10/4/13 Episode 58: Champions of Kamigawa, Part II

All podcast content by Mark Rosewater

Okay, so I’m pulling out of my driveway! We all know what that means. It’s time for another Drive to Work.

Okay. So last week, I started talking about the design of Champions of Kamigawa. But I didn’t finish. So this week I will continue.

So when last we left, our intrepid design team had—was working on bringing to life a world inspired by Japanese flavor. And last week I talked about how they had come up with soulshift and bushido. But they really were trying to find an identity for the set. And when it got handed over to development—so as I mentioned last week, although I’m credited in the designs, I was not on the design team. I just came up with the splice mechanic, which I’ll get to today. And was given credit on the design team.

I was actually, though, on the development team. So the development team was run by Randy Buehler, and it was a very interesting development team because the set when it came in was in a rough place. As I explained last week, the set decided to try to do something interesting. It started by making all the creative first. And then it went to build the design around the creative.

But the problem, as I explained last week, is design is just a lot more flexible—I’m sorry. Creative—the flavor is a lot more flexible than mechanics. You know, mechanics just don’t have the—the nuance that you can get with flavor. And so what happened was, a lot of the design got a little ham-fisted—it’s like “Oh, there’s samurais, okay, there’s a samurai mechanic. Okay, there’s spirits. There’s a spirit mechanic.”

And everything sort of—because one of the things now. One of the things that I try to do in modern sort of design is that I feel the play of the game is part of the flavor. That one of the things I was very happy in Innistrad was, Innistrad was about recreating a sense of—of—of Gothic horror, and emotionally I wanted a feel of dread. That I wanted you to be scared. I wanted you to have moments where you were worried about things.

And so the design of the set definitely—like for example, the werewolf mechanic is a perfect example, where I put this thing out. You know this thing—if it ever flips it’s going to be really problematic for you. And—but you don’t know when it’s gonna flip. So there’s this suspense. Right? The mechanic built into it made you kind of worry about it. Because you knew something bad was going to happen, but you didn’t quite know when. And so you were fighting to stop it but you didn’t quite know when it was going to happen. And there’s a lot of other things we did. But we—we were trying to create a feel.

The problem here was that it is hard to create the feel. The way we now do sort of top-down is we—we gather a bunch of the flavor and a bunch of the mechanics and keep sort of going back and forth to try to make it right. We don’t lock ourselves into one thing in flavor and go “Well, find whatever mechanics you can.” No, it’s like “Okay, we’ve got to figure out how best to represent it.”

And what was going on there was like “Well, we have samurai. How do you represent samurai? They’re good fighters. Okay, give me a fight mechanic.” But did the samurai—did the play of the samurai feel like samurai? I mean, they felt like good fighters, but one of the big things of samurai is a sense of honor, and I mean—there’s a lot that goes to samurai besides just “they fight.”

And it kind of got boiled down to the simplest version so they could make a mechanic for it. And I think one of the things that Kamigawa had is, a lot of the sense you get—I mean, one of the things that’s nice about hitting a real culture is there are feelings and senses that culture will bring up. And I don’t think this set did it.

I mean now, to Brian Tinsman’s defense, he did try to do some stuff to have some of that feel, but it didn’t match the flavor they were going for. And the flavor they did go for was something that, while very accurately Japanese, was a little more foreign to the—to most of the audience.

Okay, so the set came to development—it really had some identity problems. In fact—I mean, one of the—I was a thorn in Randy’s side. Because one of—one of my messages was, the set didn’t know what it was. You know. And Randy would say “Oh,” you know, “It’s the Japanese set.”

And I’d go “No, Randy, Randy, that’s—that’s…” but it didn’t… it didn’t have a real sense of what it was trying to do. Especially mechanically. You know, mechanically is like “Oh, this matters, and that matters, and this matters.” And like, yeah, all those things tie into—but what’s the feel? And what’s the—what are we trying to do? And so we went back and forth on that. On what exactly is the feel of the set.

So (long pause) sorry, must keep drinking if I want to talk consistently.

So first of all, we knew we were missing some mechanics. And second of all, we were missing a larger, greater feel. And I kept bringing it up. I kept saying to Randy, “Randy, we have to commit to something. What is this set about?” And we kept jumping around what the set was about. The set had a lot going on.

