Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #522: GDS3 Trial 2, Part 2

Episode Date: March 23, 2018

In this podcast, I go over the answers for the second 25 questions in the Trial 2 multiple-choice test for the Great Designer Search 3.

I'm pulling out of my driveway. We all know what that means. It's time for another drive to work. Okay, so last time I started going through the second trial, the multiple choice test of the GDS-3, of Great Designer Search 3. I did the first 25 questions, so today I anticipate doing the second 25 questions. So we're going to start with question number 26. Once again, for those that somehow didn't listen to part one, this is the second trial we did for the GDS. It was a 75 question multiple choice test. You needed to get 73 out of 75 to advance to the third trial.

3,056 people took it. 94 people advanced. Let's get to the questions. Okay, so question number 26. Which color gets the second fewest common creatures in a typical set? A white, B blue, C A, white. B, blue. C, black. D, red.

E, green. So, in order from most to least, white averages 62%. Green averages 59%. Black averages 56%. Red averages 53%. And blue averages 50%. So, it goes white, green, black, red, blue for most to least, making second least red, D. 27. Which of these green keywords does design have to be most careful when using?

A. Death touch. B. Hexproof. C. Reach. D. Trample. E. Vigilance. All of these are actually green abilities. We weren't being tricky there. So the answer is Hexproof. Hexproof is proven to be problematic when combined with the wrong things. For example, if it's stuck with Evasion, sometimes it can be problematic.

So it is something that we are the most careful with. There are other ones, I mean, for example, there's not too much that can go wrong with reach. So like reach, for example, is something where it's probably, you know, the least correct answer. Vigilance, we have to be careful about a little bit of how we use it. Usually vigilance is about when you grant it, because it can be confusing, that there's times you think you can grant vigilance, and it doesn't actually work. Trample, we care a little bit about how big things are.

Death touch are some combinations to worry about. But by far, the one that we have to be the most careful with is hexproof. So B, hexproof, is the right answer. Number 28. So this was one of the most missed questions on the test. I think this was the second most missed question. We try to avoid making two-color cards where the card could be done as a mono-color card

in one of the two colors. Given that, suppose you have a two-color 4-4 creature with flying and vigilance and no other abilities. Which of the following color combinations would be the best choice for this card? A, white-blue. B, white-black. C, green-white. D, blue-black. E, black-green. Okay, so this question, in some level, this was a reading comprehension and logic question. A lot of people sort of skipped over the first sentence. I think the people gave the wrong answer. And once again, I think the right answer and the wrong answer, the most common wrong answer, were really close in the same amount. I think the right answer was like 0.5 more answer to that than

the wrong answer. So white-blue was the answer that people gave that was wrong, but was most commonly given. And black-green is the correct answer. Let's walk through what's going on here. Okay, so what we're saying is, we try to avoid making two-color cards so the card can be done as a mono-color card in one thing. So, a 4-4 creature with flying vigilance, that's Sarah Angel, that's a white card. White could do that. So if you follow the first sentence, it says, okay, we don't want to make a two-color card in which the card could just be done in one of the two colors. What that says is, well, we don't want to make a two-color card in which the card could just be done in one of the two colors. What that says is, well, this shouldn't be done in white then.

Because white can do both these things. So white-blue, white-black, and green-white are all wrong because they have white in them. So that leaves D, blue-black, and E, black-green. Okay, so flying is primary in white and blue, secondary in black. Shows up a little tiny bit in red, especially on dragons and rare. And in vigilance, white is primary,

green is secondary. So the thing is, vigilance is the issue here. Blue and black can both have flying, so the fact that it has flying, not a big deal. The vigilance, though, neither blue nor black has vigilance, so it can't be blue-black, which means it has to be black-green. I know a lot of people would look at this holistically, like, well, in a vacuum, which color combination would most likely get this? And while if that was what we were asking, white-blue would be the correct thing, we did put the first sentence in this

it really was a reading comprehension thing you know given that, it literally says the second sentence says given that so when taking a test it's important you read what the question is asking it wasn't asking historically where is this most likely to happen

it is saying given this information what would you do with it? Is a black, green Sarah Angel quirky? It is. I mean, we wouldn't, obviously it wouldn't be an angel. I mean, the flavor of it would be different. But it is something we could do. And given the parameters of the questions, it was the right answer.

29. Which of these is the most important quality for a set to have? A. It's easy to learn. B. It's fun to play. C. It has great strategic depth. D. It has powerful cards. E. It matches the story. So this question, this is the one question we kind of asked twice on the test. We asked it in a slightly different way, in a slightly different context. The other question was more about how beginners react. That's the, they want to play another game. But this is in a similar vein,

which is, what is the most important thing? And the answer to this is B, it's fun to play. Do we want it to be easier to learn? Yes, that is important. Do we want great strategic depth? Yep, we do. Powerful cards? Powerful cards usually are helpful.

