Should banned as commander come back?

[Hermes_]

A corollary to this for those of you who vote yes is "Would you support a dozen or more cards on the BaaC list?"

[pokken]

A corollary to this for those of you who vote yes is "Would you support a dozen or more cards on the BaaC list?"

I would support dozens of cards on the banned as a commander list, and prefer it as the default mechanism to controlling the metagame, personally.

the #1 thing likely to cause a bad experience in a game of commander is an annoying commander. Doing Leovold, Emissary of Trest things with the cards in your deck is inherently a lot less consistent and efficient (e.g. by playing Hullbreacher + Windfall or whatever).

Golos, Tireless Pilgrim is damn close to single-handedly ruining the format right now.

Obviously people will still make crappy games by playing annoying decks but the card you literally always have access to is going to have the biggest impact on any game and it impacts your deckbuilding.

Because I like being loud, here's my list of things I would ban as a commander

• chulane, teller of tales
• Korvold, fae-cursed king
• animar, soul of elements
• maelstrom wanderer
• golos, tireless pilgrim
• yarok, the desecrated
• tymna the weaver
• thrasios, triton hero
• urza, lord high artificer
• sisay, weatherlight captain
• zur the enchanter

There're probably a few I am missing

[Wallycaine]

No. If a card's bad enough to ban as a commander, it's bad enough to ban period. We don't need a middleground, and having one just adds to new player confusion. If you think stuff like Golos, Tireless Pilgrim and the rest deserve a ban, advocate for banning them wholesale, not introducing a new category for them.

[pokken]

It's not introducing a new one it's bringing back an old one that should never have left.

One of the few rc decisions I have not come around on. It's not a complicated rule nor is it difficult to understand why something is more problematic with constant access. If anyone wants a demonstration i invite them to play a few games against maelstrom wanderer.

The problem I have with losing baac is that now the threshold for banning is too high. Perhaps the rc could instead revisit their attitudes toward banning cards that can be commanders but that leaves us without....

Justice for Rofellos! (Who is eminently beyond fair as a card)

[WizardMN]

I am really coming back around to wanting BaaC back. For a while I didn't as I felt the same as Wallycaine above. However, far too many cards are being designed/developed for Commander and Wizards really messes things up.

Golos is number one on my list and I think it is absolutely fine in the 99. Because you can actually %$#% remove him in the 99.

I haven't liked Animar for a long time, but I don't think I would go as far as Pokken's list in general. My main ones would be Golos, Edgar Markov, Winota, Sisay, Weatherlight Captain, and Urza.

Worth noting that Edgar isn't really an issue, but I hate Eminence with a passion and he seems the most egregious. Since this is clearly subjective on my part, I am fine with him being in my list even if it really doesn't make sense as a format wide rule.

But I think Golos, Sisay, Urza, and potentially Winota do (make people pay for the creatures damn it) and I would definitely like to see them gone. As pointed out above, the absence of the list makes the barrier much higher to remove these cards and for a format that is defined by having access to specific commanders, and Wizards constantly pushing these to be more and more aggravating, I would be fine with bringing that list back to get rid of some of the worst offenders.

[DirkGently]

I don't see anything terribly valuable that re-instituting it would accomplish compared to just banning the cards outright. I think most of the time, people who want to re-institute it are biased towards it because of some card they want to play in the 99. Well, we've got 20K+ cards. Just play a different one. It's really not that big of a deal. Definitely not worth adding an entire additional rule for.

Sure, it doesn't add a ton of complexity obviously, but (1) that's from the perspective of people who have been playing for a long time and are used to it (and oftentimes were used to the old rules that had BaaC already in place), not new players who have to absorb all the other complexities of the format and oftentimes the base game itself - more rules increases barrier to entry - and (2) if everyone who wanted a new rule so they could play their pet card was granted their wish, the rules document would be longer than War and Peace.

