[Speculation] Ban List Update Prediction Thread

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

Post by papa_funk » 4 years ago

freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
Companion may very well add new design space for decks. However, I don't think a change for a corner case (that is, allowing the companion mechanic to work in commander) is appropriate to allow that new design space to function in commander.
There's a world of difference between adding a rule to Commander only and slightly adjusting rules to make new Magic mechanics work.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 4 years ago

papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
Companion may very well add new design space for decks. However, I don't think a change for a corner case (that is, allowing the companion mechanic to work in commander) is appropriate to allow that new design space to function in commander.
There's a world of difference between adding a rule to Commander only and slightly adjusting rules to make new Magic mechanics work.
There's definitely a question of scope, sure. However, any change is still a change.

Then, the voice of the RC goes out and says that you all simply don't change the rules for corner cases. Can you explain how this change for a corner case (singular mechanic) doesn't violate the statement that you don't make changes for corner cases?

Further, why are changes needed to make singular mechanics work in Commander in the first place? To me, the current (as of 4/17/2020) rules seem like an excellently thought out way to make restrictions to the game so people can be creative with their deck building. I don't know what the 4/20 update will include, obviously, and I cannot make a decision on it until we see it. However, I believe that some commander players have received too much (perceived) inconsistent messaging from the RC and CAG in recent months to have a whole lot of faith in whatever updates may come. This is a shame, as I generally believe you've curated the best way to play Magic.

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

Post by papa_funk » 4 years ago

freelunch wrote:
4 years ago

Then, the voice of the RC goes out and says that you all simply don't change the rules for corner cases. Can you explain how this change for a corner case (singular mechanic) doesn't violate the statement that you don't make changes for corner cases?
Easy. A new mechanic is not a corner case.
freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
Further, why are changes needed to make singular mechanics work in Commander in the first place?
Because sometimes crazy new mechanics need new support. I had to write a bunch of new instructions into the IPG to handle companion, too.
freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
To me, the current (as of 4/17/2020) rules seem like an excellently thought out way to make restrictions to the game so people can be creative with their deck building.
Thank you! I agree. However, I am not so complacent as to believe they must be set in stone. Rules adapt to new situations, and companion represents a brand new situation.
freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
I don't know what the 4/20 update will include, obviously, and I cannot make a decision on it until we see it. However, I believe that some commander players have received too much (perceived) inconsistent messaging from the RC and CAG in recent months to have a whole lot of faith in whatever updates may come. This is a shame, as I generally believe you've curated the best way to play Magic.
Well, I would encourage discussion of it after the update. I do not know what other inconsistent messaging you perceive, so I can't really address that.

User avatar
Maluko
Posts: 137
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Maluko » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Anyway, how one defines a "corner case" is obviously a bit subjective, but if he was literally talking about making a BaaCompanion list for Lutri alone, then I think there's a pretty decent amount of space between 1 card versus 8 - even ignoring how much more potential a card being used in an entirely new way has, compared to just another card (and that rule 11 is merely changing, not adding new rules, whereas BaaC/BaaCompanion add additional rules). I'm fairly certain 8 is also more than the number of BaaC cards at its peak. So maybe Sheldon defines a corner case as "affects 5 or fewer cards". Gotta draw a line somewhere. Although I think it's more likely that the reason to allow companion is that it opens up a whole new way of deckbuilding, which is a lot more interesting than just another card imo.
I understand your point. However, changing the 100-card deckbuilding restriction to a 101-card deckbuilding restriction in a format that has always been pretty clear about this limit does not leave a lot of room for subjectivity here. I don't disagree with the RC's argument about companion creating interesting deckbuilding strategies, but violating a rule that's been set in stone since the format's inception to allow eight cards (in a universe or more than 20,000) to function as they were printed is definitively a corner case, no matter how you look at it.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 4 years ago

@papa_funk

I guess I have the expectation that set mechanics will always be corner cases, most will work within the rules as written, but if they don't then they don't. Evergreen mechanics, and even deciduous mechanics would not be corner cases. At this point I feel like we should be expecting an update for Grandeur to work in the format as well.

