tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post8762401864010811719..comments2023-09-10T00:59:54.187-07:00Comments on Milling for 53: Solving Dragon's Mazebradleyrosehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-36567308652774023132013-04-13T14:50:09.696-07:002013-04-13T14:50:09.696-07:00Thanks for the help! I'm a self-diagnosed OCD...Thanks for the help! I'm a self-diagnosed OCD, so I like when things are uniform :) I can understand, however, how this could be nearly impossible when trying to design an entire set though. Thanks again, and keep up the great predictions!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-82335113602524558732013-04-13T14:35:21.215-07:002013-04-13T14:35:21.215-07:00Oh, nice! I like how you're figuring things ou...Oh, nice! I like how you're figuring things out. Well, here's some help:<br /><br />Another rule to Magic: The Gathering sets is that there is always at least a rare artifact in it. Since Dragon's Maze is a cramped set, though, I can see how this can be different.<br /><br />And when it comes to small sets and including rare artifacts/lands, the numbers can get a bit messed up. The last small set to have 145 cards in it is Worldwake. Worldwake shows that black had one extra rare in it than the other monocolored cards at rare. Then, at mythic rare, well... numbers are all sorts of skewed!<br /><br />So, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what happened: Dragon's Maze gets X rare artifacts/lands. This causes an imbalance in the slots. To make up for it, some guilds/monocolored cards have more than the others. This could be why there's three Simic cards but only two for at least most of the other guilds.<br /><br />It could also be that there's a mistake between mythic rare/rare as you suggested, but keep what I said above in mind. Sometimes the numbers for rare/mythic rare are just not perfectly balanced across the colors.bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-39864979287146618892013-04-13T14:24:39.469-07:002013-04-13T14:24:39.469-07:00The traditional formula to small Magic: The Gather...The traditional formula to small Magic: The Gathering sets follow those numbers. 249 for a large set (but really it's 229 since 20 of them are almost always basic lands) and 145 for a small set. Dragon's Maze was announced with 156 cards stated to be in it. Seeing as the 11 extra cards have already been revealed to be land cards that appear in the basic land slot in boosters, that meant the actual number of new cards would be 145 - the same number that small sets usually are. So, I assumed that this set would follow the same numbers for a small set of 60/40/35/10.bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-7737984644849604022013-04-13T14:16:12.739-07:002013-04-13T14:16:12.739-07:00The reason I ask is because there have been a few ...The reason I ask is because there have been a few non-confirmed "spoilers' today about two rare simic cards. Unless one is mythic rare; that would mean there are 3 rare cards per guild (2 and the champion) rather than 2 (one and the champion). If this is the case, that would generate a total of 40 rares (3 per guild = 30 + 5 split rares + 5 mono-color rares). This also assumes there are no rare artifacts in the set.<br /><br />If the set has 60 commons, 40 uncommons, 10 mythics, and 21 lands (131 cards) than there is only 35 cards left to round out the 166 card set. 40 rares is not possible. So either (a) one of the two simic cards "spoiled" is mythic rare or (b) the people indicating the two rare cards are making one or more up, or (c) the breakdown is not exactly as above (i.e. 50 commons, 35 uncommons, etc.) Just trying to do the math and wanted to make sure the breakdown above was the correct one. Thanks for any help you can provide.<br /><br />Btw...great call on the 4-color split rares! <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-32559046426820754092013-04-13T14:06:13.457-07:002013-04-13T14:06:13.457-07:00Where did you get the information about the breakd...Where did you get the information about the breakdown of the set (i.e. 60 commons, 40 uncommons, 35 rares, 10 mythics, etc.)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-22045761135211709972013-04-08T20:03:32.809-07:002013-04-08T20:03:32.809-07:00Thank you, Anonymous! While I got split cards corr...Thank you, Anonymous! While I got split cards correct, it looks like I might be wrong about four-color cards. We'll have to see if every split card is only a maximum of three colors as the set reveals.<br /><br />I appreciate the comment!bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-4822833804950428172013-04-08T09:39:42.225-07:002013-04-08T09:39:42.225-07:00Good call, man:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/mag...Good call, man: <br /><br />http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/242bAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-11163926717086376762013-03-20T00:23:55.231-07:002013-03-20T00:23:55.231-07:00Thanks for the feedback! And, yes, hah, a lot of a...Thanks for the feedback! And, yes, hah, a lot of anonymity! I'm enjoying the fact that I'm receiving multiple bouts of attention from the entity known as Anonymous!bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-65224144871315088722013-03-20T00:23:15.351-07:002013-03-20T00:23:15.351-07:00Thanks, Anonymous! All of your comments are defini...Thanks, Anonymous! All of your comments are definitely interesting to me! ;)bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-64579968777851177452013-03-20T00:21:33.601-07:002013-03-20T00:21:33.601-07:00Thank you, particular Anonymous who referred to me...Thank you, particular Anonymous who referred to me as Mr. Rose and stating that no one appreciates a negative Nancy. =) Much appreciated! The entity of Anonymous has definitely been entertaining to receive comments