Matches the story? Absolutely, we want it to match the? Powerful cards usually are hopeful. Matches the story? Absolutely. We want it to match the story. All those things are important. But the most important quality for a set is we want people to enjoy it. We want people to have fun with it. In the end, we are selling an experience, something that is supposed to be enjoyable for the people who play it.

And if we don't make it an enjoyable experience, nothing else matters. It can be easy to learn and have great strategic depth and powerful cards and match the story. But if it's not fun to play, people won't play it. So one of the things we really wanted to hammer home is, look, part of being a designer is making something people want to play. And that really supersedes everything else. And so one of the things when you're designing is don't lose the force for the trees. You always got to keep in mind, is what we're making fun? Is it enjoyable? Is it something people want to do? Question number 30. Which of these creature keywords tends to have the most

value in a control deck? A, First Strike. B, Menace. C, Haste. D, Lifelink. E, Trample. So this is asking you to understand an archetype, the control archetype. The key to control is you have some cards, usually some combination of cards, that when put together will keep the opponent... Well, actually, that's a combo. Control is about getting to a state in the game where I have control of the game, that it doesn't matter what my opponent does, that I have answers to everything. Usually the issue for a control deck though is a control deck is slower. A control deck is not as aggressive, it's a little more defensive, and so what you want

to do is you want to make sure that you can survive to the late game. Because in the control deck, the later in the game you go, the more you have set up, the more control you have. So the real question we were asking here is, of these mechanics, which one is helping you play toward the long game that a control match wants? First Strike is a little more aggressive. Menace is a little more aggressive. Haste is a little more aggressive.

And Trample is a little more aggressive. But Lifelink is less about beating your opponent and more about giving you a resource which is life to help, you know, slow the game down some. So Lifelink, D, Lifelink is the correct answer. Okay, 31. When set design holds a draft, most of the time there are exactly eight drafters. Why? A. Our teams have eight people.

B. That's the most common number of drafters in the real world. C. Our smaller booster boxes hold 24 booster packs. D. We have tables that sit eight drafters. Or E. We want four spikes, three Timmy Tammys, and one Johnny Jenny. Okay, let's walk through the wrong answers. A, our teams have eight people. Our teams are not of eight people. Our traditional teams tend to have four or five people.

C, our smaller booster boxes hold 24 booster packs. That is true, although most of our booster boxes hold 36, not 24. D, we have tables that sit eight drafters. We do have tables that can sit eight drafters, but that really has nothing to do with anything. We have tables that sit eight drafters. We do have tables that can sit eight drafters, but that really has nothing to do with anything. We have tables of many sizes. E. We want four spikes, three Timmy Tammys, and one Johnny Jenny. We care about the psychic graphics.

We design for the psychic graphics. But we don't have any allocation for how many are playing in a certain draft. So B. That's the most common number of drafters in the real world. One of the most important things about making games is making games that match the experience the players are going to play them in. If people are going to draft with eight players, well, we want to understand eight players so we can optimize for eight players. That's how people are going to play it. So one of the things that's really important for us is we want to understand how the players are going to use something and make sure that we are testing that material in the same way they are going to use it. So B is the correct answer. 32, you've

designed a card and you want play design team to like it. How should you choose your casting costs? Okay, this question was the most missed question. In fact, the number one response to this question was not the correct answer. The correct answer was the number two response to this question. So let me walk through. This is definitely one of the ones that people are talking a lot about online. Okay, A, ask someone from the play design team to choose the casting cost. B, find a similar card as the basis for the casting cost and then make it one cheaper. It doesn't matter. They'll fix the cost if you get it wrong. D, pick the strongest cost that isn't broken. E, use your intuition. Okay, so really what this question asks is about a lot of what magic is, is cooperative design, collaborative design, that you're working with other people. So whenever I

put together, when I used to, it used to be a design team, I always would have a developer on it. Now that it's a vision design team, I always have a play designer on it. I always have someone on my team whose responsibility it is to price the cards so that we're not warping our play tests by having poor costs. If you go back in time, back before we necessarily had a developer on the teams back in the day, we would sometimes cost cards crazy. And really, we didn't cost cards crazy and really we didn't learn anything. They would just warp the play tests. And so what we

learn now is we always, I always have someone on my team that's good at costing to do the costing. The real point of this, it says you designed a card and you want play design to like it. If I want to, if I want play design to like it, involve them. This question, interestingly this should not be that hard a question. It really is about collaborative design. If I want somebody else to be invested, to like it, involve them. If I want play design to like something, involve play design. Like I said, even though this was the most missed question,

it's actually a really important question. One of the things we care a lot about is we need people who are invested in collaborative design. We need people who are willing to say, like, when you're the lead of a team, it is not your job to do everything. It is your job to make sure that everything gets done. For example, I need properly costed cards when I do play tests. Now, once again again, how we cost things in Vision is a little different than later on in the process, but still, we want things that are relatively realistic. We don't want to playtest with something that's under-costed by three mana, warping the whole playtest.