I also don't think being able to "more easily ban commanders" is really a plus. Banning a commander is kind of a huge deal, because anyone with that commander - say someone who bought Chulane off the shelf and added a few cards so they could play with their friends - is now completely SOL. And it's especially rough for banning the (often pushed) precon commanders. Banning something from the 99 is comparatively minor for most decks. The idea that the RC would reinstitute BaaC so they could justify banning a big list of the most popular commanders is absurd - they'd blow the kneecaps off the playerbase. I wish Golos hadn't been printed too, but he's probably not going away, and even if he does there's always an Esika, God of the Tree to take his place. WotC loves pushing broken crap and we either have to accept it and figure out how to handle it, or find a different game.

[pokken]

I don't see anything terribly valuable that re-instituting it would accomplish compared to just banning the cards outright. I think most of the time, people who want to re-institute it are biased towards it because of some card they want to play in the 99. Well, we've got 20K+ cards. Just play a different one. It's really not that big of a deal. Definitely not worth adding an entire additional rule for.

I'm biased toward it more on the behalf of the community than self-interest. I'll admit a ton of self-interest in the hybrid case, but for this case it's more of a justice thing

It's just *wrong* to ban Golos, Tireless Pilgrim as a card when he's significantly less powerful and less problematic in the 99 than Consecrated Sphinx who still to this day flies free.

Golos isn't a particularly good example because he'd see basically zero play in the 99, but Winota, Joiner of Forces is a great example of a perfectly fair powerhouse boros card that is obnoxious as a commander. Every game is non-stop whack-a-mole don't let Winota attack or the game is probably over. Womp womp. But in the 99 you can kill it and it's gone, and they have to go to great lengths to get it back which you can also interact with vs. just casting it again.

It's just wrong to take cards from the card pool for convenience's sake. We don't want to have to explain this simple rule so now you as a player can't play this beautiful card you like in the 99. It rankles with me the unfairness of it.

Particularly if we were to start banning problematic commanders more aggressively it'd be more likely we hit a staple card, and taking a staple away that just happens to be a problematic commander is extremely undesirable. I am positive this impacts people's thinking as to whether to ban something and constrains it.

---

I wanted to add a small philosophical point about why people can avoid playing a couple problematic cards but can't seem to avoid playing all the stuff that makes their general problematic.

The question as to why people can control themselves and not play Consecrated Sphinx (or whatever theoretically problematic card) all over the place. It's a lot easier to pull a single problematic card than it is to play a commander and not follow its text.

Problematic commanders usually have very strong signposts, and the whole point of playing them is, for most people, is to use what makes them cool. There's a whole huge pool of cards (non-humans) that make Winota, Joiner of Forces oppressive. What's even the point of playing her as a commander if you're not going to hit all the time and have powerful things come out? So Winota's legal, therefore people are going to play her and follow her sign posts. Simply not playing Drannith Magistrate (or whatever problematic card you can think of) is not going to change the texture of her gameplay that much.

The TL;DR:

It's much harder to get people to not play one of the 20 cards that make Leovold, Emissary of Trest oppressive in their deck than it is to get them to stop playing a single problematic card in their deck. Which is why we need to ban more of the commanders that, through their rules text, create bad gameplay patterns almost regardless of how they follow the signposts. Social pressure can fix Armageddon but it has a harder time fixing Leovold, Emissary of Trest

[ISBPathfinder]

I used to care more about this and while I do think that it could come back in a good way I also think that maybe we could just ban some of the more offensive commanders out there. So, I guess I voted yes to bring back BAAC but more realistically I just think that a few more crazy commanders just need to be banned at some level that makes them stop. Some of the ones to come to mind for me would be:

Chulane, Teller of Tales
Korvold, Fae-cursed King
Alela, Artful Provocateur
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim
Zur the Enchanter
Brago, King Eternal
Xyris, the Writhing Storm
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher

Some of my suggestions are new and some are old. I just have a big issue with a few of these specifically in how they are generally designed and or played. Many of these commanders must be answered in such a way that it would probably take a whole table to stop you from playing them and while I don't disagree with the RC's thought that might make for 3v1 games, I also don't like the need to feel like you need to stop someone from playing to not immediately loose games. Most of the commanders I listed have to be essentially nuked on sight every time or you will be run over. I didn't bother listing some of the cEDH commanders in part because my goal for my own list was more of the games of 75% commander that just get uprooted by a few ridiculous commander choices.

