Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

papa_funk
Posts: 49
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by papa_funk » 4 years ago

RxPhantom wrote:
4 years ago
ISBPathfinder wrote:
4 years ago
<snip>
I guess I don't remember anyone caring about Shaman. I certainly didn't when it was announced.
We had lots of calls to insta-ban it when it was revealed. There's a card or two in every set where this happens. They're always fine. Maybe this will be the exception, but I know where my money would be.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
We had lots of calls to insta-ban it when it was revealed. There's a card or two in every set where this happens. They're always fine. Maybe this will be the exception, but I know where my money would be.
Your money would be on banning it, right? I'm really good at these guessing games.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 1127
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 4 years ago

I feel that this is a pretty reasonable ban. The card is essentially free to use in any URx deck since its companion is something you have to do for deck building anyways and it does something most URx decks wanna do anyways. Its effect probably would have been nuts

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

motleyslayer wrote:
4 years ago
I feel that this is a pretty reasonable ban. The card is essentially free to use in any URx deck since its companion is something you have to do for deck building anyways and it does something most URx decks wanna do anyways. Its effect probably would have been nuts
Can't use it in Persistent Petitioners or Grixis Relentless Rats. <EddieMurphysmart.gif>
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

I still think the number of people who would have run Lutri as a general or in the 99 (in a world where the companion mechanic didn't work) would be greater than the number of people who will run the other 9 as companions, and that's kind of a tragedy.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

I can't for the life of me figure out why WotC didn't have companions hang out in the command zone before they are cast. The command zone already exists in every format, because that's where emblems go. The biggest drawback would be that it could create confusion about which creature is your commander, but that's minor. Otherwise, it seems a lot more elegant, and sensible, than using the sideboard, because we've never had cards that interact with the game from the sideboard before, whereas we are used to cards in the command zone both being available to cast in game AND dictating deckbuilding restrictions. It also would have nearly avoided the current rules confusion in the community surrounding how the mechanic works in commander.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
I can't for the life of me figure out why WotC didn't have companions hang out in the command zone before they are cast. The command zone already exists in every format, because that's where emblems go. The biggest drawback would be that it could create confusion about which creature is your commander, but that's minor. Otherwise, it seems a lot more elegant, and sensible, than using the sideboard, because we've never had cards that interact with the game from the sideboard before, whereas we are used to cards in the command zone both being available to cast in game AND dictating deckbuilding restrictions. It also would have nearly avoided the current rules confusion in the community surrounding how the mechanic works in commander.
Don't emblems already live in the command zone for normal games?

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
I still think the number of people who would have run Lutri as a general or in the 99 (in a world where the companion mechanic didn't work) would be greater than the number of people who will run the other 9 as companions, and that's kind of a tragedy.
Doesn't seem equivalent at all. Every time someone uses a companion as a companion, they're functionally creating a whole new deck, between the extra pseudo-commander and the restriction on their deck. Every time someone uses Lutri in the 99, it's...well, just one of the 99.

There are over 20,000 cards in the game. One more card being available is a drop in the bucket. Partners offer the ability to try some really new and interesting things that will drastically change every deck they're used in.

Besides, there's at least 2 other otters you can play in the 99, so the argument from cuteness has been rendered moot.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Doesn't seem equivalent at all. Every time someone uses a companion as a companion, they're functionally creating a whole new deck, between the extra pseudo-commander and the restriction on their deck. Every time someone uses Lutri in the 99, it's...well, just one of the 99.

There are over 20,000 cards in the game. One more card being available is a drop in the bucket. Partners offer the ability to try some really new and interesting things that will drastically change every deck they're used in.

Besides, there's at least 2 other otters you can play in the 99, so the argument from cuteness has been rendered moot.
Given our recent argument about group hug, there's one otter I can play, and it fits into none of my decks, nor can it be my commander.

Say what you will, companion is a gimmick that will likely die out in a couple of months once people get bored with the novelty. I don't particularly find them interesting. This is something you're not going to sway my stance on. I can not, and will not agree with the RC on this one, no matter how "elegant" their rules fix is, much like the death of BaaC. You may find companion to be a more valuable addition to the game, I do not for many reasons I have listed previously, least of all that I don't agree with cards not included in the 100 of your decklist being legal, much like with wishes. We're at an impasse, you're gonna have to accept that.

