When desiging the One Ring, where would you say designers were aiming for on the Storm scale to make sure it saw play?I know the storm scale isn't normally used this way but I wondered if you could use it like this because I was curious if the designers were like, "yeah, this needs to be an 9 (or even a full storm) because this is The One Ring" or anything comparable.

That’s not at all how we think about it.

"Universes Beyond might be the latest topic, but this is a note I've gotten many times over the years. A player writes to me that they love the game, but there's this element in the game that they have problems with."Universes Beyond is a new kind of problem because there are a lot of games doing it. Its hard to describe, so here's an example:Imagine you're playing chess. Now take all of black's pawns and replace them with M&Ms, and all of white pawns with Barbie dolls. Now when you play the game, you're still playing chess. But it doesn't feel like chess, nor does it necessarily make the game better. If you're a competitive player, then this kind of thing isn't avoidable. In Modern, Bowmasters and The One Ring are everywhere.If anything, and this is probably super rich coming from me, I would actually be okay with Universe Beyond if it was strictly legal only in Commander with Modern and the others left out.Playing Magic is fun. But Universe Beyond isn't Magic.

It isn’t Magic to you. And that’s a fine stance. You get to define what Magic is to you. Play with whatever Magic cards you feel embody Magic. But you don’t get to define that unilaterally. To many people Universes Beyond cards are Magic. There’s a similar treatment to Un-cards. Some players don’t think of them as being Magic, but many players do. I have someone who writes to me on occasion who firmly believes that any card not in the normal Magic frame isn’t a Magic card. My point is, and it’s one I’ve made for a longtime, I think Magic is better if people acknowledge other people’s take on Magic as equal and valid as their own. Universe Beyond isn’t Magic to you, but it is Magic to many people.

Can Universes Beyond affect Magic story and lore? (e.g. Strixhaven attacked by Voldemort, Garruk corrupted by the One Ring, etc.)

No.

Say if The One Ring was reprinted as the Mirari, would you be allowed to change burden counters to something else or would that be too much errata?

The rules text can’t change.

Hey Mark, is it possible for a card like The One Ring to be changed to "limit one per deck and sideboard." I think it would still see play and stop the multiple rings turn after turn. The card is fun, but being on the other side of 2-3 rings in a row is not.

The only format we restrict cards in is Vintage. (And I guess it’s the baseline for Commander.) Restricting cards greatly increases variance which we try not to do with formats that have comeptitive tournament play.

“Exile target artifact” is a rare effect for red, usually costing 4 mana. Cast into the Fire makes it for 2 mana. I know The One Ring is a threat in limited that demands answer… is there a reason to choose red and not green?

If a card can destroy a permanent type, it’s allowed to exile it (for the same cost) if the environment calls for it. That doesn’t mean it should have access all the time, but it’s allowed to make use of it where necessary.

I have to register my objection, flavor-and-themes-wise, to "The Ring tempts you". When that text was revealed months ago with no clue of what it meant, I thought it was cool. And I instantly thought what anyone would think: That being tempted by the ring is bad, or at least very dangerous! But no, it's some all-upside thing. That goes against the very core premise of what the One Ring IS. I'm no Tolkien scholar, but even I can say, that's thematically wrong.

It tempts you with power, but that makes you a greater target for bad things to happen to you. That’s pretty on flavor.

Mark, what printer in what printing house will/was the One Ring alter printed in? Inquiring hobbits want to know...

I don’t know and probably couldn’t tell you if I did.

The one ring is 1/1. What happens if noone ever opens it? People keep product sealed sometimes for decades. We may never know who has this card. What are your thoughts?

I guess we’ll see. We’re trying something new.

"Were you aware that originally the wedding band was only worn by the bride and it was a sign of ownership?" Yeah. That was the Jewish custom (and is still practiced in a small minority of Jewish communities), though I'm I think Christian weddings have long involved two rings. The ring was a sign that a woman was exclusively "set aside" for her husband. Of course, rituals and symbols renew with new generations. I trust you and your wife exchanged rings, assigning them a more egalitarian meaning?

Sorry, the one ring thing goes back on the Christian side as well. My wife and I each exchanged rings and we wrote our own vows to express what the whole ceremony meant to us.