Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #1340: The Design of Mood Swings

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

How did I make Mood Swings into a simple, fast-paced trading card game? This episode talks about my 28 years of iteration and, for those of you interested in how a person designs a game from scratch, walks through how I created the game.

I'm pulling away from the curb because I drop my son off at school. We all know what that means. It's time for their drive to work. Okay, today's going to be a fun one. I'm talking about the design of mood swings. What is mood swings? Well, back in 1998, I came up with what at the time I called a mass market trading card game. The basic idea was I was thinking a lot about sort of complexity.

in games. We were having a discussion in the pit, I think, about complexity in general. And I really, really like trading card games. For those who ever listen to me to talk about the Golden Trifecta, those are the three genius ideas that Richard Garfield came up with when he first made magic. One was the color pie, which obviously I love if you've ever listened to this podcast. Second is the man assistant, which I've talked a lot about. And the third is the concept of a trading card game, which actually, I did have a whole podcast on it, but I've talked about this one less of the three. I really like trading cards.

But it dawned on me that magic, while a great game, is on the complex end of the spectrum, on the complexity spectrum. And so I started thinking, was there a way to bring trading card games to people that might not be as invested, that won a slightly simpler game? And so that was kind of the idea that I had

that I really thought was interesting. So the question I asked for myself, and what we're going to talk through today, is, Okay, what does that mean? What does it mean to have a more accessible trading card game? So the first thing I realized was that deck building, while a lot of fun, is intimidating. The idea that when you buy the game, you just get pieces of the game and then you have to build your own game, that's a lot. So I said, okay, what if we made a trading card game that it functioned like a traditional card game?

Meaning you get a box, you buy it, there's cards in it to play a game. that's the game. You and your friends can play the game. You have the game. There's no more need to, there's no need to sort of build it. Now, I did want optional building. The idea is not that you can't affect it. And that one of the big things Richard talked about when making a trading card game was this idea of the game being bigger than the box. Meaning when you buy the game, you get pieces to the game, but that you don't get all the pieces to the game. Now, the tweak I was going for was that all the pieces that if you have, so like right now, if you buy mood swings, coming out at June 1st, if you buy mood swings, you get 45 cards. And the idea was the game system wanted you, no matter what 45 cards you have, you can play. In fact, technically for a two-person game, you only need 14 cards to play the game.

You need 27 for a three-person game. You need 42 for a four-person game. With 14 cards you can play. And one of the things I was very intrigued by is, at the time I was making it, because I assumed this was going in stores, the plan was to make a starter deck and a booster. So I did a bunch to make sure that you could play out of the booster. That was something important to me. So it turns out a booster pack, at least back in the day when I made this,

had 15 cards. Today is 14 cards. It moves to wings requires 14 cards to play a two-person game. And so one of the ideas I was very entranced with, which I actually kept all the way to the modern version of the game, is that if you have 14 cards, you can play. The idea was, let's say you weren't sure whether or not you wanted to buy the game back when we had starters and boosters. The sequel is, you could sample it. You could buy a booster and play, and then within one booster, you actually could play a two-person game. So anyway, the idea I was very enamored with is you buy it, it's there. Now, it's a trading card game.

What that means is that there exists more cards than you have in your collection of cards. So everybody kind of has their own mix. That was the idea. That's why it's a trading card game. Normally, if you go to the store and you and your friend buy the same card game, it doesn't matter whether you play at your house or your friend's house. It's the same game. But mood swings or a trading card game in general, the idea is, oh, in my house, oh, you've got to watch out for wrath.

But at your house, oh, hopes the card I should pick you know. what matters can vary from deck to deck because different decks have different cards. But the game system wanted to function, so as long as you had any 14 cards, in fact, the game system works even if you have duplicates, although when you buy the game, you don't get duplicates. But I wanted the game system to be robust.

So that was the first big thing. I said, okay, I don't want, I want you to just buy and play. The second thing is, I just wanted the simplest version. I wanted it to be fast. When Richard Garfield first came to pitch, in fact, wasn't even magic. He came to pitch Robo Raleigh to Peter Ackison at Wizards.

And Peter said, you know what, that looks like a really fun game. It's just too many component pieces. We're a small company. We can't make that game. We can't afford to make that game. And Richard said, well, what kind of game can you make? And Peter said, you know, well, we have access to cards and artists. You know, we could do a card game with Pretty Art.