[BeneTleilax]

Is Xyris really that bad? I'd probably go with a smaller list of Golos, Chulane, Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy and maybe Derevi.

[pokken]

Is Xyris really that bad? I'd probably go with a smaller list of Golos, Chulane, Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy and maybe Derevi.

Xyris, the Writhing Storm isn't that obscenely powerful but it fits the template of whack-a-mole that I personally detest.

Honestly I think that it'd be fine to start more aggressive commander banning with just Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, Sisay, Weatherlight Captain and Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy. But I think you'd find the game vastly more healthy with about 10-20 problematic commanders that create whack-a-mole gameplay, eventually.

There's not a single one mentioned in this thread that I would be sad to go personally

[Wallycaine]

Is Xyris really that bad? I'd probably go with a smaller list of Golos, Chulane, Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy and maybe Derevi.

Xyris, the Writhing Storm isn't that obscenely powerful but it fits the template of whack-a-mole that I personally detest.

Honestly I think that it'd be fine to start more aggressive commander banning with just Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, Sisay, Weatherlight Captain and Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy. But I think you'd find the game vastly more healthy with about 10-20 problematic commanders that create whack-a-mole gameplay, eventually.

There's not a single one mentioned in this thread that I would be sad to go personally

Ironically, the issue with this plan is that you just end up playing whack-a-mole with bans instead. Wizards isn't going to, and shouldn't, stop printing commanders with strong static/activated effects because those are things that a large portion of the audience enjoys. So if you want to ensure that "commanders who make people play whack a mole" doesn't exist as an archetype, you're going to have to keep banning new cards all the time.

[pokken]

So if you want to ensure that "commanders who make people play whack a mole" doesn't exist as an archetype, you're going to have to keep banning new cards all the time

Well, presumably they would get the hint after a bunch of them get banned?

Truth be told people get way up in arms about commanders long before they prove themselves to be an actual problem, but we can see after a year or two which ones actually stand the test of time.

In my view, for example, it's unlikely Winota, Joiner of Forces actually remains problematically omnipresent while Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy I think absolutely will.

All that said I'd be fine having to ban 1-2 commanders a year, there's really nothing wrong with that intrinsically. Wizards is printing 10x as many legendaries as they used to, so I'd expect roughly 10x as many bans as there were historically.

[ISBPathfinder]

Is Xyris really that bad? I'd probably go with a smaller list of Golos, Chulane, Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy and maybe Derevi.

My issue with him is that the entire list can be ramp and wheels. Its hard to play whack a mole when the whole deck is just churning out more ramp and then wheeling after it burns all its ramp. The worst part is that even if you answer him every time the deck is still churning draw and ramp so really the way to "stop it" is to counter every wheel they can come up with. Its annoying as all hell and it turns into a question of who can proactive their hand the most.

Commanders designed to ramp and wheel are really not healthy design. Even if you have spot removal for the commander in response to the wheel you really don't do much to the deck as its just going to draw a new hand of ramp and wheels. Its color setup is perfect to have access to most wheels but also green ramp. Its very demoralizing to play against that type of deck as generally speaking you want to have something very low curve and proactive or chalked full of counterspells. It isn't cEDH but its a huge pain in the ass, extremely disruptive, and hard to disrupt in return.

[BeneTleilax]

Wheel-piles can be annoying, but I don't think they're broken or detrimental to the format at large. Xyris, in my experience, is more chill then Nekrusar, given that the decks I've seen need to actually win in combat. As for ramp, I don't think he's more explosive or resilient than Selvala, Ghalta, or even Mayael (all of which can draw cards at an impressive clip off things like Rishkar's Expertise and The Great Henge). I do think that ramp is a bit too strong in the format right now, but if Xyris is too oppressive, I think this list will balloon.

[pokken]

but if Xyris is too oppressive, I think this list will balloon.

