Was Riding the Dilu Horse lacking the "Until end of turn" rider deliberate or not? I'm trying to settle an argument; I'm on the side of "it was a mistake that left in because of the negligible impact of 'fixing' it"; the other party is on side "It was deliberate because it makes it function as a pseudoenchantment, when Portal was intended to lack that type".

I didn’t work on that set, but I believe is was intentional to mimic an enchantment.

As far as color pie is concerned, does Horsemanship occupy a space more similar to Flying or "can't be blocked"? If it showed up as a one-off cameo in a premiere set, could it be on a white card?

It is a flying replacement and is fine in the appropriate colors.

Gavin put out a video where he talks with Jeremy Geist about OTJ's mechanics and listening made me realize from a pure mechanical standpoint the mechanics in the set, plot and spree, are just two of my favorite mechanics. Past that outlaws are super flavor and just a really cool batch to build around and mounts are an amazing way at capturing the horse back flavor, something Magic hasn't had until now. Honestly, OTJ has one of the strongest collection of mechanics of any set in a long time.

Thanks. I’m quite proud of them.

Hi Mark - I realise this isn't hugely likely as the horse has already bolted but I think it would be cool if the non-canon cards in supplemental sets were marked in some way, such as with the Planar Chaos frames. I'm guessing this is one of those things that's more complicated than it sounds because it would work across teams or something like that but I think it would be cool.

It’s tricky. Even in Planar Chaos, there is a lot of alternate reality cards not in the timeshifted frame.

I would like to voice my immense disappointment that there was not a horsemanship cameo in OTJ, I say this before BIG is fully revealed. But I would have loved some random 2/2 with horsemanship and no other text as a cute cameo in the Wild West set.

We tend to cameo cards that play mechanically well over it’s funny to read once.

Spoiler Alert!! (in case this gets answered)Hi Mark. I saw the card "smuggler's surprise" today and found myself feeling a little bit of flavor dissonance.This made me wonder if:1. This is a reference in pop culture that went over my head2. If this card was considered for a different set (such as a Pharos one)3. and/or if it happened to just fit this set too well mechanically.

I think it’s just a Trojan Horse reference.

Hi Mark, each day I grow more nervous that there isn't a horse in the cowboy set, can you reassure me?

The set is not Horseless.

Let's say, hypothetically, you guys teamed up with a certain IP to create an UB tent pole product. Said IP is famous for having a fictional species of large birds that people ride around like horses. Some breeds of this bird can fly, but most are flightless, and it isn't obvious by looking at them that they can't fly. Fans of the IP might be expecting them not to fly, but non-fans might get confused by the Bird subtype, leading to play errors.How might you approach resolving the conflict between faithfully portraying the IP vs. ensuring a non-confusing play environment?

If it’s key to a property and the fans would expect them not to fly, I assume they wouldn’t fly.

Can I get a maybe on Horsemanship being in OTJ?

Maybe. : )

I don't like that Clues and Vehicles *must* be artifacts. It's not intuitive that a Horse can't be a Vehicle unless it's an artifact. It doesn't make sense that Scene of the Crime is an artifact. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense that a Plant can't be Food unless it's an artifact. While we're at it you should be able to equip nonartifact creatures too, like Banjo and Kazooie. I can't be the only person who thinks this, right?

The rules need to function properly. I get that can be frustrating at times.