And then he said to Richard, really what we want is a game you can play in between dungeon and dragon sessions. So one of my driving factors was I wanted to make a game you can play in between magic sessions. I wanted fast gameplay. And my goal really was about five minutes. And so the thing was, okay, what's the fastest version I can do?

So I wanted to simplify. Okay, so what is it turn? Well, it's a card game. I wanted you to play a card. Okay, well, what if on your turn you played one card? That's what you did. And then your opponent on their turn played a card. And the round would end.

And then you would add up your scores. And whoever had the higher score would win the round. And then win three rounds and win. That little loop was from the very beginning. That I just wanted the simplest, easiest execution. And the idea really was, I think in the very first, like the very, very first thing I tried, I had cards that had a limitation of what turn you could play them. So if it said turn one, you could play in any turn.

If it said turn two, any time turn. turn two after you could play it. Turn three, and turn three and after you could play it. What I found, though, is you tended to get stuff stuck in your hand. Like, oh, it's turn one, but I don't have any ones in my hand, so I just can't play anything on turn one. And that was particularly fun. And I eventually said, well, I'm just trying to simplify it.

Why? We don't need, we don't need, like, a mana system. Let's just let you play a card to turn. Any card any turn, we could balance for that. And that just seems so much simpler. Also, when I started, I only had three colors. I had red, green, and blue. Once again, I was just trying to simplify down.

I didn't think color was something. I mean, I wanted color because I wanted to care about it mechanically. I wanted cards that cared about color because that was something that mattered. The other thing that I wanted was, and this was from the very early version, the idea is cards have a score on them. But I like the idea that cards could change value. Now, the very early version, I had a lot of changing the value. Like, I, you know, I had a card that say, oh, I'm worth two points, but an extra one for every red card in play. I had things a little bit more, a little bit more complexity in the early version.

As far as the cards could change a little bit more. We'll get to that. And then in the original version, you just drew seven cards at the beginning of the game, and that was all you had for the game. Because I wanted to only have 14 cards total, seven per person. So I started by just having you draw seven cards. obviously that would later change. Oh, and the reason that I did the dice for the scoring, I remember reading an article about why dice tend to have pips and not numbers.

And what they said is that there's two half of your brains. One half is about language. One half is more about spatial relations. And what they said is when you put a number on it, that's language. And the language part of your brain has to like, oh, that's a three. Here's what three means. But the other side of your brain, see the three pips, like your brain sort of absorbs it as a singular thing.

And what they're saying was it was easier to absorb pips on a die than numbers. I was very intrigued by that. So I, from the very early on, like I said, from the very first incarnation, I used my dice as a score, which meant that I limited myself to the score on a die, meaning the highest score you could get was six. I did allow myself zeros. I had enough cards that are really cool that I didn't want to be worth a point because they really were upsetting if they were worth like hate I had very early on.

The earliest version of hate was just destroy a card. Now it does a little bit more than that. You get to put it on the bottom of the deck and draw a new card. But originally it was just destroy a card. And so I realized that I needed zero. So I had zero through six. That was what I had originally. And the, I think also from very early on, what happened was I knew that when you played

you would, one player had a win and then I had to figure out who went next. Like, how do you start the next turn? And all these you're looking for catch-up features and I realize that going second is stronger than going first because going second gets, you're going to react. When you go first, you don't know what's going to happen, so you're making logical guesses.

But when you go second, you can see what's happened. So you have full information. So it's just, it's a stronger position. So the idea I figured out, and once again, this was very early on was, okay, well, once you win, the next turn of the person who wins will go again, meaning the person who loses gets to go second that puts them in a strong position

to try to win the next turn. Because obviously my goal is it's more dramatic if the game goes to five turns. It doesn't have to. Someone might win 3-0 and, you know, you can. But I was trying to create a system where there's a lot of give and take. And I wanted most games to be dramatic

and go to the fifth turn. Once I did that, I also realized there was another problem to solve that I hadn't solved ties. Because, well, what happens if you have the same score? And then I realized that since I was giving... The second player already had an advantage

and I was making the player who won go first, I would let ties be whoever played first. That was a clean system and answer to the things, and there's a lot of reason to want to go second on the first turn. The fact that you win ties at least makes you occasionally want to go first rather than second. Okay, so, and the other thing that from the very first beginning was I knew that in order to be more accessible,

I just wanted a flavor that was a little bit more universal and a little less, like one of the things about magic is there's some inherent violence and magic. There's a cart called murder and you destroy things. And I kind of wanted a game that was a little more amorphous in what was happening. And I wanted to be really resonant. Now, it turns out my mom is a psychologist.

