Official Card Rules and Ask a Card Team Member (3 Viewers)

[Ahsoka]

Will Hyunsuk Rae be getting a Common card as well or will he be the first one to be a Rare exclusive?

Fixed

 

[Abeamus]

Fixed

I also wanted to ask if you had considered splitting the Rares into separate decks as while they shouldn't be easy to obtain currently even for me the pool is 240 cards with the 3rd batch being out a month and no one has completed a single set.

Splitting into separate decks could be a middle ground between adding a way that might make them too easy and still being able to focus on a set with a smaller pool than having them all in a single pool.

 

[Ahsoka]

I also wanted to ask if you had considered splitting the Rares into separate decks as while they shouldn't be easy to obtain currently even for me the pool is 240 cards with the 3rd batch being out a month and no one has completed a single set.

Splitting into separate decks could be a middle ground between adding a way that might make them too easy and still being able to focus on a set with a smaller pool than having them all in a single pool.

I can bring that up with the cards team. Currently we haven’t been considering it but it’s true that it’s harder to complete them rn. On the other hand, it also gives us more time before we need to make more rares so we’ll see what the others think.

 

[litc]

If the card numbers are based on age, shouldn't Doyoung be 9 and Haruto 10? (for Treasure)

Doyoung: December 2003
Haruto: April 2004

 

[OnlyCalB]

If the card numbers are based on age, shouldn't Doyoung be 9 and Haruto 10? (for Treasure)

Doyoung: December 2003
Haruto: April 2004

Most sets are ordered like that, yes.

A few sets are ordered in accordance to when a member joined the group.

I know nothing about Treasure and if some members joined a little late, so let's see what Vikki thinks about the order of the members.

 

[litc]

Most sets are ordered like that, yes.

A few sets are ordered in accordance to when a member joined the group.

I know nothing about Treasure and if some members joined a little late, so let's see what Vikki thinks about the order of the members.

Oh ok
They kinda debuted all at the same time, from a survival show Yeah, let's see what she says

 

[Ahsoka]

If the card numbers are based on age, shouldn't Doyoung be 9 and Haruto 10? (for Treasure)

Doyoung: December 2003
Haruto: April 2004

Why must google lie to me at times
I’ll fix them, they should be in order yes.

 

[Abeamus]

Most sets are ordered like that, yes.

A few sets are ordered in accordance to when a member joined the group.

I know nothing about Treasure and if some members joined a little late, so let's see what Vikki thinks about the order of the members.

Speaking of this wouldn't Loona make more sense ordered by when the member was revealed? It's the only group that I get thrown off by the age order because of how their numbers played into their story with Heejin being 1 and Olivia being 12

 

[Ahsoka]

Speaking of this wouldn't Loona make more sense ordered by when the member was revealed? It's the only group that I get thrown off by the age order because of how their numbers played into their story with Heejin being 1 and Olivia being 12

Ngl I think it would make more sense to keep age order because currently all other sets are in age order, even NCT, but I guess what we can do is hold a vote to see what other users think.

 

[Abeamus]

Ngl I think it would make more sense to keep age order because currently all other sets are in age order, even NCT, but I guess what we can do is hold a vote to see what other users think.

The age order makes sense for most groups as the fanchants usually go by age even Iz*Ones which they could've went by show order but Loonas goes by reveal order so their identity is kinda tied to that order.

 

[OnlyCalB]

The age order makes sense for most groups as the fanchants usually go by age even Iz*Ones which they could've went by show order but Loonas goes by reveal order so their identity is kinda tied to that order.

Hey Abe.

If by chance it comes up again I guess we can have a vote for what users think about the order but for now, eldest-youngest works fine.

 

[Abeamus]

Hey Abe.

If by chance it comes up again I guess we can have a vote for what users think about the order but for now, eldest-youngest works fine.

Highly doubtful it'll ever be brought up again as until you mentioned some being by order of when they were added to the group I just assumed all were in order of age myself and just chalked it up to continuity reasoning however that seems to have been actually correct after Vikki saying they all are.

Speaking of continuity though I would like to ask why =Love takes into account the symbol in their name for their placement but (G)I-dle and N.Flying don't have the symbol taken into account and end up just being placed alphabetically without them while =Love ends up being first in the list.

 

[Ahsoka]

Highly doubtful it'll ever be brought up again as until you mentioned some being by order of when they were added to the group I just assumed all were in order of age myself and just chalked it up to continuity reasoning however that seems to have been actually correct after Vikki saying they all are.

Speaking of continuity though I would like to ask why =Love takes into account the symbol in their name for their placement but (G)I-dle and N.Flying don't have the symbol taken into account and end up just being placed alphabetically without them while =Love ends up being first in the list.

We didn’t think of the symbol on the others, I’ll ask the cards team whether they want to ignore symbols and move =Love or if they want to take them into account and move gidle and NFlying.