I mean, you were introduced to this world, and the world got in a fight with the spirit world, and there was this war between them, and, you know, there were—there were a lot of—of characters—it was definitely something that had a lot going on.

So the first thing that Randy really wanted to do was we needed some—we were short on mechanics. And so I—I’d come up with a mechanic a while ago, and the idea of my mechanic—I don’t even remember what I called it—was… was the idea that you could… “graft things onto spells” was my flavor. 

Was—we had done stuff like buyback and kicker, where the spell came with an extra bonus. Like, “Oh, if you spend extra mana, you can get this additional ability.” And the idea that I had is, I liked that. I said, “Well, what if we disconnect that from the spell, meaning instead of that bonus being on the spell you’re playing, that bonus sits in your graveyard—or in your hand, and you can use it on whatever you want?”

I think my original version, by the way, actually had a flashback feel to it, which was it allowed you to reuse things I think originally from the graveyard. And then we decided that it was easier to have it in your hand. And so the idea was—this is where splice came from—is, well, we had a spell, and you could splice that spell onto other spells.

Now, we ended up making Arcane, which is a subset of spells that was unique to this set. And I think—I think Arcane was just on instants and sorceries. Later on in the design, kind of too late—sorry, in the development, kind of too late to actually test properly, we came up with the idea of splice onto instant or splice onto sorcery. Because one of the problems with splice onto Arcane is, talk about parasitic. Like, “I can splice onto this subset of spells. This subset of spells exists solely in this set.”

Now, I was happy with splice for Limited, because I think it actually played very interestingly, and I think—I think splice did a lot of fun things for—for Kamigawa Limited. And for what it’s worth, by the way, for as much as I might rag a little bit on Kamigawa’s—I mean, I think the design had some issues, I do think the actual Limited play was actually very good. I mean, especially—especially for its day, it was pretty good.

There were some problems, and I’ll get to some of the problems. But I think where the set shone the most is in Limited. The reason is, one of the set’s problems is how parasitic it was. Once again, parasitic means it relied on other cards only in this set. But in Limited, it didn’t matter. You’re parasitic, well, all the cards you’re playing with from the set. So that stuff didn’t matter.

In Constructed, and casual formats, it did matter, because like “Oh, well, I want to play splice. Well, I have to make a deck of nothing but this set.” And one of the problems we had—we’ve had for a long time is what we call the “Block Monster Problem.” So one of the things we used to do is—I mean, we still do this, but we used to—every year has a different theme to it.

And what we used to do is we would starve the theme right before it. So if we’re going to do gold cards, no gold cards would show up for a set or two before it. You know, if we’re going to do artifacts, no artifacts show up for a set or two—you know, we would starve whatever it is we were going to do.

And what we ended up doing with that, the big flaw in that plan was you ended up with sets in which, well, “The set before me had nothing, to do add, and the set…” you know, so like you—the set would become so strong and just have its own block that it would become a monster. We called it block monster.

And A. it would cause problems in block constructed format, but also it—Standard you want the—you know, the reason to have two—two years is to have those two years mixed together. And our themes were so strong and pulling away, that we weren’t making it easy for things to go together.

Now, we do it a lot differently. Now we’re very conscious of what’s coming, and in fact we try to make sure there’s some overlap that, “Oh, well there’s some things from year one that year two will want, and that—you know, it will create some synergy between them. And then year two and three have something different that matters, so year two has something else that year one doesn’t care about, but year three will care about.” And that’s how you keep Standard fresh is make sure that the blocks sitting next to each other have some synergy with each other.

Okay, so we made splice. I had pitched it at Randy, Randy liked it and put it in the file. We ended up making Arcane. We also—we also pushed what we called “spiritcraft.” The original design had some of this, but we—we way notched it up, which is kind of “spirit matters.” So we had a lot more cards that rotated around spirits. 

I mean, obviously the design team had turned in soulshift, which very much cared about spirits. But we--we made more of like, enters to play and counts spirits and things that did--while in play count spirits—we just—we called it spiritcraft. I mean, that wasn’t its actual name.

So what happens sometimes is, the set has—I mean, the mechanic has a name. And it says so on the card. So that’s a keyword mechanic. Sometimes, we put a name with it, but it’s not—it’s not a keyword, and we call that an ability word. Also, sometimes we have an ability action, which is like a verb that’s a keyword but it’s a verb rather than a noun. And that’s—it’s used in sentences. Like transform from Innistrad was a—was an action word, if you—not an action word, an ability word. But sometimes we have nicknames for things. We don’t officially call them that, but we like—in all our writing we’ll refer to it. So we called that spiritcraft.