I've been very... Anyone who's listened to this podcast, any length of time, knows that I'm really into emotions and emotional response and stuff. And so, in fact, in college, I made a play called Lego My Ego, where all the characters were emotions arguing about what the, you know, the sort of main characters should be doing. But anyway, from the very beginning, the idea of it being a motion, it being called mood swings. In fact, the very first in conjunction game where I actually, you know, drew it out.

I did a talk, by the way, at, I did a talk at Magi-Con, Las Vegas Magi-Con. And if you, that should be up. There also was a panel. I go in great detail. I show a lot of pictures. You can see me the first logo I rate of mood swings. But anyway, so from the very first up, early on, the idea of player-a-carriage of. hard to turn, have the higher score, win the turn, winner goes first, loser and wins ties,

loser gets to go second, the idea of the dyes, the emotions, all that is there. The very, very earliest incarnation of my game, like, the basic game design loop is that. Now, I make a lot of changes, we'll talk through that, but anyway, it's interesting looking back back in 1998. Like, my earliest version of the game has all the different. defining qualities that are in the final game. A lot of fine-tuning, a lot of polishing. But it's interesting that the kind of

the core game loop was there. It being emotions. It could call mood swings. The dice scoring. All of that was there. So anyway, very interesting. Okay, so we, so what happens, I have another podcast talking about the history of making mood swings. Obviously, it took me 28 years,

so I tried a lot of different things. But one of the things I kept doing is I kept working on the game, kept evolving it. So the next big thing I figured out was I had too many cards that were variable, meaning that if every card can change, it's just hard tracking what's going on. So that's when I realized that what I needed to do was I liked having variables. I just decided that something that could have lots of variables needed to be rare. There wasn't mythic rare yet, but eventually rare and mythic rare. So I first came up with the

idea of a secondary value. Now, I already had cards. Like if you watch my, um, If you watch my talk, love is the card I keep showing every iteration of. Love early on, one of the earliest versions of love. Like the second ever version of love was, I'm zero, but I'm worth six if you have one of every color. So the idea of a secondary value was there, but I didn't realize that I could, if I use only a secondary value, two things about it. One is I could show that dye on the card. I could put in the lower left corner, meaning when you got to that, you could just rotate the card 180 degrees so that you could represent it. and only having two variables

made it a lot easier to track what was going on. And that's when pretty early on, I came up this idea of different-colored dice. The final version of the game, a white dye means the score does not change. If you see a white die, you can trust it. A black die means the score can change, look at the card. But at common and uncommon,

the cards that can change are only between two scores. It's not to get to read. and Mythic have variable scores, meaning the card could mean many different scores. I minimize how often I do that. It's fun. There's fun designs, but if you have too much of that, it's just too much to track what's going on. So I definitely did that.

I also realized that with the secondary die, I could do numbers larger than six, because I had more space to the bottom left of the card than I could do two dice, so I could go up to 12, essentially. Interestingly, I didn't use...

I think I had love to go up to 8 for a while, and then eventually 10, and then eventually 12. But I didn't even go to 12 originally. I just said, oh, I want Love to be more than, more than six, and I ended up making it eight originally. But eventually, I realized that with two dies, I could go up to 12, and now Love, which is the highest natural scoring card, goes up to 12. And this is also the point where, I mean, I work at a company who makes trading cards,

so I started interacting with other sections. I started talking to editors and got some help on basic templating. I talked to the developers and got a little more advice on how to balance. So I started doing more things. Now, one of the things that would happen with this game because it took place over so much time is I just would make it. I would print it up cards.

I put it in her database. I'd print it in play test. And every time I'd play, if I noticed something, I just would write it on the card, and then I would go back and I'd change the card and add it in. And so it just would evolve. It was a lot of play-through gameplay and a lot of me learning sort of what worked best through actual playing is.

Okay, the next really big change came about when I decided sort of the advice I was given was we weren't making new games during this time period, but we were making games that were affiliated with the games we did make. And so this is where I start making it as... I always like the idea of mood swings as an entry level into trading card games. I just said, well, I can be a little more exact.

