Talk:Dragon's Maze

From MTG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shocklands

I Don't think you can count the shocklands as a cycle in DM, officially they are part of Return and Gatecrash --Hunter61 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then what about the guildgates? --GeoMike (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Guildgates are considered a cycle in DM because they bear the DM expansion symbol DeathHacker (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok - didn't realize they did that. --GeoMike (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The shockland are not, I repeat not, reprints. And I hate the collapsable section --Hunter61 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gallery of images

I've made the page more readable (IMO).

Still, there's too much text, too few files/images.

Thoughts? --Magic Mage (talk!) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Two "cycles" of guild mechanics.

  • I was looking through all of the cards with the guild ability and noticed that each guild had a card with the guild keyword at common and at rare. I'm pretty sure there was a conscious decision by the dev team to do this for draft purposes and to make the distribution of guild abilities equal, but I'm unsure if this is considered a full cycle. The main reason is that a few of the rares are also the Guild Maze Runners. Unfortunately these do not form a vertical cycle, as there's no uncommon for any of the guilds. Still thought this would be interesting to bring up. Thoughts? DeathHacker (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
While there is some sort of pattern or link, really, you must concede that it's a very incomplete and tenuous one. Interesting, though. --Magic Mage (talk!) 20:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Putting this here as the most recent set to have this, but only three sets in history have a section dedicated to critical reception: this, Torment and Odyssey. Some others have "reception": Innistrad, Unstable, Commander 2018, Masters 25. That makes 4 out of 88 expansion sets, and 3 out of some number of supplemental products.

Is this something that should be encouraged among newer sets? Or is it too much work for a difficult-to-maintain sections, given citations needed? Some sets are easy to find reactions to (WAR, DOM, ELD, IXN, BFZ, THS), but as time goes backward it gets harder to tell if the reactions are widespread or just from the article writer. 220.238.224.227 10:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say these sections add value to the pages --Hunterofsalvation (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)