The real problem with having badly costed cards is you lose important data from playtests. I want the playtest to show me what is fun or what is not fun or whether there's synergies. I want my playtest to show me something that allows me to make fixes and make it better. But when it gets warped by just a card that costs what it's not supposed to cost, I don't learn anything other than that card isn't costed correctly. And since that's something I can easily fix, that'd be so important that I have a member on my team to make sure that is true. Look, that's the answer. Ask the play design team to cost it.

Especially if you want them to like it. If their goal is to sort of have them on board, get them invested in it. Get them involved in it. So A is by far the right answer. B, find a similar card as a basis for the casting cost and making us win cheaper. Or under-costing it to make them like it.

That's not right. It doesn't matter. They'll fix the cost if you get it wrong. No, you're wasting valuable playtest time. That's not the right answer. Pick the strongest card that isn't broken. No, the goal of every playtest is not to just get the most powerful thing you possibly can do.

Use your intuition. Look, my intuition, I'm not a play designer. I'm not someone who balances cards. So if you don't have the skill set to do it, get somebody who does have the skill set to do it. My intuition is not going to produce the right card prices, especially on newer abilities that I haven't, I have less, you know, I'm not good at costing things in a vacuum.

I mean, there's certain things I've learned to cost because I can compare them to other things. You know, if you give me a vanilla or French vanilla creature, I can compare them to known quantities, so I have a little bit more to work off of. But especially things that have less easily comparable things, it's a lot harder. So anyway, how do you do it? Ask someone from Filet Design to choose the casting cost, A. I believe D, pick the strongest cost that isn't broken, was the most answered, if I remember correctly.

Okay, 33. Which of these evergreen keyword abilities is most likely to be put on a common white creature? A, double strike. B, flash. C, indestructible. D, trample. E, Double Strike. B, Flash. C, Indestructible. D, Trample. E, Vigilance. Okay, so two of these abilities, Flash and Trample, are tertiary in white, meaning we put them in white at only special things. So Flash only goes on a white creature if it has an enter the

battlefield effect that is conditional. Basically something that's like an instant. Like, oh, I'm saving something or protecting something trample only goes on really really big creatures and usually only at rare and above really really I guess everyone's in a blue moon at uncommon but very rarely first of all it has to be big enough in white

to warrant trample and those tend to happen usually at rare double strike, indestructible, and vigilance so double strike and indestructible while both vigilance. So double strike and indestructible, while both being clearly in white, double strike's primary in white, indestructible's primary in white, vigilance is primary in white, so those are all primary in white.

But double strike is pretty powerful. We tend to do first strike at common. We have done double strike at common. We don't do it very often. We infrequently do it. Indestructible is another thing where white will sometimes have spells that grant indestructible at common,

but even then, we don't do tons of that. Creatures that naturally have indestructible, we almost never do that at common in white. That's something that usually happens at higher rarity. It's not even uncommon. Usually rare and above. Vigilance, that's an ability we use in every set in common. So E is the correct

answer, Vigilance. 34. Which of the following best describes how a Counterspell-based blue deck should contribute to a standard environment? A. Standard is the most fun when the Counterspell player has the ability to stop the opponent from doing anything. B. Standard is the most fun

when the Counterspell player has a way to win quickly opponent from doing anything. B. Standard is the most fun when the counter spell player has a way to win quickly and efficiently once they take control. C. Standard is the most fun when counter spell deck is mono blue. D. Standard is the most fun when the counter spell deck is the strongest deck in standard. Or E. Standard is the most fun when counter spell decks aren't competitive. Okay, so we want some ebb and flow. So D and E are just wrong. Counter spell deck shouldn't always be the strongest, shouldn't always be the weakest. We want ebb and flow in what we're doing. It is okay for

counter spell decks to be competitive. It's okay if there's a period of time they're not competitive. It is something that can have some flux to it. So D and E are not correct. C, mono blue. We like to have control decks. We want them in the environment some of the time. They do not need to be all one color. You know, Counterspell tend to be blue. Usually a control deck tends to have blue in it. It doesn't have to, but it tends to. But there's no Desire First necessary for it to be mono blue. Okay, let's go to A.

