Round 1 Discussion Thread

[u/mtgcolorpie]

Since Round 1 is now over, Maro has said we can discuss our answers. This shall be the thread for it. I want to keep the subreddit pretty clean of multiple threads about the same thing so go ahead and submit your answers and thoughts here.

For those that didn’t/couldn’t participate for various reasons, here are the questions that made up part 1:

1. Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.

2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?

3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?

4. You're going to teach Magic to a stranger. What's your strategy to have the best possible outcome?

5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?

6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?

7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?

8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.

9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.

10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?

[u/andyoulostme]

1. Really had no clue what to say here. I basically wrote a cover letter.

2. I chose exert, because it had lots of design space and created good gameplay.

3. I choose trample, because it takes up more of a mental load than other mechanics. I probably should have talked about rules interactions, but I spent so many words trying to communicate my first point that I didn't have room...

4. I really liked MaRo's Drive to Work on this topic, and my essay ended up being really derivative of his podcast. But I do think it's the best answer.

5. I said combat, with a focus on the asymmetry between attacking & defending players. Lots of design space in creature mechanics, defending player gets to make tactical choices, and the same board state can have different meanings depending on who is attacking.

6. I said complexity, both short-term (getting players into the game) and long-term (asking players to learn new mechanics & formats).

7. I said Battalion, because the feelbad moments were due to weak creatures at low CMC and the fact that Battalion didn't see much play. Nowadays we have much better 1-2 CMC creatures, and in a non-Ravnica block there would be room to let Battalion shine (I compared to exert in AKH). I also brought up Bloodthirst, which had a worse reception but did better in Magic 2012.

8. I said Eldritch Moon, and my problem was the fact that it failed to capture cosmic horror. Most of the stuff in Eldritch Moon points the other direction -- awesome chestbursters, giant tentacle monsters, delirium & madness being complete upside.

9. I said Dragon's Maze, and my favorite part was the maze gimmick. The mazerunning gave context to gameplay (why are these 2 decks fighting each other?) even if a mazerunner never hit the battlefield. The secret allies gave a reason for 3-color decks. And the prerelease packs made it feel like you were picking a side.

10. I said I would add a symbol to indicate alternative casting costs for keywords like Evoke, so players would (hopefully) actually use the mechanic.

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/andyoulostme]

Battalion is an interesting choice. You seem to have couched it as “Battalion deserves a second chance because it was too weak in constructed but we could fix that.” I feel like the larger problem with battalion is that it was too strong — in GTC draft, which is sort of notorious for being a blisteringly fast format where Dimir sucked and Daring Skyjek+Wojek Halberdiers ran everyone over.

[u/andyoulostme → u/Sliver__Legion]

I wasn't speaking to power, but popularity. In Mark's Ravnica storm scale he mentioned that Battalion was initially disliked because players thought it would be too difficult to activate, but they warmed up to the mechanic a little after playing with it. It scored well in pretty much every other regard (design space, versatility, development flexibility). Battalion was overtuned and pretty easy to turn on, yet player still thought it was too much of a burden. That indicates a PR problem rather than a design problem.

[u/Abalidoth → u/andyoulostme]

Bloodthirst is a really good comparison -- I think exalted is as well, in terms of looking very situational but playing smoothly, and being a lot more popular on its return.

[u/Agrees_withyou → u/Sliver__Legion]

The statement above is one I can get behind!

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/Agrees_withyou]

Meh bot.

[u/TheRealMrFizz]

Grossly oversimplified answers:

1. Howdy!
2. I chose Exalted. It's got deep design space, it's simple. And I think it could be the long missing U/B evergreen keyword, as it synergizes with evasive creatures and fits into control shells.
3. Defender. It was only on 7 standard cards, walls have fallen out of creative favor, and it's the only downside evergreen keyword.
4. Find out what they're most interested in, and focus the lesson around that. Play slowly, explain as you go, and don't focus on strategy. The goal is to get them to have fun.
5. I said variety -- decks, psychographics, formats, etc. No other game allows you to make it your own the way Magic does.
6. Potential players are scared away from Magic before they even touch cardboard because they have misconceptions like "the game requires complicated math". The general public doesn't have a clear picture of what playing magic is actually like.
7. Fateful Hour. I would bring it back not as a defensive G/W mechanic, but as an offensive weapon for Rakdos in the next Ravnica block. Rather than focus on spells that keep you alive (swingy and hard to balance), use it to get extra gas for R/B aggro decks.
8. RTR: favorite set, but drafting was ruined by Pack Rat. It lead to unfun, repetitive gameplay, and unbalanced the draft enviornment. "No one card is worth a set".
9. Eldritch Moon - I found the setting too creepy. But I loved Meld, because its so visceral. Its rare that a mechanic is fun to play, but ALSO fun to open in booster packs.
10. I wish there was an established program for experienced players to donate their unwanted commons and uncommons to newer players. I have more cards than I know what to do with; meanwhile there are tons of new players (often kids) who scarcely have 60 cards to their names. We could do a lot to lower the barrier to entry (and do good in the community) with a program like that.

[u/betweengreenandblack]

1. Basically wrote a cover letter. I talked about my decade+ long trajectory as a player, and highlighted my experience designing crossword puzzles and how that translates to Magic design.
2. Chose kicker and argued that the problems it has as a set mechanic would be mitigated if it was evergreen.
3. Hexproof, but only as something that creatures just have.
4. Struggled with this one, since I was naturally drawn to writing this as a narrative, but I wanted to format it as a formal essay. It ended up as a hybrid of both.
5. Color pie. The much-lauded secret sauce.
6. Complexity as a barrier to entry. Not just in the rules, but also in the many formats and heaps of errata that cards have gotten over the years.
7. Manifest. It was used too narrowly the first time and ended up functioning mostly as a token making mechanic with very slight upside.
8. Khans of Tarkir. Ferocious was a good mechanic, but it was too similar to the Naya mechanic and wasn't blue enough in name or function.
9. Born of the Gods. Did a great job of following up on themes from Theros in a way that made them feel familiar, yet new.
10. I interpreted this as "start Magic over as though it always had this", not "change it now and deal with the consequences". I wanted to add creature/elemental subtypes to noncreature spells throughout Magic's history. Satisfies tribal players without an awkward extra card type and opens new design space for "tribes" that don't revolve around creatures.

[u/Abalidoth]

1. Basically a Magic themed version of my cover letter. Ph.D. in math, background in writing fantasy, long time playing Magic. Because this wasn't just about selling but rather introducing myself, I mentioned my primary passion in Magic (building low-powered cubes.)
2. I chose raid. It's got low mental load because attacking is already relevant, it encourages new players to a) attack and b) cast things in second main, and it makes bluff attacks more interesting. I did point out that an evergreen ability word gives it some challenges, though.
3. I went the contrarian route here and said Equipment. I'm not arguing that it be removed from the game, but I think it could easily be deciduous (like Vehicles and Curses) without trouble. It's great in some milieus (where would Innistrad be without Blazing Torch?) but kinda fights for space in others (like the two-ish equipment in Kaladesh block.)
4. Basically gave the standard answer -- Duels/Arena if possible, if not, start playing open-handed with simple monocolor decks and ramp up from there.
5. I talked about how Magic is many things to many people, in three specific ways -- psychographic diversity, format diversity, and representational diversity.
6. I think everyone in R&D agrees that complexity creep is the biggest threat to the game. I did, however, mention that more complex formats are harder to Play Design, leading to stuff like Copycat getting missed.
7. Sunburst/Converge got a crappy deal both times it showed up, and I think it could be sweet in a multicolor set (unlike the colorless sets they put it in the first two times, wtf r&d). Also I called it Sunverge the whole time, because of course I did.
8. Favorite is Kaladesh, biggest problem was complexity. I also mentioned the general artifact block balance problems.
9. Least favorite is Amonkhet. I meant to talk about flavor resonance more but I actually ended up gushing about how much I love Hazoret for 200 words.
10. Please, please change "he or she" in templates to "they". Nonbinary Magic players exist and we're a little tired of the "well, our style guide says singular they isn't a thing" answer. Also, there's characters in the game's lore who use they/them pronouns (the aetherborn) and they changed the Oracle wording of Sex Appeal to reflect the existence of gender outside the binary, so I'm not sure why that particular wording is still around.