I can make an entry level not into a trading card games, but magic specifically. And so that's when I shifted from three-color to five color. There wasn't a lot. I mean, I already cared about colors. The one decision I made when I shifted to five color is, instead of caring about a singular color,

I now care about either allies or enemies, meaning when I care about a color, it's two colors. And basically, there's some cards that care about the ally of the colors, and some cards care about the enemy in the color. In general, you're hurting your enemies and helping your allies in general. But what that means can get a little bit vague. The other thing I did was once I went to five colors, I didn't just go to five colors. I went to the Magic Color Pie.

So obviously, I already had red, green, and blue. I added white and black. And then what I did is I adjusted to match the color pie. So, for example, if I'm making you put a card back into your hand, well, that's going to be blue. If I'm going to make you discard a card, that's going to be black. And I started sort of leaning in and figuring out, like I made it such that if you play mood swings and then you go to Magic, the effects that you are used to in mood swings that exist in magic are in those colors.

Now, not every effect in mood swings directly maps, and there's some areas where I get a little bit fuzzy. I also have to balance the color. So I definitely took a few liberties but in general, the thing I'm doing in the color is what magic does in that color, mostly. Like I said, there are a few small exceptions.

And then I also moved to four rarities. Originally, we just had common, uncommon, and rare. Now, given, when I first made it, Magic had three rarities. But once I converted it over, I realized, like, well, let me match magic. I made four rarities. The other big thing I had changed at that point was I was playing with Tom Lippili. And originally, you drew seven cards. And Tom commented that he was really sad that you never got to draw.

And he, we also, I got a different note from a different person, that seven cards was a lot to process. So that's when I came up with the idea of, okay, well, what if instead of drawing all your cards, you draw five of your cards, and then when you lose, because you can only lose twice, obviously, if you lose three times, you've lost the game. That way, you still got seven cards, still was 14 cards, thin in a booster, but you divvy up the cards, and so they came a little bit later. So you left the process in the beginning, and there was this moment of exciting things could happen, which I thought was really important. Okay, so the next really big thing is from a... I mean, I did a lot, a lot, a lot of tweaking of cards over time. Most of the time, when I'm helping the set,

I'm not changing the larger systems, I'm just tweaking individual cards. But eventually we get greenlit, and I'm, okay, now we're actually going to make this, and I'm like, okay, let me get really serious. I mean, when I say a former design team, it was mostly me. I did have people Ari, who was one of my creative people,

did a lot of playtesting with me. I eventually got Corey, who ended up being sort of my play designer, who helped me with a lot of balance stuff. And Michael Scheng was my editor. So I did a lot of things of cleaning some things up. Here's the major things that I did during the last big push

when I knew it was going to be a game. I had to cut down, I had like over 300 cards. I had to cut down originally to 120, then eventually to 133. That's the set now has 133. I made a lot of cards over the years, but I really had to condense down and figure out what I wanted. And then we had a play day

where anybody could come and see mood swings. And the Magic Rules team came. And we played some two-player game. And then they asked me, oh, can you play with more than two people? I'm like, yeah, yeah, the game plays with three and four people. So we played a four-person game. And they're like, oh, this is much...

We like this much more. The game should be this. I'm like, well, it can be that. Now, I must say from the very beginning, I designed mood swings to be a two-person game. The rules didn't allow three and four people, or actually allowed as many people as you have cards. But I really realized walking out of that, especially with this is a self-of-commander, like, okay, this game shouldn't just be a two-player game that you can play three or four-color. I should design it so it works well with three and four player.

So the first thing I had to do, Zakeel was my architect, my product architect. We originally planned for the game to have 40 cards in it, but I knew that you could and play four player out of 40, because once again, four players requires 42 cards to play. Meaning, if you go to nine turns, because when you have more players, even though you only have to get to three rounds to win, there's just more players that can get that can win. So with a four-person game, it can't go to nine rounds. Well, that's just more card drawing because everybody who loses draws a card. So anyway, it turns out that's 42 cards.

So I went to, because of the key one, I said, look, I really want on the box to say this is for two, three, and four players. In order to do that, I need to at least give you at least 42 cards. I can't have you run out of cards when you play four-player. And we decided in the end to do 45 cards rather than 42. So we added that. And then I went through and I did a lot of changing of templating. For example, I'll use the card Panic.

The card panic costs one. Originally, Panic just put a card into its player's hand. The problem was that kind of card was really bad. In two-player game, it's good because it's not worth a lot of points, but if I can knock something big out of play, that's enough to swing things in a two-player game. But what happened in a three or four person game was I knocked something out, that person doesn't win, but I don't win because I panic is only worth one, and then somebody else would win. So then I tried changing it, so panic for a while was like put one card of every, put a card from every opponent into their hand.

