Hello folks!

I hope that you are having a great day today!

Are you ever frustrated at Gatherer? Wizards of the Coast's searchable database of cards?

Why is this a big deal? Who cares? Well, it impacts a few things. First of all, formats. Gatherer arbitrates formats. If you have a format like Peasant Magic that precludes Rares, but allows a small number of uncommons, you need to make sure that your searchable database is as accurate as can be!

Today I want to share with you my biggest issues I have with Gatherer. Since I use it to help craft two articles a week, I feel like I have a strong element of usage for various projects. I even use Gatherer to search up images for cards I post.

I was waiting for this article to be a full Top Ten for a few months, coming back and add in new issues I noticed, but it felt locked in at five. Rather than create a number of minor issues that weren't really issues I had with Gatherer, I decided instead to lock it in at five.

Before we head out though, I want to pause and ask this simple question...

What's the point of Gatherer? What's it trying to do and be?

And as a fun side question

Given that there are many other websites out there that serve a similar purpose (like Scryfall), how is Gatherer different? How can it play differently in that same market?

Shortly, I believe that Gatherer should seek to be the following:

1. Present each copy of a card, including the art thereof, in its original printing.
2. It's should be comprehensive.
3. Have the most recent Oracle wording of that card available
4. Link to rulings of that card for help figuring out the card
5. Be the historically accurate document.

   • Portray it as it was.
   • Give the full context of the card where possible.

Now here is a good example:

This is Serendib Efreet's famous misprinting in Revised. This is what I want to see. Give me the old picture, text, and misprint fully there.

And for the record, Scryfall does the same.

We'll talk about it later, but I think there is an opportunity for Gatherer to embrace the historical reality that others don't.

Now, to be fair, sometimes, my issue may not necessarily with Gatherer, but instead with Oracle. Here, let me give you an example.

This is Ravenous Baboons. It was printed with the Ape creature type. Now, Ape is a supported creature type. It's had new additions to it that are currently legal in Standard, so it's a type they are still printing. Given that, why was it moved to Monkey? One of the principles has been to have the creature type match the card. If you are playing the actual copy of Ravenous Baboons, then you'll see the "Apes" type listed, so you'll know what it is. You don't want to have this type changed when the type remains. It's like changing an Elf into a Human. (Or vice versa)

Ready for my issues?

5. It Has the Wrong Border

Champion Lancer is a great way to kick off the conversion. This was printed in the white-border Starter 1999 set. It was not a black bordered product. So why is this version in black border? No idea! You also note this for, say, Ninth Edition or the Battle Royale Boxed Set, Beatdownwhere the cards in Gatherer are in black bordered for some bizarre reason.

This art was never in black border. If it was, I'd have 4.

Here's a screen grab for you. Also note that Scryfall does have it in its original form:

4. It Doesn't Have the Right Names for Sets

Consider the 3rd and 6th Core sets. 3rd Edition was marketed and branded as Revised, and Gatherer uses that language. 6th Edition was marketed and branded as Classic, but it's not called that by Gatherer. (You can read about Classic here)

Quotes from that article:

There was a time when Gatherer only referred to this set as "Sixth Edition", but now they call it "Classic Sixth" even though that was never it's name. As proof, they never call it "Classic Sixth" in this announcement article for the set. (They do refer to it as "the sixth edition" of the core set, without the branded capital letter, such as here: "...the release of Classic - the sixth edition of the Magic trading card game - may look like a whole new farm to some players.")

You get the idea. What does Scryfall all this set?

They use the same title for the set. This is an opportunity to Gatherer to move in and give it the actual name at the time, or at least provide an Asterisk with a note as to the actual name of the set.

Now, please note that you may be making this argument:

"But Abe! It doesn't matter what the set was called then. Or branded as. What matters is what people call it now when they search for it. People still called 3rd Edition Revised, but they call "Classic" Sixth Edition now!"

Great counter-point Random Reader!

My counter counter?

Who has ever referred to Ravnica as "Ravnica: City of Guilds" which was its title upon release?

Does Gatherer (or other places like Scryfall) just use the common version of Ravnica? Nope! They use the title at the time of release. So, if they use it for Ravnica: City of Guilds, why not this set?

3. It's Down at Least One/Two Times per Week When I am Working on My Articles

I know! It's irritating when you go to use it, and it's the only part of the WOTC website that's down. Sad face. It happens across various PCs, and various browsers. Sometimes it'll be the search function that's down with the above image, but when I hotlink to a Google link it works. Other times that workaround won't um.... work around the issue. It's not easy to put in a help ticket about this, and it will always be restored hours before anyone reads it - I don't even bother putting them in anymore. But it's irritating, sure!

2. It Doesn't Have the Correct Commonality

As Wizards of the Coast has shown with their showcase fancy packs starting in Throne of Eldraineor heading back to Masterpieces, the Secret Lairs and many more, Wizards is not afraid to mix up the pack distributions.

