cc: @taw

cc: @axxroytovu @kodawah

Is this another case where there's more than 2 foiling statuses (nonfoil and foil), like with etched foil before?

• https://mtg.wtf/card?q=promo%3Aripplefoil+deck%3A%22Creative+Energy+Collector%27s+Edition%22+%2B%2B
• https://mtg.wtf/card?q=-promo%3Aripplefoil+deck%3A%22Creative+Energy+Collector%27s+Edition%22+%2B%2B

It looks like we already use the right card with foil:true and promo:ripplefoil, other than basics.

If single mtgjson card has multiple foil subtypes, this is not currently supported, it would need to be split.

For etched foils, we marked them in decklists, but it's not currently exported either to the website or to mtgjson data. We could annotate [ripple] here in similar way.

This is not an issue with the decks or product definitions. As far as I can tell, the product references are as correct as they can be. TCGPlayer doesn't differentiate between their foil and nonfoil versions in the productID, so there's no way to mark these as specifically the ripple foil version.

For products that DO have a different product ID, like the face commanders, I do think they are correctly referenced.

On tcgplayer the foil version is the ripplefoil, the problem is that scyfall does not distinguish between the two versions, and exports only one single tcgplayer id. In the past this worked because they split such cards in two separate elements, like tcgplayer did, but they are now transitioning towards cards having multiple tcgplayer ids, so that it's possible to map multiple versions without duplicating the whole card entry.

Unfortunately some properties (like promo types) only map to the foil printing so the migration is a bit more complicated than just adding a text field. Additionally when this change rolls out, it will affect several past printings, like a few SLD decks.