Standard is the most fun when the Counterspell has the ability to stop the opponent from doing anything. No. We like the most fun when the counter-spell player has the ability to stop the opponent from doing anything. No. We like the games to be interactive. We want the counter-spell player to have ways to deal with the opponent, interact with the opponent, but we don't want them just stopping everything. There used to be a blue deck, what they would call, or actually I think this term has gotten reused, but back in the day, they used to call it draw-go. I think draw-go means something different now. Back in the day, draw-go was,

I'm going to counter every single spell you do, and I'm so reactive that on my turn, I draw a card and then say go, because all I'm going to do is react to you doing things. I think draw-go, it has some other meanings now. Whenever I use it online people always go but I mean this so anyway

heavy heavy permission decks that don't let your opponent do anything that's not really what we're interested in we want interplay yeah you can counter some of the spells

but you should be able to counter everything and so we want the control decks to be interactive so A is incorrect B standard is the most fun when the counter spell player

has a way to win quickly and efficiently once they take control yes so B is the correct fun when the counterspell player has a way to win quickly and efficiently once they take control. Yes, so B is the correct answer. What we like basically is we want the control player to have to get to the point where they gain control, but once they gain control, we don't want a long, drawn-out game. What we don't want out of a counterspell deck is it takes me, you know, one game is going to last the entire tournament.

We want the control player, once they gain control, to have the tools to be able to win quickly so that the control deck is not taking forever to win. So B is the correct answer. 35. Assuming the creature is strong enough to see standard play, which of the following isn't a good quality for a green creature to have? A. It can tap to produce mana. B. It can destroy an artifact or enchantment. C. It draws multiple cards without attacking or blocking.

D. It has larger stats than other creatures at its mana cost. Or E. It uses plus one, plus one counters to grow to very large sizes. A. It can tap for mana. Green can do that. B. It can destroy artifacts and enchantments. Yeah, it can do that. D. It has larger stats than other creatures that it's meant to cause. Yep, green does that. E. It uses possible counters to grow very large sizes.

Yeah, green does that. C is the correct answer. It draws multiple cards without attacking or blocking. We don't mind green drawing cards. We like to tie it to creatures. Every once in a while it gets tied to land. I'm not a big fan of that. But if a green creature is drawing you multiple cards, we want

you to be able to interact with it. We don't want it to sit back and draw cards. So usually, if a green card is going to draw multiple cards, we make it involve attacking or blocking to do that, so that there's a way for the other player to interact with the creature. So C is the correct answer.

Okay, 36. If we were to bring back the Storm mechanic in a Ravnica set, which guild would be the best match for the mechanic? A, Izzet. B, Orzhov. C, Rakdos. D, Selesnya. E, Simic.

This one's pretty straightforward. Storm is a mechanic that only goes in Instants and Sorceries. Izzet, one of the themes of the Izzet guild, is it cares about Instants and Sorceries. It also, like one of the themes of the Izzet guild is it cares about instants and sorceries. It also, like one of its mechanics before was replicate, where it copied things. So blue and red are the two colors that copy things. So Storm is, I mean, I'm not, if we were bringing back the Storm mechanic, that's the big one there.

But Izzet is clearly the one we would put it in. Izzet makes the most sense, by far makes the most sense. It's in the right colors. It kills with the big one there. But IZIT is clearly the one we would put it in. IZIT makes the most sense, by far makes the most sense. It's in the right colors. It kills with the right card types. It's the cards that copy things. So clearly, clearly IZIT A. 37, a synergy theme in a set needs you to draw specific cards for it to work. This isn't happening frequently enough.

Which of the following mechanics would not help increase the frequency of these interactions? So we have what we call a deck smoothing mechanics. Deck smoothing mechanics are mechanics that help you draw cards and get you closer to getting the cards you need. We tend to put them in high synergy environments to increase the chance of you getting the synergies. So A, cycling. Well, cycling allows you to draw cards.

You can trade cards you don't need to draw cards you do. So that is not the right answer. B, investigate. Investigate allows you to draw cards that, once again, get you closer to the cards you don't need to draw cards you do. So that is not the right answer. B, Investigate. Investigate allows you to draw cards that, once again, get you closer to the cards you need. That's not the right answer. D, Scry. Now, Scry doesn't get you card advantage, but it gets you card utility. What that means by that is it looks at the cards you don't need and gets them out of the way. So it speeds you up to getting to draw to the cards you need. E, Transmute. Transmute lets you turn a card from one thing into another thing. It lets you tutor for cards of the same cost.

Well, that is something that helps you get to the cards that you need. So, Cycling, Investigate, Scry, and Transmute are all deck smoothing mechanics. Kicker, though, Kicker is about something to do with your extra mana. It doesn't help you get, I mean, obviously there's isolated cards. You could have a card drawing spell. But the kicker is not the thing that helps you get extra cards. Kicker is on cards that let you spend mana. We also like ways that let you spend mana.

That's a different issue. But kicker isn't a deck smoothing in regards to helping you get the cards you need. So C, kicker is the correct answer. 38. Which of the following designs from Legends would be the most reasonable to recost into a competitive standard card? Note the word recost.

A lot of people miss the word recost. It means we're doing the effect, but we can cost it whatever we want. A, Acid Rain. Pretty harsh. We do not do color hosers quite that big. Acid Rain destroyed all the forests, is the blue card.