It's not as if you haven't gotten what you wanted out of this whole thing anyways, but I think there is value in voicing opposition, as long as it's done in a manner that doesn't attack the RC.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
Given our recent argument about group hug, there's one otter I can play, and it fits into none of my decks, nor can it be my commander.
I mean, it's still a perfectly playable card. It's going into my collection because I could see playing it somewhere. I can sympathize with someone who just really wants to play something because it's cute. I have a harder time sympathizing with someone who wants to play something cute...but isn't willing to play it if it's not good enough. You're happy to change the rules so you can play something cute, but you're not willing to take a power hit.
Say what you will, companion is a gimmick that will likely die out in a couple of months once people get bored with the novelty.
I suspect they'll be like the quests in hearthstone. They're usually not super competitive, but brewers are frequently trying them out in new ways because it's interesting to have a card shift your archetype like that. I don't think they'll be hugely popular long-term, but I think they'll show up at least occasionally for the foreseeable future. I know when I make a deck that turns out to be too powerful, I'll probably start thinking "hmm, what if I tried to make it the 'all odd' version?"
I can not, and will not agree with the RC on this one, no matter how "elegant" their rules fix is, much like the death of BaaC.
I find your twin positions on this hypocritical. You don't like that they're allowing companion because you don't think it's going to actually be elegant (based on your quotes around "elegant"), but when BaaC was removed, which was objectively a streamlining of the rules, you're against it.

I find it really hard not to make the leap that your positions on these two fronts have a lot more to do with specific cards that you want to play, than on your interest in the elegance of the rules.

If that was your position - I wish the rule was different because I want to play Lutri - then you'd find no argument from me.
It's not as if you haven't gotten what you wanted out of this whole thing anyways, but I think there is value in voicing opposition, as long as it's done in a manner that doesn't attack the RC.
That much I'll agree with.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Airi wrote:
4 years ago
Given our recent argument about group hug, there's one otter I can play, and it fits into none of my decks, nor can it be my commander.
I mean, it's still a perfectly playable card. It's going into my collection because I could see playing it somewhere. I can sympathize with someone who just really wants to play something because it's cute. I have a harder time sympathizing with someone who wants to play something cute...but isn't willing to play it if it's not good enough. You're happy to change the rules so you can play something cute, but you're not willing to take a power hit.
I'll ask you to find a spot for the otter that doesnt go against the very fiber of my play philosophy, and then find a way to put it in the command zone. The only deck it does kind fit is the one deck that actually does care about its power (Yuriko) because I need something to play with stronger decks (and I still might run it there, but that's at the cost of one of my other 'fun' adds).

IF I make a deck where the otter fits, its first on the list, trust me. But I still cant run it as a commander.
Say what you will, companion is a gimmick that will likely die out in a couple of months once people get bored with the novelty.
I suspect they'll be like the quests in hearthstone. They're usually not super competitive, but brewers are frequently trying them out in new ways because it's interesting to have a card shift your archetype like that. I don't think they'll be hugely popular long-term, but I think they'll show up at least occasionally for the foreseeable future. I know when I make a deck that turns out to be too powerful, I'll probably start thinking "hmm, what if I tried to make it the 'all odd' version?"
and you'll forgive me if I dont find that good enough. They remind me a lot of the odd or even legends. It did not actually make for interesting decks, it just made "Control Warrior 2: Electric Boogaloo". That's fine though, we dont have to see eye to eye on their value.
I can not, and will not agree with the RC on this one, no matter how "elegant" their rules fix is, much like the death of BaaC.
I find your twin positions on this hypocritical. You don't like that they're allowing companion because you don't think it's going to actually be elegant (based on your quotes around "elegant"), but when BaaC was removed, which was objectively a streamlining of the rules, you're against it.
its in quotations because until proven otherwise, I do not think it will be elegant. Particularly with the hinting that's been going on around wish legality. It will likely be an upheaval of the existing rule around sideboards, which I do not find particularly elegant as a prospect.
I find it really hard not to make the leap that your positions on these two fronts have a lot more to do with specific cards that you want to play, than on your interest in the elegance of the rules.

If that was your position - I wish the rule was different because I want to play Lutri - then you'd find no argument from me.
My position is multifaceted. I want to play it because it is cute, and because it is the only Izzet general that perfectly fits into the Ral Zarek copy deck I want, while also being cute. I also want it because I do not want companion, or wishes to be legal, particularly when the mechanics necessitate the banning of cards. It is not one or the other. Were Lutri not a cute otter, I likely wouldn't be here at 11:30 on mobile making an impassioned response (I'd be doing it the next day, and probably wouldn't keep up the engagement on our duel, tbh) , but I'd still be opposed to how this entire thing has played out, and I would still be criticizing the decision.

