Hey Mark, why was it decided to remove the draft and set the booster because of confusion amongst them, but putting value booster is better, is supposed to be a support for pauper/pauper commander?

You’re conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another. Draft boosters went away because the majority of the audience preferred set boosters. Play boosters were a way to keep the essence of set boosters while still providing limited play. All of that is mostly centered in local game stores. Value boosters are addressing a need of certain mass market stores to have Magic boosters at a lower price point. They are not a product the vast majority of enfranchised players will ever interact with, and their existence has nothing to do with organized play.

Hi Mark hope you're doing well, I'm in dire need of an UN set ruling. There are only 8 common attractions and I want to play with an attraction deck in Pauper Commander (of which they are still legal in) but there is not enough to make a full deck. What do I do? Just run 8 or double up on some, or play without one entirely? Many thanks - Xan

Casually, just run eight. Note that this is technically breaking the rules, and other players might object.

The recent pauper 'pre-ban' of Cranial Ram got me thinking about some of the older pre-bans because of Ante that happened in the 90's (RIP Rebirth, Tempest Efreet, and Timmerian Fiends. You will not be missed). Has there ever been any serious discussion about making a newer mechanic that manipulated card 'Ownership'? Where would that sort of effect be on the Storm Scale? (I assume a 12, if it went that high)

I think we’re out of the business of changing ownership. It was the most disliked thing mechanically we’ve ever done.

When you first previewed MH3 you made a big deal about the inclusion of DFCs. I was hoping that meant we’d get a big variety of MDFCs and TDFCs and - especially as a pauper player - some MDFCs at common. Having just the 5 flipwalkers and 20 mdfc lands is a lot less both in quantity and variety than I thought we might see.

25 is a decent amount, comparative to other DFC sets. I agree the variety is on the low side, but it did do the two most popular executions, the DFC planeswalkers and MDFC lands.

Mark, can you pass along the request for a common paper printing of chainer's edict. It's pauper legal form VMA but is only physically printed in uncommon.

I can pass it along. We tend not to put two for ones at common, which makes doing so tricky.

Regarding sticker/attraction: wouldn't it have been best to keep all the cards from Unfinity silver border/acorn so they don't affect legacy/vintage/pauper and allow the Commander rules committee to decide which if any of these cards to become legal in their format? Or would that have put an undue burden on that rules committee to go through all the cards and figure out which ones would be acceptable and which are not?

If they were silver border they wouldn’t be playable. That rule already existed.

This one probably won’t make the blog, but let WoTC management know that not everyone hates stickers and bonus decks. I liked brewing with them, and even had a pretty good pauper deck that used stickers.
Today’s ban makes me really sad, and I hope the commander rules committee doesn’t follow suit.

I’ll pass the note along.

If/when a Pauper Masters set?And how would you deal with a common only set?

If, because there’s not a way to do a common-only set (from a business perspective). A trading card set requires rarities.

I know that Mercadian Masques wasn't the most well recieved set, but as a Pauper player, I adore the wealth of interesting designs in the set. I enjoy a sneaky Snuff Out over a Deadly Rolick any day.My (very belated) high fives to all who worked on it!

*Very* belated high five.

How do you feel about an Unfinity card like "Name-Sticker" Goblin becoming a staple in Pauper and other formats?

I feel good about it.