Arborea. Arborea. Arborea might be one of the most painful cards we ever made. Arborea is a world's enchantment that says as long as you haven't cast a spell, you still can play lands, your opponent can't attack you. And so it makes you play this game where you draw, draw, draw, draw, draw, draw, draw until you hopefully get to a point where you can sort of deal with your creatures. But anyway, it's painful. We would not want to reprint it. Land tax.

Land tax lets you get lands out of your deck if you have less lands than your opponent. The card was broken, but that's not really the issue because we can recost it. But we are very cautious about how much shuffling we do. Something that every turn lets you go get lands and makes you shuffle every turn is something we're less likely to do. Presence of the Master practically shuts down, I think, enchantments. Is that right? It is not the kind of deck we're interested to have.

Mana Drain is a counterspell that gets you extra mana. You counter the spell, and then you get mana equal to the preferred mana cost of the spell next turn. That is something we clearly can do. We can't do it at the cost of Mana Drain. Mana Drain was too powerful. But that effect is something we can do. In fact, we have, on a couple occasions, made Mana Drains, redone Mana Drains in Standard, or tweaks on Mana Drain.

So anyway, D, Mana Drain is the correct answer. 39. Which category of player most dislikes high variance in gameplay, with high variance defined as larger swings and outcome possibilities for individual cards outside the player's control? A, Johnny Jenny.

B, Timmy's Timmy. C, Spike. D, a new player. E, a player who prefers multiplayer play. Okay, so a new player. New players love variance. New players love swinginess. It gives them a chance maybe to actually

have exciting things happen or maybe win the game. A player prefers multiplayer cards. In general, there's more variance in multiplayer play, higher swings of things based on the fact that there's multiple people playing. Usually a player plays multiplayer, if they don't like high variance, it's the wrong format

to be playing. So that leaves us with the psychographics. Johnny, Jenny, Timmy, Tammy, and Spike. So Timmy and Tammy, they like high variance, they like exciting, I mean, in general, what they want is visceral things. They want exciting things. They want high variance. They like exciting. I mean, in general, what they want is visceral things. They want exciting things.

They want the experience. High variance tends to lead to more exciting things. Usually, when we make high variance cards, it's for Timmy and Tammy. Johnny and Jenny, they're more interested in expression. They're more interested in what they can do. They're willing to play a high variance card if it does something unique or lets them sort of build a cool deck. So because they care less about the percentage of their win and more of the style of their

win, having higher variance is less of an issue for Johnny and Jenny. Spike on the other hand wants to prove what they're capable of. High variance usually tends to annoy Spike because things outside their control mean it's harder to be able to prove the thing you want to prove. It makes you lose at times you don't want to lose. So Spike is the one that least likes high variance. So C is the correct answer, Spike.

40. Which of the following cards is typically the strongest in limited play? A. Cowl Prowler, B. Duress, C. Lava Axe D. Pacifism E. Windrake So we're talking about limited here. So Kahl, Prowler, Duress, Lava Axe, none of them are particularly strong and limited. Each one of them has a little more role in constructed, although some of them even not there.

So the real question come down is pacifism or windraker is really the two answers that are the strongest. Evasion is powerful and limited, but the ability to answer any creature, in general, threats are slightly stronger. I'm sorry, answers are slightly, universal answers are slightly stronger than threats in limited. And so the idea that I have a two-mana answer to any creature, which is usually the biggest problem in Limited,

versus having something that is unblockable, not blockable, but has evasion, pacifism is stronger. So D is the correct answer. Question number 41. Which of the following are not generally aimed at competitive standard play? A. Card draw. B. Counterspells.

C. Direct damage that can hit either creatures or players. D. Mass creature kill. E. One-shot mana acceleration. Card drawing we do all the time in standard. Counterspells we do all the time in standard. Direct damage that hits creatures or players we do all the time in standard. Mass creature kill. That's like Wrath of God and stuff.

We don't always do that in every standard environment, but we do it in time is standard. Masked Creature Kill. That's like Wrath of God and stuff. We don't always do that in every standard environment, but we do it in a lot of standard environments. One-shot mana acceleration, what we often call is rituals, which is, usually Red does it now. Black did it way back in the day. Which is, I spend a little bit of mana to increase my mana. Those we have found

tend to be easy to exploit and break. So we're much, much more careful with them, and we tend not to make things we think will see standard play. So E, one-shot mana acceleration is the correct answer. Number 42. Which of the following iconic white cards is most reasonable to reprint in a standard legal set?

A, Armageddon. B, Bane's Flare Angel. C, Karma. D, Lantex. E, Swords of Plowshares. Okay, Armageddon. We have found Armageddon effects that destroy all the land. Not particularly fun.

