Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

[Gashnaw]

So when are they banning sol ring? I mean why ban a card that can work in every deck?

[papa_funk]

What is RC's opinion on Drannith Magistrate?

[ISBPathfinder]

What is RC's opinion on Drannith Magistrate?

It doesn't stop commanders already in play so it has to be played ahead of time and all of your opponents will have incentive to remove it. Its annoying but the same could be said about a lot of cards. Needing to have answers is part of this game against some effects. I don't foresee it being anything that will be banned but I guess lets see what it does.

Given that you still get to play your whole deck, I think its probably going to be fine. Run more answers people.

[ilovesaprolings]

It doesn't stop commanders already in play so it has to be played ahead of time and all

Oh man, that's such a big drawback on a 2-mana card...
Honestly it looks he will be Iona #2. People defending him are using the same arguments. And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

[pokken]

What is RC's opinion on Drannith Magistrate?

Yeah, I don't see the parallels there; if there was a 2 mana creature that was fastbond or a creature that did balance on ETB I think it'd be a lot closer. Shaman has to tap to activate which makes it *significantly* different.

Maybe if there was a creature that was the back half of limited resources?

It doesn't stop commanders already in play so it has to be played ahead of time and all

Oh man, that's such a big drawback on a 2-mana card...
Honestly it looks he will be Iona #2. People defending him are using the same arguments. And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

So for me, I really like it as a hate effect for past in flames and food chain. The aspect of it that craps on commanders is something I could completely deal without.

Most of the things this card stops are really annoying over the top effects like maelstrom wanderer and mizzix's mastery.

As a fair hatebear I really dig it. But I likely will not play it because of the commander rider.

[bobthefunny]

Oh man, that's such a big drawback on a 2-mana card...
Honestly it looks he will be Iona #2. People defending him are using the same arguments. And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

I think calling him Iona #2 is quite a jump. If you're playing white, and someone drops Iona, not only can you not play your commander - you can't play a portion of your deck, including Swords to Plowshares and other potential removal.

This guy... just doesn't do that.

Can he be annoying? Sure. He'll bug the heck out of me. But he's certainly not an Iona.

[ilovesaprolings]

Can he be annoying? Sure. He'll bug the heck out of me. But he's certainly not an Iona.

He can shut down the fundamental part of the format for the whole table.
He's not Iona, but he's also not a 9 mana card.

I'm seriously thinking to put him in all my white decks. In Gishath for example, he has 0 synergy, but for only i can either slow down my opponent or let them waste a removal that would otherwise be aimed at Gishath or another big-cost dinosaur.
... i won't do it because i don't hate my friends

[DirkGently]

So when are they banning sol ring? I mean why ban a card that can work in every deck?

I have a few decks (out of the over 100 I've built) which I don't think sol ring is worth running in. It does happen.

It's the second best card in the format (depending on power level I suppose), but it still has downsides. When you draw it, you could have drawn something else. When Lutri is your companion, you give up absolutely nothing (well, technically the option to play a different companion, but that's only true if your deck met the requirements which it almost certainly doesn't).

He can shut down the fundamental part of the format for the whole table.

So does peacekeeper.

Anyone think we need an emergency peacekeeper ban?

I don't think he's very fun and I'm sure I'll have some annoying games where he sticks around for too long, but he's probably not ban-worthy.

[TheGildedGoose]

And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

Can't this sentiment be had against any form of removal, counterspells, or other forms of control? Magistrate is fine.

[onering]

I definitely don't disagree that wotc's monetary interest can sometimes hurt the format. There's a ton of examples of that, for sure.

I just don't think companion is that, at all (for that matter, neither is partner or extort). It's not going to hurt commander as a format. It's way too tame, from what we've seen. What I think it actually is, maybe, is trying to trick commander players into playing standard since they get to play a pseudo-commander there. If I wanted to go really tin-foil-hat, I'd say that maybe Lutri was intentionally made bannable, so that commander players who want to play the cutesy-wootsy otter would consider making a standard deck around it instead...which also just so happens to be really similar to constructing a brawl deck, thus drawing them more into the competitive magic scene. You wanna talk conspiracies, that's one that I think is actually plausible (but also not particularly malicious imo, competitive magic is fun too).

I'm not very familiar with the online banlist. I think I've heard of it, but I forgot about it since I don't play online. I suspect that, regardless how well-made a wotc curated banlist would be, it would never catch on since most people just want to port their paper decks over. But maybe it also sucks, idk.

It allowed Braids and the flip moonfolk as commanders, for one. It was pretty awful.