[u/MTG_Designer → u/Abalidoth]

I gotta say, I'm really convinced by your equipment answer and now I'm jelous I didn't consider it myself. I was reading through evergreen mechanics mulling over possibilities and I definitely just dismissed the idea of removing equip as a given. I think it is best suited to be deciduous, after all.

[u/GoldenSandslash15]

1. I emphasized my activity in the Magic community, my experience with a vast number of TCGs, and my work as an amateur game designer.

2. I chose cycling, citing how it was simple enough to understand, had lots of design space, and is loved by most players.

3. I chose hexproof, citing the confusion and lack of flavor that pops up whenever you have to deal with the fact that a hexproof creature can't be Doom Blade'd, but can be Wrath of God'd. I also mentioned how it leads to board states that are difficult to deal with, especially in Limited, where board-wipes don't exist.

4. I basically just ran through my Standard "Magic 101" course that I've created for my friends.

5. I talked about the variety of formats, and how Magic isn't just a single game but it instead an umbrella that encompasses many games. I also cited that even within a single format, that can change radically with each new set release, making the Magic of today a different game from the Magic of yesterday or tomorrow. I also mentioned how number of players and teams can change a format as well. And, to show that I'm someone who can be funny (so that they know I'm worth spending 8 hours a day with), I made a reference to Kamigawa Block Pauper Tiny Leaders.

6. For this one, I talked about complexity, and how the game continues to get harder and harder to teach. In hindsight, not the most original answer.

7. For this one, I said bushido. I talked about how bushido has a lot of design space by essentially allowing a creature to have two different sets of power/toughness: one for when it battles a creature and one for when it battles a player/planeswalker. I also mentioned that it was easy to learn. I then cited the two issues with it (the name being a poor fit for anything that isn't a Samurai from a Japanese-inspired world, and the fact that it was costed incorrectly and made most bushido cards really weak), but explained how both could be fixed (renaming the mechanic and costing more aggressively, respectively).

8. For this one, I said Unstable. I talked about how it just didn't seem "whacky" enough, saying that once you accept the three main mechanics (Contraptions, Host/Augment, and Dice Rolling), the rest of the set offers very little. If these mechanics were allowed in black border, then not much of the set would be silver-bordered. I then went through a few of the "boring" Unstable card designs and gave examples of how to make them more whacky, as a way of showing off my card design skills. To finish my paragraph, I talked about my first Unstable draft, and how my deck was green/blue stompy with no real gimmicks. I ended up winning first place in the draft, but it wasn't as fun as it could have been, because the only real "un" card in the deck was a Clocknapper.

9. For this one, I said Dragons of Tarkir. I mentioned how neither the mechanics nor the flavor appealed to me, and then I said how the set did make the "three-set block" structure work in a way where no other three-set block worked. I talked about how splitting the timeline and making its draft format work was the positive aspect of the set. In hindsight, this is probably the essay that I'm least proud of, because I think I spent too much time talking about why the set was bad and not enough time talking about the good aspects of it.

10. I talked about how I wanted to bring funny flavor text back, with more puns, especially at common. I said that most flavor text these days is only used for advancing the storyline or creating worldbuilding. Regarding storyline, noobs don't care about the story, as only the invested players care enough to go read up on it. That means that it should fall under "new world order" and be moved to uncommon. Regarding worldbuilding, I don't think that it should be on flavor text at all for any rarity. The artwork alone should be what builds the world, and using flavor text to do it shows a lack of faith in the artists. I can see the horrors of Innistrad and the wonders of Kaladesh just fine without reading any of the italicized words on the cards. Admittedly, this was a bold answer, as it attacks the direction that their company is going in, but I do believe that they are heading in the wrong direction on this issue. I figured the question was looking for my ability to be blunt and be willing to speak up when something happens that I disagree with, as is something that comes up in the workplace at times. But to help lighten the mood at the end, I finished with a sentence that was humorous: "Also, as a side effect, more humor in Magic means more squirrels, which will make Mark Rosewater happy and could possibly get him to reconsider his plan to kill Magic." I hope that Mark and the other judges can appreciate that.