But what ended up happening was I kind of, the person that got really hosed was the person in last place that already wasn't winning. And this was, it compounded in making the person in last place stay in last place. So what I did is, like, the current version of panic is, it says pick up to two players. Now, in a two-player game, you could be one of those players. Maybe I have hate in play which is zero. Maybe I want to pick up my hate because it's not going to hurt my score, and then I can hate again. But the idea is it means something in two-player, but in a three- or four-person game, now I get a bunch of two people's things.

I don't harm the person in the last place, but I can affect the board in a little more aggressive way. So I made a bunch of changes. It was just like six cards where it's picked two. Oh, and the other thing that I did was we ended up adding a component what we call hurt feelings. Hurt feelings is whoever loses, whoever comes in last in the round,

and the tiebreaker is the reverse playing last. Like to lose, the idea is in the tiebreaker, if you have a tiebreaker, whoever played first would win the tiebreaker. So you win losing essentially if you're last. And then you get a thing called hurt feelings, which is a special ability to let you play. play an extra card in your next turn.

It's just a catch-up feature. Two-player games are more strategic. Three-and-four-player games, a little more political. That's the nature of how three-and-four-player game works. Meaning, you have to choose what you're going after. Now, the nice thing about Moose Swings is, once somebody's about to win, everybody loses a they win. So at least people team up strategically in that regard.

But anyway, hurt feelings is only played in three-four-a-player, but it did a really good job of helping fix that problem. Another problem we ran into was what I'll call the dead card problem. that I had a lot of cards in my hand that I couldn't quite use. Early on, I had more things that cost effects that you couldn't do it in less. I really went way down on that. And I converted some of them. I made a lot more cards may, meaning the card did something, but you don't have to do that thing.

And so if you just want the points, just get the points. And so that lesson you get entrapped. And then there were some cards that you discard a card. Originally, you had to discard a card, a certain card. it tells you what kind of card and then you got five points and I changed it so now it's three points but you may discard a card

and then it's worth five points so I made some stuff where you could upgrade it but anyway just making more optional things more may things like that just gave us more ability to play cards and had less cards getting stuck in your hand also in general I just did less required costs

one of the things I played around a lot in early mood swings is just playing with a lot of additional costs that you could have And many of them are still in the game. But working with Corey, I really reduced a lot of them. I also realized that I was a little bit stingy on the cost. Like, there's a card called neurosis where you have to bounce the card in play, one of your cards.

And then there is a card called self-loathing where you have to get rid of a card in play. You'd sacrifice it. And so, originally, I think I had neurosis at four and self-loving at five. And Corey may realize that I can make it five and six. So he made me realize that I was charging too much for the alternate cost stuff. and that was actually harder to do and had a bigger impact. And Corey helped me a lot of being more aggressive in some of those costs, which I think was helpful.

The other thing in general, by the way, and this was true from very early on, is I always wanted very simple language, meaning I didn't want lots of vocabulary. I didn't want, well, destroy means to do this, and sacrifice means to do that. Like, it's just sort of put a card, put one of your cards in the discard pile. Like it was your hand, the discard pile, the deck. I just use very straightforward terminology.

And then Michael, my editor, came up the idea of he realized that basically our cards fell into three categories, right? Either these cards make you do something before you can play them, and we went way down to that number. Some cards said, when you play me, I do something. And some cards said, well, while I'm in play, I do something. And so we reduced down to three templates to make it a little bit easier to understand.

And that helped just simplify things. Like a lot of went on, a lot of the, final playtest. And this is true in general is the reason I picked emotions in the first place was I wanted to pick something that was just very resonant. And so a lot of what I wanted to do was made sure

that the cards I made felt right. That I wanted like curiosity is a good example, right? I wanted to, I knew the curiosity had to feel like curiosity. What does that mean? Well, probably I want to be like looking at my opponent's hand, right? I'm curious. What's in your hand? And so the earliest

version of curiosity was just look at the opponent's hand. My wife Laura, who was my longtime playtest partner, hated that. She just didn't want me to see her hand. So eventually I made a version like, okay, well, show me just three cards from your hand. So if you had more cards, maybe

you could hide some cards. And then eventually it was like, you know, show, okay, show me one card from your hand. But in the end, it just it wasn't, I realized that I wanted to see a hand, but I needed it to have more dynamism to it. So eventually the curiosity that's in the game, which I like a lot, is it's worth three