Okay, next. The flip cards. And by flip cards, I do mean flip cards, which is funny, because people thought the double-faced Innistrad cards—they sometimes call them flip cards. And I say, “Oh, not exactly, those aren’t flip cards. These are flip cards.” So what flip cards are, are cards that come into play, one side up, and then if you do a certain condition, you flip them upside down, and then they’re a different card. 

So the idea was pretty simple, which was we were trying to do some more storytelling, and we liked the idea of—of the heroes that turn into champions, sort of. They became, you know, powerful characters. And so they started out simple—I think the way a lot of them is they weren’t even a legend yet and then they flip into legends. Now, I’ll get to the legendary thing in a second.

So where flip things came about—so I did a card in Unglued 2, the set that never got released, called “Heads Up/Tailspin.” And the way the card worked was, there was at tiny sliver piece of art, rather than, you know—half the size of a normal piece of art. Then a text box, then on the other side, there was another sliver of art.

And so the text box was split in half, so if you had the card up one way it was called Heads Up. And then it was a positive thing for your creatures. And then the other way was called Tailspin, and if you flipped the card upside down, then that art was face up and that rules text was face-up. And then you flip a coin every turn and you either get Heads Up or Tailspin was the idea. I mean, the real innovation of the card was the idea that it was two cards and you went back and forth between the states. 

So what we did here was, a couple things that were different. One, we talked to the art director, who at the time was I believe Jeremy Cranford. And Jeremy liked the idea of instead of having two unique pieces of art, because he thought it was just hard to have such a small piece of art, he suggested having one piece of art but in which you have two images that when you flip it up, one—you know, one image pulls your focus one way, one image will pull your focus the other way. That they were sort of two pictures melded together, but the artist would know that they were being one giant picture.

That had some success. One of the things when we ended up going to double-faced cards in Innistrad was, having two clear distinctly different pictures I think proved—made it a lot easier to sort of get the difference between the things. Flip cards also were very limited in the amount of space you had to write the words. Just because you had half the text box.

I know Richard was also involved in making these cards. Richard, I don’t think wasn’t on the design team—development team, but he was somebody who was around, and we would talk to, and I think some of the execution of flip cards Richard came up with. I think Richard was the one that said, “Look, they start in one state and they go to the second state and then they never come back. That way it’s clear…” because Heads Up and Tailspin, it went back and forth.

And the problem with going back and forth was, we were afraid—especially when the card is, you know, like for example, flip cards also had the problem that when you tapped them, which orientation were they? Which one were they? Like, it just became hard to remember which was which. But Richard’s thing was, if they go back and forth it’s even harder to remember. If they just go one way, well you have to remember whether it switched or not. You know, if it did, then you know that it’s one thing. And that would help.

The other big theme that development brought into it was we knew that we’d wanted to play up legendary characters a little more. And so the development team definitely played that up some. But in—in—I’m sorry, design team. But in development, one of the things I kept saying to Randy is “What’s the set about?” And Randy would say, “Well, it’s a war.” And I go, “If it’s a war, then we should play up the two sides of the war. And, you know, have each side represented, and have probably a mechanical identity for each side.”

And so Randy said “Well, maybe it’s not about a war. Maybe it’s about the legendary characters.” And I said “Okay, well if it’s about legendary characters, then you have to have a lot of legendary characters.” And that’s when I pitched the idea of all the rare creatures being legendary creatures. As well as a bunch of uncommon creatures being legendary creatures. I was like, “Well, if you’re going to do it, if it’s going to be your theme, you—you kind of have to really make it your theme.”

So one of my famous things that I’ve always said, in fact it came from this—I learned my—this lesson from this very set, which is, one of my themes—one of my—one of my truisms about design is, about Magic design, is “If your theme isn’t at common, it’s not your theme.”

And what I learned from this set was, that it’s—it’s fine and dandy to say, “Here’s my theme.” But if you don’t play the set, and get the theme in the vast, vast majority of the games you play, then it isn’t your theme. You know, like we did this legendary theme, but you could open up ten packs and never see a legend. You know. I mean, five packs and never see a legend. I guess all the rare creatures. So eventually you’ll see one.

