They make set4 with 140 cards ( something like 60 commons 40 uncommons 30 rares and 10 mr)
Lets say Each booster in the block have 1common from set 4 + 1 uncommon/rare/or mr from set 4
It would lead for each booster too have 1/2 chances of opening one rare or mr from set 4 wich leads to 10/40*1/2=1/16 of opening a mr from set 4 over all boosters of the block
Lets say that we are in magicdreamland and say that set1 is opened5X set2 is opened2X and set 3 is opened 1-1.5 X
Lets say ?
This lead to 3X*1/8 of total mr opened from set 1 , 2X*1/8=1/4*X mr opened from set 2 ,and 1X*1/8mr rares opened on set3 and now looking into the 4th set we have: (3+2+1)X*1/16=3/8*X opened from set 4.... does this is prouf that this would not lead for a $100 mr and while just set 1 was released it would be half the number of cards of set 1
As for inter sets " parasitic cards" it would be totally ok for them print something like the heralds of alara ( if they did in set 1to 2 ) it would be very nice ( like: print ambassador of khan A in set 1 and make hin fetch a card named general of khan A if one opponent attacks with 3 or more creatures , and then make a cicle of generals in set4 and other things( it would work really well and not be parasitic in draft and sealed)
I did some calculations on this.
In Theros, the chance of getting a given common (excl. Basic Lands) in a single booster is about 10%, a specific uncommon is around 5%, a given rare is at 1.7% and a given mythic is 0.8%.
If a small set was inserted here as you describe with 1 card being a common and 1 card being uncommon/rare/mythic, the chance of getting a specific common would be around 2%, i.e around the same rarity as the rares of the set in which they were entered.
Due to there being fewer of each of uncommons, mythics and rares, they would not be that much harder to find. Maintaining the relative rarity between the three is not possible (I.e any rare is about thrice as rare as any uncommon, and any mythic twice as rare as a rare) but some kind of compromise can be found with the following probabilities for the second 4th set card: 65.3% uncommon, 29.3% rare, and 5.4% mythic rare. (Here, each uncommon appears 2/3rds as frequently as a rare, and each rare appears 180% as likely as a mythic). This would lead to the chance of getting any given 4th set uncommon be 1.6%, any 4th set rare 0.98%, and any 4th set mythic rare 0.54%.
In other words, the commons, uncommons and rares of the fourth set would be of comparable rarity to standard large-set rares, while the mythics would be about 33% rarer than a large set mythic.
[This is what I do on Saturday nights now. Am I getting old, or am I just getting mad?]
So these are only one set of numbers, but they illustrate some of the difficulty here. Wizards could choose different numbers, the extremes would lead to:
1-It is very hard to find the 4th set cards. In this case, there would be incredibly expensive cards when the set is new, unless they are none of them constructed viable.
2-They make it easy to find the 4th set cards (more than 2 cards per booster, smaller set, fewer commons, idk). In this case, when you are buying boosters from the second and third set of the block and are wanting new cards, you get 2 old cards per booster that you probably would not want.
I don't know, there might be a theoretical sweet spot somewhere in between, but I'm not so sure.
Regarding the drawbacks of cards not being able to name cards from other sets, that is hardly that relevant is it? It happens only infrequently anyway. I guess they could come up with four mechanics A-B-C-D that are all synergistic and put one in each set. So that cards with the "D" mechanic would play nicely with cards from all over the block. It's possible.
The biggest argument against this, I think, is why do it? I think it is a neat idea in a way, but I also believe that the only reason it came about is because we know there is a "unique block structure". It would not come up on its own on the merit of being a particularly clever idea for a way to structure a set. Or so I believe.
For one, couldn't they achieve a lot of the same by selling the fourth set in separate boosters all through the year, and structuring drafts with a given number of boosters in each draft being this booster?
On the other hand, a lot of people do not buy boxes of boosters nor read about Magic online. Many people buy single digit boosters from each set. For these people, it would probably only be confusing to have cards from a different set showing up all of a sudden, with a new mechanic that appears on none of their other cards.
...No, because "Huey" is titled Khans of Tarkir. If the Souls cycle were hints to the next block it would have to take place simultaneously on Ravnica, Innistrad, Shandalar, Zendikar, New Phyrexia, and a sixth plane.
