Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

[WWolfe]

UPDATE

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.

mtgcommander.net

[folding_music]

agreed. can we still play it as the commander?

[WWolfe]

If it's banned in the format it's not legal in any capacity so it can't still be your commander.

[MrMystery314]

And Reddit is already up in arms. It probably wouldn't even be competitively viable (no Heat Shimmer combo, maybe in Storm, but not sure what you'd be copying), so no biggie.

[Feyd_Ruin]

Preemptive, like this ban: everyone is entitled to their opinion and can voice that opinion freely. But please do so respectfully and politely. <3

Imo, they should have simply gotten with WotC and changed how it works in Commander (counts for the 99, had to be Commander, etc). They did that with "Partners with", so it's not unreasonable.

[Airi]

I 100000% do not support a blanket ban here. It'd be one thing to prevent cards from being cast that are outside the game, but there's no way Lutri deserves to be unplayable as part of the 99 or as your commander.

[Maluko]

I 100000% do not support a blanket ban here. It'd be one thing to prevent cards from being cast that are outside the game, but there's no way Lutri deserves to be unplayable as part of the 99 or as your commander.

Agree. I don't know what kinds of talks happened between the Rules Committee and Wizards of the Coast, but I think this could've been dealt a lot more elegantly than preemptively banning a card. I understand why they did it, but this is a poorly designed solution (then again, so is the mechanic... they are obviously trying to bring Commander to competitive formats with this).

[cryogen]

I 100000% do not support a blanket ban here. It'd be one thing to prevent cards from being cast that are outside the game, but there's no way Lutri deserves to be unplayable as part of the 99 or as your commander.

Agree. I don't know what kinds of talks happened between the Rules Committee and Wizards of the Coast, but I think this could've been dealt a lot more elegantly than preemptively banning a card. I understand why they did it, but this is a poorly designed solution (then again, so is the mechanic... they are obviously trying to bring Commander to competitive formats with this).

My educated guess is that it was something along the lines of "hey we have this new mechanic what are your thoughts?".

[BeneTleilax]

I imagine wotc strongarmed them into enabling this mechanic, and tried to force a must-play card. The RC couldn't ban the mechanic, so they did what they could and banned the most obvious cash-grab of the bunch.

[RedCheese]

I wished it could have been used as 99 or as a commander, but i can accept that they don't want to open a can of worms, but still, like some special exception for it maybe?

[Sheldon]

I was involved in discussions about the mechanic and this card while I was there in Oct-Nov. This decision was complicated and nuanced. There are reasons why some seemingly good suggestions can't or won't work. Rest assured, no good argument regarding this issue begins with "You can just..."

[Airi]

I was involved in discussions about the mechanic and this card while I was there in Oct-Nov. This decision was complicated and nuanced. There are reasons why some seemingly good suggestions can't or won't work. Rest assured, no good argument regarding this issue begins with "You can just..."

With all due respect, it feels incredibly bad that a card that is perfectly fine in a deck is banned for being problematic outside of a deck. There's no recourse for those of us who dont want to use in as a companion card, but rather as a part of a deck.

[Mookie]

My first instinct when seeing Lutri, the Spellchaser was 'this card bothers me, because it's an autoinclude in every Izzet deck'. So I'm actually totally fine with the banning. I would prefer if it were just banned out of the sideboard (and legal in the command zone / 99) though.

....but now I can't have an Otter tribal deck! D:

[Dragonlover]

I thought the whole point was wishes don't work now, so this won't work. Or am I missing something here?

Dragonlover

[WWolfe]

Per the mechanics article off magic.wizards.com

So, the companions are legendary creatures who begin outside your starting deck and have great influence over the rest of your deck. Where have I heard this before? Ah yes, Commander. Commander players, even though you don't have sideboards, you can still get in on the fun. Each Commander deck may include a chosen companion. It starts outside the game and doesn't count as one of your 100 cards. Just like the rest of your deck, your commander must follow the deck-building rule if you're going to use a companion.

[pokken]

I really do not like this mechanic at all.

Feels like basically a rehash of commander slapped onto this format.

Hopefully they just don't allow them. Having access to yet another card all the time is super annoying.

[bobthefunny]

I mean, some people have been asking for a "lieutenant" slot for a while, so are we really surprised when Wizards finally finds a way to do it?

I'm still struggling with mixed first impressions on it, but from a conceptual side I see where Wizards was going with it.

Your Commander is a card that you have access to at all times, but also imposes a deck building requirement/restriction on you. A lieutenant, aside from having been requested at times before - is a natural extension. "What if you could have another card that's available to you, but on a smaller scale, with less impact?". It's like a Commander in that you have access to it, but only 'once', like other cards in your deck. To top it off, it also adds another deckbuilding requirement as a trade off, which is pretty flavorful.

I just don't understand how Lutri then got printed as is. It feels like this is a mechanic designed to tie in to Commander, but they designed Lutri where his drawback is immediately nullified in Commander. All the benefits, none of the drawbacks. That's just... a missed opportunity, and a conflict of intent. I'm rather disappointed by it, really.

====

I also find the templating weird in that they didn't simply have this card start in the Command Zone. The CZ does exist in 60 card formats - it's where emblems go. They could have used that instead, and made a rule that cards in CZ don't count to deck size in 60 card formats (to avoid 59 card decks). (they wanted it to take a sideboard slot in 60 card).