But it—and even if you opened up ten packs and you saw one or two legends, you know, let’s say you open up ten packs and got a couple rare legends. Well, fine! Maybe you happened to get a couple rare legends. It’s hard to communicate all the rare creatures are legends. It’s really, really hard to communicate. In fact, it’s—it pretty much is impossible to communicate in a booster pack. And so we kind of set ourselves up to do something that wasn’t going to be noticeable in the way it needed to be noticed. I mean, we talked about it…

The other big mistake we made is legends are something that are special. You know, legends are something that people really like. The reason we wanted to use them was they were something that was, you know, something that people loved. Which is interesting, because the legendary mechanic mostly—I mean, Commander didn’t exist yet. At the time, it was mostly just a drawback. It just said you couldn’t play with all of them.

Now, yeah, development got it given a little tiny bit of boost. Not as much as people think. But people thought of legends as being cool. And the problem with doing all your rare creatures being legends is, all of them can’t be cool. Some of them have to suck. It’s the nature of the beast that, you know, yeah, you have some good cards, you have some bad cards. And we guaranteed that we’d make some really bad legends. Yeah, we made some really good legends, but we made some really bad legends. And that kind of undercut the whole idea in general of “legends are cool.”

And that’s another big lesson there is A. If your theme’s not at common it’s not your theme, and B. Be careful, you know, things people love is a resource. Use it accordingly. You know. Don’t waste it. If people really love something, you have to dole it out and be careful. Because if you don’t, then you make the thing less valuable to people.

And an important—really important part of trading card game design is, you only have so many resources. You know, you have to use them carefully. You can’t sort of waste them, because every time you waste one, you’re just down on resources. And then you have to go find more resources, and there’s things to find in Magic, but it’s not an endless supply. You know. We have to manage our resources—a lot of doing Magic correctly is reusing the resources.

Okay. What else did we do? Other small things we did—so before the set—so part of making the legendary thing work is we changed how the legendary rules worked. Now recently we’ve again changed. So let me walk you through the legendary rules real quick.

So when legends—so when Legends, the set Legends came out, they introduced a creature type called legends. So literally, in Legends, there were Creature—Legends. Now, they all had to be gold cards, and interestingly, Legends was the first set with gold cards and the first set with legendary creatures, and all the legendary creatures were gold cards, and all the gold cards were legendary creatures. Pretty splashy, actually. 

And so the rule in the beginning was, you may only have one creature—only one creature can be in play at a time. And so what happened was, let’s say you and I were playing the same legend. Oh, and early on, by the way, legends were on the restricted list. Every single legend was on the restricted list. Meaning you could only play with one of them in your deck.

And so the original rule was, once a legend’s in play no other version can be played. So if I happened to get a legend in play, then you’re stuck. That’s it. Your legend’s dead. He can do nothing. And it made legendary very—it made very bad gameplay. And so we were very shy about pushing legends because the gameplay was bad.

Like, we didn’t want to make one good enough that both sides have to play it—and we did make the mistake—Urza’s Saga, for example, had legendary lands that were very powerful. And, in fact, here’s how crazy the rule was. So Tolarian Academy was this powerhouse card. People would play legendary—sorry, would put Tolarian Academy in their deck, not even have blue mana or blue spells to use with it or even artifacts to fuel it. It was in solely because if they could play it before you played it, they just shut yours off because you couldn’t play yours. Decks that could play it—that could not use it played it merely as a—a countermeasure to Tolarian Academies played by people who wanted to play them. I mean, that’s how crazy the card was.

But that’s kind of silly. Like—so we decided that—I mean, we eventually got rid of it being on the restricted list. You could have as many legends as you want. And to make better gameplay, we came up with the idea of just reversing how it worked. Because for a long time what happened was, legends worked one way, and world enchantments that had a similar flavor.

So world enchantments, or as they were called originally, in Legends as well, enchant worlds, would be an enchantment. And it would affect the—affect the game state. The flavor was you were on a different plane. And then when a new enchant world came in, the old one would go away, and then the new one would be dominant and instead, well, now you’re here. 

And we realized that that was more dynamic play, because it said, “If I had an enchant world in my hand, I can cast it.” You know. And it became a vulnerability for the previous enchant world, but allowed you to play them. Where legends, if I had a legend in my hand and you already had one in play, it was just a dead card.