It is not something we like to do, especially when we do land destruction, we tend to do it at higher costs, and we really don't do Armageddon effects all that often. When we do, we usually make it cost a lot more than four mana. Karma. It's a lot more than four mana. Karma. It's a really powerful color hoser. While we still have some color hoses, we don't quite have that powerful color hoses anymore. Lantex. I talked about this before. It's

infinite shuffling. It also is super powerful. So both the power level and the constant shuffling. And also there's some question about whether land tax is, whether white's supposed to be the color that's constantly getting land out of your deck. E, Swords of Plowshares is, I mean,

while white should have some means to deal with creatures, this is just over-the-top good. White's removal is not supposed to be as good as black's removal. So I even argue this is out of color pie, that white is not supposed to be as good as Black's removal. So I even argue this is out of color pie, that White is not supposed to have this efficient of creature removal. So Swords of Plowshares is just right out. So Baneslayer Angel, B, is the correct answer. We would reprint Baneslayer Angel in a standard environment.

Armageddon, Karma, Lantech, Swords of Plowshares, none of those we'd reprint. Okay, 43. Which of the following iconic black cards is most reasonable to reprint in a standard legal set? A. Demonic Consultation. B. Demonic Tutor. C. Infernal Darkness. D. Sinkhole. E. Underworld Dreams. So Demonic Consultation and Demonic Tutors are really good tutors. Demonic Consultation is from Ice Age, I think, where you name a card, remove the top six cards of your library, and then keep drawing cards until you get to it, and then you exile everything that it takes before you get to it.

So you either lose a lot of your library searching for cards, but it's very efficient. It only costs one mana. Demonic Tutor costs two manas from Alpha. Go get any card you want. Both of those are too good a tutoring. We don't mind a little bit of tutoring, but we don't want things that efficient. C, Infernal Darkness.

That's something that turns all lands to make it produce black mana. It's cumulative upkeep. We no longer do cumulative upkeep. It's kind of a hoser cart shutting people out of their mana. It's not something we want to do. Sinkhole is a two mana stone rain, two mana land destruction. It is the best land destruction, I mean, okay, other than sorry, other than Stripmine and Stripmine Variants as far as a spell. It's the most powerful Land Destruction spell we've ever made. No, we're, I mean, we're

hesitant to make 3-mana Land Destruction. So no way in the world we're making 2-mana Land Destruction. Underworld Dreams damages your opponent when they draw cards. Yeah, we could actually reprint Underworld Dreams, so E is the correct answer. 44. The card Felidar Guardian was banned last year in Standard because of an unintended interaction with the Planeswalker card, Saheeli Rai. If this interaction were realized late in design, what would have been the best solution?

A. Add Felidar Guardian enters the battlefield tapped. B. Add one Cullus Mana to the cost Add Felidar Guardian enters the battlefield tapped. B. Add one colorless mana to the cost of Felidar Guardian. C. Change Felidar Guardian's ability to return the permit to the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step. D. Keep both cards as is, but add a flexible instant that can destroy either one of Felidar Guardian or Saheeli Rai. E. Change Saheeli Rai's mana to cost blue, blue, red, so she's harder to cast in a three-color deck. So the correct answer is C, because that actually solves

the problem, meaning it makes the it allows an interaction between the cards, but it stops the infinite cycle. The real damage here is the infinite cycling of doing it again and again and again and again. Other things here might slow down the thing, but they don't necessarily stop the infinite thing.

And D, the one that gives you an answer to it, usually just giving answers doesn't always solve the problem. Because if someone gets these two out, unless you have that in your hand, it's inherently a problem. So C is the correct answer because it stops the infinite cycle. 45. Assuming all the following designs are costed at an appropriate power level and win rate in standard, which would be the least fun to show up in competitive play?

I should note, by the way, that in previous GDS, I wrote most of the questions. In this one, I wrote maybe half the questions. I wrote most of the designer questions. There are a lot of other questions done by a lot of other R&D members. We wanted a broader range of questions. So a lot of the questions we're getting to now, I didn There are a lot of other questions done by a lot of other R&D members because we wanted a broader range of questions. So a lot of, like, the questions we're getting to now, I didn't write a lot of these questions. Things that are more about things that other members of R&D do.

An artifact that causes each player to lose two life during their upkeep. An artifact that taps to add three mana to your mana pool. An enchantment that lets you name a card and stops the named card from being played. An enchantment that lets you name a card and stops the named card from being played. An enchantment that stops all creatures from attacking. Or E, a sorcery that destroys all non-land permanents.

So, of these, the real question is which one we can cost them however we want, which one is the most disruptive as far as which one is going to make standard less fun um

artifact that causes clerics to lose damage not a big deal I mean we gotta cost that correctly artifact that taps for 3 mana once again cost it correctly it's fine enchantment lets you name a card that stops a named card from being cast that's fine that's okay

I mean we do effects like that a sorcerer that destroys all non-land permanents that definitely is the second best answer. We want to be careful how often we do that, but we like having reset buttons if we're careful about it. Also, it's non-land, so it lets people... Usually, if we wipe the board, we leave the land. This one leaves the land.