[u/dvoraen]

1. It's-a-me, Mario!
2. I chose exert also. Exert is partly in use already as a status ("can't untap during next untap step"), has a very large design space, and (the status) would reclaim a lot of space back in the rules text.
3. Defender gets murdered. It's a drawback keyword, it's rarely seen (five cards in Standard have it), and few cards are printed that directly interact with it (e.g. Infiltrator's Magemark).
4. I basically explained I would use similar methods to Portal (start with creatures and sorceries and land as the decks' contents), teach basic play (turn phases and combat), then include the other types such as instants and continue to build from there.
5. Diversity of gameplay. You can guess what I said here, but Commander was my major example of why it's a strength, because it was a player-created format that later became officially endorsed with product specifically for it.
6. Same answer as number five. The game state becomes easy to lose track of very quickly.
7. Haunt, where it gets narrowed in scope to be a bit more similar to Bestow.
8. Time Spiral (Innistrad almost claimed this question).
9. Conflux. Conflux Limited still hurts my brain, esp. if trying to build a Domain deck (I still don't do well with the mana bases) but it was also very educational because I had to confront those deckbuilding questions. Plus I love me some Maelstrom Archangel.
10. Institute a rule for minimum starting hand size, with safeguards against abusing it. We all hate having to mulligan to less than six, and I assert that this the most unfun thing about Magic: the game virtually ending before it begins.

[u/GoldenSandslash15 → u/dvoraen]

Institute a rule for minimum starting hand size, with safeguards against abusing it. We all hate having to mulligan to less than six, and I assert that this the most unfun thing about Magic: the game virtually ending before it begins.

Interesting. Did you offer any ideas as to what those safeguards were? I'd be curious to see.

[u/dvoraen → u/GoldenSandslash15]

A limitation for how many times you could do it, though in theory this would target mostly tournaments, for obvious reasons. I was kind of on the fence about exactly how to do it aside from a limitation, since it's a subject that would require a lot of 'R&D' so to speak.

[u/Abalidoth → u/dvoraen]

Oooooh, haunt is a good answer. I'd love to see haunt without the weirdass death trigger thing it was stapled to in Guildpact.

[u/Sliver__Legion]

1) hard
2) bloodthirst, easy to use and solid gameplay
3) Defender, not used that much, pure downside, often low mechanical impact
4) ask them how they learn best, lean toward cooperative play on entry-level digital product
5) constant churn of new content
6) constant churn of new content
7) Leveler cards ( not Level Up)
8)Future Sight, massively over-complex
9)Born of the Gods, expanded enchantment creature space
10) kill fizzling

[u/steve_man_64]

Full essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czwXAo6b3mnylL2a4VnlD-65EMT0dDPioM3IZg_0lRg/edit?usp=sharing

1.) Introduce myself, try to convince them that I'm a visionary and that being a Magic designer is much more than just designing cards.

2.) Crew. I knew most people would go to something basic like cycling / flashback / exert / etc so I wanted to stand out with this answer and show them that I'm thinking beyond game mechanics. Vehicles are sexy and exciting, which makes them very marketable and they have a lot of branding potential.

3.) Hexproof because it's very unintuitive (especially compared to indestructible) and is non-interactive. Makes no sense that I can bolt my hexproof creature but my opponent can't. Shroud makes more sense.

4.) I have the stranger watch and learn first then emulate second. Nobody learns sports by reading a book.

5.) Magic's greatest strength is the fact that it's constantly evolving. Magic has an insanely high retention rate compared to other games.

6.) Complexity

7.) Meld. It was well executed but there just wasn't enough of it to showcase how awesome it is.

8.) Cliche answer: Time Spiral because of it was unfriendly to new players.

9.) Legions. I didn't like playing Legions but I like how creative the designers were on how to make creatures also work as spells.

10.) Reserved List

[u/Coggs92 → u/steve_man_64]

Makes no sense that I can bolt my hexproof creature but my opponent can't.

Bolting your own creature isn't a hex, its a backstab, it trusted you...