Huey/Dewey/Louie is clearly, by its name, a 3-set block. Since it's a new block structure, the only structure they have not yet done are:
1. Three big independent sets. Doesn't make much sense, IMO.
2. Big / Big / Small with a reboot between the two big sets. Like a reverse Innistrad.
3. Big / small / Big but keeping all sets in the block.
4. Big / small / small, but throwing away the 2nd small set when the 3rd arrive.
Out of these, I think #2 makes the most sense. We know that Tarkir used to have dragons but they are gone. So a first set without dragons, then a second sets with them, throwing away the first.
...No, because "Huey" is titled Khans of Tarkir. If the Souls cycle were hints to the next block it would have to take place simultaneously on Ravnica, Innistrad, Shandalar, Zendikar, New Phyrexia, and a sixth plane.
I think the white one was confirmed as Soul of Theros.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I did some calculations on this.
In Theros, the chance of getting a given common (excl. Basic Lands) in a single booster is about 10%, a specific uncommon is around 5%, a given rare is at 1.7% and a given mythic is 0.8%.
If a small set was inserted here as you describe with 1 card being a common and 1 card being uncommon/rare/mythic, the chance of getting a specific common would be around 2%, i.e around the same rarity as the rares of the set in which they were entered.
Due to there being fewer of each of uncommons, mythics and rares, they would not be that much harder to find. Maintaining the relative rarity between the three is not possible (I.e any rare is about thrice as rare as any uncommon, and any mythic twice as rare as a rare) but some kind of compromise can be found with the following probabilities for the second 4th set card: 65.3% uncommon, 29.3% rare, and 5.4% mythic rare. (Here, each uncommon appears 2/3rds as frequently as a rare, and each rare appears 180% as likely as a mythic). This would lead to the chance of getting any given 4th set uncommon be 1.6%, any 4th set rare 0.98%, and any 4th set mythic rare 0.54%.
In other words, the commons, uncommons and rares of the fourth set would be of comparable rarity to standard large-set rares, while the mythics would be about 33% rarer than a large set mythic.
[This is what I do on Saturday nights now. Am I getting old, or am I just getting mad?]
So these are only one set of numbers, but they illustrate some of the difficulty here. Wizards could choose different numbers, the extremes would lead to:
1-It is very hard to find the 4th set cards. In this case, there would be incredibly expensive cards when the set is new, unless they are none of them constructed viable.
2-They make it easy to find the 4th set cards (more than 2 cards per booster, smaller set, fewer commons, idk). In this case, when you are buying boosters from the second and third set of the block and are wanting new cards, you get 2 old cards per booster that you probably would not want.
I don't know, there might be a theoretical sweet spot somewhere in between, but I'm not so sure.
Regarding the drawbacks of cards not being able to name cards from other sets, that is hardly that relevant is it? It happens only infrequently anyway. I guess they could come up with four mechanics A-B-C-D that are all synergistic and put one in each set. So that cards with the "D" mechanic would play nicely with cards from all over the block. It's possible.
The biggest argument against this, I think, is why do it? I think it is a neat idea in a way, but I also believe that the only reason it came about is because we know there is a "unique block structure". It would not come up on its own on the merit of being a particularly clever idea for a way to structure a set. Or so I believe.
For one, couldn't they achieve a lot of the same by selling the fourth set in separate boosters all through the year, and structuring drafts with a given number of boosters in each draft being this booster?
On the other hand, a lot of people do not buy boxes of boosters nor read about Magic online. Many people buy single digit boosters from each set. For these people, it would probably only be confusing to have cards from a different set showing up all of a sudden, with a new mechanic that appears on none of their other cards.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
...No, because "Huey" is titled Khans of Tarkir. If the Souls cycle were hints to the next block it would have to take place simultaneously on Ravnica, Innistrad, Shandalar, Zendikar, New Phyrexia, and a sixth plane.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
1. Three big independent sets. Doesn't make much sense, IMO.
2. Big / Big / Small with a reboot between the two big sets. Like a reverse Innistrad.
3. Big / small / Big but keeping all sets in the block.
4. Big / small / small, but throwing away the 2nd small set when the 3rd arrive.
Out of these, I think #2 makes the most sense. We know that Tarkir used to have dragons but they are gone. So a first set without dragons, then a second sets with them, throwing away the first.
I think the white one was confirmed as Soul of Theros.