Happy birthday, Mark!I rediscovered Magic during Kamigawa Neon Dynasty after not touching it since my childhood (around Lorwyn block). I tried almost every gamemode on Arena, as well as some EDH, but nothing quite captured the essence of Magic like drafting a cube for the first time.Since then, I've made five (!) cubes, and crafting & managing them has become one of my treasured hobbies. Making my own environments has made the game extremely fair and accessible for my less enfranchised friends, and it scratches the itches of my designer brain.Thank you for being such a big part of the game I love to tinker with!

Glad you found the expression you enjoy most.

Re:Re:Powercreep - outside of vintage cube, most players will never play with cards like tinker, black lotus and the moxen. If you look at e.g. the modern card pool, I don't see how you argue powercreep isn't happening - virtually all of the most played non-land cards were printed in the last 3-4 years.

Because all the most powerful early cards are banned?

What is the reason for "Sacrificing artifacts" no longer being in pie for blue? This confuses me on a few levels.Firstly is that its a cost, which normally arent color pie restricted from my understanding. Flavorfully restricted sure, but effects like tinker (iterating on an invention) are extremely blue in flavor so this doesnt apply hereAlso I just dont really see a reason for it? This doesnt have the justification like black not saccing enchantments (and even that has been dropped)id be interested to hear what the thought process behind this decision was?

Transformation is treated differently than straight sacrifice. Blue can transform one artifact into another, even if the technical rules text uses a sacrifice, all it likes. Any color can sacrifice an artifact, so blue can, but it is the color least likely to do that.

Is it correct to say that in a block like Urza Block the design philosophy was centered on creating build-around cards? Many cards in that block created a deck that could be built around a single, unique card. Example: Bargain. Wildfire. Tinker, Enchantress. Replenish, Opposition etc. It seems to me that nowadays you rather focus on "pre-assembled" groups of cards, rather than single cards. (I don't like it).

No, it is not correct to say that. You are comparing apples and oranges. Urza’s Saga was released in 1998, just five years into the game’s life. There was much less need to differentiate itself from the other sets, because it was in the low two digits. Strixhaven, in contrast, is twenty-eight years in and has triple digits of sets to be compared against. It has to have a stronger, cohesive mechanical identity to be memorable.Both sets had plenty of Standard build-around cards. Where they start to deviate is in larger formats. That’s the result of two big factors. One, it’s easier to make a dent in a format of five years of cards than twenty-eight. Two, Urza’s Saga’s power level is through the roof. It’s the most powerful expansion set ever printed. It’s a lot easier to get cards played when the power level is through the roof.So, yes there are differences, but none of it comes from a design intent to make less build around cards.

What’s the craziest card you designed that made it through development without being changed or rejected?

Tinker.

What's the strongest card that you've solely designed that wasn't changed in development?

Tinker, which is also probably the strongest card I solely designed.

What single card that you designed do you think has done the most damage to the game?

Maybe Tinker.

I noticed while reading the M Files that the terms "A", "B", and "C" were being used about some of the cards (Aeronaut Tinkerer, for example). What do they mean?

It’s a rating system development uses to grade how good cards are in limited.

Hi Mark. You've said that cards with drawbacks are done sparingly because they don't go over well. Wouldn't you agree that a big part of Johnnies is picking cards with drawbacks and tinker with them until the drawbacks are irrelevant or even transformed into an upside? I'd hate to take that away; it makes for a lot of fun decks.

We still make some of those cards, but the uber Johnnies that enjoy those cards are a small subset so we don’t tend to make all that many.

Since red is the color of creativity and art, what are the chances that we see a set where red interacts positively with artifacts based on that?

Red has had what I would call some positive interactions with artifacts. Goblin Tinkerer and the one that jumps to mind.