I’m going to hijack a previous question you answered to ask something I’ve been curious about for some time:Do you have to ask the Commander Rules Committee for their input when you introduce an element that affects directly the rules of the format? I’m talking about planeswalker commanders, partner, partner with, backgrounds, companion and the likes.

We do run it by them.

You've said several times that WOTC doesn't control rules/legality for Commander, but it does seem like you've played with those areas on cards with "this can be your commander" planeswalkers, partner functioning in the command zone, and backgrounds. But you've also indicated that things like card legality and how hybrid mana works belong to the Rules Committee. Why the difference?

Designing cards is different than determining functionality of the format.

Here are some numbers to illustrate your point about the danger of making more Partner cards. There are currently 58 Commander legal cards with Partner (not including Partner with), which allows for 1653 possible pairs. If you were to make even just a new cycle of 5 Partners, that would add 300 new possible pairs.

I imagine this is why mechanics like Doctors Companion/Friends Forever/Backgrounds/Partner WITH ___ are showing up more, to fill that particular design space without adding to the Partner count specifically?

Well put.

Any plans to bring back backgrounds/commander enchantments? I think they're a really mechanic to build with!

Partner mechanics, especially mix-and-match ones, have huge play balance issues.

Hi Mark! After putting many, MANY hours into Baldur's Gate 3 I've now revisited Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur's Gate and think the flavour on the various characters who show up is fantastic and I can't wait to build a few EDH decks using my favourite characters and backgrounds!! Does the success of the game give an increased chance of another D&D set? Regardless, please give high-fives to the relevant people who created the set and Background mechanic!

High fives shall be given. Whether or not we do more D&D sets is due to a giant number of factors, but D&D successes only help.

It's hard for me to imagine a commander draft set without partner, backgrounds, or a similar mechanic. But as has been said those are hard to balance. Do you think it would be a good idea to create a mechanic that let's you partner them in draft but not constructed? Similar to cards from conspiracy? Or do you think it is best to just keep inventing new versions of partner?

Partner, and partner variants, aren’t necessarily the only way to do it.

Hiya Mark!I know someone asked about backgrounds earlier. I was really excited with how they came out to he honest. Do you think backgrounds create a more balanced form of partner? Or does it create more issues?

They cause less issues than partners, but have their own issues.

So for all the Battles could you give a small description or fact for those that don't know what the worlds about? Like Segovia is miniature world, Muraganda is prehistoric world, Vryn is Jace's homeworld. I really want to know more about what's going on with Xerex or Azgol and the rest that have only appeared in Planes before and never in story. And then lesser known worlds like Shandalar or Vryn for the newer players that never heard of them before MOM. Either here or as a future article?

I have a three-part article, starting on Monday, where I go through all thirty-six battles. I explain the history of the world and walk through how we designed the card, including walking through references to the plane.

Hi Mark! Is it possible that we'll ever see a card type similar to Backgrounds that can be used with any legendary creature? I just think it would be really cool to give new life to old legendary creatures / commanders by having cards which could add to their color identity.

Open ended combinatorics are dangerous.

Do art stickers have white stroke around them, or are they on a transparent background?

White stroke, I believe.