points and it says, choose a player, and then that player has to show you a random card from their hand, and if it matches any color in play, then your cards worth six rather than three. And all of a sudden, oh, looking at the opponent's hand, their strategy, and whose hand do I pick? I can pick my hand. Maybe I pick my opponent's hand, and the later I play curiosity, the more colors in play, the greater the chance that can be worth six. So, you know, early on, he's nice, maybe it'll win something, but do I want to save it to try, you know, or, you know, how lucky do I want, there's some, like, there's some risk taking that goes on with that. But anyway, it's a good example where I think the card started in a very simple place, but I,

I found a more, you know, dynamic version of it. And that's a lot of what I was trying to do. A lot of the execution of this was trying a lot of figuring out where the fun thing was. Like, one of the things that I knew I wanted in the game, that one of the fun things about trading card games is the interconnectivity of the cards. The idea that this, this card does this thing and that card does that thing. Oh, but when they start working together, like one of the real fun things that I enjoy a lot about mood swings is there's a lot of times where, okay, it's my turn,

I'm only going to play one card. Oh, but the interaction between what I'm doing is really interesting. I could play this and that would make this happen, but I could do this and that, you know, there's little puzzles that happen that I really enjoy. That, you know, your turn, even though you're doing one thing, you know, I still want a dynamic game. I still want things that are interesting.

Being simple does not mean it shouldn't be a good gameplay. I'm just trying to simplify what you're doing. And so I spend a lot of time of being very open-ended and figuring out sort of how things clicked in. Oh, another thing I did, this came up pretty late. So I really wanted the game to be playable of the booster, even though we're not selling a booster for the original version of the game, this idea that there's a core element that you could play out of.

And that card drawing to me always like, I didn't want to not know how many cards you needed to play. So, but I realized, and this was done pretty late, that if you put a card on the bottom of a library, I keep saying library, the deck. If you put a card on the bottom of the deck, you can tell them the match with it. If you put a card on the bottom of the deck,

you could then draw a card. Because if it's empty, well, you'll just draw the card you put there. But most of the time it's not. There's other cards in it. And so I went through, I think there's 10 cards that I added a draw to, where, and some of the cards where I put your card in the bottom, some of the cards I put my card in the bottom.

There's some cards that were not quite worth what they were worth, so they got to replace themselves. It was a nice dynamic that helped add some richness to it, and it just puts a little more flow in the cards, which I really liked. So I think that's all the major elements of what went on. Like I said, I'm very, very proud of how the game ended up. Like I saying, there's a balance that I wanted where it is pretty simple, but there's dynamic gameplay, and it's fun,

I wanted the game to go quick. I mean, the game does take, a two-player game takes five to ten minutes. And that's something I really enjoyed, that you can just play quick, but that there's a lot of fun decisions within that even though it's simpler and more accessible, it's not that it's devoid decisions.

There's actually really fun decisions to make. It's just there's less going on and that you're playing enough after time. So anyway, I really enjoyed how much from this came out. So the game goes on sale June 1st on Secret Lair. Online, there's video showing you how to play. a video of me announcing it. So if you want to...

Before you purchase it, you want to get a sense of the game. Obviously, I'm describing it today. But you can see us actually... There's a video of us teaching how to play. But anyway, obviously, I'm... There's nobody more biased on this topic than me. But I'm very, very proud of this game. I think it's a lot of fun.

I think it does two things really well. One is, if you're a trading card game fan, you like playing magic. Look, this is a fun game. Again, to play in between magic. It's very fast. While you're waiting for your friends to get together, you and a friend while you're waiting

could play this game in five minutes. That's how fast it is. And the other big thing is if you have friends or family or people who just have never been able to get into magic because magic is just too intimidating for them, this is a way to share your love of trading card games with people

who magic is never going to be the game for them, but they might enjoy this. This is just more bite-sizeable, a little simpler, like I said. So anyway, that is moosephers. That is designed of mood swings. I so hope you guys have a chance to play it and enjoy it. It was, while I was frustrating, how long it took, it was really exciting.

I've loved working on it all this time, and I can't wait for all of you to play it. So anyway, guys, I'm now at work, so we all know what that means. It means it's the end of my drive to work. So instead of talking magic, it's time for me, or instead of talking mood swings, it's time for me to make it magic. I'll see you next time. Bye-bye.