[onering]

Magistrate seems much more comparable to Karakas than Iona to me. If Magistrate is OK, we need to ask why Karakas is not.

Karakas will only hit one player at a time while Magistrate is all opponents. Given that Karakas is a land, its much more difficult to remove than a creature, and that alone is likely enough to keep it banned, but its opportunity cost is also lower as it etbs untapped and taps for colored mana, and only hitting one player a turn isn't a big deal as it can be used reactively, only being activated when a commander is swinging at its controller or a combo involving a commander is about to happen. It also shuts down commanders that are already on the field, while Magistrate does not unless you can remove them first. Karakas also has strong synergies with any white commander with an etb or ltb effect, and can just protect your commander in a pinch when you've already payed commander tax a few times.

Given all this, Karakas seems to have more potential to create problems than magistrate, and would be an auto include if unbanned. Therefore, it makes sense for Karakas to be banned and Magistrate to not be, despite Magistrate's problematic effect being the same (not allowing commanders to stick). It seems to me like it deserves a chance, as the differences are large enough that they may keep the card from playing out as poorly as Karakas would. If it suddenly is in every W deck and games where it shows up it shows up early and just shuts people's commanders out of the game with regularity, I'd consider that a negative impact on the format and would want to see it banned, but right now I don't think racing to drop it asap is a good idea because I do think removal will keep it in check.

[MeowZeDung]

The thing about Drannith Magistrate is that it's not so much an effect that needs to be reckoned with. Rather, it is an effect that is reckoning with an already existing problem in Commander, IMO. Remember the "Power creep in the command zone" thread that was kicking around here recently? Frankly, I think magistrate is a perfectly reasonable response to our current format full of Chulanes, Korvolds, Gitrogs, Muldrothas, Yaroks, Golos's, etc. With so many "that must die or we lose" commanders hitting tables, is it really that unreasonable that the worst color in the format would get a nice efficient tool to help it survive for a little while?

As far as it being miserable to play against, it's nowhere near as painful as other stax pieces IMO, and if your deck is 99 cards that are utterly worthless without your commander in play, you've got bigger problems. It does hose voltron decks pretty hard, I'll give you that. Frankly, I don't see magistrates surviving turn cycles that often though.

Edit: crosspost with @onering. Agreed Karakas would be a much bigger problem. Magistrate is essentially single use and will get hated off the table by each other player in most cases. I think the situations where it is more oppressive than your run of the mill counterspell will be less common than you think. Everybody packs removal and board wipes.

[RxPhantom]

What is RC's opinion on Drannith Magistrate?

I don't understand the connection here either. Does the Magistrate have similar text to a card on the banlist, but being a creature makes it ok? Help me understand the point you're making.

It doesn't stop commanders already in play so it has to be played ahead of time and all

Oh man, that's such a big drawback on a 2-mana card...
Honestly it looks he will be Iona #2. People defending him are using the same arguments. And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

The Magistrate is a 1/3 with no built-in way to protect itself. Comparing it to Iona is a bit much. Magistrate doesn't actively prevent you from dealing with it. On top of that, I'm sure the rest of the table will be eager to kill it.

[DirkGently]

It allowed Braids and the flip moonfolk as commanders, for one. It was pretty awful.

My suspicion is that, if anyone makes a banlist for commander that legalizes things which are illegal on the RC banlist, you can expect a really high percentage of people to play those things. Either because they're just curious to try something they otherwise can't, or because they're intentionally coming to that platform to try what they've been forbidden in paper. If that banlist was, and had always been, the one the RC uses, do you think you'd see braids or erayo very often? Probably not, the social contract tends to force those sorts of things out.

I can easily imagine a parallel universe where winter orb is banned by the RC, and wotc made a MODO banlist that didn't include winter orb, and people would say "it was terrible, it allowed winter orb!"

[Gashnaw]

So when are they banning sol ring? I mean why ban a card that can work in every deck?

I have a few decks (out of the over 100 I've built) which I don't think sol ring is worth running in. It does happen.

