[IKO] Lutri, the Spellchaser

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 4 years ago

image.png
So, this goes in every spellslinger EDH deck in existence.
Attachments
image.png

User avatar
CommanderMaster999
Posts: 718
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by CommanderMaster999 » 4 years ago

You guys are gonna get so mad at Sheldon



He's not even giving lutri a chance (banned)

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 4 years ago

honestly I'm glad. That would have been obnoxious as all-hell. Feels bad if he's in Arcane Maelstrom though

User avatar
RedCheese
Posts: 372
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RedCheese » 4 years ago

Makes sense that lutri will be banned. Its a must in every Izzet deck without restrictions that the mechanic supose to give.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 1725
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 4 years ago

Understandable. And really I agree 100% with the preemptive ban. But it's a shame since I was really hoping to get to play with a legendary otter. Hopefully there will be more legendary otters in the future. And maybe otter people. And otter tribal. Cute, huggable otter tribal. Also otters are creepy AF (really look it up... or don't... they really don't treat baby seals... uh... well... let's go with well).

User avatar
BOVINE
Legendary Creature – Ox
Posts: 147
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Nomadic

Post by BOVINE » 4 years ago

It's going over my head as to why this is pre-banned already / bannable at all — can someone help me out? Thank you.

Virtually all EDH decks meet this Companion requirement, so is having a Twincast that nuts?
B O V I N E

User avatar
RedCheese
Posts: 372
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RedCheese » 4 years ago

BOVINE wrote:
4 years ago
It's going over my head as to why this is pre-banned already / bannable at all — can someone help me out? Thank you.

Virtually all EDH decks meet this Companion requirement, so is having a Twincast that nuts?
Unlike the other companions, Lutri doesn't have any restrictions so add it to every izzet deck possible, making them 101 card decks.

Banning Lutri, the Spellchaser

We've never banned a card before its street release date, but we feel strongly compelled to do so for Lutri, the Spellchaser. It is a card unlike any other in Magic's history. While we are firm believers in giving cards their opportunity in the format, it's clear that Lutri would be banned almost immediately. It doesn't have an opportunity cost; you don't have to sacrifice a spot in the 100 in order to play it—meaning if you have the card and are playing the right colors, you can simply include it. It becomes a thing we're not fans of, namely a "must play." A big part of this decision is that we don't want players to acquire the card thinking it might remain legal. There was consideration for letting it loose for a quarter with the likely plan to ban it later just in case it was as bad as we thought, because from where we sit, Lutri as a 101st card is intensely problematic. In the end, this is a special case, and we think that the conservative approach is the better option.


This was the reason

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 4 years ago

Auto-includes are annoying, particularly at rare. This has no-opportunity cost, and so goes in every blue-red deck that doesn't have a companion. Everyone who could would shill out $20-$40 and their decks would just be strictly better. No deckbuilding, no decision, just "hey, I start at 8 cards now".

Magiqmaster
Posts: 89
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Magiqmaster » 4 years ago

Haven't they thought about this when they designed the card? How can something like that happen in 2020, with all the experience WotC has? Makes them look like amateurs IMO...

ilovesaprolings
Posts: 833
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by ilovesaprolings » 4 years ago

I would ban every companion in commander honestly. 101 card decks with a minicommander are not cool.

FetalTadpole
Posts: 18
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by FetalTadpole » 4 years ago

BOVINE wrote:
4 years ago
It's going over my head as to why this is pre-banned already / bannable at all — can someone help me out? Thank you.

Virtually all EDH decks meet this Companion requirement, so is having a Twincast that nuts?
Not A Twincast. A pile of Twincasts outside the game. There is no 1-of limit for cards outside the game.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 1725
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 4 years ago

Magiqmaster wrote:
4 years ago
Haven't they thought about this when they designed the card? How can something like that happen in 2020, with all the experience WotC has? Makes them look like amateurs IMO...
I know Maro has said several times (and I am going to be paraphrasing heavily) that while they may sometimes put cards that work in other formats in a standard legal set, the number one priority for all standard legal cards is to be standard legal cards. This is why a standard set planeswalker won't have the text "Can be your commander" for example. I am assuming the same philosophy is at work here. It is fine if this is banned in commander because it is meant to be played in standard.

Actually more than anything it seems like this card is specifically meant for limited given the build restriction cost.