I can hold both in my heart.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

I think your point about it there being more Lutri commander decks than decks with the other guys as companions is fairly apt. The other companions create weird gimmick decks and many of them are actively bad in addition to the weird deckbuilding rider. I doubt many of the decks will last the year.

Whereas I do think Lutri is a pretty fun commander for a lot of people's playstyles. Most of the izzet commanders that do this kinda thing are quite expensive, and Flash is extra fun on commanders.

Wallycaine
Posts: 764
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Wallycaine » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
I can't for the life of me figure out why WotC didn't have companions hang out in the command zone before they are cast. The command zone already exists in every format, because that's where emblems go. The biggest drawback would be that it could create confusion about which creature is your commander, but that's minor. Otherwise, it seems a lot more elegant, and sensible, than using the sideboard, because we've never had cards that interact with the game from the sideboard before, whereas we are used to cards in the command zone both being available to cast in game AND dictating deckbuilding restrictions. It also would have nearly avoided the current rules confusion in the community surrounding how the mechanic works in commander.
So there's two main reasons. One is that, if they put it in the command zone and not the sideboard, where does it live for the purposes of writing decklists? Remember, they have to accommodate the possibility that someone has a companion they sideboard out of or in to between matches, or picks between multiple companions. So it needs to live somewhere in the decklist, and the sideboard is traditionally where those sorts of cards live. Secondly, while Emblems technically exist in the command zone, none of the cards that create emblems actually reference it. So you'd be introducing new terminology that isn't needed to the majority of players.

User avatar
digitalfire
Posts: 19
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by digitalfire » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
digitalfire wrote:
4 years ago
onering wrote:
4 years ago
And those people will be idiots ... Wizards specifically attached complicated rules baggage to in order to force it's legality in commander
We're not idiots, we've been following along, it's rude of you to say otherwise.
I wasn't saying people would be idiots for losing confidence because Wizards is trying to assert control, I said that people who think this narrow move means wishes should work are idiots. It's disingenuous for you to snip the relevant part from your own quote to present my post out of context.
Sorry. I snip because I don't like giant quote blocks, not to be sneaky. I am also of the belief that if Companion works, so should wishes. Or, since wishes already don't work, Companion shouldn't. I'll explain why after this next quote:
papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
onering wrote:
4 years ago
For people who are following both, these cards have a brand new mechanic that wizards specifically attached complicated rules baggage to in order to force it's legality in commander.
OK, straw poll time. What is the total number of added words + deleted words that I had to do to the rules on the Commander page to make Companion work the way we wanted it to?

Answer on the 20th ;)
I don't think the wording of the rule itself really matters. Honestly, you could just modify Rule 11 to say "except Companion" and that works just fine to me. The decision to make an exception which requires rules baggage, not the complexity of the rules baggage itself, is the issue.
cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Sheldon wrote:Nothing was arbitrary. We believe restrictions breed creativity. Wishes and companion play in similar space but are not the same. Companion provides compelling restriction, referencing only itself. Wishes provide expansion, referencing other cards.
This seems wrong. Wishes and Companion are functionally in the same space, but because the intent is different, we should modify the rules for them?
onering wrote:
4 years ago
Whoa there, they did no such thing with extort, they simply failed to take into account that Commander doesn't check reminder text for color identity. It's an odd rules quirk.
Unrelated to the rest of my post, but they could (and should imo) hotfix Extort in Commander the way they are with Companion by saying "Cards with Extort must be played only in white AND black decks." I just always have to fight for this because aesthetics is the single most important thing to me in Magic, and Extort bothers me to no end.
Commander Decks
Sol Thief | Animar | Monogold

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

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago

cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Sheldon wrote:Nothing was arbitrary. We believe restrictions breed creativity. Wishes and companion play in similar space but are not the same. Companion provides compelling restriction, referencing only itself. Wishes provide expansion, referencing other cards.
This seems wrong. Wishes and Companion are functionally in the same space, but because the intent is different, we should modify the rules for them?
I just wanted to comment on this and another point. I also want to frame my reference as being against both wish boards and companion.