I don't think I'm complacent about the rules at all, if I were I don't think I'd be voicing my opinions. I think there are a lot of good conversations to be had about rules changes that will benefit the format and I don't insist that the rules be set in stone. I just can't wrap my head around the Companion mechanic being the time to make any changes, or what benefit we'll actually see.

I certainly plan to keep discussing the format, here and elsewhere! I think the format would be worse if we didn't have these discussions!

Regarding inconsistent messaging, I'd really have to come at that with another post but I don't think I can be arsed to go over every article and every interview from the past 18 months or so with a fine toothed comb to make that post. The statement was mostly an outburst of frustration, but continued discussion of it isn't really relevant for this thread.

Thank you for the reply!

User avatar
JqlGirl
Arbitrix of the CAG
Posts: 19
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by JqlGirl » 4 years ago

The rules of Magic change every time a new set is released. Changing a couple of words in the rules of the format to accommodate the set's new mechanic is hardly groundbreaking, no more than integrating Companion into other formats. What Sheldon was talking about in terms of "we don't change rules for corner cases" was in re: banned as a commander. Banned as a commander only ever mattered for a handful of cards and the same would be true were it reintroduced.

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

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

I view companion like I view extort. They're both mechanics which skirt the rules just enough to be allowed, but break the rule in spirit. Not entirely an apples to apples comparison, since if companion released with no change to the existing rules then it wouldn't function. But it's close enough, imo.

Either way, with the cards that are currently printed I don't see anything being too detrimental to the format, so other than personal dislike for how they were implemented in Commander I'm indifferent.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Maluko
Posts: 137
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Maluko » 4 years ago

JqlGirl wrote:
4 years ago
The rules of Magic change every time a new set is released. Changing a couple of words in the rules of the format to accommodate the set's new mechanic is hardly groundbreaking, no more than integrating Companion into other formats. What Sheldon was talking about in terms of "we don't change rules for corner cases" was in re: banned as a commander. Banned as a commander only ever mattered for a handful of cards and the same would be true were it reintroduced.
This does not refute what I've said. First, Companion was "easily" integrated into other formats by means of the sideboard, something that is not allowed to be used in Commander (rule 0 aside). Second, the "banned as a commander" section of the ban list was streamlined into something more simple because, as you correctly explained, it only affected a handful of cards. Companion is making the opposite: because of a handful of cards, it is making the rules of commander more complex, not less.

I personally think it is only a matter of time until the RC writes the rules in a way that Companion stops working in commander and Lutri can finally be free. I and many other folks have argued for years for the unbanning of Painter's Servant and the banning of Iona, Shield of Emeria. The RC was always firm about their stance regarding these two cards, spouting nonsense about how Iona creates interesting political decisions or how Servant brings no net benefit to the format. But I was always convinced it was a matter of time until they finally listened to the community (albeit this took a lot more years and an advisory group to happen than I anticipated). And I am confident a similar thing will happen with companion. It may take three or four years or whatever time it takes until companion is no longer an interesting mechanic, but it will happen.
Last edited by Maluko 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HoffOccultist
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Post by HoffOccultist » 4 years ago

cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Either way, with the cards that are currently printed I don't see anything being too detrimental to the format, so other than personal dislike for how they were implemented in Commander I'm indifferent.
This really encompasses my current feelings, without seeing how the wording on Rule 11 changes (I assume it has to change a couple words to make companion work). Might shift my thinking based on that, but it's whatever at this point.

As for the banlist itself, I expect no changes. There's one I'd really like to happen (Flash ban), and a couple unbans that I think would be really interesting (from what I think is fairly benign--Coalition Victory--to a couple quite a bit more controversial), but ultimately I don't think any of that happens.
Survivor of EDH 32 Challenge.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Maluko wrote:
4 years ago
I understand your point. However, changing the 100-card deckbuilding restriction to a 101-card deckbuilding restriction in a format that has always been pretty clear about this limit does not leave a lot of room for subjectivity here. I don't disagree with the RC's argument about companion creating interesting deckbuilding strategies, but violating a rule that's been set in stone since the format's inception to allow eight cards (in a universe or more than 20,000) to function as they were printed is definitively a corner case, no matter how you look at it.
From a literal standpoint, the companion isn't part of your deck by definition, so you don't circumvent the 100-card deckbuilding restriction.

