I don't play Neheb so I have no feelings there, but I am genuinely curious. Why is it okay to change the rules/wording and make a major functional errata to how Neheb works, but not make the nephilim and Godsire legendary in the name of avoiding functional errata? It's not like Companion where it was an emergency thing.

I know we’re looking into this issue.That said, there is a difference between changing a card and changing a rule which results in a card playing differently. The first is functional errata (we’re actively changing how the card works). The latter isn’t. We’re changing how the game works and the relevant cards play with the rules as they now exist. Here’s an example. Lifelink used to stack. If you had two copies of lifelink on a creature you gained twice the life. We then changed how lifelink worked. Every card with lifelink now worked differently, but that wasn’t us specifically redoing any card.

Has it ever been considered to reword ability granting lords to say "CARDNAME and other creatures get..." instead of the current system of saying its effect twice? So say Lyra Dawnbringer would say "Lyra Dawnbringer and other angels have lifelink"

I don’t think that has been considered.

Would it theoretically be possible for a green/red creature to have lifelink? Not necessarily permanently, maybe temporary through activation or through a specific trigger. Green has access to lifegain, and red often cares about damage, so something with both hurt and help makes thematical sense.

Lifelink isn’t primary or secondary source n either color, so I’m skeptical we’d do that.

What happens when a UB character obviously has a keyword, but its color doesn't match? Like if a character's personality/vibe/etc are clearly Izzet, but lore wise they have abilities that clearly mean it should have lifelink or something?

We usually find a way to capture them mechanically in the colors that best represent their character.

Hi Mark. If instants and sorceries can gain deathtouch and lifelink (e.g. Judith), can it also gain Trample? As in, the actual keyword. I am aware that cards such as Flame Spill are able to define excess damage. I am just curious if it's allowed to have it as the keyword instead.

I don’t believe it can. That’s why I did it in an Un-set.

Why is lifelink not in Green's pie? It seems like life gain that scales with a creature's power would be a sure fit.

Green and white overlap more than any other two colors, so we’re careful to do things to keep them separate.

Were you surprised that adding lifelink to spells was doable in the rules?

I was not.

So I know that you don't put Lifelink on Green creatures to avoid them being too similar to White, but if one slipped through it wouldn't be a color pie break because Green can gain life no problem. Would you consider it a bend?

I’d call it a bend.

Have you done a DTW on art vs mechanics about cards with art that doesn't match their effects? Multiple huge creatures that should have reach don't, multiple only semi tall creatures have it when they shouldn't, as an example. Or certain creatures having lifelink when they're just normal knights or whatever.

I’ll add it to the short list.

Can any of the evergreen creature keywords really be color pie breaks? They mostly don't seem relevant/unique enough to undermine a color's fundamental weakness. Maybe lifelink?

The line isn’t color pie break or no. We want each color feeling distinct, so the division of evergreen keywords is important to help create that definition. It’s not that green couldn’t philosophically have lifelink. It’s that we want a division between green and white which have the danger of overlapping too much.