While I think that the 3 mana wheels should probably get banned before a commander like Xyris, the Writhing Storm (separate thread perhaps ), I suspect that the format would be improved more than it was harmed if you banned the top 50 generals (with a little common sense to not ban stuff like The Ur-Dragon which is popular due to its casual appeal not its power). Yeah that's going super far and probably too far, but the gulf in power level between the top 50 generals and everything else is pretty absurd.

So I wouldn't personally care that much if the list did balloon. Especially now that you can easily play any color combo you want with partners if you want a specific combination.

Even just the top 10 list is basically a who's who of things I don't want to play with.

• Golos, Tireless Pilgrim
• Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
• Muldrotha, the Gravetide
• Korvold, Fae-Cursed King
• Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow
• Kenrith, the Returned King
• Yarok, the Desecrated,
• Alela, artful provocateur
• Edgar Markov
• Kess, Dissident Mage

Yuck Would not shed a tear if they all got banned.

It's really unfortunate honestly the way the overall meta has shaped up that people simply cannot restrain themselves. For every one guy building Yarok, the Desecrated Enchantment ETBs there's 30 goodstuff Yarok, the Desecrated Palinchron combo decks.

We've reached the level of adoption in commander where rule 0 to shape your playgroup pretty much involves constantly having to decline games if you don't want to play against Golos, Tireless Pilgrim. I'm at the point where I just ask people not to play it and then they crack open their Sisay, Weatherlight Captain superfriends instead

The fact of the matter is there really is a power dropoff, maybe 100 or so commanders are absurdly more powerful than the rest and most of them have been printed in the last 3-5 years.

[DirkGently]

It's just *wrong* to ban Golos, Tireless Pilgrim as a card when he's significantly less powerful and less problematic in the 99 than Consecrated Sphinx who still to this day flies free.

That's alright, because Golos isn't banned (and probably won't be).

Golos isn't a particularly good example because he'd see basically zero play in the 99, but Winota, Joiner of Forces is a great example of a perfectly fair powerhouse boros card that is obnoxious as a commander. Every game is non-stop whack-a-mole don't let Winota attack or the game is probably over. Womp womp. But in the 99 you can kill it and it's gone, and they have to go to great lengths to get it back which you can also interact with vs. just casting it again.

I haven't played against Winota yet except in standard. I don't like her design, I'll say that. But looking through the list of humans she's slamming into play, tbh I don't really see any except maybe 1-2 that would be any real risk for ending the game. So while I'm sure she's annoying to play against I'm skeptical that she's actually a problem.

It's just wrong to take cards from the card pool for convenience's sake. We don't want to have to explain this simple rule so now you as a player can't play this beautiful card you like in the 99. It rankles with me the unfairness of it.

Yeah ok but why though? That's literally what a banlist is. I don't see anything unfair about it.

Let's follow this logic to its conclusion. Cards like armageddon are hated, but they're a lot more fair when only being used by generally-weak mono-white decks. Should we create a banlist for "banned in multicolor"? A lot of cards are only problematic when part of a combo. So should we create a new banlist "banned as a combo" that has pairs (or sets) of cards which can only be legally played without the other one? Karakas would be a nice tool for white too, but it's too strong to be able to bounce enemy commanders...let's say "banned in targeting commanders", but you can still target non-commanders, or perhaps you own commander. Otherwise we're just being lazy by outright banning a card "for convenience's sake", right?

The language you're using is unnecessarily emotionally charged. "this beautiful card you like" "It rankles [me with] the unfairness of it". We're talking about a banlist, not people's children. I have no idea why having a normal banlist like every other card game has is "unfair". Besides which, I think you're burying the lede - you seem to be less focused on which commanders you want to free into the 99, and more focused on which commanders you want to ban - which is way way more detrimental to peoples' experiences. Banning Golos whether aaC or outright - much as I hate Golos - would ruin the decks of a lot of people. Not just one card, but the whole deck. From an outside perspective, that sure seems to be what you're advocating for. To me, it looks like you want an expanded banlist and you think this would make it more likely (but it wouldn't even do that, because the reason these cards aren't banned wouldn't change with the reinstitution of the BaaC category).

