Talk:Card set

Naming
We've had uncertainty for a while regarding the correct name for certain card sets, largely due to ambiguities in the Collection interface.

While the card set menu features some abbreviations, the card set stated for individual cards seems to be more formal and is probably a good place to find our standard for the correct term. This is the official in-game equivalent of the card pages on the wiki, and so if anywhere should be the definitive reference. The notable terms used are "Naxxramas" (not "Curse of Naxxramas"), "The Grand Tournament" and "The League of Explorers" (both including the "The").

I've shied away from including the "The" in text regarding cards from these sets, simply to avoid sentences like "from the The Grand Tournament set". However, when it comes to page and section titles and other specific citations, it seems we should state the full name for the sets. As far as I know, this mainly means moving the full art and card list pages.

It might be worth noting that the Adventure screen menu options and headers likewise abbreviate the names of the adventures to simply "League of Explorers" and "Naxxramas", again presumably due to space limitations. The Shop even refers to Blackrock Mountain as simply "Blackrock", and the others by even less regular variations. Blizzard have never been sticklers for consistency, but as far as the collection info on the cards themselves goes, there does seem to be a sensible standard, and we should probably use it. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to figure this out a while ago. I don't care what the name is, but I would appreciate writing down the reasons behind choosing e.g. Blackrock or Naxxramas in the style guide + explicitly adding that "Adventure" or "Boss" are not a correct name for a set. -- Karol007 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. A short section on nomenclature might even deserve a spot at the bottom of this wiki page.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: trying to get an answer, I did reply to that at the time, with the same answer give here - Naxxramas is the correct term. Re: Adventure and Boss sets, as I think I've explained elsewhere that was due to an earlier model for keeping Boss cards out of the main card lists, prior to setting up the separate card categories. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. "One Night in Karazhan" is quite laborious to read when it appears many times in a paragraph. Can we decide that we'll go with a style where we introduce it within a section as "One Night in Karazhan" and thereafter just call it "Karazhan"? For my sanity? :) &#32;- jerodast (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like I've solved your problem anyway ;) But in general I think that would be fine, as long as it's clear. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Update?
"While not explicitly stated, this may also extend to Naxxramas cards to some degree, due to these cards being intended to be fairly easily and reliably obtainable by all players."

Should it say 'adventures' instead of 'Naxxramas'? -- Karol007 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In theory it probably should have, but after comparing statements about the simplicity of the Basic set to the cards in the Naxx set, it was obvious the principle didn't apply; Mad Scientist, Echoing Ooze, and Stalagg and Feugen make that pretty clear! I've therefore removed that line. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Classic cards as an arena reward
I can get a classic card pack, but is it possible to get a classic card as an arena reward?

"The Grand Tournament cards can be obtained in the same manner as Classic and GvG cards: through opening Grand Tournament card packs, through crafting, or as arena rewards. " says it's true, but Card_set says otherwise.

-- Karol007 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is clarified on Arena, but yes, this page was simply never updated once the omission was realised. I've updated various aspects (not least of all there is now a fourth means for goldens: the Highest Rank Bonus chest) and reworked the lead section. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy
As we get more and more card sets it becomes clear that the current content of this page is mostly redundant. We have four specific sets (Basic, Class, Reward, Promo) and then an ever-growing number of expansion and adventure sets. There are standard rules for how to get cards from expansions and adventures, and these are the same for all expansions and adventures (a few minor exceptions aside), which means most of the page becomes a reprint of the same info. The only specific info on these sets (card numbers) is already stated on the content's main page, and is better placed there since those pages get far more traffic. It's also another bit of work creating and maintaining the new section each time content is released (and numbers slowly get updated), with no real point in doing this.

I've therefore pared the page down a bit. I've kept all the info on the four specific sets, but compressed the rest into combined expansion and adventure set into. This is still a little redundant given that that info is on the linked expansion card and adventure card pages, but since this page is all about card sets it seems reasonable and probably handy. If anything this is probably clearer, since it teaches new players the basic means for obtaining cards of any kind, rather than confusing things by explaining for each individual set. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Related to redundancy of card obtainment rules, I have long felt that the "how to get" section of card pages is awfully redundant. Expansion cards are all the same other than the dust costs, which don't need to be repeated on every single page. I think we should demote it on the page so that the other sections, particularly notes and strategy, are higher. For adventure cards, we can add "earned as a reward from X" in the top section to serve the same purpose without sucking up nearly so much space.