 

[litc]

All the CLC Halloween cards, minus Eunbin, while not fan-taken, are fan-edits. I'm wondering if they're still useable? If not, here are some videos where CLC are dressed up for Halloween, where you might want to take the pictures from instead

Spoiler

 

[LoveYooShaSha]

Highly doubtful it'll ever be brought up again as until you mentioned some being by order of when they were added to the group I just assumed all were in order of age myself and just chalked it up to continuity reasoning however that seems to have been actually correct after Vikki saying they all are.

Speaking of continuity though I would like to ask why =Love takes into account the symbol in their name for their placement but (G)I-dle and N.Flying don't have the symbol taken into account and end up just being placed alphabetically without them while =Love ends up being first in the list.

We didn’t think of the symbol on the others, I’ll ask the cards team whether they want to ignore symbols and move =Love or if they want to take them into account and move gidle and NFlying.

i dint notice (g)i-dle's placement b4 cos they were batch 1, but im always looking for n.flying b4 nct cos of the period-so i gues im voting/seconding the symbol to be taken into account for placement order.(i noticed tat cards are numbered in the database according to placement in batch <im assuming> since i hvnt chkd but this doesnt affect tat, right-since apink n aoa were moved in their placement?).

tldr: i for one second moving n.flying according to the symbol(as well as gidle), for consistency [n ease of my finally getting dongsung common {n presumably n.flying rares infuture}. thnx for listening.

 

[Yili]

i dint notice (g)i-dle's placement b4 cos they were batch 1, but im always looking for n.flying b4 nct cos of the period-so i gues im voting/seconding the symbol to be taken into account for placement order.(i noticed tat cards are numbered in the database according to placement in batch <im assuming> since i hvnt chkd but this doesnt affect tat, right-since apink n aoa were moved in their placement?).

tldr: i for one second moving n.flying according to the symbol(as well as gidle), for consistency [n ease of my finally getting dongsung common {n presumably n.flying rares infuture}. thnx for listening.

I don't have an opinion on whether the symbols should come before or after the letters but if you need to find a set faster then you can hit Ctrl + F and then type in the name and that's how i always check cards otherwise it takes too long. If you need a specific member just type their name etc.

 

[LoveYooShaSha]

edit:
duplicated vikki's post instead of quoting abe's post abt splitting rares.srry abe.
end edit

I can bring that up with the cards team. Currently we haven’t been considering it but it’s true that it’s harder to complete them rn. On the other hand, it also gives us more time before we need to make more rares so we’ll see what the others think.

batch 3:
2PM
AleXa
Baekhyun
CIX
Exo
Jennie
Lee Hi
Rose
Seventeen
SF9
SNSD
SuperM
Taemin
Treasure
Victon
Woodz

batch 2: im not sure

batch 1: also im not sure

my take is tat, rares are random yes but splitting into batches, procedurally would be sthg im opposed to i is split into b1,b2,b3 cos of concerns/question tat i mentioned earlier ourside ks forum abt trading etiquette. however, can i suggest instead rare deck A-b1+b2, rare deck B-batch 2+ batch 3 & rare deck C-batch 3+batch 1 as a compromise.after rare batch 3 is introduced, it could be simply rare batch 1+whichever rare batch is equal to 2 rare batch totals not including batch eg: 1+3=2+4 or 1+2=3+4 or (1+4=/=2+3; to match common deck one=1+, deck two=2,3,4.

im sure users would vote in self interest to split into 1 , 2, 3 (as i would if entirely self-interested, but i still hv concerns abt procedural etiquette/watever so i had to make my suggestion/give my observation). if not i can finish all of the batch 3 rares in 109 weeks(i think tats the total from my memory of wat abe said, also i just thot of this: if everyone gets to choose split batch, maybe 90% will choose b3 for weekly rare n 1st/2nd batch will be short on the ground after split batch is introduced.it just occured to me now. after all, cards team dint split commons into separate deck 1=batch 1 and so on, rite? let me state here for the record i propose in future deck 1= b1+latest batch, i suggest not splitting into (deck 2=just b2+b3, deck 3=b4+b5)at least not till theres at least 8/9 batches maybe. it makes it more difficult but it makes more sense to me, at least in terms of a TRADING card game.(rerolls still exist for single batch after all). tats all i think on this for now. tnx for listening to my thots(as unhelpful to cards collecting as it may seem rn).

