Do you ever encounter issues where a mechanic that you want to be core to a set is too niche in its slice of the color pie? Like, food was a big theme in both Eldraine sets, but it is a mechanic that can only appear WGB, so you were limited somewhat in just how much you could use it compared to something disguise, which is a completely color-pie agnostic mechanic. When designing full custom sets I often have ideas for mechanics that seem to be total slam dunks, but are actually kind of limited in how much I can use them.

It happens from time to time. It’s why vision design checks in with the Council of Colors.

I would like to invoke the rite of birthday trivia to request something about my favorite character, Avacyn!

From time to time we have what we call “brain to print” cards where a cards gets to print in the exact form it was designed. Avacyn, Angel of Hope was one such card. I made it in early vision design, and it never changed (I think they tried different mana costs, but ended back at where I started).Happy Birthday!

At what point in the design process did you guys decide bloomburrow would have classes? I love that they're there, they fit well, but I was not expecting it at all.

It happened in early vision design.

Part of Vision Design is pushing the boundaries of Magic (I believe). Sometimes, that means brainstorming wild successes like double faced cards or morph , but other times there are mechanics like the Animal batch or LCI’s gem resources that get killed by set or play design. Does vision design have limits on what they can propose? how do you foster outside-the-box creativity while keeping unfeasable ideas in check?

Part of pushing boundaries is doing things that end up being too far, but you don’t know the line if you never test it.

When you do articles/DTWs on Bloomburrow: Can you list some more animals that you guys considered for the set but got cut and if you had any planned colors/mechanics for them? We know about Badgers and such, but would love to hear if there were more :)

The two that existed as two-color archetypes was Weasels in black/red and Badgers in red/green. In early vision design, for a short moment, we had fifteen animals as we gave one to each monocolor. It became clear quickly it was just too many animals. There were many ones we talked about that never made the cut. Turtles and Frogs, for example, were fighting for the green/blue slot.

You are head designer and often lead designer. What is the difference between those two tasks?

I am Head Designer overseeing all of the early portion of design. I am lead designer on specific sets, such as Outlaws of Thunder Junction vision design.

Hi, Mark. I just wanted to say that I find it astounding that Lost Caverns being set on Ixalan was a late decision, as one of the reasons it drew me into Magic was how interesting I found the factions of the plane, and how well I saw them represented in the cards. I suppose it just goes to show how much a set can change in Play Design, huh?

It changed in early set design, just after vision design handed the file off.

I was thinking about a blog from Ari Lax about 3/2 being the best power and toughness for limited and was wondering if you all considered or tested with disguise/cloak from MKM making 3/2s rather than 2/2s with ward?

The initial version of Disguise in vision design of Murders at Karlov Manor made them 3/2. It was a bit too aggressive.

"Innistrad is one of my best designs."Yeah, Innistrad was great when it was unique, and gothic horror is an incredibly deep well to draw from. There's tons of source material, and it's easy to make it feel "universal".These days, it feels like every premier set is trying to be Innistrad, unless it's a Storyline Set or a Return Set. The Innistrad-likes all feel like "Magic does [genre]" instead of something actually original, Storyline Sets are practically Return Sets, and the actual Return Sets are half Innistrad-likes anyway.The Modern Horizons sets are the last bastion of bottom-up, Magic doing Magic sets, but they're infrequent, expensive, and overshadowed by how they destroy the Modern metagame every time.I just want a new world that makes me feel like I'm reading the Planeswalker's Guide to Alara again. A world that only makes sense in Magic the Gathering, instead of Magic fitting itself into something that already exists.

I want to begin by stressing something. You’re talking to me, the Head Designer of Magic. I, along with rest of the designers, are in charge of the mechanical execution of design. We create the larger structure of how the set is build, weave in flavorful themes, and design mechanics to play into that structure and theme(s). When I talk about sets I’ve done I’m talking about the part of the process I’m in charge of. With that said, let’s talk about the latest design I led (vision design), Outlaws of Thunder Junction. I hold up its game design to any other set I’ve lead. The mechanics are sharp, useful, and lead towards new play patterns. The limited play and constructed play involving its themes are novel. And while it’s all forward facing, it was designed to be more backwards compatible than previous sets. Plot, in particular, is one of the most exciting new mechanics I’ve designed in a long time. It’s simple in description, but surprisingly deep in strategy. Having the primary focal point of villainy, with a secondary theme of the Western genre, led my team to create something new. Top-down is just an input. Good design can come from any input. Bottom-up design is no better at making good mechanic designs than top-down. I believe current mechanical design is on point, and Outlaws of Thunder Junction, in particular, is my team being on their A game.

Hi Mark, thanks for the podcast its something I look forward to every Friday, but I was a little put off this week while listening to your episode about the MH3 vision design. Within 90 seconds of the start Commander is mentioned. I play commander but at this point I've come to resent how the game is largely centered on it to the point that even products aimed at something else have to have commander elements kept in mind. There is a separate (and oversaturated) product line in the precons aimed at commander, can we keep these things separate please?

It’s the number one played tabletop format, by a decent margin. How do we not care about a format so many people are playing?