From a practical standpoint, of course it's 101 cards. But the 100 card limit is a pointless and meaningless rule anyways, so who cares.

Who knows how widely used the companion will be, but just because it's only 8 cards doesn't mean they have a small "corner case" impact. Almost any deck using them is going to be dramatically changed both in its construction and its play. And they can go into hundreds of decks as companions (I think, I haven't added them all up).

As before though, how one defines a "corner case" is just a matter of opinion.
Maluko wrote:
4 years ago
I personally think it is only a matter of time until the RC writes the rules in a way that Companion stops working in commander and Lutri can finally be free.
I really dislike when people argue like this because I think it shows their hand that, for a lot of the anti-companion crowd, their primary concern is that they want Lutri to be legal, and not that they care about the simplicity of the rules or any of that other stuff. Those are just excuses. (not true for everyone, of course)
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
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Got my first game in against Sisay Jegantha. To be short, it was a %$#% experience and the mechanic was every bit as horrendous as I figured it would be.

User avatar
Maluko
Posts: 137
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Maluko » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
From a practical standpoint, of course it's 101 cards. But the 100 card limit is a pointless and meaningless rule anyways, so who cares.
It's these kinds of comments that make it so damn annoying to argue with you. It's pointless and meaningless to you, not to other people. And apparently a lot of people do care about this as seen by the enormous amount of discussion on the topic. Stop trying to downplay other people's feelings about this subject. Your views are not absolute.
DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
I really dislike when people argue like this because I think it shows their hand that, for a lot of the anti-companion crowd, their primary concern is that they want Lutri to be legal, and not that they care about the simplicity of the rules or any of that other stuff. Those are just excuses. (not true for everyone, of course)
I meant the liberation of Lutri as a consequence of streamlining the rules so that companion doesn't work in Commander. Because people will keep asking about why this card is on the ban list after companion goes out of fashion. If there is one thing I have learned from the old forums of Commander is that controversial topics never cease to be discussed. And what I meant in that paragraph outside the one sentence you decided to quote is that, at some point, the hassle to keep explaining why eight old cards work outside the "normal" rules of commander will just not be worth it.

And now to add something else to this topic. The safest unban from the list, in my opinion, is Panoptic Mirror. It is a low floor, high ceiling card that requires very specific situations and deckbuilding to be abusable. Outside of printing extra turns, it can be easily shut down by artifact removal. I don't think it is safe to unban Gifts Ungiven. The format needs fewer tutors, not more. Additionally, people who add Gifts to their decks have a need to also add cards that can abuse its effect, similar to how Primeval Titan warped decks by making players feel they need to add more utility lands that can be easily searched. And I don't even think cEDH players would be happy about it: if Flash Hulk is already the broken mess it is, imagine if Gifts were to become legal.

if4ko
Posts: 48
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: New England

Post by if4ko » 4 years ago

I've become more open to Companion. I still think it's strange that the mechanic fit within the previous rules, but if the RC's willing to change them to accommodate it, I'm fine with it. Like I said, better them in charge than WOTC, and I trust their discretion.

It's unfortunate Lutri had to go, but the card interacts poorly with the format. It's not designed for Commander in mind and I support the pre-emptive ban. I think it could have been worded much better in a lot of different ways. Most players focused on the "must-have" portion, which opened up a Pandora's Box of whataboutery. It indirectly gave a reason for them not to ban the otter because other fair must-haves like Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor are legal in the format. The "must-have" clause also brings up an unnecessary discussion about the card's power level, distracting from the actual issue of why it got banned.

I feel like the Lutri ban would have had better reception if Sheldon threw in his justification of companions in the original post. Instead of saying "The point of Companion is to provide deck-building restrictions, and Lutri's restriction isn't a restriction in singleton formats" or saying "Companionship breeds creativity and don't lead to homogenization."

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2236
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
When I hear people hate Rift, its generally complaining that their threats got answered or just that they see it too often.
So? I think there's merit in pointing out that a predominant staple of the format makes players feel bad!