User avatar
BOVINE
Legendary Creature – Ox
Posts: 147
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Nomadic

Post by BOVINE » 4 years ago

FetalTadpole wrote:
4 years ago
BOVINE wrote:
4 years ago
It's going over my head as to why this is pre-banned already / bannable at all — can someone help me out? Thank you.

Virtually all EDH decks meet this Companion requirement, so is having a Twincast that nuts?
Not A Twincast. A pile of Twincasts outside the game. There is no 1-of limit for cards outside the game.
Companion limits it to one casting at least.

Edit: thanks to whoever posted Sheldon's comments. Makes total sense now. Ubiquitousness is something to avoid.
B O V I N E

User avatar
Krishnath
Mechanical Dragon
Posts: 3565
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: A cave somewhere in Scandinavia

Post by Krishnath » 4 years ago

CommanderMaster999 wrote:
4 years ago
You guys are gonna get so mad at Sheldon



He's not even giving lutri a chance (banned)
Aw, I wanted it in my Riku deck. :(

Oh well, I'll just have to settle for taking 16+ turns in a row instead of 20+
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.

Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.

The Commander Legacy Project, Come say hello and give your thoughts.

Like to read? Love books and want to recommend one to your fellow forum users? Go here.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

How the hell would they even police this in non-EDH/Brawl? :P

User avatar
TheMagicWord
Posts: 83
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by TheMagicWord » 4 years ago

Guardman wrote:
4 years ago
But it's a shame since I was really hoping to get to play with a legendary otter. Hopefully there will be more legendary otters in the future. And maybe otter people. And otter tribal. Cute, huggable otter tribal.
Im sure your playgroup would let you use this otter as a commander or in the 99, since it's main brokenness is when its outside of a deck. I guess they couldnt ban a card when it is only NOT in your deck lol
Check out EDH Magic Online Magic Videos
Check out my The MTG Word instagram for pictures of crazy edh boardstates

User avatar
Candlemane
Posts: 123
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago

So, as many have stated on a few threads already, it's banned because it's not only a free extra card that is very well suited to URx decks and not even choosing to follow a restriction in Commander in relation to deck building, it's that it also has other implications I don't think have yet been discussed. Specifically, adding any recursion just makes it better like Dualcaster mage, except it's extra. It is not limited to be cast once, just once from outside the game. Another point to make is that they can't not do a blanket banned since the ban list for both Commanders and other cards was combined, which would cause other problems.

Frankly, WotC toying with this space is both cool and concerning. I didn't like Brawl as I saw it as trying to encroach on Commander but with them making more money off standard sets. A business they are, but this mechanic also strikes me a bit like that. I don't think they'll be limited to 1-ofs or anything in Standard or what have you, but if Brawl is going and we see these, it might be interesting to see what happens there as a small and probably small meaning test of these since the card pool is not as expansive. If they can be abused there for some reason in the limited pool of cards, then the banning would be overall correct, though I anticipate that with all the creatures spoiled so far as early as this is, this cannot be judged yet.

As far as I'm concerned, this has some quality that is Eminence like, and I'm not fond of those cards much either.

TLDR: Overall I think the ban comes from a place of the card being not a great fit for what EDH / Commander is supposed to be or intended, and I'm fine with the ban.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the interaction problem, either holding something back because it's there, or being unable to do anything to it outside the game. Emblems are like this, but you (usually) have to work to get one. These are free.
Paper EDH

Tameshi, Reality Architect
Sapling of Colfenor
Feather the Redeemed
Lynde, Cheerful Tormentor
Thalia and Gitrog
Xryis, the Writhing Storm

User avatar
Krishnath
Mechanical Dragon
Posts: 3565
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: A cave somewhere in Scandinavia

Post by Krishnath » 4 years ago

Candlemane wrote:
4 years ago
TLDR: Overall I think the ban comes from a place of the card being not a great fit for what EDH / Commander is supposed to be or intended, and I'm fine with the ban.
Apparently WotC knew it was likely to get banned in commander, and intended to ban it in Brawl anyway. The card was not made for singleton formats, but rather for Standard. They wanted its effect in Standard, and knew that standard could handle it. But they also knew it would be a problem in singleton formats. They even gave a heads up to the CRC beforehand so they could discuss it internally before the official reveal. As Maro has often said, not every card is for every format. :)
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.

Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.

The Commander Legacy Project, Come say hello and give your thoughts.

Like to read? Love books and want to recommend one to your fellow forum users? Go here.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Previews”