So we decided we were going to change our legends so that instead of the second legend just not being able to come into play, it would come into play and then destroy the first one. So the reason your Tolarian Academy became good with your opponent’s Tolarian Academy was you could use yours to destroy theirs. And that proved to be—we thought better gameplay, so we made that change. And obviously, you know, come Magic 2014, we’d make another change to the legendary rule. But we’ll get there later. Not really today’s issue.

So one of the things we did was okay, so we—legendary—well first off, we—this set—or maybe right before, maybe in the—maybe the—I’m not sure whether it changed with this set or the core set right before? I guess maybe it must have changed for this set. We did a couple of things.

So “legend” was no longer a creature type. We got rid of the “legend” creature type and we moved it to “legendary.” So we made it a supertype. Which made a lot more sense, because we wanted to have legendary things. We wanted to be able to have legendary artifacts, legendary—you know, we wanted to be able to have other legendary things.

And interestingly, the way it worked was—I’m saying this a little bit wrong. We had legendary things, but creatures weren’t legendary. Like, “Well, this is weird why these things line up or are supposed to work the same, and some say “legendary” as a supertype, and some have it as a creature type.” Anyway, so we said “Okay. They’re all legendary, everything’s legendary.”

And the other thing we did is because legend—legends—there were two creature types that carried rules baggage on them. One was legends, because it had the legendary rule. And the other was wall. Because at the time, if you had “wall” on you, if your creature type was wall, you automatically couldn’t attack. 

So what we did with Kamigawa was, we changed it so that defender became an ability. We retroactively gave all walls defender, and promised that all walls would have defender, but said that walls no longer carried any baggage.

So… anyway, that would—it’s funny, because the previous year—a couple years before, we had done a card called Mistform Ultimus. Which had all the creature types, and then it had to have the card text that it could attack as though it wasn’t a wall. Because we thought it was cooler to have all of them rather than all but wall. And so we sort of said it has it all, and then it said “Well, but ignore the wall rules.” And then when this changed we just take that off in Oracle. It just—it had all the creature types.

Okay. So those were the key changes that we made. And like I said, a lot of—we spent a lot of time in development working on Limited, trying to give the set an identity. Oh—something else I want to talk about, which I think was one of the failings of the set, and it had to do with the names. I admire what Brandon was up to—Brandon Bozzi, who did the names and flavor text, in that he was trying hard to give the names a real strong feel. And I think he did do that.

I think that—I think the plus on the names and flavor text was they did have a Japanese feel. The downside was that one of the points of names and flavor text is as handholds for recognition. You know. That a card has a lot going on, but if you can anchor all the idea of the card in a singular name, that people can share, then you have a concept people can talk about.

And names do a lot of important work. They—names not only help you remember a card once you know it, but they also help you figure out what a card is. That you don’t really think about this, but names sound different. And one of the problems with Champions of Kamigawa was, for the first time, we really didn’t do that.

That the names had enough of a foreign-ness that, you know—I mean the classic example is Counsel of the Soratami. Okay? Because we actually had this in the core set for a while and it caused a little bit of problems. Which is “What card type is Counsel of the Soratami?” You know.

And what we found was, well it depended on how you spelled the word “counsel” (council)? You know, like it didn’t—like obviously, if you understood that well, you know, c-o-u-n-c-i-l is a group of people and c-o-u-n-s-e-l is advice given by somebody, you know, but the problem is you would hear the name and go “Council of the Soratami,” and you’re like, “Oh, well I guess the Soratami got together?” And like “Oh, no no no, it’s the advice of the (???)tami, who are telling you “Hey, you get two cards.” You know.

And that—the set literally—I didn’t do this, but if I just started calling off names, you know—especially lesser-known cards, cards that didn’t end up being in Constructed, and said “Okay, name this card type,” Kamigawa would do the worst of any set I can remember, of you being able to identify the card type. You know.

Usually, for example, you know, instants are verbs. Like you see a verb, you go, “That’s an instant.” Sorceries and instants are verbs, and enchantments are nouns, and artifacts are things, and one of the problems of Champions of Kamigawa was it was trying to be, you know, you know, “It Who Suffers.” Well, It Who Suffers. Well okay, it suffers, oh, does that mean—I’m making names up, by the way, that wasn’t actually a card. But it’s the kind of thing where like, “Oh, It Who Suffers, well, okay, I guess it’s a creature, because only creatures suffer,” but then it’s like “Oh no, it’s an artifact that—it suffers, you know, thematically. 