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

Maluko wrote:
4 years ago
It's these kinds of comments that make it so damn annoying to argue with you. It's pointless and meaningless to you, not to other people. And apparently a lot of people do care about this as seen by the enormous amount of discussion on the topic. Stop trying to downplay other people's feelings about this subject. Your views are not absolute.
It's pointless and meaningless because in 99.9% of decks, it's optimal to run the minimum number of cards. It'd be like banning wood elemental. I mean, sure, it's not really hurting anything. But it adds an additional rule that doesn't actually make any difference to how the format is built and played.

If you think it does make a difference to the format, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why.

For that matter, I'd also be curious why you think companion violating that rule (in spirit if not in fact) is problematic. Imo, if there's something problematic about companion, it's always having access to that card, which might allow certain combos to be put together (i.e. najeela + jegantha). Not being one card beyond the normal limit. That seems like a fairly pointless piece of trivia to me.

*of course I should point out that this has changed somewhat with yorion, sky nomad since I could easily see a blink deck being improved by running 120 cards because of how powerful yorion is. But up until now it's made no real difference to the format, from where I'm sitting.
people will keep asking about why this card is on the ban list after companion goes out of fashion.
Why? Even if nobody plays companion, it says what companion does on the card. Anyone with a good understanding of the game should easily be able to understand why it's problematic.
And what I meant in that paragraph outside the one sentence you decided to quote is that, at some point, the hassle to keep explaining why eight old cards work outside the "normal" rules of commander will just not be worth it.
I'm not sure the RC cares about how much effort is expended arguing rules on this and other forums. I think most commander players just follow the rules and don't worry about how the sausage is made.
I don't think it is safe to unban Gifts Ungiven. The format needs fewer tutors, not more. Additionally, people who add Gifts to their decks have a need to also add cards that can abuse its effect, similar to how Primeval Titan warped decks by making players feel they need to add more utility lands that can be easily searched. And I don't even think cEDH players would be happy about it: if Flash Hulk is already the broken mess it is, imagine if Gifts were to become legal.
I would be curious to get the cEDH take on gifts. Would it actually be worrying? It's kinda expensive for flash hulk, and exposes you to grave hate, which other tutors generally don't. But I don't play cEDH so I don't speak from experience.

I don't think you really need to add cards to make your deck good with gifts. I mean, you can improve the reliability in certain ways, but unlike ptitan it's generally a one-use thing and generally harder to tutor than ptitan. But it can be good in plenty of other ways. Unless you're trying to go for a combo, I think you'll be better off going for just the 4 best cards and getting #3 and #4, rather than farting around with recursion that adds mana and risk. There will ofc be people that build gifts piles to set up a win, but that's true of doomsday and T&N and others. The people who are going to gravitate towards that aren't the target of the banlist, nor should they be imo. For the rest of us, I think it's a pretty cool tutor with some neat applications. But I'm also very pro-tutor in general. Many of my decks play a lot of tutors. I think they can be used for good or ill, and I think it's best to let people decide how they want to use the tools of the format rather than take them away.
folding_music wrote:
3 years ago
So? I think there's merit in pointing out that a predominant staple of the format makes players feel bad!
I guess it's fair to worry about what makes people feel bad in a social format, but in general I think people feel bad whenever they get answered, and I think answers are necessary for the format. The threats in this game keep getting stronger and stronger, and the answers are imo falling behind in power. I think it'd be a mistake to start banning answers, even if they're really good answers.
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

Sheldon
Posts: 105
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sheldon » 3 years ago

I'd have to go back to loo at the video. We don't make rules for corner cases. If I said "change" instead of "make," then that was me mis-speaking. As Toby and Charlotte have pointed out, we do change things occasionally to adapt to new rules, circumstances, and ideas.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

Sheldon, I've gone back and listened to it and the direct quote I was responding to was, "We don't make corner case rules just for a few cards."

I'm not sure there's an appreciable difference in semantics between "change" and "make" when it comes to writing procedures for me, so swapping the words around doesn't really change the meaning that I hear. What I'm seeing is new rules being made just for a few cards with a mechanic that will (judging at least by MaRo's Twinkle in Someone's Ikoria article and the difficulties he mentions about designing companion) probably never show up again unless we get the colorless companion design in Modern Horizons 2 or similar.

I don't understand how any of you can, with a straight face, say that this isn't a corner case given the entire scope of Magic. And, looking back, I would say the same thing about Extort and the color identity rules.