 * The only major problem being it's a lot of work to change every card page. &#32;- jerodast (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Crafting / disenchanting standard format adventure cards.
I can disenchant and craft the cards I obtained through all adventures, even though the article says only "Wild format adventure cards can also be crafted.". Can somebody please check this? -- Karol007 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops, just clumsy phrasing. As the previous sentence says, "Standard format adventure cards can only be obtained through the corresponding adventure, with golden versions of each becoming craftable once the regular version has been obtained.", the point of the next sentence being that Wild cards can be crafted regardless. I've tried to make it a bit clearer. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken I think Karol was pointing out that you can indeed "obtain" non-Wild, Standard Adventure cards via crafting - you just can't obtain them for the first time by crafting :) In other words, crafting can create the cards, it just can't unlock them, and when you first unlock them you don't need to craft them. I was able to disenchant a BRM card, and then recraft it, using the same system as any other card being d/e'd or crafted. (I didn't want to try actually leaving it disenchanted and then coming back to re-craft it later, because I'm dust-poor.) This makes sense since the Adventure card crafting system is now in place and there are plenty of examples of cards people want to immediately d/e to get more dust. I'll try editing to indicate this possibility.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ugh nevermind. It says that all right there. My brain is fried. I'll let y'all handle this haha.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried to make it clearer while still keeping it a quick summary, but you're welcome to improve it! -- Taohinton (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifically dusting Hall of Fame cards Captain's Parrot and Old Murk-Eye?
Will dusting and/or just having Hall of Fame cards Captain's Parrot and Old Murk-Eye refund their total crafting cost? (since dusting all the other Hall of Fame cards will refund back their total crafting cost) Aegonostic (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the blog post, dusting will not refund total cost, they will just give back the cards cost in dust.  Senes   calzin  19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, if you dust the cards you will just get the regular disenchanting amounts back. The special part is that simply by owning those cards when Year of the Mammoth goes live, you will get dust equal to the crafting cost of the cards, as a bonus. However, as to whether the Reward cards are included, I would guess yes, but have hit up the devs for confirmation. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, yes. I keep saying that dusting will not refund total cost, but I'm still thinking that dusting will refund total cost. *facepalm* This means having a significant amount of copies of the "soon-to-be-nerfed-to-Wild" cards Azure Drake, Power Overwhelming, etc. is meaningless. This also means less total dust is given out to the whole population than before, when dusting nerfed cards for total refund of crafting cost existed.


 * And now I actually truly understand why people on Reddit were initially genuinely confused on the math behind this. They became confused that dusting for total crafting cost would still be implemented due to the mental conditioning that this feature has always occurred, without fail, whenever cards were nerfed. Thanks for the re-clarification guys. :P Aegonostic (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's even more confusing if you add in the nerfs to Small-Time Buccaneer and Spirit Claws which will see disenchanting value boosts but won't see free refunds ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: Captain's Parrot and Old Murk-Eye, I should have thought it through: Since these cards were already Wild format Brode has confirmed they will not be included in the refund. As he put it, the devs are simply renaming 'Reward' to 'Hall of Fame' and moving the other cards there. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we update the page accordingly, specifically the section "Reward", to reflect it's the old Hall of Fame, potentially removing the entire section or just redirecting to Hall of Fame (and change order)?
 * For now, there's already a note in the Reward section. When the change goes live (or a day or two before), the Reward section could be removed, or arguably moved to the very bottom and kept as a stub saying 'This set was removed with patch x' etc. There's no meaningful connection between Reward and Hall of Fame; conceptually Hall of Fame is an entirely new one. Brode was just referring to the fact that since the removal of the reward quests, both are simply default Wild sets. -- Taohinton (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement about Basic rarity being half Free and half Common
I think the following quote from the article is no longer true. All Basic cards have Basic rarity, and all are Soulbound.