So the correct answer is D, an enchantment that stops all creatures from attacking. Creatures play a really big role in Standard. Enchantments are one of the harder types to get rid of, so we would be careful making an enchantment that just sort of shuts down a major part role in standard. Enchantments are one of the harder types to get rid of. So we would be careful making an enchantment that just sort of shuts down a major part of the game. 46. Which of the following

designs would we be most likely to reprint in a standard legal set? Okay, this I think might be the third most missed question on the test. A. Counterspell. B. Dark Ritual. C. Lightning Bolt. D. Llanowar Elves. E. Swords to Plowshares. So I think the problem... People narrow down to the two most right answers.

Counterspell is not something we're going to put in standard. Dark Ritual, it's not even color pie in the right color anymore. And it's too powerful. And Swords of Plowshares is both too powerful, and I would argue, out of color pie. So that leaves Lightning Bolt and Llanowar Elves. So this is one of the ones where I think people out-thought themselves a little bit. Now, when you're looking at power level of the cards, Lightning Bolt's just higher than Llanowar Elves.

Llanowar Elves is the kind of thing that we would occasionally do, I think, in Standard. I mean, we like to ebb and flow the mana. So, you know, it's the kind of thing where I think that there are environments we'd be willing to do and environments we won't be willing to do it. It is not something we do without pause. But Lightning Bolt is even more warping of an environment

than Llanowar Elves. By a significant amount. So, the interesting thing here is it's clear that Llanowar Elves... I think it's clear that Llanowar Elves are I think it's clear, Llanowar Elves are not quite as powerful as Lightning Bolt, and warp the environment a bit less than Lightning Bolt does. But, why did a lot of

people pick Lightning Bolt over Llanowar Elves? Because they started looking at some other aspect of the card, which is, Llanowar Elves is specific to a place. Llanowar Elves can only be printed on Dominaria, or in a core set. And so some people are like, well,

if you're talking about most likely to print in a standard legal set, well, Llanowar elves can't go places where Llanowar isn't. And so they started getting... The interesting thing here is, the reason that we didn't say Elvish Mystic was the person who wrote this question, I didn't write this question, but the person who wrote this question was picking five

iconic alpha cards. And if the goal was to just sort of pick the... I mean, sometimes you have to look at the question and figure out why they're naming what they're naming. The other thing about Land of War Elves is we do have core sets, and we also have to be going back to Dominaria. So not only are we saying, hey, look, Dominaria is a place we can go again. We have Core Set.

So the Llanowar Elves is, I mean, the power level of Lightning Bolt is so much greater than the power level of Llanowar Elves that if we wanted to bring one back, we have means and places to do it. You know, we could put it in a Dominaria set. We could put it in a Core Set. It's not like it's impossible to put it in a standard legal set.

I know there are a lot of people that put a lot of investment on, but I think it's the kind of thing where you were sort of, we were asking a question about power level, and people sort of started picking this other aspect in. Now, if we were in a place where we hadn't visited dominaria in forever, and core sets were gone, I think that more could be brought in. Like if this question was asked maybe four years ago, where we hadn't visited Dominaria in ten years, or close to ten years, and corsets were gone, or whatever, three years ago,

whatever corsets went away. You go, oh, there's no corsets, and Dominaria's not a place we visit, and how in the world we do Land of Were-Elves. But the fact that we are visiting Dominaria, the fact that there is now a core set every year, there is just a means and a place to do it in the standard legal set. So, and Lightning Bolt is significantly stronger and more

warping than Llanowar Elves. So, D, Llanowar Elves is the correct answer. Okay, next question requires a card called Megabolt. So, Megabolt is three and a red. It's an instant. Card name deals eight damage to target creature. So question number 47. From a design standpoint, what is the biggest problem with this card?

A. Seven is more aesthetic than eight. B. It blurs the line between red and black. C. Players might find ways to redirect the damage to players. D. Dealing this much damage should be a sorcery. E. It's too much damage for 4 mana. Okay, A. 7 is more aesthetic number than 8. On a really, really... 7 is a little bit more aesthetic,

in only a light way, but once again, we wouldn't change a card based on that. That is, I mean, usually where aesthetics matter is where there's multiple numbers and they have a relationship to each other. Where like the card says 7, 7, 7, then 8, which will throw people. If there's only one number on a card,

you can use any card. The aesthetics in general, that's not something we worry in individual number. C, players might find ways to redirect the damage to players. That is something that you might worry about for balance a little bit, but it is

not a major issue. It's a pretty minor issue. D. Dealing this much damage should be a sorcery. No. You could do it instant if you... I mean, we didn't say the rarity of the card or anything. You can do this much damage as an instant. E. It's too much damage for four mana. No. We actually went and made sure this was

costed, so if we wanted to do 8 damage you could do it for 4 we sort of checked with play design to make sure that this damage wasn't, and the answer was no, the issue isn't really the cost of damage 4 to do 8 is something that is possible