If companion is staying, yes there would need to be a clause for it because it is in fact a new thing. The occupying the same space is irrelevant to the argument of how they function.

As mentioned in the quote, companion limits decks even more for those who want to use them, excluding legendary oshawott, since that's no restriction to commander. However, wish boards can have the same limitation, but with a card pool behind them to choose from IN ADDITION in the 100-ish cards for a companion. Wishes add slots to a deck from all of magic. Companion does not do this.

The argument for a space in a zone is valid, but the argument for "wishes because of companion" is not viable beyond this point for the reason mentioned in both the quote and my text. It is a quick divergence into totally separate issues of use and power.
Paper EDH

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

User avatar
digitalfire
Posts: 19
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by digitalfire » 4 years ago

Candlemane wrote:
4 years ago
If companion is staying, yes there would need to be a clause for it because it is in fact a new thing. The occupying the same space is irrelevant to the argument of how they function.
If I'm understanding you right (and I'm not sure I am), I disagree. Here is Wizards explaining the Companion mechanic:
WotC wrote:You can have up to one chosen companion for each game. That chosen companion doesn't start in your main deck. Rather, it's a card in your sideboard. (If you're playing casually without sideboards, it's just in your collection outside the game. All the same rules apply to it.) This means it doesn't count as a card toward meeting the minimum deck size in the format you're playing, but in Constructed formats, it is one of your fifteen sideboard cards. Just before the game begins, reveal your chosen companion to all players. Once during the game, you may cast your chosen companion from your sideboard. Doing so follows all the normal rules for casting a creature spell, so do so only during your main phase.
So companions are in your sideboard, or in your collection if Commander is considered casual. Both of which don't function in Commander due to rule 11. So no, this isn't a new thing. The expected behavior of this mechanic is already well-defined. The RC is now choosing to modify the existing rules so that Companion works differently in Commander than in all other formats.
Commander Decks
Sol Thief | Animar | Monogold

MAGUSZANIN
Posts: 64
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MAGUSZANIN » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
I think your point about it there being more Lutri commander decks than decks with the other guys as companions is fairly apt. The other companions create weird gimmick decks and many of them are actively bad in addition to the weird deckbuilding rider. I doubt many of the decks will last the year.

Whereas I do think Lutri is a pretty fun commander for a lot of people's playstyles. Most of the izzet commanders that do this kinda thing are quite expensive, and Flash is extra fun on commanders.
So much this! And even if this wasn't true, it's still a good Dualcaster Mage variant and so would play well in the 99 of many other decks. I looked over the other Companions and I'm struck by a lot of creatures that would be ok, and maybe even good in the 99 but as a companion will be not be overly impressive.

Essentially, if it's good enough to be played as a companion, it's probably better to play it in the 99 and avoid the deck building restriction entirely. Is this the mechanic that we should be preemptively banning cards over? Wizards forcing this mechanic to work in Commander in direct violation of Rule 11, and the RC having a preemptive, emergency banning to enable that desire leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Like, there is no situation where emergency bans are a good thing. There is no situation where forcing one mechanic to work in way Y, when the text says it should work in way X is a good thing, and that goes double for when bans are used to enable that change. Allowing Rule 11 to stand as it is much more "Elegant" because it requires no actual effort, and sets no problematic precedents.

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

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago

digitalfire wrote:
4 years ago
Candlemane wrote:
4 years ago
If companion is staying, yes there would need to be a clause for it because it is in fact a new thing. The occupying the same space is irrelevant to the argument of how they function.
If I'm understanding you right (and I'm not sure I am), I disagree. Here is Wizards explaining the Companion mechanic:
WotC wrote:You can have up to one chosen companion for each game. That chosen companion doesn't start in your main deck. Rather, it's a card in your sideboard. (If you're playing casually without sideboards, it's just in your collection outside the game. All the same rules apply to it.) This means it doesn't count as a card toward meeting the minimum deck size in the format you're playing, but in Constructed formats, it is one of your fifteen sideboard cards. Just before the game begins, reveal your chosen companion to all players. Once during the game, you may cast your chosen companion from your sideboard. Doing so follows all the normal rules for casting a creature spell, so do so only during your main phase.
So companions are in your sideboard, or in your collection if Commander is considered casual. Both of which don't function in Commander due to rule 11. So no, this isn't a new thing. The expected behavior of this mechanic is already well-defined. The RC is now choosing to modify the existing rules so that Companion works differently in Commander than in all other formats.
Let me clarify. Under the rules of Commander, there would need to be an exception for the Companion cards because there is no sideboard allowed. I believe I made that context, but I apologize if it wasn't clear enough. I also begin to go into how wishes and companion are different in the quote, but I digress. In the regards to it being different and new, I refer only to the Companion mechanic here, and how it would need a new ruling because this hasn't been addressed before for something this specific. I will concede that your argument did allow me to cover something overlooked, but I think my point stands for now. I'm open to suggestions otherwise.