I was involved in discussions about the mechanic and this card while I was there in Oct-Nov. This decision was complicated and nuanced. There are reasons why some seemingly good suggestions can't or won't work. Rest assured, no good argument regarding this issue begins with "You can just..."

I hope that now that it's been spoiled that you have some freedom from the NDA and can maybe write an article with a bit about your experiences there and how this card discussion happened. I imagine some of it will always stay under wraps though, since potential future cards/mechanics, but it would be nice to see whatever we can.

[Maluko]

I thought the whole point was wishes don't work now, so this won't work. Or am I missing something here?

Dragonlover

I also don't understand this. If cards outside the game are not allowed, and Wishes don't work, why allow Companion? Why ban a poor elemental otter from being played at all because of a poorly designed mechanic for commander? I'm sorry, but I'm completely opposed to this solution. It makes absolutely zero sense that, in competitive formats, Companion cards go into the sideboard, where wishes are supposed to work, yet in Commander, they are allowed outside your collection, where wishes do not work? This is neither flavorful, elegant or coherent, and opens a terrible precedent for the format. What will happen if Wizards decides to print another mechanic or cards that work from outside game and would be an absolute blast to use in Commander?

[BeneTleilax]

It's like Extort. WotC can always threaten to take away the RC's control (or make another "commander but..." and start only making precons for that), and they use that to force the RC to allow certain mechanics. They knew Lutri would be a must-include in commander. They made it to be so. It just happened to be a bridge too far for the RC to have a cost-free autoinclude for every izzet deck ever.

[if4ko]

Seems fine, tbh. From the view, it seems like it's more of an issue of "This interacts poorly with the format" than "This is too powerful". It's a worse Dualcaster Mage.

I think it's very strange that any of the Companion cards even work, tbh. From my interpretation of the rules, this directly counters Rule 11 and the entire mechanic should be thrown out with the bathwater.

[ISBPathfinder]

So, I guess I don't understand what the issue is here. Its literally a two colored Dualcaster Mage with more limitations (it can't copy opponents spells).

Whenever anything talks about "owns outside of the game" it refers to sideboards which are not a thing in commander so.......... with my understanding Champion is just a mechanic that doesn't function for commander???? (I am not actually sure)

Maybe I am way off base?

[BeneTleilax]

So, I guess I don't understand what the issue is here. Its literally a two colored Dualcaster Mage with more limitations (it can't copy opponents spells).

Whenever anything talks about "owns outside of the game" it refers to sideboards which are not a thing in commander so.......... with my understanding Champion is just a mechanic that doesn't function for commander.

Maybe I am way off base?

WOTC forced the RC to allow companion, because auto-includes sell packs

[digitalfire]

Commander players, even though you don't have sideboards, you can still get in on the fun. Each Commander deck may include a chosen companion. It starts outside the game and doesn't count as one of your 100 cards. Just like the rest of your deck, your commander must follow the deck-building rule if you're going to use a companion.

So Wizards says it's in your sideboard for 60-card, but in Commander it's not in the sideboard? But... the Rules Committee has the power here. If they choose, they could say it IS in your sideboard and sideboards aren't allowed. That solution would be more elegant because it makes Companion work the same in all formats and is consistent with Rule 11.

Since they have chosen not to do that, why ban Lutri? Because it's an auto-include in decks containing red and blue? Sol Ring is an auto-include in every deck. It has the highest inclusion rate of any card at 81%. Meanwhile, the most auto-incude multi-colored (CI) card is Izzet Signet at 46%. (Source). So the RC has banned it, preemptively nonetheless, for being half as ubiquitous as another, more powerful, card?

[pokken]

Commander players, even though you don't have sideboards, you can still get in on the fun. Each Commander deck may include a chosen companion. It starts outside the game and doesn't count as one of your 100 cards. Just like the rest of your deck, your commander must follow the deck-building rule if you're going to use a companion.

So Wizards says it's in your sideboard for 60-card, but in Commander it's not in the sideboard? But... the Rules Committee has the power here. If they choose, they could say it IS in your sideboard and sideboards aren't allowed. That solution would be more elegant because it makes Companion work the same in all formats.

Since they have chosen not to do that, why ban Lutri? Because it's an auto-include in Izzet? Sol Ring is an auto-include in every deck. It has the highest inclusion rate of any card at 81%. Meanwhile, the most auto-incude multi-colored (CI) card is Izzet Signet at 46%. (Source). So the RC has banned it, preemptively nonetheless, for being half as ubiquitous as another, more powerful, card?

It's an autoinclude *that you always have access to* which is unprecedented other than your commander.

[Mookie]

Since they have chosen not to do that, why ban Lutri? Because it's an auto-include in Izzet? Sol Ring is an auto-include in every deck. It has the highest inclusion rate of any card at 81%. Meanwhile, the most auto-incude multi-colored (CI) card is Izzet Signet at 46%. (Source). So the RC has banned it, preemptively nonetheless, for being half as ubiquitous as another, more powerful, card?

Sol Ring isn't an auto-include - no existing cards are. It's certainly a staple that goes in most decks, but there is an opportunity cost to running it - one fewer card slots to run other cards instead. Simultaneously, you need to draw the card - it's not a particularly good topdeck in the lategame, for example.

Lutri has zero opportunity cost, because it's in your sideboard. It's not competing with other cards, and you don't even have to draw it. It's like saying 'if you're playing Izzet, your opening hand has 8 cards instead of 7'. There is no reason not to run it - it's not even competing for sideboard slots, because EDH doesn't have a sideboard.