Why does Wizards continue to print land destruction effects? I can pinpoint the exact least amount of fun I’ve ever had playing Magic in 17 years and the majority of them are playing against land destruction.

We’ve weakened it a lot since the early years. I’m looking at you Sinkhole and Strip Mine.

Is Sinkhole still part of the Black color pie? It's not a premier set, but Break the Ice in MH2 looks like a pie break in terms of modern design.

Black is still secondary, along with green, in land destruction. They’re a distant second as we don’t do a lot of land destruction, but still in color pie.

Why is Seismic Spike find but a red sinkhole not?

Because you can’t cast Seismic Spike until you have access to four mana, two of which is Red. That’s very different than being able to cast it turn two.

There is a portion of the MtG community that get the most enjoyment out of the game if they are causing others to be miserable: ie Sinkhole, Counterspell, Winter Orb, etc...what profile do they fit?

Most griefers are Timmy but there are Johnny and Spike griefers.

Hi MaRo. When are you going to re-introduce counterspell in standard ?? It's a simple, elegant design; the name is a perfect fit, and you could put it at any rarity without hurting NWO.

Sinkhole also fits all these requirements. It seems you’re missing power level as a concern. : )

Do you get asked a lot about sinkhole.

No until very recently. My theory is that there’s a crowd that wants me to think Stone Rain is fine so they figure that if they keep asking about Sinkhole, I’ll start to think Stone Rain isn’t that bad.

Do you think its possible to have throw backs every now and then to some of the old powerful cards that set the boundaries. Like sinkhole or wasteland or counterspell or Hymn to Torach ect..I do not see whats wrong with printing cards like these from time to time.

Um, Lightning Bolt and Rancor.

What is your view on players who like efficient land destruction? wasteland, strip mine, sinkhole, pillage ect..

They are a minority. What we’ve learned over the years is that deck strategies that revolve around one player doing something such that the other player never gets to play cards are very unpopular.

You recently defended mana flood and mana screw as an important part of Magic. I don't see how these qualities of the game are defensible when you constantly say that not being able to play your spells is not fun. Please explain how such narrowly-designed cards as basic land could not or should not be rethought in order to fix a mana system that many players see as faulty.

The answer lies in variance. It’s very important that games don’t all work the same. The mana system is one of the most powerful things that helps do that. Of course, games where you don’t get mana are unfun but games where you get it late and just barely eke out a victory are some of the most awesome games of Magic. Luckily the former don’t tend to be long games. The reason I don’t put permission or land destruction in this camp is that it doesn’t create the variance I’m talking about. If we make land destruction too good, as an example, the vast majority of games played against it will result in one player not getting to play. Sinkhole and Strip Mine reduce variance.