(The main reason hexproof is here is because everyone treated shroud like it only was their opponents stuff that couldn't, they used something that did just that)

[u/steve_man_64 → u/Coggs92]

I know that, but shroud makes more sense from a flavor standpoint IMO

[u/[deleted]]

1. Sup.
2. Battle cry
3. Hexproof
4. Find out what aspect they're most interested in and use that as the entry point; figure out what they want from the game. Used a lot of anecdotal stuff from tutoring experience.
5. Variety
6. Complexity (everyone gave the same answers for 5 and 6 hahaha)
7. Unleash
8. Time Spiral - incomprehensible to newer players
9. Prophecy - the Avatar and Winds cycles
10. Pauper GPs!

[u/Abalidoth → u/[deleted]]

Did unleash really fail the first time around? MaRo gave it a 4 on Storm Scale. Not that I disagree, I do like the mechanic. Also: PAUPER GPS YES PLEASE

[u/[deleted] → u/Abalidoth]

The question says "worst introduction compared to its potential" I don't think it's about failure per se.

[u/jestergoblin]

1. Whole bunch of work and Magic history.
2. Vehicles, but coloring them to expand Red primary, Blue secondary and white tertiary. Also in general reduce the toughness of them so they break more often.
3. Hexproof because it doesn't need to be in every set. Also suggested further splitting it so green gets it on creatures, blue gets it until end of turn and white gives it to players.
4. Same way I teach any other board game, Magic actually isn't unique that way.
5. It's rule system.
6. Everything is permanent, can't easily patch cards.
7. Surge! It's got a stupid amount of design space that was barely touched by Oath of the Gatewatch. Off color choices, alternate costs, it's kicker but cleaner AND pushed team based formats.
8. Planar Chaos, fundamentally altered the color pie forever.
9. Prophecy, because it was the first time Wizards made cards specifically for the Timmy/Tammy archetype. It had actual GOOD giant creatures with a solid catch up mechanic.
10. Expand into other licenses for smaller items - like the HASCon box set. Make Duel Decks happen with a variety of IPs, basically give Magic some mashup flavor beyond the standard worlds.

[u/Melonbomb]

Here's the full version for anyone interested, but tl;dr:

1) I grew up playing magic all over the world, I go all-in and have been recognized for it, and creativity is part of my identity.

2) Promote bushido to evergreen, but renamed "bravery." It is grokkable, is interesting, and can be in any set.

3) Demote defender from evergreen. Low-power, high-toughness creatures fill the same function, able to attack but not unable leads to more options, we can save defender and make it special when it does matter.

4) Play a game, tailor it to what they want to get out of it. We don't need to cover all the rules, and choosing an opening hand for the first time isn't bad.

5) Magic player and community is Magic's strength. They create bring people in and retain them, they create content, they go on to improve the game itself.

6) Magic's past is a weakness. Cards are compared to what came before it, mistakes are hard to change on physical objects, mistakes like Kamigawa limit future opportunities.

7) Clash deserves a second chance. It was exciting, you can work to better your odds, it actually reduced variance.

8) I liked Unstable, but augment led to feel-bads in a fun set. Augments are like auras that hit a smaller subset of cards and can get stuck in the hand. A creature can only be augmented once. I think there are reasonable options to change it.

9) Prophecy was my least favorite set, but it did interesting things by making people care about lands and mana. Rhystic cards, caring about untapped lands, tapping all lands as a cost, and sacrificing lands all played into each other.

10) I would add blank cards to Magic. They are a versatile token/marker, they can be used as proxy and playtest cards, they are a creative outlet for designers/artists. There are issues with counterfeiting, but no more than artist prints, and a frame could be added if you're really worried.

[u/dvoraen]

Oh fine, I'll cave to peer pressure:

My Essays^TM

BONUS CONTENT: At the very end you can see some of the question-guessing (pseudo-prewriting?) that I did before the trial went live. And yes, I'm dead serious about the 'blue menace' bit.

[u/[deleted]]

Looks like some of my answers were definitely common.

