Magic: The Gathering will continue to focus design efforts around creatures and the battlefield, revealed Mark Rosewater on the official Magic: The Gathering website earlier this week.
In a column titled “Odds & Ends: 2024, Part 2,” Rosewater answered the most pressing questions from the MTG community. One question that grabbed his attention was about why spell-matter decks get so few mechanics and card designs these days compared to creatures.
ZeeGamesTTV, an MTG Twitch streamer, asked Rosewater, “Why does it feel like WotC is giving all the love to creature based decks and no love to control/spells matter decks?”
It’s a good question. As we look at the most recent mechanics of sets today, we see abilities like Cloak, Manifest Dread, Survival, Offspring, Expend, Valiant, and more. Whereas few of recent set mechanics involve spell-matter synergies. Old examples of these include Flashback and Spell Mastery.
Why are there so few mechanics compared to creature-based mechanics being printed these days, and why do creatures feel so pushed relative to spells?
Mark Rosewater asked the rest of the MTG Play Design team for answers, and here is what they said:
We think Magic is more fun when the main focus and interaction points of the game are on the battlefield. The flow of the game is more gradual and predictable and less abrupt.
This means that we always want creature-based decks to exist and be strong. However, we also really value diversity of gameplay and showing off all the different strategies Magic has to offer. This means that we think it’s most fun when spell-based decks are jockeying with creature-based decks over control of the battlefield.
Control decks need to stabilize, and combo decks need to assemble their engine while still surviving. We definitely like control and spell-based decks, we just want the focal point of most games of Magic to be the battlefield, not the stack or the graveyard.
MTG Play Design Team
According to the MTG Play Design team, Magic is “more fun” when gameplay is focused on the “battlefield” and “not the stack”. They want control and combo decks to have to react to cards on the battlefield, rather than building their own stacking synergies that can win while ignoring creatures.
What does this mean for MTG? It means we can expect most future mechanics to continue to be based around creatures and things that interact with the battlefield. It also means creatures are much more likely to be pushed and power-crept compared to spells.
Do you agree with this direction and focus on the battlefield? Leave us a comment on our social media pages on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
ALSO READ: MTG Says Goodbye to Discard Decks