especially because it doesn't hit players, it only hits creatures. So B, it blurs the line between black and red, is the right answer. One of the things that we're very concerned with is we want to make black and red black and red and white and green are the two color pairs that blur the most. So one of the things about red that we try to do is red's damage is, red's structure is

damage base. So we try to limit how much damage we're going to do on spells. We do make X spells and stuff, so if you pour enough mana, red can sort of do a little bit more damage. But generally, we tend to stop the line usually around five. We'll break that from time to time, but what we tend to

find is once you're doing more than five damage, it's just you're killing most things. And so it's not that far away from just being a murder or a terror. Dark banishing, I'm naming all these old spells, just being a kill spell. So B is the correct answer. 48. Which of these text boxes will most likely be red-flagged

as highly complex for a common creature? A. 2W, target creature gets plus 1, plus 1 until end of turn. B. 1R, 1 in a red, creature gets plus 2, plus 0 and gains first right until end of turn. C. When card name enters the battlefield, target creature gets plus plus 2 plus 0 and gains first strike until end of turn. C. When card name enters the battlefield, target creature gets plus 2 plus 2 and gains trample until end of turn. D. Whenever card name attacks, creature in your control gets plus 1 plus 1 until end of turn.

E. Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, card name gets plus 1 plus 1 until end of turn. Okay, so B basically is a combination of first strike and fire breathing. Things that affect themselves are fine. We make things that doesn't...

We talk about things getting a red flag, meaning it causes concern. I mean, B has a little bit of your opponent has to realize that you could activate it to matter in limited, but it's easy to short end and go, oh, that creature can do something in combat. I should be aware of that creature.

C, when card emerges in the battlefield, a tough creature gets plus two, engage, trample, end of turn. No, that's a one- that creature. C. When card name enters the battlefield, it's hard to creature because plus or minus two engage, trample to end of turn. No, that's a one-shot effect. It's like a sorcery giant growth. It's not that hard to process. It happens at the sorcery speed because it's on a creature. So, like, it's not even mid-combat. D. Whenever card name

attacks, creature should control your plus or minus one to end of turn. We do do attack triggers at common. This one's pretty global. The whole team gets affected, so it's a little bit easier to grok. You don't have to figure out which creature. If this creature attacks, it'll just enhance everybody. E, whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control,

cardium gets plus one, plus one, until end of turn. Once again, this is a creature where other things affect it. So all my opponent has to do is track that this can get bigger. So it's a little bit more complicated than some other stuff, but it still only requires you to track one thing, the creature itself. So A is the correct answer. The reason for this is it's targeted,

meaning if this creature's in play, and my opponent has mana up, any creature could change. That combat damage, combat math becomes super hard, because you have to account for every three mana they have, plus one, plus one can be attributed. So imagine they have six mana and four creatures attacking. The combinatorics of what could happen is really complicated.

So that is red flag, and that is something we would most likely not do at Common. 49. You're playing a multiplayer game. Which pair of mechanics would cause the most confusion if they appeared frequently together in a play environment? A, devour and exploit. B, fabricate and formidable. C, miracle and cycling. D, modular and scavenge. Or E, married and battalion.

Each one of these has some complications, but the answer is E, married and battalion, because they don't work together. They are a non-bow, as we say. They do not work together. And so we would not want to put two mechanics that don't work together as two keyword mechanics in the same. I mean, if we were doing something like a masters or something that had a lot, a lot of keywords in it, but as a major focus in a set, especially a multiplayer set, we're only putting a couple keywords in it,

we wouldn't put two keywords that don't work together. As a general sense, in sets, we don't make major keywords, block keywords, not have synergy. So E is the correct answer. Okay, the final question for today. I'm sitting here and I want to finish up. It's number 50. If we printed an enchantment with

the same text as stabilizer, players can't cycle cards, which color should it be? Okay, it's an enchantment and it's a rule-setting enchantment. That is very clearly a white. Blue does it a little bit. Black does it a little bit. Usually black would punish you.

Black means if you do something... Black and red tend to be if you do something, I'll punish you. And blue... Well, I mean mean white is clearly the color that does the rule setting stuff and does the proactive stuff. So white's clearly the right answer. Second answer is probably blue. And then I think black and red would punish you. So I don't think... I think black and red would not just be players can't cycle cards. So anyway, A is the right answer. Okay, so that, now we are two-thirds

done with the test. So next time, I will do the final, the final 25 questions. Hope you guys are enjoying hearing about all the answers. Today we had a bunch, in fact,

I think today we had the three most missed answers. So I'm sure, I will hear, there's a lot of arguments going on right now about those questions, but maybe this will be

sparking more arguments about those questions. But I feel very confident each of the three got that missed most. I'm firm the answer is the right answer. But anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed hearing about it. But as I'm in the parking lot, we all know what that means.

This is the end of my drive to work. So instead of talking magic, it's time for me to be making magic. I'll see you guys next time. Bye.