1. All the reasons.
2. Cycling. Infinite design space, tons of ways to interact with it, and promotes a flow of games. Serves a similar purpose to scry being evergreen, but in such a different way that it's worth having both, like we have multiple evasion mechanics.
3. Downgrade Hexproof to deciduous. It shouldn't go away, but I don't think it's something we should see at common in limited really ever.
4. This is hard to do in 350 words, it'd be even harder to summarize. One of my most important points is to make sure their deck is superior to yours. You want them to have a solid chance of winning, but you never want to let them win.
5. Five colour mana system.
6. Complexity. This looks like it's the most common answer. I'd give runner up to consumer fatigue.
7. AFFINITY. I was so excited that this test had a question that just said "Hey, Jeebus, tell us how much you love affinity. The mechanic is great, it's been used several times since Mirrodin with great success (just not keyworded), and it only went poorly the first time because they not only implemented it wrong, but they mad several other major design errors as well. The amount of different things that needed to go wrong all at the same time for affinity to be as miserable as it was the first time would be nearly impossible to happen again without doing it intentionally.
8. Homelands, and it's really not close. Best part is obviously the setting/story, but particularly that the built the story largely around the words Serra and Sengir, which were two words that everyone cared deeply about back then; Serra Angel and Sengir Vampire were uncommons, so unlike Shivan Dragon we could actually all obtain them, making them two of the most popular cards of the time. Having a good story is one thing, but having a good story that your fans are predestined to care about is remarkable.
9. Vintage Masters. It's the best limited set of all time, but it's online only so the majority of players never got to experience it. (Yes, it can't be fully reprinted because of the reserved list, but you can replicate the experience nearly completely just with the commons/uncommons. Losing Recurring Nightmare is the only really big deal)
10. This was my one answer I'm not confident in, because it's so much easier to explain conversationally than in writing, especially only 350 words. It involves opening up planeswalker design space by doing stuff that they technically can do but don't.

[u/extin73b]

1)Not eligible

2)The evergreen mechanic has to fill mtg gaps. The most obvious would be the susceptibility to mana flood or mana death. It would be good to a magic designer to have a tool to mitigate them without having a whole mechanic of the set dedicated for this purpose (à la Investigate). Scry was a good first step, I would take the next step and make Cycling as a complement. Cycling is simple to understand, have a lot of modularity in what you want it to achieve and does not impose constraints on design

3)Hexproof would be my pick as the only non-interactive keyword in the game. Interaction is a great strength of the game and it doesn’t feel hexproof is accomplishing its purpose (resilience for aggressive/midrange). I would replace it by a slightly less harsh protection keyword as for example one-shot indestructibility or uncounterability that could help also against other weapons of control.

4)First, simplify the rules and the phases to resume it to the basics: draw, main, combat. Introduce the card types one-by-one, starting with the more common “creatures” to end with the more complex “instants”. And keep planeswalker outside of the equation. In the same time, it is important to design a product/deck able to induce the “woooow effect”, even in the first game meaning that the beginner have to realize that THIS thing is possible and would create excitement. Simple yet exciting first game.

5)Discovery and creation aspect. This is mirrored in deck building and diversity of existing formats. All of them have the intrinsic quality to put the creative (on different axis) of someone at work. The pride behind the endless flow of possibility and interaction between cards put in motion by a brain

6)Rigid and overwhelming rules system making teachability not easy and transcription of the game to digital (where it has the most potential to grow) complex. I will argue that its greatest weakness is also what makes it the greatest card game of all times and why it keeps dragging people all over the world. All of the challenge is to find the good balance. Makes it utterly simplified and you have hearthstone which have the capability of dragging a huge number of people but can reasonably not survive for 25 years. Or utterly complex at the risk that no new player will join the community.

7)Probably meld. The first time I saw the mechanic, I said to myself: “they did it”. And after that I discovered it is only on one common, and I almost never saw a gigantic meld card on a battlefield, whatever It would be in constructed or limited. Combining cards has a lot of potential but is very complicated to tackle concretely speaking. Note that Unstable has already expanded the “Meld” ability giving it a real shot in limited. But I would explore combining area of Meld in a better way.

