On Monday, August 11th, Magic Head Designer Mark Rosewater published his "State of Design" article for 2025. In his article, which recaps the good and bad of the sets from the past year, Rosewater covered Standard-legal set design from Bloomburrow through Final Fantasy. What worked well? What could Wizards of the Coast do better? Read on, and we'll explore all of this.
<h2>Bloomburrow</h2>
For starters, let's look at the good things that Mark Rosewater expanded upon regarding Bloomburrow. To begin, Bloomburrow did well in terms of its mechanics. Many of the interconnecting lines between mechanical design and its translation to the flavor themes were spot-on, according to Rosewater.
However, when it came to lore and flavor issues, interestingly, Rosewater notes that many players' feedback was critical of the number of animals represented, or the kinds of animals in the setting. This complaint seems to have run the gamut between "too many/few animals" and certain thoughts on frogs versus turtles, et cetera. Furthermore, some animal races were seen as either overpowered in certain formats (such as Mice in Standard) or off in some fashion (like Rats).
<h2>Duskmourn: House of Horror</h2>
Next, Mark Rosewater took a look at Duskmourn: House of Horror. This more modern horror setting did well in many aspects. However, it failed in what Rosewater refers to as "mundane modernity," or what many players see as the aesthetic use of blue jeans, sneakers, and the like. This appears to have been a very common complaint regarding the set. However, many of the other aspects of the flavor for Duskmourn did very well among players, according to Rosewater.
Mechanically, while the set lent itself to a stellar Limited environment overall, the mechanics were seemingly a bit much for many players. There were a lot of different mechanics to keep track of, including Rooms. That said, Rooms were the mechanic from Duskmourn that Rosewater purports he got the most compliments about.
<h2>Foundations</h2>
Rosewater then went on to discuss Foundations. He praised it as "What a Core Set should look like," as "meat-and-potatoes Magic," and "classic Magic" in feeling. However, as high of a mark as Foundations received by players, there were a couple of issues that players emoted to Rosewater in feedback. For one, players expressed concerns about the longevity of Foundations in Standard. Certain card choices needed to be dialed back because Foundations is a 5-year Standard-legal set. As such, Rosewater brought up the ways <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Llanowar Elves" href="#" target="_blank">Llanowar Elves</a> warps any format it's in, as well as <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Omniscience" href="#" target="_blank">Omniscience</a> bringing the potential for broken combos. As a consequence, Limited also suffered.
<h2>Aetherdrift</h2>
Rosewater then discussed Aetherdrift. It seems that Rosewater views Aetherdrift as a failed design. While players praised the set for its use of the planar settings as the background for the plot, they also didn't seem to have enjoyed the racing plot. Rosewater noted that players liked the settings far more than the overuse of Vehicles and racing tropes. Furthermore, the card pool from Aetherdrift is too weak for the majority of meaningful Constructed play.
<h2>Tarkir: Dragonstorm</h2>
This brings Rosewater to Tarkir: Dragonstorm. Overall, Tarkir: Dragonstorm was a much better set in many players' eyes than the previous set. Flavorwise, it was awesome. The clans and dragons were designed exquisitely from a creative standpoint. However, there was a slight issue in that the original Dragonlords of the Dragons of Tarkir timeline were absent.
Mechanically, Dragonstorm was also a relative hit. It proved that Wizards of the Coast's Design team can craft three-color-focused sets well. This has been a longstanding challenge for them, so it's good to see them tackle this. Otherwise, Limited suffered yet again as people either had to draft red-white Aggro, or a four-to-five color deck focused primarily on green.
<h2>Final Fantasy</h2>
Finally, Mark Rosewater touched upon the Final Fantasy set. While capturing sixteen games in one set was a huge task, Rosewater believes the team did a fantastic job of delivering. However, even if this is the case, many players felt that some of their favorite elements were missing from the set. Beyond this, the flavor of the set felt a little too scattered for many players.
Mechanically, Rosewater had no "lessons" to learn from Final Fantasy, it seems. All of the lessons were largely with the Creative side of things, or logistically. He mentions something about the "layouts" of the Through The Ages bonus sheet, which was slightly harder to read at times. This is valid, but overall, Mark Rosewater's praise for the mechanics of the set bodes well for its implied reception.
The other thing that Rosewater touched on here was that players still seem apprehensive about the Universes Beyond initiative. This is especially true, it seems, with Standard's integration of the licensed sets. Whether players will be able to better acclimate to this new normal in time remaisn to be seen, but it seems that for now, that's here to stay.
<h2>State of Design 2025, in a Nutshell</h2>
This, of course, was just a recap of the notes that Mark touched upon with his State of Design article. There is much more nuance to what he wrote, so if you want to read it, <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/state-of-design-2025">you can do so here</a>.
But let's hear from you now, dear readers. What were your favorite parts of Magic's set design between Bloomburrow and Final Fantasy? What do you think Wizards of the Coast could have done better? Sound off below!

design

Magic's State of Design 2025 Article, Recapped

A PAX East Interview with Gavin Verhey and the Final Fantasy MTG Design Team

Mechanical Memories — The Guide to Cascade