Imagine that they had announced that on release of Theros Beyond Death, that they would be shifting our commonality to this:

1. They are removing the rare slot in the pack and converting it to uncommon, giving you four uncommon spots in the pack.
2. That without changing the number of those being printed, they were going to allow rares and mythics to be found in the uncommon spots. While there are fewer of them than a normal uncommon, they could be found in any of the four spots dedicated to uncommons.

That means when you open a pack, you could get this:

• 4 Uncommons
• 1 Rare or Mythic, 3 uncommons
• 2 Rares/Mythics, 2 uncommons, or 3:1 or even the amazing but super unlikely 4:0.

The 4 uncommon, or 3 and 1are the most likely, mathematically. Thus you would increase the variance of each pack considerably, as some would be mega hits and others mega-misses.

Now in order to not confuse people, suppose that for this new method of card-ology that they would change the cards that would normally be rares and mythics into an uncommon symbol, but a slightly different tone of silver so you could tell them apart.

And let's say they did this:

Old Uncommon - New Uncommon3

Old Rare, Three Times Fewer than Uncommon - New Uncommon2; Three Times Fewer than Uncommon3

Old Mythic, Three Times Fewer than Rare - New Uncommon1; Three Times Fewer than Rare, Nine Times Fewer Than U3.

They are now branded as uncommons but as U3s, U2s, and U1s, and are more rare than the other. The numbers of them or their ratio to each other has not changed. Only their distribution method and name have changed.

Well, surprise surprise, that's how the game used to be.

They were called U3s or U1s, and U1s were three times rarer than U3s.

Take, as a good example, Arabian Nights. That set (as well as Homelands, Fallen Empires, The Dark, and Antiquities), did not have any rares. All of the cards from those five early expansions were U1s, U2s, and U3s (The number designated how many were printed on the uncommon sheet) and were only found in uncommon slots. Some uncommons were rarer than others.

But no one does that!

See how Serendib Efreetis listed as a "rare" in the database but Diamond Valley is an "uncommon". Why? Because most people aren't used to the old system. The Valley was a U3 published three times on the uncommon sheet where the Efreet was a U1 published once. You might open up an Arabian Nights Booster Pack and get all U3s or all U1s or a mixture. You never knew.

The problem is that this non-rare method of rarity makes modern audiences hard. Just make them all uncommon and then put in these older sets a hyperlink Askterisk or a note at the bottom that explains it briefly.

The case for them being unncommons as opposed to rare:

1. They were printed in sets that didn't have rares
2. They were not printed on a rare sheet, instead being printed on the same sheet as otheruncommons.
3. They were always called uncommons, at the time by WOTC and by use as players and collectors.
4. They were found in uncommon slots in the booster pack, not in rares.
5. There was no guarantee of a U1 in the pack, you just got uncommons.

The case for them being rares as opposed to uncommons:

1. Gatherer tells us so.

U1s are not rares. They weren't then, and they aren't now. And this issue matters, and for more than some uncommons vs rares.

The same thing was true of Maze of Ith. It was a common in The Dark not an uncommon. No one ever referred to it as a common, it wasn't found in uncommon slots. It was printed on the common sheet. My first pack of The Dark included this between a Scarwood Goblins and a Goblin Hero, both commons. There was no question it was a common, just one harder to find than others as it was printed in smaller numbers per common sheet.

But by listing it as an uncommon, Gatherer has erred.

For example, is Maze of Ith legal in Pauper?

Here are the rules according to WOTC:

Note that it only mentions that the card must be printed as common, not listed as one. I would assume Maze is legal, but you might get some serious pushback. Let's check Gatherer for cards legal in Pauper:

Nope! And it's not listed as a banned card either.

Let's look at Scryfall:

Uncommon there too.

What about U1s?

Rares for him as well. This is agreat opportunity for historical context. If you are giving me the as-printed misprint version of Serendib Efreet rather than what the card meant to be and say, why not give me the actual rarity too? By pushing the as-printed rarity, you embrace historical accuracy.

And hey, I might be the only one. But I'd rather be correct.

Ready for my top choice? Great!

1. It Doesn't Contain Promo Art, or Cards

How is this possible? Arena lands? APAC lands? Euro Lands? Guru Lands? Silver bordered promos like Snow Mercy? Why aren't you comprehensive?

You include Vanguard cards and Planes. Great! But why don't you include cards like the characters from the Theros Block hero's path?

They were printed! By WOTC! They aren't even on Scryfall! And these aren't the only ones. Hey Wizards! If you print it, it should be in Gatherer. Period. That's the point of it. We shouldn't have to figure things out or miss them because you never bothered to Gatherer-ize them.

And that's it! What did you think of my list? Anything I missed or you'd toss in? Just let me know!