In response to another ask, there already are Auras that have different properties based on what kind of permanent they enchant, the Rune cycle from Kaldheim. Not exactly what the asker was talking about, but pretty close.

FYI

Hi, justed wanted to say that I love the idea of Duskmourn even as someone who doesn't like horror at all. The preview panel made me pretty excited for a set I had little interest in besides slight curiosity. I quite like it when magic is willing to try out new ideas and genres. It's a multiverse, after all, so why not make it diverse and different. Please send thanks to whoever decided to release the planeswalker's guide before the story. As a Vorthos, I'm very happy.Also, as someone who started with Kaldheim and loved it, I'm glad to see Tyvar and Niko back!

Glad you’re enjoying it.

What makes a 10 guild set unlikely but other 10 faction sets, like Kaldheim, possible? Is it the color intensity?

We don’t make ten guild sets. We make two five guild sets next to each other. The bar to make back-to-back sets on the same plane is just really high, so new worlds are usually off the table as they are too unknown.

Hey Mark, You've said it is unlikely that we would visit a new plane for multiple sets consecutively because it's potentially risky. However, in recent years, every new plane has been well received by the fans. Thunder Junction, Strixhaven, Kaldheim, Eldraine, etc. When was the last time a new world was built and it wasn't received very well?

The most recent new world we visited (that we have all the data on), New Capenna, was not well received.

If Snow-Covered basics were a mistake, how should they have been done? A non-basic land with a "your deck can have any number of cards named ~" clause? Just limit them to 4 and rebalance snow effects with that in mind?

They should have been non-basic and they should have had a 4-of limit applied to them. Note in both Modern Horizons and Kaldheim limited, you only could get as many as you drafted. You weren’t allowed to just put in many in your deck as you wanted. Them being a resource we had better control over would have made Snow much easier to balance and design for.

I don't think is arguable that the block system is less popular in the short term for sets, but shouldn't Wotc consider that multi-set planes are an investment for future sets? Some of the most beloved planes would never have been created under this blockless paradigm, Ravnica chief among them. I feel like Team X should take a risk every 1-2 years with a multi-set new plane they think is a homerun to try and build a fanbase for it.

There’s a little argument that plays out on this blog. We do something. Some players don’t like it. I explain that it’s popular (players like it according to market research) and selling well. The response to that is well, maybe it’s good for the short term, but it’s harmful for the long term of the game. Okay, let’s walk through that. The first set in the new non-block era was Dominaria in 2018. That’s six years ago. 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 were the six high-grossing years Magic has had in its thirty-year history. On top of that, the vast majority of the top-selling sets of all time come from that six-year window. On top of that, our player growth for the last six years has been record-breaking. During that time, we’ve introduced the following new worlds: Eldraine, Ikoria, Kaldheim, Arcavios (Strixhaven), and New Capenna. Eldraine was revisited in Wilds of Eldraine. Arcavios is being revisited in the set codenamed “Yachting”. We haven’t announced a set yet that revisits Ikoria or Kaldheim, but both were popular and I could clearly see going back to both of them. My guess is players would be happy to see both. New Capenna was the least successful of our new worlds, but even that has come up recently because some players wanted the murder mystery set there instead of Ravnica.I question your hypothesis that beloved planes can’t be created during the block-less design era. I agree that the dynamics are different, but I think players can fall in love with new worlds in a single set. Also, the fact that we only visited the world for a one set does enable us to return sooner than the block model as evidenced by Wilds of Eldraine.

Is there a reason that in the past few years almost every new plane we’ve seen has been top-down? I think you said at some point that New Capenna was bottom up, but even that still CLEARLY was going for and was inspired by a specific flavor. When I think of that set I see it as just “outside in” not bottom up or top down. In the past decade, the new planes we got full sets for were, in order: Fiora(bottom up), tarkir(I thought bottom up but I saw something recently that said you had initially started with the idea of clans that represent the different traits of a dragon so I guess topdown?), Kaladesh(seems topdown), Amonkhet (topdown), Ixalan (top down), Kylem(I think I remember Gavin saying this was topdown at some point but it seems bottom up to me), Eldraine (topdown), Ikoria (seems bottom up but honestly I’ve got no clue), Kaldheim (topdown), Arcavios (bottom up), Kamigawa (I know it’s technically not a new plane but it’s so radically different from old Kamigawa that I’m counting it. Also this was topdown), and New Capenna (previously mentioned). Seemingly more topdown sets than bottom up ones. And when you look at all the returning planes in those years, it’s the same pattern. Even if the plane’s design originally wasn’t topdown, like dominaria or ravnica, the returns felt as though they were focused on “look at this plane!” As opposed to “look at this design space!”. Even when the return isn’t focused on the plane, like the recent set murders at Karlov manor, it’s still feels more focused on flavor than function. That’s not to say that topdown sets are bad or poorly designed, just that it feels like more and more planes and sets are “how do we mechanically represent this flavor” and fewer and fewer seem to be “how do we flavorfully represent this mechanic”. I don’t really know what my question is, but I just wanted to hear what you have to say about that

Top down vs. bottom up is a design term talking about what part of the design you start with. Every set has flavor and mechanics, and by the time it goes to print, they’re interconnected, so you, the audience, shouldn’t know whether it was top down or bottom up if we’ve done our job well. Which apparently we have as many of the sets you listed as top down were bottom up. : )

Hey Maro,
When a set has a special land in the basic land slot for packs (constellation lands for the most recent Theros, full arts for Zendikar, snow lands for kaldheim) why do the bundles not include those lands and instead have lots of normal basics? I feel like including the special lands as a guarantee or even for half of the land spots in those bundles would make them more accessible and also make the bundles more desirable.

The reason we don’t do that is it would lessen the lands feeling special in the booster.

Hello Mark! As a geographer I'm excited about the theme of the future codenames. Are you planning to match codenames to themes of sets, for example a Scandinavian city for a return to Kaldheim or a city in India for a Kaladesh set? If not, are you wary of potential insensitivities? I know such coincidences are not very likely to happen, but for example codenaming an African-themed set after a French city could feel inappropriate.

The codenames were all chosen before we knew the mechanical themes of the sets, so there is no purposeful connection.

Was Ravenform a break? Was the decision to stop making Pongify effects made after Kaldheim was released?

The existence of Ravenform led directly to the change.