With creature types being grouped together like with Party and Outlaw, I imagine this trend will continue if received well. Do you think there is a limit on how many creature types could be grouped together at one? For example, if there was a grouping for "Reptiles" you realistically could include Lizard, Salamander, Turtle, Crocodile, Snake, Hyrda, Dinosaur, Basilisk, and Kavu. There might be some others I'm forgetting, but 9 seems like a lot. Do you think that the amount of possible creature types would prevent potential groupings from being made at all, or would some just be left out?

Our default rule is two to five items in a batch. Getting over that gets unwieldy, both to remember and to fit on the card.

Hi Mark. I was sick during my birthday a week ago and forgot to message you. As a Spike limited player I was reminiscing earlier about simpler times. I started in Revised, and still love MTG after all these years. When I first started playing as a kid, I was in love with the combo of Bog Wraith and Evil Presence (so much flavor). Can you give me fun trivia about a combo that YOU enjoy?

The first combo that fascinated me was Lure and Thicket Basilisk. The first deck I made was monogreen as my first Starter deck had a Craw Wurm.Happy Belated Birthday!

Hi Mark,I think it's fair to say some players have had their feathers ruffled with recent design choices and printing decisions. I've seen someone describe all of the tention around the idea, "You can never truly return home." In Magic context, it's the fact that in a vacuum, it's very hard to recreate the conditions players fell in love with the game and their magic 'golden ages'. It's caused me to really thing about recent changes differently.But my questions for you is, what is your magic 'home'? Or what's the period of magic that you find yourself yearning for the most? What does the magic you fell in love with look like?

When Beta came out, I knew that it was going to sell out immediately, so I bought a bunch of booster boxes. I then restricted myself to opening one booster pack a day. At the time, Wizards had decided to keep the contents secret, and the Internet was young, so it didn’t have the means of making the contents known. This meant every day when I opened my booster pack I would see cards for the first time. The thing I fell in love with Magic was that I was constantly surprised. I didn’t know what the game was capable of, so whenever it went a place I hadn’t thought of, it truly felt magical. That’s been my touchstone as Head Designer. I want the game to keep surprising, to keep pushing its boundaries. I want players to see things they never thought possible and share that same feeling I had the first time I saw a Thicket Basilisk. “They can do that?!” Which means to me, the constant evolution is home.

Do Creatures like Thicket Basilisk count as deathtouch? For example, would they trigger Fynn, the Fangbearer ability?

No. While the Thicket Basilisk was one of the inspirations for the ability, it technically works differently than deathtouch and thus can’t use the deathtouch keyword.

You mentioned there used to be nicknames for lifelink, vigilance, and haste before they were keyworded. What were they? What about other later keywords like reach, deathtouch, etc?

Vigilance was called the Serra ability after Serra Angel. Lifelink was called spirit link after the Legends card (which worked slightly differently than what we ended up keywording. Haste was called Raging after Raging Goblin or celerity which is what R&D called it.Reach was called the Spider ability after Giant Spider. Deathtouch was called the basilisk ability after Thicket Baslisk in Alpha. My point is that players will come up with slang usually based on the first and/or most popular card with the ability, but once we give it an official name, it eventually becomes the default. And yes, players always say they’re going to keep using the slang, but they don’t, not when the cards give it a real name.

Re: Thicket Basilisk. Let me rephrase my last question: could Thicket Basilisk be printed today even though it’s ability is kind of like Deathtouch but not quite?

I doubt we’d reprint it with deathtouch being evergreen. Too many people would play it as if it has deathtouch and it doesn’t.

Hello Mark, take 2 on my Birthday Question. Not really trivia but do you have a favorite card from Alpha and what was it when you started playing? Thanks!

The first card I ever fell in love with was Thicket Basilisk. I thought it’s ability was crazy when I first saw it.Happy Birthday!

It's my birthday! Rather than ask about a certain topic, can I just ask what your favorite piece of trivia is?

This puzzle: You’re playing with just Revised Edition cards. You and your opponent each have nothing but basic lands in play. Your opponent plays a Thicket Basilisk. You then play a creature. Your opponent attacks on the next turn with the Thivket Basilusk. You block. Your creature dies. Then on your turn you cast Raise Dead and put the creature back into your hand. You then cast it again. On your opponent’s next turn, he attacks again with the Thicket Basilisk. You block again with your creature, but this time it doesn’t die.What creature is it? Happy Birthday!

Are we likely to ever see more of Thicket Basilisk's ability that destroys creatures blocking or blocked by it, where it's not actually contingent on the creature dealing damage? It seems like deathtouch has taken that space.

We no longer do deathtouch variants now that deathtouch is keyworded.

Is a mono-green gorgon possible?

That space creatively in Green tends to go to Basilisks. Green can mechanically do it though, so with the right world, I could see it.