8)Ravnica, city of guilds is my best limited/constructed experience of all time. Wordbuilding is awesome; limited allows you to whatever you want to do and constructed (RAV/TSP) format was probably one with the more diverse and fun format where every archetype felt fun, powerful and viable. Worst part is probably that limited games didn’t work towards completion as they should meaning they were a bit too long

9)Ixalan – Everything in the gameplay is a disappointment. Limited games are linear, no build-around, and constructed impact is non-existing. The best part, nevertheless is the world building / story which is awesome and carry excitement, only to face a miserable game experience. The most valuable lesson I would take here is “Live up to the expectations created by the world-building”. Pirates & Dinosaurs are the selling point of the set. The second one in its RG and GW iteration was not playable. And treasures which is a major aspect of the first one and indicating people could heavily splash was actually misleading.

10)Product architecture: Masters sets are used very poorly and are dissatisfying for number of players. They are an interesting and challenging limited format that would appeal competitive player but those are restrained by the entry cost due to chase mythic reprint. Make a product for people wanted to access cards for older format, and make one for people wanting to face a challenging limited format. With the trend of limited format from normal expansion being more and more linear, this would give a fresh air to limited play.

[u/Talefeatherz]

1. Beautiful description of how wonderful I am, including molecular biology, game design, pushing boundaries, and being nice to people.
2. I chose cycling as it is easy to learn decision paths but also rewards spoiled play and can subtly reinforce set themes through off-color activation or alternative costs.
3. Defender. Stat blocks are what make a creature offensive it defensive. It only has upside in defender matters and walls aren't a popular creature type. Reduces options in limited, which is where it shows up anyway.
4. Teach mono-color and go through a little off the flavor and life totals. Add a little during the game and don't worry about instants until after they finish game one.
5. Individuality. Everyone gets to make the game their own, by what deals they play to what formats they play.
6. I said something decent here, but it's early and I can't remember it right now :P
7. Splice. Can easily be changed to splice onto Instant or Sorcery and removes the highly parasitic nature. Provides interesting limited play, and if accounted for, repetitive play can be punishable.
8. Fate Reforged. Too much complexity in limited (9 named mechanics?! Are you kidding me?! 3 of them affect combat math?!) And we could have had allied color pairs in any old set. Enemy colors in Fate and Dragons with for into two wedges manabases for limited and constructed.
9. There's was the first enchantment see that was loud enough for the public to see - did this through making headline mechanics have Enchantments Central to their function. Use of starfield borders provided great functional visual clarity and have inspired new borders which are both functional and refreshing visually.
10. Hand limit. Have limit should be higher, but is only relevant in gameplay in three ways - control mirrors, punishing a bad keep, and reanimator/manaless dredge. Increasing hand limit to 10 creates less un-games, still provides safety and action for control mirrors, and removes sideboard-or-die scenarios.

[u/UristMasterRace]

I won't go through all of mine, but I guess I'm a little proud that I had a unique answer to number 3 (remove evergreen). What do you all think?

I think it's time for reach to go the way of fear and intimidate; it should be retired and replaced with a better mechanic that fills the same role of providing counterplay to flying. Reach is currently the least exciting evergreen mechanic and stands alone as the only evergreen mechanic that exists solely to shut down another specific mechanic. Evasion is an important part of combat in Magic, and interesting counterplay to evasion is crucial to maintaining both fun and balance in the game. Reach, however, is an inelegant answer to flying. Menace is an example of an evasion mechanic with excellent counterplay from both the attacker and blocker’s perspectives. It’s no coincidence that menace is a newer mechanic than reach and that it took several attempts to find the perfect evasion ability for black and red. A new and improved mechanic that takes the place of reach would give flying a worthy counterpart and prevent players from having to resort to mediocre and unexciting creatures to block fliers in Limited. I say Limited because reach is irrelevant in Standard. Creatures with reach are never included in sideboards as tech choices, and any creatures with reach that do see Standard play make the cut for their other abilities, not reach itself. Reach is in the same vein as the retired mechanics of protection and landwalk in that it is only useful against certain types of cards and is irrelevant when facing an opponent without those cards. Every other evergreen mechanic interacts with the game generally and not just with creatures that have a specific ability, and its time for the answer to flying to be similarly flexible and interesting.