from!bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-45068558460263696242013-03-19T16:12:02.276-07:002013-03-19T16:12:02.276-07:00so then Anonymous (the original commenter), if you...so then Anonymous (the original commenter), if you don't like what Mr. Rose has to say, why do you continue to read his articles? No one appreciates a negative Nancy ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-85980650218467028432013-03-18T20:31:43.963-07:002013-03-18T20:31:43.963-07:00your last comment was f*cking sh*t and so is this ...your last comment was f*cking sh*t and so is this one. @ Anonymous, I mean :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-58366238089254391082013-03-18T20:30:32.869-07:002013-03-18T20:30:32.869-07:00Perhaps not as many as Bradley predicted, though. ...Perhaps not as many as Bradley predicted, though. That would be awesome, but I doubt that Wizards will go that all out with themAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-88242828965007319102013-03-18T20:29:19.145-07:002013-03-18T20:29:19.145-07:00I would advise this: back your trolling with at le...I would advise this: back your trolling with at least semi-plausable reasoning. Good DayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-69991687730238770762013-03-18T20:28:10.429-07:002013-03-18T20:28:10.429-07:00methinks there are multiple anonymous(es) running ...methinks there are multiple anonymous(es) running around here...including me.<br /><br />So meta. Fascinating article, though not necessarily entirely correct. Without spoilers, it's the best we can hope for, thoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-73706470637885301982013-03-17T21:09:57.777-07:002013-03-17T21:09:57.777-07:00I like your ideas they are very interesting
I like your ideas they are very interesting <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-74916902601471300342013-03-17T01:11:40.430-07:002013-03-17T01:11:40.430-07:00My speculation is based off of my involvement with...My speculation is based off of my involvement with Magic: The Gathering design. Something that would be more along the lines of blindly guessing would be trying to guess the contents of 2013's fall set based off of the fact the PAX East is having something called "Chandra's Quest." Nay, instead, my "evidence" is what has been revealed of the Return to Ravnica block itself. Using principles of Magic design, I extrapolate from there to come to my conclusions.<br /><br />Thank you for your critique!<br /><br />bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-83290903489049628952013-03-16T14:23:43.217-07:002013-03-16T14:23:43.217-07:00So after reading your article i realized something...So after reading your article i realized something.....you have absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER! Predictions based off years old ideas??? Wow. If you could've given even a single shred of legitimate evidence as a base upon which to construe predictions, maybe i would'nt be judging this as harshly. But since you seem to want constructive criticism as well, i would advise this: Back your opinions with undeniable fact. Good DayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-33693809150095694932013-03-13T11:56:16.919-07:002013-03-13T11:56:16.919-07:00Thanks, Chah! I appreciate the feedback. =)Thanks, Chah! I appreciate the feedback. =)bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-51865880364282266572013-03-13T10:56:00.631-07:002013-03-13T10:56:00.631-07:00It sounds plausible that DM will have Guild/Guild ...It sounds plausible that DM will have Guild/Guild split cards. Awesome prediction!Chahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15574587448667619081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-65877412990133051482013-03-11T16:31:52.484-07:002013-03-11T16:31:52.484-07:00Nice! I appreciate the input, Anonymous!Nice! I appreciate the input, Anonymous!bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-46690573160677580482013-03-11T16:19:49.067-07:002013-03-11T16:19:49.067-07:00The Nephilim have been discussed recently on Wizar...The Nephilim have been discussed recently on Wizards website. I could see them making a comeback in Legendary form. The people want 4 color Legends for EDH/Commander. WoTC likes to give the people what they want. Like some others have stated, I believe that the guild combo cards will be 3 colors not 4. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-23465540110988284632013-03-11T14:20:00.080-07:002013-03-11T14:20:00.080-07:00I don't agree with 4-color hybrid either.
I t...I don't agree with 4-color hybrid either.<br /><br />I think the Commander community will be fine without the 4-color legendary creatures, too; but they would be overjoyed otherwise, and Commander as a format would have a huge boon in having them. This is a great time to include them. I'm also anticipating the Commander product in the fall to further add fifteen more four-color Commanders to join Dragon's Maze's five. =)<br /><br />Thanks for chiming in, Color Pie!bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-89680193351828303602013-03-11T14:16:42.990-07:002013-03-11T14:16:42.990-07:00Funny - split cards help SAVE room! If you want go...Funny - split cards help SAVE room! If you want gold instant/sorcery cards, split cards bring down the number of slots required from 10 to 5 for each cycle. =)bradleyrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284973109981113059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195539283239638111.post-31932596290363814292013-03-11T13:08:45.738-07:002013-03-11T13:08:45.738-07:00Fifteen split cards in a small set, including five...Fifteen split cards in a small set, including five at common? I just don't think that's plausible. There isn't room!HavelockVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698268009797139251noreply@blogger.com