Hey, Mark, I'm not to make another UB-related request. This isn't coming from an anti-UB place, and it's just one Goose's opinion, but I'm sure there are others who feel this way.Can we get rid of flavor words, please? I haven't seen a single upside to them presented, just downsides:

• For decades, one of MtG's biggest strengths was capturing the ludonarrative. Having to spell it out makes it seem like you all have lost confidence in your ability to make card design that makes sense with the captured flavor.
• If a design is intended to be funny (the Street Fighter cards come to mind), it feels like you're pointing at the "joke" and saying "See? Please laugh." As a person who has a comedy background, I'm sure you understand why killing the frog is bad.
• Death of the epithet: The most minor of the criticisms, but I really think "Ian Chester, Science Teacher" reads better than "Ian Chester" and then calling his ability "science teacher." (I may be mixing up the WHO teachers, but this applies to both, luckily.) Epithets also make it easier to depict multiple "moments" of a character without giving a card up as the "definitive" version of that character.
• It feels like you don't trust players to get why the card text is what it is. Telling your audience you don't expect them to be smart (or rather, literate) enough to "get" it doesn't really help. I've seen people say they add flavor to the cards, but the flavor isn't diminished by removing the flavor words (flavor is when things are fleshed out and living, not when things are spelled out). If it's for fans of the IP, then they already get it (Oh, the activated ability that grants flying is referencing this character's rocket propulsion). Non-fans of the IP aren't benefited either, as they will sus out said character has rocket propulsion or be left completely in the dark (see Cult of Skaro: These words do nothing to tell me about the ability. If you were to leave them out, I'd still be able to sus out that each ability corresponds to one of the four Daleks depicted).
• Lastly, they make cards harder to read. When trying to grok a card, there should be as few words as possible I'm supposed to ignore.

Flavor words can do some things that we can’t replicate elsewhere. I agree they can be overused, and are not always used optimally, but I don’t think we want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If you were to remove the counter from Baron Von Count, does it basically turn him off until it can enter the battlefield again?

Yes.

Judge? As far as Baron von Count is concerned, if a spell I cast has a value perpetually modified (such as by Hex, Kellan's Companion), do I check the printed value or the new value for the desired number?

We’re getting into theoretical space as the two don’t exist in the same play space. If a card is permanently changed such that the actual card text is something new, Baron von Count would hypothetically look at what’s on the card and that would be the newer thing.

You have mentioned before the idea of old silver-border cards becoming eternal legal. An idea that I’ve wondered about is the possibility of new cards representing some of the harder to translate ones using new mechanics that have been implemented/innovated since the set’s release.For example, Baron Von Count could be remade using an emblem like “the ring tempts you”, and Grusilda could be pretty closely replicated with Mutate. I love the design of a lot of the Unstable legends, so being able to more comfortably use them at Commander night would be nice.

All the changes you mention would be pretty significant, and thus, highly unlikely.

Hello! I was wondering...
If you play an X spell, where X is anywhere between one and five, does that trigger Baron Von Count? Or does the numeral have to be on the original card?

It has to printed on the card.

Will Foreboding Statue trigger the 5 on a Baron Von Count?

Yes. That’s considered “the text box”.

Hey How's it Goin Maro! I have an UN rules question : About the interaction of Everythingamajig (a)'s first ability (2, ⤵️: Move a counter from one permanent onto another. If the second permanent refers to any kind of counter, the moved counter becomes one of those counters. Otherwise, it becomes a +1/+1 counter) and Baron Von Count's Doom Counters, Could a counter moved onto the Baron be a second Doom Counter & could it be placed on a different numeral than the original Doom counter? Or would a Doom Counter simply sit on Baron Von Count with no functionality?

It would have no functionality.

If I Use Baron Von Count to destroy a player while I have an Abyssal Persecutor on the battlefield, does that prevent them from being destroyed or are they simply destroyed without loosing? If it's the latter, can I then use Princess Twilight Sparkle to cause a destroyed player to win or are they no longer considered to exist for the purposes of that effect?

It keeps them from being destroyed as being destroyed is losing.

Hi, Mark, I have an Un-Rules question. For Baron Von Count, would the misprint Corpse Knight that is a 2/3 count as a 2 and 3 or since it is a misprint just be a 2 for purposes of the Good Baron's ability? If so, it would be great for him, since a 1 is also in its text box.

Silver border cards look at the specific card in question when looking for components, so for purposes of the Count, the misprint has a 2 and a 3.

Mark, I’m in my 3rd year of teaching and it is 4 days after my 25th birthday. For my birthday trivia, could I get some new trivia about my #1 favorite Un-mander, Baron Von Count?

Door to Nothingness’s activated ability originally read “Destroy target creature or player”, but I couldn’t get the Rules Manager to sign off on it, so I saved it for the next Un-set. It took a while, but finally I got “destroy target player” onto a Magic card. Happy Birthday!