Otherwise, the post was much more about how even if wishes and Companions would occupy the same space or zone in Commander if it allowed for both, the difference in power is where the arguments for "because of this, that" fails, as so far in my very limited reading it hasn't been address, besides the text I quoted from Sheldon.
Paper EDH

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

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

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago


Like, there is no situation where emergency bans are a good thing. There is no situation where forcing one mechanic to work in way Y, when the text says it should work in way X is a good thing, and that goes double for when bans are used to enable that change. Allowing Rule 11 to stand as it is much more "Elegant" because it requires no actual effort, and sets no problematic precedents.
In the bold, this could be an argument, however small, against Planeswalker commanders. Some were given "can be your commnader", but is it not changing something to get what you want in a game? Granted, this argument is weak, but it's what jumped into me head at the time.

In a more relevant answer, its does save people money, especially in our current situations. I am against the Compainion mechanic for what I think I am understanding from your words, but I'm unsure. I think simply that they should be allowed as normal cards in the 99 or commander, and that's all. This does maybe mean the Otter would still be more expensive that its counterparts, but by much less than maybe would be under allowing the mechanic.
Paper EDH

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

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 4 years ago

Ok, I gave myself a bit longer to stew on this topic and I guess I think I agree that the RC needed to take action but I don't agree with the action taken. I think that the other Companions are fine as far as power level and the hoops you have to jump through to use them. What I don't like is that this mechanic shouldn't work in commander and the loop hole so to say to make them work feels like it isn't clean.

I think there will be some cool decks that come from it, but I think it delves into the sideboard and the reason why wishboards aren't normally allowed. I think it muddies the rules a bit much with too little to be gained by allowing them to be utilized.

In my mind, I think we either should have wishboards AND companions, or both should be blocked by the same restriction.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3984
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 4 years ago

ISBPathfinder wrote:
4 years ago
In my mind, I think we either should have wishboards AND companions, or both should be blocked by the same restriction.
Agreed, this seems the cleanest solution to the problem to me. This way you can still run any of them you want in the 99, just not as a 101st.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
I'll ask you to find a spot for the otter that doesnt go against the very fiber of my play philosophy, and then find a way to put it in the command zone. The only deck it does kind fit is the one deck that actually does care about its power (Yuriko) because I need something to play with stronger decks.

IF I make a deck where the otter fits, its first on the list, trust me. But I still cant run it as a commander.
To clarify, I'm talking about thieving otter. Maybe you are too, but it seems like you're talking about eon frolicker.

I could see putting thieving otter into, for example, vela the night-clad. There might also be a way to play it as a pinger, I haven't looked super hard.
and you'll forgive me if I dont find that good enough. They remind me a lot of the odd or even legends. It did not actually make for interesting decks, it just made "Control Warrior 2: Electric Boogaloo". That's fine though, we dont have to see eye to eye on their value.
They're similar to the odd/even cards in that they put strict restrictions on your deck (as compared to soft restrictions with quests), that's true. But the problem with genn and baku wasn't the core concept - it was that they were just too powerful and became omnipresent in the meta. If gen and baku were 10% of the meta nobody would have minded.

If these (somehow) end up being extremely powerful and become omnipresent, believe me, I'll be first in line campaigning for them to be banned or rulechanged. Before I knew Lutri was going to be banned I was pretty anti companions because I knew Lutri would become omnipresent.
its in quotations because until proven otherwise, I do not think it will be elegant. Particularly with the hinting that's been going on around wish legality. It will likely be an upheaval of the existing rule around sideboards, which I do not find particularly elegant as a prospect.
so I ask, if rule elegance is important to you, why do you want to keep BaaC, something that objectively makes the rules more complicated?
My position is multifaceted. I want to play it because it is cute, and because it is the only Izzet general that perfectly fits into the Ral Zarek copy deck I want, while also being cute. I also want it because I do not want companion, or wishes to be legal, particularly when the mechanics necessitate the banning of cards. It is not one or the other. Were Lutri not a cute otter, I likely wouldn't be here at 11:30 on mobile making an impassioned response (I'd be doing it the next day, and probably wouldn't keep up the engagement on our duel, tbh) , but I'd still be opposed to how this entire thing has played out, and I would still be criticizing the decision.