I feel like I've just walked outside and you all are insisting that the sky is orange, when I can clearly see that it is blue.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
Sheldon, I've gone back and listened to it and the direct quote I was responding to was, "We don't make corner case rules just for a few cards."

I'm not sure there's an appreciable difference in semantics between "change" and "make" when it comes to writing procedures for me, so swapping the words around doesn't really change the meaning that I hear. What I'm seeing is new rules being made just for a few cards with a mechanic that will (judging at least by MaRo's Twinkle in Someone's Ikoria article and the difficulties he mentions about designing companion) probably never show up again unless we get the colorless companion design in Modern Horizons 2 or similar.

I don't understand how any of you can, with a straight face, say that this isn't a corner case given the entire scope of Magic. And, looking back, I would say the same thing about Extort and the color identity rules.

I feel like I've just walked outside and you all are insisting that the sky is orange, when I can clearly see that it is blue.
I don't really agree with DirkGently on a fair number of things, but his comment about a "corner case" being subjective seems to hold true. Why do you feel that making an entire mechanic work in Commander is making (or changing; I guess I don't care about what word you want to use either) a rule for a corner case? Is it simply because it functions outside the game? Is it more because there are only 8 cards that are legal for it? Are you suggesting that this wouldn't be a corner case if we had more cards? Or, are you wanting the mechanic to simply not work at all in Commander? That is, you would have preferred it remained covered under Rule 11?

I don't really like Companion either but allowing an entire mechanic to work seems like the opposite of making rules for corner cases. Them not allowing Yorion is a testament to them not bending to the corner case of one card that works differently than all the rest.

Arguably, Extort is a perfect example of them *not* making rules for corner cases. The color identity rules don't care about reminder text. Whether you feel this is a cop out or something Wizards intentionally did to skirt the rule is immaterial. The RC has been adamant about not changing the rules for that corner case. Or maybe when Riftsweeper was banned because they didn't want to make a rule for that corner case? They chose the route of banning so as not to make a new rule for it.

I guess my point is that I don't view this as a "corner case". A corner case is something that differs than the majority of cards when looked at within the same situation. 90% of the cards we are talking about function within the rule they have written. Granted, one of those is banned, but that doesn't mean the card doesn't function. But having a smaller number of cards for a mechanic doesn't inherently make this a corner case.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Is it simply because it functions outside the game?
That's one of my biggest hangups.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Is it more because there are only 8 cards that are legal for it?
That's why I consider this a corner case.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Are you suggesting that this wouldn't be a corner case if we had more cards?
To an extent, but also if this mechanic were something we were likely to ever see again.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Or, are you wanting the mechanic to simply not work at all in Commander? That is, you would have preferred it remained covered under Rule 11?
Yes.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Arguably, Extort is a perfect example of them *not* making rules for corner cases. The color identity rules don't care about reminder text.
I was under the impression that the color identity rules not caring about reminder text was a change made to accommodate Extort.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
The RC has been adamant about not changing the rules for that corner case. Or maybe when Riftsweeper was banned because they didn't want to make a rule for that corner case? They chose the route of banning so as not to make a new rule for it.
I wasn't playing around that time, so I can't comment on this.
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
A corner case is something that differs than the majority of cards when looked at within the same situation.
So the 8 legal Companions effectively allowing 8 card starting hands and 101 card decks (even though the card isn't in the deck! but it still has to abide color identity rules because its "in the deck") are still vastly different than every other card in Magic.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
I was under the impression that the color identity rules not caring about reminder text was a change made to accommodate Extort.
Nope. The example pre-extort for why reminder text didn't matter was charmed pendant - it's probably more obvious in that case why reminder text being considered part of CI would be bad, since it has nothing to do with U or B mana specifically.
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
WizardMN
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
A corner case is something that differs than the majority of cards when looked at within the same situation.
So the 8 legal Companions effectively allowing 8 card starting hands and 101 card decks (even though the card isn't in the deck! but it still has to abide color identity rules because its "in the deck") are still vastly different than every other card in Magic.
Well, that is kind of my point. There are no other cards that do this (I guess we could argue about Wishes, but they are different enough). Everything is going to be different than everything else so if your idea of a corner case is simply that is does something different than why play Commander at all? In order to make the format work, it does something different than basically any other card in Magic just by virtue of being the Commander.