 

[Abeamus]

edit:
duplicated vikki's post instead of quoting abe's post abt splitting rares.srry abe.
end edit

batch 3:
2PM
AleXa
Baekhyun
CIX
Exo
Jennie
Lee Hi
Rose
Seventeen
SF9
SNSD
SuperM
Taemin
Treasure
Victon
Woodz

batch 2: im not sure

batch 1: also im not sure

my take is tat, rares are random yes but splitting into batches, procedurally would be sthg im opposed to i is split into b1,b2,b3 cos of concerns/question tat i mentioned earlier ourside ks forum abt trading etiquette. however, can i suggest instead rare deck A-b1+b2, rare deck B-batch 2+ batch 3 & rare deck C-batch 3+batch 1 as a compromise.after rare batch 3 is introduced, it could be simply rare batch 1+whichever rare batch is equal to 2 rare batch totals not including batch eg: 1+3=2+4 or 1+2=3+4 or (1+4=/=2+3; to match common deck one=1+, deck two=2,3,4.

im sure users would vote in self interest to split into 1 , 2, 3 (as i would if entirely self-interested, but i still hv concerns abt procedural etiquette/watever so i had to make my suggestion/give my observation). if not i can finish all of the batch 3 rares in 109 weeks(i think tats the total from my memory of wat abe said, also i just thot of this: if everyone gets to choose split batch, maybe 90% will choose b3 for weekly rare n 1st/2nd batch will be short on the ground after split batch is introduced.it just occured to me now. after all, cards team dint split commons into separate deck 1=batch 1 and so on, rite? let me state here for the record i propose in future deck 1= b1+latest batch, i suggest not splitting into (deck 2=just b2+b3, deck 3=b4+b5)at least not till theres at least 8/9 batches maybe. it makes it more difficult but it makes more sense to me, at least in terms of a TRADING card game.(rerolls still exist for single batch after all). tats all i think on this for now. tnx for listening to my thots(as unhelpful to cards collecting as it may seem rn).

Oh I wouldn't want them to be entirely separate batches either more so just separate decks like say Ateez + (G)I-dle, Gfriend + Oh My Girl and Jennie + SNSD representing one deck you can choose from and a similar level of representation in the other deck.

This would allow for more focus on sets people want to prioritise however the cost could be that you won't have the chance to get another set you want but of course there would be option for a general Rare if you wouldn't want that.

This would add a level of strategy people could employ obtaining cards from a certain deck which would have some of the older Rares become more valuable for trading as there would be the option of going for a specific deck which in the case of it being 175 per deck even I would need like 60 more Rares for a single deck if all my current ones were in 1 deck.

This would be a way for people to cut down the pool they have for the set they way while not adding a option that'd diminish their value as it only really allows you to focus on specific Rares without giving being tipped towards cards people want like 3rd batch Rares.

 

[LoveYooShaSha]

Oh I wouldn't want them to be entirely separate batches either more so just separate decks like say Ateez + (G)I-dle, Gfriend + Oh My Girl and Jennie + SNSD representing one deck you can choose from and a similar level of representation in the other deck.

This would allow for more focus on sets people want to prioritise however the cost could be that you won't have the chance to get another set you want but of course there would be option for a general Rare if you wouldn't want that.

This would add a level of strategy people could employ obtaining cards from a certain deck which would have some of the older Rares become more valuable for trading as there would be the option of going for a specific deck which in the case of it being 175 per deck even I would need like 60 more Rares for a single deck if all my current ones were in 1 deck.

This would be a way for people to cut down the pool they have for the set they way while not adding a option that'd diminish their value as it only really allows you to focus on specific Rares without giving being tipped towards cards people want like 3rd batch Rares.

my response to that is HELL YES(with the caveat tat i <n most card collectors>) would request only SNSD Rares along with watever other rare they r grouped with. (long term after 52 weekly rares, id successfuĺly complete many if not all my wanted rares).

if this suggestion succeeds, im all for it out of self interest. however procedurally i think deck A, B, C shd be implemented for long term balance n the health (continuation?) of the cards event.

PS as in ending a few users participation earlier due to getting those rares/cards they r interested in. a few examples in particular rn who i wont mention.

 

[Abeamus]

my response to that is HELL YES(with the caveat tat i <n most card collectors>) would request only SNSD Rares along with watever other rare they r grouped with. (long term after 52 weekly rares, id successfuĺly complete many if not all my wanted rares).

if this suggestion succeeds, im all for it out of self interest. however procedurally i think deck A, B, C shd be implemented for long term balance n the health (continuation?) of the cards event.

PS as in ending a few users participation earlier due to getting those rares/cards they r interested in. a few examples in particular rn who i wont mention.

That is expected but given that even I myself would have a pool of 60 cards which at 3 Rares a week which is high end it'd still take me 5 months to get through that and that's in a scenario where all the Rares I have are from a single deck already.

I think just 2 decks is enough for now as it'd be a pool of 175 and with even just 3 decks it'd shrink to a pool of around 116 per deck which is too small in my opinion but given enough additions a 3rd deck could be necessary.

Also you said you'd go for the deck with SNSD Rares but what if Rosés Rares is in the other deck?