It's the second best card in the format (depending on power level I suppose), but it still has downsides. When you draw it, you could have drawn something else. When Lutri is your companion, you give up absolutely nothing (well, technically the option to play a different companion, but that's only true if your deck met the requirements which it almost certainly doesn't).

many years ago only 8 decks would be able t run Lutri, only because you could not produce the color outside your commander's color identity. Since that chnage as long as you have a way to produce the red and/or blue needed, You could play Lutri. Some decks may see no need for him. And some decks may wish for him. My dragon deck has only 6 spells that would benefit from Lutri. (and 3 more for stack manipulation) But even bu themselves they do not need him. Questing Beast on the other hand cannot produce the colors needed, (And even if it could, it runs fogs, 2 instances of fog will not make the fogs better.)

so yeah, some decks will run it sure, and some might not. You say you don;t always use sol ring, well lutri will not always be used. Yet they banned him without even seeing how busted he will be. So I will ask m playgroup if they will let me test him, just to see how damaging he is.

[DirkGently]

many years ago only 8 decks would be able t run Lutri, only because you could not produce the color outside your commander's color identity. Since that chnage as long as you have a way to produce the red and/or blue needed, You could play Lutri. Some decks may see no need for him. And some decks may wish for him. My dragon deck has only 6 spells that would benefit from Lutri. (and 3 more for stack manipulation) But even bu themselves they do not need him. Questing Beast on the other hand cannot produce the colors needed, (And even if it could, it runs fogs, 2 instances of fog will not make the fogs better.)

so yeah, some decks will run it sure, and some might not. You say you don;t always use sol ring, well lutri will not always be used. Yet they banned him without even seeing how busted he will be. So I will ask m playgroup if they will let me test him, just to see how damaging he is.

Man, sometimes gashnaw, I really wonder about you...

OBVIOUSLY I mean decks that CAN LEGALLY PLAY HIM.

Even with zero instants/sorceries in the deck, he's still worth playing as a companion, even just as a 3/2 flash for 3, because something is better than nothing. Sol ring, good as it is, always replaces something else in your deck. Lutri replaces nothing. That's why it's a problem.

[MeowZeDung]

Even with zero instants/sorceries in the deck, he's still worth playing as a companion, even just as a 3/2 flash for 3, because something is better than nothing. Sol ring, good as it is, always replaces something else in your deck. Lutri replaces nothing. That's why it's a problem.

This. It's essentially a chump blocker or combat ambush at any point in the game without investing a card slot, draw step, opportunity cost, etc., just as a reward for playing U/R.

[ISBPathfinder]

It doesn't stop commanders already in play so it has to be played ahead of time and all

Oh man, that's such a big drawback on a 2-mana card...
Honestly it looks he will be Iona #2. People defending him are using the same arguments. And i am just here wondering "why would anyone want to play against this? Why would anyone want to play this besides making other people's game miserable?"

Iona stopped people from answering her and the primary purpose of Iona was to shut down mono colored decks. Its not even close. I can't even tell you the number of times I got singled out by Iona and almost nobody else was hurt by it and I got to sit in a corner unable to play the game at all. This hits everyone and still gives you full access to your deck. That isn't even a close comparison. Iona stops the person who its impacting the most from being able to answer her as well.

The reason to play it is to disrupt and slow down opponents. You play it right as you foresee someone casting their commander and you essentially deprived that person of a turn or more potentially assuming their deck looks to have a linear commander centric strategy. Iona was there to stop people from playing and she stopped you from answering her as well. I don't see any comparison at all. Its a lot more adiquate to compare this to maybe Imprison in the Moon if you ask me. Sure its two mana but what if you draw it off curve? What if your opponents have cheap commanders, are playing control, or not a commander centric deck?

This seems to me to punish proactive commander centric decks but even then, it affects all your opponents meaning you should expect everyone to try to answer it as well.

What is RC's opinion on Drannith Magistrate?

I don't understand the connection here either. Does the Magistrate have similar text to a card on the banlist, but being a creature makes it ok? Help me understand the point you're making.

His point is that Shaman was a card a lot of people panicked about before it came out and then we really haven't heard much about it since then. The concern about Biorhythm is generally the immediate impact of the card but when given restrictions, a huge mana cost, and the need for haste / flash it really isn't the same. People panicked when it was spoiled but since then its made very few waves.

[RxPhantom]

<snip>

I guess I don't remember anyone caring about Shaman. I certainly didn't when it was announced.

[ISBPathfinder]

I guess I don't remember anyone caring about Shaman. I certainly didn't when it was announced.

For the most part, the RC doesn't want to panic about new things until they see the impact it has. Its EXTREMELY rare for the RC to move before a card has been out for at least a set.

[onering]

It allowed Braids and the flip moonfolk as commanders, for one. It was pretty awful.