"Roughly half of all Basic cards are of free rarity, and half common. There are no Basic cards above common rarity. All collectible free cards are Basic cards."

Aegonostic (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is explained in the same section:


 * "A common misconception is that all Basic cards are free; half of all Basic cards are in fact common, but unlike other common cards do not feature a gem. As the only card set to affect a card's rarity gem, many assume that the lack of a gem reflects free rarity, when it actually reflects the Basic set. In the case of Basic class cards, the common rarity indicates that they must be obtained through levelling the hero, while for Basic neutral cards the free rarity indicates the cards made available to your hero in the tutorial, with the exception of Goldshire Footman, which is common."


 * Critically, Basic is not a rarity, it is a card set. Uncraftable status (previously known as 'Soulbound') also has no relation to rarity. Unless something has changed, the rest is also still true. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I went into the collection screen and took a look at the Basic cards. The descriptions of the Basic cards state that Basic is a rarity, when you look at the text description under the artist info (I think that's where it is). Aegonostic (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I took a look again. It only indicates the cards being in Basic set, but not of Basic rarity. Aegonostic (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Release" date column format? (YYYY-MM-DD vs. MONTH DAY, YEAR)
Does anyone think that the card set table can benefit if the "Release" date column is put into the format "YYYY-MM-DD" instead of its current format "MONTH DAY, YEAR"? If we can change the format, we can make the column sortable by year. Plus, it will lessen the width of that column. Aegonostic (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The written-out month always looks "friendlier" in my opinion, also if we make it sortable I'm pretty sure we have to list Standard/Wild format every row instead of spanning multiple - could also just break into 2 tables and remove that column. But, if we do want it sortable (which I think is reasonable but maybe not essential while the list is still quite short), it looks like you can force sort order or even have it automatically interpret the date correctly anyway: Mediawiki Help: Sorting &#32;- jerodast (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yea, I definitely agree that the months being written out looks friendlier. Here's what the table might look like, with your helpful suggestion. Something is strange in that when the column is sorted, a new blank row is created.


 * {| class="sortable wikitable"

! Format !! Set !! data-sort-type="date" | Release !! Type !! Year !! class="unsortable" | Rarity* !! Collectible&dagger;


 * rowspan=9 | Standard
 * Basic || data-sort-value="March 11, 2014" | March 11, 2014&Dagger; || ||  || Free/Common || 133
 * Classic || data-sort-value="March 11, 2014" | March 11, 2014&Dagger; || ||  || 94/81/37/33 || 245
 * Blackrock Mountain** || April 2, 2015 || Adventure || || 15/11/0/5 || 31
 * The Grand Tournament** || August 24, 2015 || Expansion || || 49/36/27/20 || 132
 * League of Explorers** || data-sort-value="November 12, 2015" | November 12, 2015 || Adventure || || 25/13/2/5 || 45
 * Whispers of the Old Gods || April 26, 2016 || Expansion || Kraken || 50/36/27/21 || 134&dagger;&dagger;
 * One Night in Karazhan || August 11, 2016 || Adventure || Kraken || 27/12/1/5 || 45
 * Mean Streets of Gadgetzan || December 1, 2016 || Expansion || Kraken || 49/36/27/20 || 132
 * Journey to Un'Goro || data-sort-value="April 6, 2017" | (April 6, 2017)*** || Expansion || Mammoth || (49/36/27/23) || (135)
 * Whispers of the Old Gods || April 26, 2016 || Expansion || Kraken || 50/36/27/21 || 134&dagger;&dagger;
 * One Night in Karazhan || August 11, 2016 || Adventure || Kraken || 27/12/1/5 || 45
 * Mean Streets of Gadgetzan || December 1, 2016 || Expansion || Kraken || 49/36/27/20 || 132
 * Journey to Un'Goro || data-sort-value="April 6, 2017" | (April 6, 2017)*** || Expansion || Mammoth || (49/36/27/23) || (135)
 * Mean Streets of Gadgetzan || December 1, 2016 || Expansion || Kraken || 49/36/27/20 || 132
 * Journey to Un'Goro || data-sort-value="April 6, 2017" | (April 6, 2017)*** || Expansion || Mammoth || (49/36/27/23) || (135)
 * Journey to Un'Goro || data-sort-value="April 6, 2017" | (April 6, 2017)*** || Expansion || Mammoth || (49/36/27/23) || (135)
 * Journey to Un'Goro || data-sort-value="April 6, 2017" | (April 6, 2017)*** || Expansion || Mammoth || (49/36/27/23) || (135)