The set had a lot of stuff like that, where like, you just—you couldn’t—and one of the things you’ll notice is, as evidence of what I’m trying to explain is, people were famously bad at remembering the names of the cards from—from Champions of Kamigawa. That just like, “Oh, what’s that name again? What’s that name” Because it didn’t have the handholds to remember.

And that—by the way, real quickly, I did a whole podcast with Matt Cavotta about—oh, no, I haven’t done names yet. We did one about flavor text. But Matt and I will do one about names. One of our future carpools.

But one of the things about names—you’ll get a little preview of what you’ll hear us talk about. Is that names have all this function, and that a lot of what goes on in the creative on the surface looks like you’re just trying to make things look pretty, if you will. But there’s a lot of functionality. A lot of the rules of the name and the art are helping people shortcut and identify what it is they’re using.

And when you start muddying that up, you start realizing that “Wow, it’s hard remember—there’s a lot of cards to remember.” And that without all the little sort of mnemonics of the creative to help you, it becomes very hard. And this is a set I think where Creative—especially in the names, sort of fell down a little bit in that role.

Okay, so I am almost to work. So this is going to be at least a three-parter, because I have a whole bunch of cards I want to talk about. But—so here’s what I’m going to do, since I have a few minutes until I get to work. I’m going to start by talking about a few of the cards as a little lead-in to next week. So as a little—a little taste. To make you come back.

Okay, so we’re going to start with the Brothers Yakazami. So—Yamaki? Yamaki. Brothers Yamaki. Sorry. Like I said, these names are hard to remember. So I had an idea that wouldn’t it be cool—we decided we were going to do legendary creatures. And I said, “Wouldn’t it be cool to have a legendary set of identical twins?” And I thought this was an awesome idea. That we had a card, and the card, you know, there’s two of them, and that you can have two of them in play. And then we said, “You know what’s even better than that? It represents twin brothers. We’ll have two copies of the card. One with each picture.”

So it turns out, for those that don’t understand how Magic cards are made, I’m not going to go into great detail, but basically there’s a large sheet. We print a large sheet because that’s how you print things. And then we chop them up into cards. And so the way it normally works is each rarity has a sheet that’s its own sheet. The common sheet and an uncommon sheet and a rare sheet.

And the one thing at the time that I didn’t really appreciate was, “Well how exactly do you get two pieces of—two images on a rare card?” And the problem was, in order to do that, you had to have a separate sheet with a separate picture. So unbeknownst to me, who just on a whim—like on a whim, said, “Oh, wouldn’t it be cool if they’re brothers and they’re twins, you could have two of them, and there’s two pieces of art?” We ended up doing two different rare sheets solely for this one thing. Which obviously I had no idea.

And it cost us a lot of money. I didn’t realize this until much, much later, that my random idea that I thought was just cool—and maybe it was cool, but it was—it—it was one of the—might be the most expensive idea I’ve had as far as “Here’s a card idea, let’s execute that.” Because it ended up being quite costly.

And the problem at the time was, I mean we’re much better now is, I had a great idea but I had no idea how the printing worked. Printing said, “Okay, I guess that’s what they need,” and never questioned what we were doing. And, you know, Printing never said “Really? You want to do it for that?” Like, “Okay, you want to do it.”

And like I said, I think the general flavor was cool. I mean, we had a legendary theme, so we definitely were playing around with the idea that we wanted to goof with legends and do different things with legends than we’d done before. And as I go through the cards next week you’ll see, there’s a bunch of different legendary things that we were doing.

Anyway, that was just a teaser. A teaser of the kind of stories you will learn next week! Because I’m here at work, and I must go do—do my thing. But I wanted to just give a little teaser of next week is going to be about the cards, one of the things I’ve been trying to do in my design podcast is at least spend one podcast talking about actual card stories. And I felt like there were some fun stories to tell. The Brothers Yamaki—(???) one of them! But next week, I will tell you I have many more I have a whole sheet worth, maybe—maybe more than one podcast. I’m not sure. At least one podcast.

So make sure to join me next week, you’ll hear about some Champions of Kamigawa cards, and anyway, it was fun talking today, but you know what, guys? It’s time to go and make the Magic.