Hi Mark! Guy who missed the Gen Con announcement here again. I just wanted to add to the chorus of people saying how excited they are for Duskmourn, specifically BECAUSE it's a more modern take on horror. I was worried I'd find it boring because Phyrexians, Eldrazi, and Innistrad have all done horror in MtG already. Instead we have neon lighting, puffy vests, static portals, possessed appliances, and a gang of plucky youngsters joining up with roving survivors. Neon Dynasty was the first setting to really prove that futuristic settings could be done and done well, while still feeling like it's in the multiverse we all know and love. I'm sure Duskmourn will adapt a more modern world just as well.

I can’t wait for you to see more of it.

"From a big picture, Magic excels at creating variety and does poorly at consistency."I would argue that historically, it's done well at both. Variety and consistency are not opposing concepts; you don't need to sacrifice one for the sake of the other. Ravnica, Theros, Zendikar and Bloomburrow are all very different places, but they're easy to see side by side. You could take a character from each of those planes and put them in a story together, and they would all be very distinctive, but none would feel out of place. Put someone from Duskmourn in that lineup, and they'd stick out like a Ghostbuster in Middle Earth. The complaints aren't from people who, as you seem to be implying, dislike variety. They just think that even in a very varied setting, you can still have cohesiveness, and Duskmourn's aesthetic breaks the cohesiveness that Magic has actually done very well at previously even with its great variety (there are other reasons people may dislike it as well of course, but that's most relevant to this point).

There are people who thought Ravnica *did* break the mold of what Magic was. A city? Core fantasy is not urban. There are people who thought Theros *did* break the mold of what Magic was. Theros borrowed too heavily from an existing mythology. Magic is about creating its own things, not being influenced by non-fantasy real world sources. There are people who thought Zendikar *did* break the mold of what Magic was. It leaned to heavily into adventure tropes and not enough on basic fantasy. There are people who thought Bloomburrow *did* break the mold. It was too cutesy and didn’t have the gravitas of a real Magic set. The idea that the thing you felt went too far is the actual thing that went too far is what everyone believes when we stretch to a place that they aren’t comfortable with. But that place varies from person to person. And more importantly, it changes as the game adapts. Innistrad was once the world that went a step too far, and now it’s the thing Duskmourn is being compared against as the sign that we went too far.Magic has since its beginning changed and adapted. And it’s always pushing into new territory because that’s what it means to change and adapt. That doesn’t mean every person is going to agree with everything we do. It’s fine to not like something, but please be aware that for each player who felt we went too far, there are many others excited by what we’re doing.My point when I say “we do poor at consistency” is that there’s no definitive dividing point. There’s not a clear line in the sand where this side “is Magic” and this side “isn’t Magic”. That line varies person to person. The reason we have 27,000+ cards is so that each person can focus on “what Magic is” for themselves.

Hey! Just wanted to say the prerelease of MH3 was really fun and to say thanks :)I pulled three (3!!) Sorins after hoping and hoping for weeks Id find one, and the adapt mechanic being spread across colours helped me pull together my first ever 2-1-0 deck in an event.Anyway, just wanted to show some enthusiasm. Enjoy your day :)

Glad you had a good time.

"We have cultural advisors who give us advice about word usage. Tribal was one of the words that was tagged as having sensitivity issues, so we chose to change it" Corporate paid for consultants and they had to ruin something, understood

Magic has changed terminology many times in its lifetime. Players take a short period to adapt and then the language becomes natural. It’s a small price to pay to allow members of the community to feel more accepted.

Riku of Many Paths make reference to "modal spells" which I think is a first. How are modal spells being defined for the game now? Anything where a player makes a choice while casting? Can creatures be modal like adaptive automaton? entwine spells? splilt cards?

Here’s the definition from Matt Tabak:“A modal spell, you might be wondering, is a spell where you choose from among modes (a bulleted list of options) as you cast it. They include spree cards. A permanent with an activated or triggered ability that includes modes is not a modal spell.”

Earlier someone mentioned Melded nonpermanent spells. Doesn’t Splice play into that design space?

The concept of meld is two cards coming together to make a bigger card. We have mechanics that adapt spells on the stack.

A question I asked recently has been getting some attention on social media, and it feels like a lot of people are misconstruing what I asked but it feels like you understood me.When you say new Horizons sets are a very real possibility, are you talking about in general for any format that isn’t Modern, or more specifically Pioneer?

A few comments on that answer as it seems to be generating a lot of response.First, I said “if” not “when” which, definitionally by the whole when/if paradigm, means it might never happen. “When” means I expect it will eventually happen, and even then, not necessarily soon. “If” means I have no belief it will necessarily happen.Second, looking ahead at Horizons sets, there is a possibility that one day, again not necessarily soon, we’ll apply that set structure to a different format. That’s just the way a product line like that might (again might) adapt. Pioneer is the most likely format to look at if (and again, if) we ever choose to do that.So, the sky is not falling. I’m just examining hypotheticals, because that’s an activity you all seem to enjoy on the blog.

Where would you say Monarch currently sits on the Storm Scale? Last time you were asked, ~3 years ago, it was a 7. Since then, it's appeared in several supplemental products, so I was wondering its performance in those sets might have affected the rating. Follow-up question: What are some of the issues that present in translating a mechanic naturally befitting multiplayer - like Monarch- to a Premier Set?

It depends on the mechanic. Some adapt, some don’t. I think we’re likely to see a Monarch-like mechanic in a premier set that actual monarch. Monarch, itself, is still a 7.

I am concerned with the booster change how it will affect tournament play. In sealed tournaments which qualify for pro tours and other big money events, the player who opens the play booster packs with the most rares will now have a huge advantage over the players who hit the low side of play boosters and get 1 rare per pack. Has this been taken into consideration?

On average, most draft players, in a draft, will open roughly (within maybe two) the same number of rares/mythic rares as each other. The environment has to adapt to more rares/mythic rares existing, but there’s not going to be giant swings between players in how many rares/mythic rares they open. The percentages of opening more than one rare:2 - 37%3 - 4%4 - <1%

Before all the outrage and predictions of Magic’s demise, the premature condemnations and quitting of Magic surrounding the new Play Boosters, this Limited player wants to take a moment and say.. I trust you guys! It sounds like you put some real thought into this. Am I a little nervous? Sure, but that’s the nature of change. I’m also super intrigued and already itching to get into my first draft with these new packs! Appreciate you guys always being focused on the future!

We have spent a lot of time figuring out how to change how we make sets to adapt to play boosters. For example, here’s a big change. Draft boosters had 101 commons and 80 uncommons. Play boosters will have 81 commons and 100 uncommons. We’re shifting twenty cards from common to uncommon to better adapt to how play boosters are put together.