 * rowspan=3 | Wild
 * Hall of Fame**** || April 4, 2017 || || Mammoth || (0/0/1/3) || (8)
 * Naxxramas || July 22, 2014 || Adventure || || 18/4/2/6 || 30
 * Goblins vs Gnomes || data-sort-value="December 8, 2014" | December 8, 2014&Dagger;&Dagger; || Expansion || || 40/37/26/20 || 123
 * }
 * Goblins vs Gnomes || data-sort-value="December 8, 2014" | December 8, 2014&Dagger;&Dagger; || Expansion || || 40/37/26/20 || 123
 * }


 * Aegonostic (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of treating your table as a communal draft and editing it - my apologies if you wanted a permanent copy of the first one, we can retrieve through history if necessary. The Wild cell was set up a little weirdly, as its own row rather than a rowspan starting within the other Wild rows, so that accounts for the extra row, now gone. Pretty cool that sorting works with spans, I didn't know that! I also made a few other rows sortable, why not. It looks good! &#32;- jerodast (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome. If there's no other consideration, this can probably be moved into the article. :) Actually, the column "Set" can also be made sortable too I guess. The only downside to making columns sortable is that it will widen the table columns by a smudge and thus widens the table in mobile/desktop display, but I think that's a small nuisance that I have. But, it could be a valid nuisance. Aegonostic (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Classic Card counts
This is mainly addressed to User:Aegonostic but also anyone else who has info on card counts. I spent a solid amount of time the other day verifying the counts of 91 commons and 80 rares now in Classic by copying our own tables to a spreadsheet, counting rows, and ensuring the HoF cards (Conceal, PO, Ice Lance at common, Azure Drake at rare) were not in there. And then corroborating by the same based on the Hearthpwn tables. I counted 91 and 80 both times. Am I missing something? Not trying to be snarky, I may well be missing something. But I thought this procedure made for a relatively straightforward and easily verified result. If you get a different one, let's compare tables.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, not sure when the numbers got reduced, but I guess I must've reduced the numbers a second time. The correct numbers should be 91/80/37/31 for rarities. Aegonostic (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the numbers. Actually, I really have no idea what happened with the numbers with previous edits, really weird. Sorry for the trouble that was caused. :| Aegonostic (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a quick history check, and somehow during these revisions the card counts got double-reduced: https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Card_set&type=revision&diff=289182&oldid=288562 Aegonostic (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think with all the people trying to update we got mixed up whether they'd been reduced yet and how much. I figured safest way to get the right #s was just recount it directly, luckily it's actually pretty quick with the tables off DBs. No problem, thanks for fixing! &#32;- jerodast (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And thank you for checking! If the error wasn't caught, we'd be looking at a bad table. :p Aegonostic (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Golden basic cards
I am about to make two edits in the paragraph on obtaining golden versions of the Basic cards, but want to touch base to make sure I'm not missing anything. First, the text "granting the player two of the golden version of that card" is wrong; all the golden cards I recently received were given one at a time. However, I have not paid attention during the early levels, so I am not 1000% sure if all golden Basic cards are received one at a time, or if there are exceptions. Second, the text "some neutral cards can be obtained by leveling one of two possible classes" surprises me. I don't know any card for which this is true. I propose removing this text, or adding one or two example cards for which this is the case (if anyone knows any). BigHugger (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Looking at the history, both of those statements date back to 2013 - before Hearthstone was even released :) I just double checked with a spreadsheet and I'm 99% sure there's no duplicates in the card award table on level, as you say.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming, Your 99% and my 98% combine to 99.98% - that should be enough. Making the change now. BigHugger (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated pages for "Classic" and "Basic"?
Does anyone know why we don't have a dedicated page for "Classic" and "Basic"? Aegonostic (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)