Have you ever thought about making Instant a rules-loaded subtype of Sorcery? Flash could still refer to Instants. And you could cut down the whole sorcery and/or instant stuff you do quite often. And in the rare case you talk about sorceries specifically you can say non-instant sorceries.

Welcome to Blogatog. : )I gave talked at great length that I would have made Instant a supertype if I we started Magic over.

Hi Mark! Long time reader, first time asker, is there a reason why when cards fun recent sets let you look at the top cards of your library and then put them on bottom, it's in a random order? When arena first came out a lot of the effects let you put them in any order, and I loved looking at the bottom of my deck while my opponent made choices on their turn! Any chance of these effects returning for players like me?

We’re trying to cut down on decisions that potentially can matter but seldom do as it taxes mental energy for minimal gain. We’d rather players focus on things that are more game relevant. So no, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Which is more common; a cycle is designed for a set and is then cut down to just one or two cards; or a card is designed and a cycle is later made based on it?

The latter.

Afternoon, Mark! Any reason the GDS3 Trials were ordered in the way they were, with the essays first and then the multiple choice second? Why did you guys do it the other way around, so people don't have to write essays that might never be read?

There’s a very low bar to take a multiple-choice test. The first trial is actually more about passion and dedication, so that we cut down to people who really care. Note that making the cut to Top 8 requires some good essay answers.

Have you looked into the possibility of making a part of cards in Un3 black-bordered? Could be both reprints and new cards. They can still be humorous (like Pirates vs Ninjas), but Commander/Cube/Eternal-legal. I think it would allow you to increase the quality and expansiveness of joke cards, since you wouldn't have to play six of them at once.

Un-cards often have a humorous flavor but they are very rarely jokes mechanically in that they are designed for good gameplay not just to get a chuckle and throw away.The problem with putting black border cards in an Un-set is you cut down on the ability to make boundary breaking cards which as we seen we get to make so infrequently. I would want to let a third Un-set be an Un-set, not a normal set with a clown nose on it.

I assume that Evolutionary leap putting things on the bottom randomly was to stop creatureless decks from stacking their deck?

That was part of it. We’re also trying to cut down on decision making that takes time and seldom matters.

How does R&D feel about having blue's polymorph effects be auras? The flavor is obviously way better if you can disenchant the creature to return it to its natural form, and the new "base power and toughness" template should help cut down on the rules confusion that has traditionally plagued such cards.

The flavor’s good but it gets a lot more complicated and wordy. I wouldn’t mind it some of the time but would be hesitant to do it all of the time.

Was it ever considered having Ferocious trigger off mana cost, rather than power, to make it more distinct from Naya's mechanic?

Our goal was to match the flavor of Temur not to make it more different from things we’d done in the past. Also, caring about converted mana cost would cut down on much of the interaction ferocious has with the rest of the set. It’s very hard to change converted mana cost.

From all the terminology and concepts you use when discussing game design and Magic in particular "unfun" seems the least thought-out. It feels like an umbrella term used to describe specific (and legal) game strategies deemed undesired for some reason or another. Why deny the viability of, say, land destruction as a strategy and at the same time implement specific hosers to it instead of removing it from the possible pool of ways you can play the game?

You are making a faulty assumption. You assume having as many things costed to be tournament viable as possible make for a more diverse play environment. The opposite is more often true. Certain types of mechanics, such as land destruction, cut down the number of viable options by making things that might thrive without it unusable. In other words, removing things like land destruction leads to a more robust environment.

You say you "cut down" on the number of hexproof with built in evasion but this is definitly a case of one is too many. I was having a great day at the Pre Release as a red deck full of burn until I ran into the new 3/5 sphynx for 5 with hexproof. Losing to it two times in a row when I had a fist full of burn felt terrible. Burning out a 3/5 is hard enough but when it gains hexproof in response to second burn? Hex and evasion should be on ZERO cards even with "drawbacks" especially at 5 mana.

One of the reasons Hexproof exists is to be an answer to things like burn.