
{"ops":[{"insert":"Hello, \nHow are you?\n\nI'd love to be able to add playtest cards to my collection without them distorting the value of my collection. This would also have the added bonus of showing up in a decklist as owned.\n\nThank you for your time and consideration :)\n"}]}
0

{"ops":[{"insert":"You mean cards like "},{"insert":{"card-link":"Aggressive Crag"}},{"insert":" right?\n\nJust to clarify, you can already add those kinds of cards to your collection, and they'll act just as any other card in your collection would. \n\nAs for the marking of certain cards as not included in price: it's not impossible. Though adding any data points to collections is a fairly heavy task since they need to be supported for import/ export/ views/ etc. In general I try to avoid them unless I see them being used fairly often by users. I'm not sure this qualifies just because of how niche an interaction it would be for cards. \n\nAlso (and this is more a personal perspective, so I'm curious on your opinions) wouldn't you want these kinds of cards counted towards value? Just because they're not tornament legal doesn't mean they don't cost money, or are worth no money.\n"}]}
0
{"ops":[{"insert":"I think he plays with cards that his brother owns but are too expensive for him to actually buy, he wants a way to mark them as 'available' in his collection without claiming to own them as part of his personal collection (they are part of his older brother's personal collection that he is allowed to use) so that when he is looking at decks and checking how much it would cost to buy the cards for a deck that he doesn't own they are not included in the cost to buy the deck. But because they are his brother's they also shouldn't appear in the value of his collection. (his sister is also allowed to use these cards and his sister and him have something of a rivalry going on who's personal collection is worth more).\n\n'Brother' might mean Dad or Cousin, etc. Same for 'Sister'.\n"}]}
0