I realize that is a bit reductive, and I do understand your viewpoint that you would not want Companions to work in Commander at all. I am in the same boat; I don't really like them. But I just can't get on board with the idea that a problem with them working is making a rule for a corner case. It is an entire mechanic. I don't really see the idea that the number of cards with the mechanic makes it a corner case. I see it this way:

"Wizards creates Mechanic A"
"The RC sees Mechanic A and wants it to function in Commander as best as it can"
"A rule is made specifically so Mechanic A can function"

That's it. Whether it was 1 card or 1000 cards, the rule is not made because of the cards themselves; it was made because of the mechanic. And that, in my view, means it isn't a corner case at all; it is an entire mechanic they want to allow in the format.

But, in any case, I believe we are now arguing semantics more than anything else. You have a desire for Companions to not be allowed. I have gotten to the point where I don't really care if they are allowed, but I would also prefer they weren't allowed. Probably for different reasons. I just feel that arguing along the lines of it being a corner case isn't the greatest argument to made against them.

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

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

The few companions that are playable (zirda, jegantha) just add so much consistency it basically just craps on the entire spirit of the format. Might as well just give them demonic tutor as a companion and quit screwing around.

At this point I am just going to be dropping any game with either of these two companions like I did when someone brought out Leovold, emissary of trest.

Commander simply is not meant to be played with that kind of consistency; they're significantly worse than the partner commanders even because so few of that are particularly synergistic with each other.

Man, just watching that dude untap his jegantha and activate sisay over and over again makes me angry to think about.

I truly hope the RC comes to their senses on this mechanic very quickly :P Hopefully this ban announcement, but maybe next.

re: Corner case rules

I think companion is obviously a corner case rule *if wizards hadn't explicitly said it was legal in commander*. If it just came out and had no reference to being legal in commander.

If Wizards seeks out the RC and says hey, we want this mechanic to work in commander then it ceases being a corner case :P

But that doesn't change the fact that they companions are horrible for the format :P

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

After reading your posts and some of your anecdotes (not data; yada yada yada) I am not looking forward to seeing them in action in my games either. I have only faced off against one in Arena and it was the 6 drop where everything needed to be an even CMC. I ended up getting milled out since they had that to get Spark Double and Thassa. After I wrathed, they just cast another and started things again :(

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

Post by onering » 3 years ago

folding_music wrote:
3 years ago
onering wrote:
4 years ago
When I hear people hate Rift, its generally complaining that their threats got answered or just that they see it too often.
So? I think there's merit in pointing out that a predominant staple of the format makes players feel bad!

There is. And there's merit in pointing out that the reasons they give for it making them feel bad are not good reasons for banning the card. A card being widely played or powerful, or both, has never been a reason to ban a card. Complaining that a powerful answer makes you feel bad or that you see a card everywhere and using those as arguments the card should be banned means that you don't actually have any legitimate arguments that the card should be banned. There's a number of cards that I absolutely hate and see often, but I understand they aren't banworthy under the criteria of the banlist. Rift doesn't meet any of the criteria, so while acknowledging that people don't like the card has merit, entertaining their complaints as if they are legitimate reasons to ban the card is meritless.

User avatar
Pip_Maxwell
Posts: 34
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Pip_Maxwell » 3 years ago

I feel companions are a corner case. 8 are being allowed. Meanwhile the 5 myojin, Iname as One, Phage the Untouchable, and Haakon, Stromgald Scourge can't have the rules fixed for them. After all its 8 vs 8 for corner cases.

And if we want to talk of restrictions breeding creativity for deckbuilding, look no further than Phage the Untouchable. Torpor Orb, Withering Boon, Command Beacon, Netherborn Altar, Lich's Mirror, Sundial of the Infinite, Stunning Reversal, Lich's Mastery, Thrull Wizard, Platinum Angel, Geode Golem, K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth, Sudden Spoiling. Oh and every black tutor under the sun. As the deck has to run all of this to literally not die from their own commander entering the battlefield when not cast from the hand and still have mana to cast or activate in response to Phage's triggered ability. That is not covering the rest of the deck which is actually used to get her to swing just once at an opponent or having her die and kill an opponent with something like Endless Whispers.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”