I can hold both in my heart.
OK, so what's your reasoning for not wanting companions to work that isn't based on Lutri specifically being banned? All you've stated is that you don't want them legal, not why, except for allusions to "rule elegance", which you don't seem to care about when it's restricting cards you want to play.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 4 years ago

toctheyounger wrote:
4 years ago
ISBPathfinder wrote:
4 years ago
In my mind, I think we either should have wishboards AND companions, or both should be blocked by the same restriction.
Agreed, this seems the cleanest solution to the problem to me. This way you can still run any of them you want in the 99, just not as a 101st.
I guess its possible they are waiting to see how they are received and respond a set+ down the line to them. But really they already made an adjustment to even make them playable given how they read they totally should not be playable from the companion standpoint as they were designed / the rules stated.

It just seems odd to make an exception for them and put in a ban for one of them due to making said exception. The cleanest outcome in my mind would have been to leave the companion part of them broken and nonfunctional or change the wishboard rules.

I really don't care much as to which outcome they would have taken, I am only complaining from the standpoint that it feels like a middle of the road concept was taken and that it doesn't feel coherent with existing rules. I guess I would lean slightly towards disabling companion because then the otter ban would be unnecessary.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3984
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 4 years ago

ISBPathfinder wrote:
4 years ago
toctheyounger wrote:
4 years ago
ISBPathfinder wrote:
4 years ago
In my mind, I think we either should have wishboards AND companions, or both should be blocked by the same restriction.
Agreed, this seems the cleanest solution to the problem to me. This way you can still run any of them you want in the 99, just not as a 101st.
I guess its possible they are waiting to see how they are received and respond a set+ down the line to them. But really they already made an adjustment to even make them playable given how they read they totally should not be playable from the companion standpoint as they were designed / the rules stated.

It just seems odd to make an exception for them and put in a ban for one of them due to making said exception. The cleanest outcome in my mind would have been to leave the companion part of them broken and nonfunctional or change the wishboard rules.

I really don't care much as to which outcome they would have taken, I am only complaining from the standpoint that it feels like a middle of the road concept was taken and that it doesn't feel coherent with existing rules. I guess I would lean slightly towards disabling companion because then the otter ban would be unnecessary.
Again, agreed. I actually can't see myself playing any of them myself as they seem really narrow, other than, obviously the otter.

But from a cleanliness standpoint, turning companion off from the standpoint of Commander seems easiest.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

MAGUSZANIN wrote:
4 years ago
So much this! And even if this wasn't true, it's still a good Dualcaster Mage variant and so would play well in the 99 of many other decks.
There are 20,000 cards, who cares. Play something else. It's what you did before Lutri was spoiled.
I looked over the other Companions and I'm struck by a lot of creatures that would be ok, and maybe even good in the 99 but as a companion will be not be overly impressive.

Essentially, if it's good enough to be played as a companion, it's probably better to play it in the 99 and avoid the deck building restriction entirely.
This is probably my most hated argument.

Is it probably stronger to play in the 99 without the deckbuilding restriction? Yeah, probably!

Is this a format where that matters? NOOOOOOOO.

Personally I look at the way companions will force people to limit the power of their decks in order to play them as a very, very good thing. You can have cool and fun, but you must sacrifice power. That is exactly the kind of tradeoff I want wizards to be offering commander players.
Wizards forcing this mechanic to work in Commander
not this stupid conspiracy crap again...
in direct violation of Rule 11
RULES CAN CHANGE. Rule 11 blows chunky chunks anyway. It's ugly and it's arbitrary.
There is no situation where forcing one mechanic to work in way Y, when the text says it should work in way X is a good thing
It's sure a good thing, then, that the rules will change so that it works as stated.
Allowing Rule 11 to stand as it is much more "Elegant" because it requires no actual effort
Ah yes, the elegance of the couch potato. The most beautiful pirouette...is the one that never actually happens.

Is this desire to glorify doing nothing a result of everyone sitting around inside for the next few months? hmm...
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”