1994 Magic the Gathering Revised Edition Gaming Forum

There are cards that are more than 1 color as well.

Thanks Dan; I knew you would step up. I also know there are a couple of North American members here who are big into MTG and would probably understand the sets that will require this. What I now of MTG is because I loadedmy son's collection on here and learned these nuances in the early sets as well as many in those recently released. But I don't think I know enough about them to sort everything out.

Why does Crazie Joe's name come to mind? I may be mistaken but I think he collects these.

I think that is in more recent sets that all have card #s.  I don't think that will not be an issue here for the older un numbered sets.

Flexibility is great, but we also have to take into account that we see a lot of people hit this site that don't know a lot about what they have and are looking for answers. Those people aren't necessarily going to be looking in a single checklist grouped by colors. That's why rules/guidelines/procedures have been put in place for many aspects of the site.

Also, Revised is not a reprinted set. The majority of the cards are reprints from Beta, but there are some that have been removed. Don't remember if any were added.

Also, Beta is black bordered and Unlimited, then Revised are white bordered.

The Elder Dragon cards are multi-colored. The card itself is colored gold, but per the rules, the card color is dependent of the mana is takes to cast it.

Thank you for thinking of me. =D

I will say, I am not a big fan of the insert way of handling of the early sets. I know that MTG always lists them as a base set by colour, but fully appreciate and was fine with the conformity here of the sets just being alphabetical. Happy to add in a useful two cents here and there where I can to get things done.

I'm not sure why the color of the cards even matters for TCDB.  There are plenty of Magic sites for managing and building decks when this site is all about keeping a database of cards that exist and to track your collection.  I would think the vast majority of users using this for collecting and tracking would want consistency across the entire site.

I see enough inconsistencies on the Magic stuff already (card numbers, tokens without advertisement backs, etc).

I've got a question for those who know. While looking at the cards in the links provided in this thread discussion at first I notcied they did not have the standard copyright line (c)year Wizards of The Coast. Does the lack of this copyright line indicate the Beta cards (which it looks like from the scans of the links in this thread)

I have 20-30 some MTG cards most of which I acquired from the childhood collection of a friend's son and about 4 other MTG cards that were promos that I think I received from copies of Non-Sport Update Magazine or some similar trading card magazine from the mid to late 1990s when I got the cards. All the cards I have are NNO and have the Wiszards of the Coast copyright line most copyrighted 1997, a few 1995 and I think just one 1996.

I added the checklists for some of the early MTG sets a few years ago and those were set up alphabetically by the 4 colors then in use after discussion with a couple of other members and I think ADmin though I don't now clearly remember who all was involved.