My suspicion is that, if anyone makes a banlist for commander that legalizes things which are illegal on the RC banlist, you can expect a really high percentage of people to play those things. Either because they're just curious to try something they otherwise can't, or because they're intentionally coming to that platform to try what they've been forbidden in paper. If that banlist was, and had always been, the one the RC uses, do you think you'd see braids or erayo very often? Probably not, the social contract tends to force those sorts of things out.

I can easily imagine a parallel universe where winter orb is banned by the RC, and wotc made a MODO banlist that didn't include winter orb, and people would say "it was terrible, it allowed winter orb!"

So what you are doing here, having not experienced the format, is speculating that it probably wasn't that bad, despite being told by someone who did experience the format that it was really bad. I just gave an egregious example of how it sucked. They also unbanned Prime Time and Prophet, so everyone got to experience those cards getting repeatedly stolen and reanimated again. They also banned numerous cards that are legal under the current banlist (their banlist was significantly longer), including Baral and Vial Smasher. They did eventually reban Braids and Erayo, because no, social pressure didn't handle the problem. Sylvan Library was banned. Humility was banned. Limited Resources wasn't. It was a banlist that was initially forced onto casual multiplayer that completely ignored casual multiplayer to focus on 1v1 tournament play, and they never actually got it to a place where it accomplished that (likely impossible) goal.

I'd agree that in paper, in a set playgroup or relatively close knit store, the social contract would indeed work to force that %$#% out. It doesn't in pick up games between strangers, especially online.

[DirkGently]

So what you are doing here, having not experienced the format, is speculating that it probably wasn't that bad, despite being told by someone who did experience the format that it was really bad.

Apologies if I gave you that impression, that's not at all what I meant. Simply that I think it would be very difficult to create a banlist different than the RC version without creating bad experiences, no matter what that banlist is. Because all the people who are having a fine time playing commander in the spirit in which it's currently played mostly wouldn't bother, so those who are interesting in your variant banlist would likely be those looking to break it.

Limited Resources wasn't.

Ok that's a real bad idea right there lol. Like if I could only have one card on the banlist it might be LR. I could see erayo or braids being ok for groups that want that sort of thing but LR seems like a bad time every time.

I think casual play would probably force our LR but exacerbated by my theorem above ^, I can't imagine that worked out very well online.

It doesn't surprise me that wotc would want to focus on 1v1. I'm not sure hardly anyone at wotc really deeply understands multiplayer dynamics very well. Mark Rosewater certainly doesn't (which is fine, just, y'know, keep him designing normal sets).

[vandertroll]

I think that if your deck can't remove a 1/2 white creature with no protection, you should reconsider your deckbuilding strategies. In my opinion you can't compare magistrate with the otter, a card that's outside the game, has flash and provides instant value on etb. Could they ban Lutri as a companion and allow it as a card within the deck or as a commander? Yes, but since there is no longer that option, I think they did well.

[cryogen]

Friendly reminder: This thread is an announcement/response thread to the otter that never was. Please use the ban list thread or the SCD in the rules sub if you want to discuss Drannith.

[onering]

So what you are doing here, having not experienced the format, is speculating that it probably wasn't that bad, despite being told by someone who did experience the format that it was really bad.

Apologies if I gave you that impression, that's not at all what I meant. Simply that I think it would be very difficult to create a banlist different than the RC version without creating bad experiences, no matter what that banlist is. Because all the people who are having a fine time playing commander in the spirit in which it's currently played mostly wouldn't bother, so those who are interesting in your variant banlist would likely be those looking to break it.

Limited Resources wasn't.

Ok that's a real bad idea right there lol. Like if I could only have one card on the banlist it might be LR. I could see erayo or braids being ok for groups that want that sort of thing but LR seems like a bad time every time.

I think casual play would probably force our LR but exacerbated by my theorem above ^, I can't imagine that worked out very well online.

It doesn't surprise me that wotc would want to focus on 1v1. I'm not sure hardly anyone at wotc really deeply understands multiplayer dynamics very well. Mark Rosewater certainly doesn't (which is fine, just, y'know, keep him designing normal sets).

I actually think WotC learned their lesson here. The whole experiment came off as arrogant. Since then they've seemed to abandon the concept of monetizing commander in that way, and Brawl is the answer to that. Brawl still sells product to commander players without actually competing with the format, and allows for a commanderesque format that they can actually balance for 1v1 play (limited card pool, less randomization due to 60 card decks, the ability to control what generals are available, etc.). People who want commander leagues online are mostly fine with Brawl leagues, and commander gets to be what its supposed to be.

I trust wizards to screw up again, but not in the same way, not by trying to usurp the RC or fiddle with banlists.