favorite cards in 4E back when I was a kid. I think "Nightmare" was my favorite of those. Brings back a lot of memories. Loved the artwork, and the name pun, and its gameplay abilities. Liked all those other ones a lot too. Well, I guess I really just liked pretty much all of it, actually. When MTG was brand new to me, even the worst cards seemed pretty amazing to me, lol.
I guess the only other major piece of analysis of the core sets, (which you alluded to), but would be highly inadvisable of a task to do without a computer program, would be to tally up how many cards in each set had never appeared in any MTG set before (as in, were brand new cards airing for the first time in the core set they appear in
Approximately 50% of the cards in 10E through ORI are brand new cards -- that was specifically the policy for core sets during the time period; half reprints and half new cards. 2ED* through 9ED are 100% reprints, though not necessarily reprinting core set cards. (And obviously, LEA is 100% new.)
Until 10E, reprint sets (the core sets, Anthologies, Chronicles, etc.) were distinguished from other sets by having white borders. P3K also had white borders, despite not being a reprint set.
* I suppose you could call LEB a reprint set, too, but it's more like a second print run of LEA.
Ah, sounds about right. I remember the cards always looking familiar whenever I opened packs of the old white-bordered editions, but looked like there was a fair amount of new stuff in the more recent ones. I think I even used to know that that was the case, with those old ones being 100% reprints, but then somehow completely forgot about it, when I was opening a few packs of some of the more recent core sets, and couldn't remember what the old ratios were or how they compared to the new ones.
We can see by Origins, only 11 of the original 290 were reprinted. We can safely infer that 5 of these cards are lands. I have no idea what the other 6 are.
I got inspired by all that work you put in so I tried to find those 6 cards, obviously assuming the other 5 are basic lands. I found five:
Jayemdae Tome
Mahamoti Djinn
Nightmare
Sengir Vampire
Serra Angel
edit: right, so I missed Shivan Dragon.
Nice! These were some of my favorite cards in 4E back when I was a kid. I think "Nightmare" was my favorite of those. Brings back a lot of memories. Loved the artwork, and the name pun, and its gameplay abilities. Liked all those other ones a lot too. Well, I guess I really just liked pretty much all of it, actually. When MTG was brand new to me, even the worst cards seemed pretty amazing to me, lol.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but the only one of those cards that is actually in packs of Origins is Jayemdae Tome - the others are included in the set list, and were standard legal at the time, but they were actually part of the welcome decks that shops give out to new players (the planeswalker decks now do something similar, all the cards unique to them are standard legal but not included in the set proper).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know I could just look at the spoiler sheets of all the cards that are in every single core set, and just compare and contrast them and see which cards carried over from one set to the next, but, I don't want to spoil the sets for myself, since I enjoy opening booster packs and not already being familiar with all the cards in a pack, so there are some new cards/surprises when I look through a set for the first time.
So, I was wondering if there has ever been any charts posted online that expresses the amount of overlap between the Core sets in a numerical sort of way.
So, to use some random completely fake/made up numbers just to give an example of what I'm even trying to ask for here, I mean something like:
6th Edition: 350 cards
7th Edition: 350 cards; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 279
8th Edition: 357 cards; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 284; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 237
9th Edition: 359 cards; number of cards carried over from 8th Edition: 287; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 241; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 193
10th Edition: 383 cards; number of cards carried over from 9th Edition: 297; number of cards carried over from 8th Edition: 246; number of cards carried over from 7th Edition: 188; number of cards carried over from 6th Edition: 145
and so on..
Again, these numbers^^^ are completely fake, I just made them up to give an example of what I'm trying to ask for. So yea, something like this but for all the Core sets that have ever existed from Alpha all the way through Origins, would be awesome.
Of if such a thing doesn't already exist, but anyone is in the mood to take on such a task, it would be very much appreciated!
Thanks
Anyways... something like this?
If you need help figuring it out the algorithm does the following. Each named row is the "reference" set, each column is the set we're analyzing as it relates to the reference set.
As you can see row LEA (Limited Edition Alpha) column LEA has 290 unique cards. Basic lands were printed in two variations so they're only counted once. This is why the set counts are slightly slower. Since there were no other sets at the time of its printing, the rest of the row is blank.
Looking at 4ED (Fourth Edition) we can see that 218 cards from Alpha were reprinted.
We can see by 8ED that less than 1/4 of the original Alpha cards were reprinted.
We can see by Origins, only 11 of the original 290 were reprinted. We can safely infer that 5 of these cards are lands. I have no idea what the other 6 are.
I made no effort to analyze for cards that "skipped" sets. For example, if a card was printed early on in a core set, then dropped, then reprinted again in a later core set. I only analyzed based on card name. Nothing done for art or frame changes.
What's really interesting is the the overlap held stable at just slightly over 50% of the previous set until the 'M' series were printed which gradually drops off the number of overlapping core reprints until a mere 10% were reprinted from the previous set.
I guess the only other major piece of analysis of the core sets, (which you alluded to), but would be highly inadvisable of a task to do without a computer program, would be to tally up how many cards in each set had never appeared in any MTG set before (as in, were brand new cards airing for the first time in the core set they appear in (or, I guess if someone was really anal, they could do two separate tallies per set, with one being whether the card ever appeared in a core set before, and the other being whether it ever appeared in any MTG set of any kind before).
So, if some computer programmer sees this and knows how to do it in some fast/easy way that only takes a few minutes, go for it if you wish, but, if not, then definitely not, seriously, plz don't, I think it would probably make a person have a mental breakdown probably since it would take so long/be so drudge-work-esque in nature.
Anyway, that was interesting! I had no clue. I thought the carry-over percentages were wayyyyy higher than that (maybe due to a high amount of ever-printed-in-mtg carry-over (or maybe I just got a skewed impression in my memory or something). So, that was cool.
You want all 200+ paper and online sets, paper only? Core only?
Edit: Oh... I think I understand... so...
Looking at a core set, you want to see if said card existed in a previous printing (future printings are ignored?)
Looking at a core set, whether that card ever appeared in any other set, previous or future printing?
Yeah no problem, I might not have MM/DD/YYYY for all the sets or cards so there might be crossover if two sets were released the same year and I don't have the month.
I might have chronological release order, not sure if I thought to gather that up but I'll look at the data tonight.
But yea basically I guess I am trying to get a feel for how much of a core set I'm going to already be familiar with (like "damn, I've already seen almost all of these cards before") upon opening a pack of ______ Edition, and finding out if some sets are worse/better than others in that respect. (I'm assuming the earlier editions had more total-carry-over than the later editions, in similar fashion to how they also had more direct-prior-set carry-over as well, but I am curious as to how different the total-carry-over ratios are for the latter sets compared to their minusucule direct-prior-set carry-over's which apparently dipped down to almost nothing by the time we got to Origins).
Nice! These were some of my favorite cards in 4E back when I was a kid. I think "Nightmare" was my favorite of those. Brings back a lot of memories. Loved the artwork, and the name pun, and its gameplay abilities. Liked all those other ones a lot too. Well, I guess I really just liked pretty much all of it, actually. When MTG was brand new to me, even the worst cards seemed pretty amazing to me, lol.
Until 10E, reprint sets (the core sets, Anthologies, Chronicles, etc.) were distinguished from other sets by having white borders. P3K also had white borders, despite not being a reprint set.
* I suppose you could call LEB a reprint set, too, but it's more like a second print run of LEA.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)