Particularly if we were to start banning problematic commanders more aggressively it'd be more likely we hit a staple card, and taking a staple away that just happens to be a problematic commander is extremely undesirable. I am positive this impacts people's thinking as to whether to ban something and constrains it.

I can't think of any existing legendary creatures who are anything close to "staple" material. Looking at EDHrec, Tatyova, Benthic Druid has the highest usage rate outside of the 99 (at rank 77), but she's only in UG decks so her actual usage in the entire format is pretty restricted. If we look for a mono-colored legend, it's all the way to Syr Konrad, the Grim at...I don't even know...maybe 250th? WotC tends to design legends with pretty specific synergies so they're not often great in the 99. What legend are you "positive" is not being banned for fear of cutting out a staple?

You're hypothesizing that that'll change and they'll print a legend that's staple-ish, AND that they'll print something so egregious that it has to be banned...and even then, so what? If sol ring, the stapliest staple of all the staples, got banned tomorrow, I'd shrug, take it out of my decks, put in some 2-drop rock and go about my day. Whereas if one of my favorite commanders got banned I'd be really, really upset about it. Justifying banning a commander because people can still play it in the 99 is some seriously backwards logic.

[pokken]

Dude, your rhetoric is off the chain and I'm done interacting with ya. Peace.

[DirkGently]

Dude, your rhetoric is off the chain

Thanks!

It's extremely telling that this topic almost immediately turned into fantasies of "which commanders would we ban if we had BaaC". This conversation is not about freeing cards, it's about restricting them.

[BeneTleilax]

I'm in between, I think banned-as-commander should be a thing, but the list shouldn't be nearly as hipster and extensive as what Pokken is proposing. That said, @DirkGently, you do come off as needlessly trollish here.

[DirkGently]

@DirkGently, you do come off as needlessly trollish here.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. Got any specifics? I'd be happy to amend my statements if I've been unfair.

[pokken]

(Note, I respond only because you asked, and it's all I have to say about it)

@DirkGently, you do come off as needlessly trollish here.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. Got any specifics? I'd be happy to amend my statements if I've been unfair.

The language you're using is honestly so manipulative it's ridiculous.

Don't pretend like you're the liberator of cards because that's %$#%$#%.

some ass-backwards logic that makes no sense.

This one actually was pretty annoying too

Problematic commanders usually have very strong signposts, and the whole point of playing them is, for most people, is to use what makes them cool. There's a whole huge pool of cards (non-humans) that make Winota, Joiner of Forces oppressive. What's even the point of playing her as a commander if you're not going to hit all the time and have powerful things come out? So Winota's legal, therefore people are going to play her and follow her sign posts. Simply not playing Drannith Magistrate (or whatever problematic card you can think of) is not going to change the texture of her gameplay that much.

I haven't played against Winota yet except in standard (and tbh based on how you talk about her, I'm skeptical that you have either because you keep talking like she's pulling out powerful non-humans when that is the opposite of what she does)

I have played against Winota tyvm and drannith magistrate is a human commonly cheated into play with winota that I referenced in the thread

[Crazy Monkey]

It's my opinion that Banned as Commander could reasonably unban nearly every currently banned legendary creature for the 99. Leovold, Emissary of Trest is significantly less oppressive without access to the command zone or a build-around wheels plan. Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary is comparable to Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy as a ramp card outside the command zone. Yes, this is because I'd like to play those cards personally. Do you know how hard it is to find on-theme outs to common win-conditions in legendary creatures tribal?

I could see Griselbrand, Iona, Shield of Emeria or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn staying on both theoretical banned lists, but even something like Erayo, Soratami Ascendant // Erayo's Essence would probably not be ban-worthy outside banned as commander. Again, setting that up out of the 99 is just far more difficult and resource intensive.

I can't speak beyond my own metagame, but even the extremely pushed Commanders of recent memory haven't been over-centralizing; at least locally. I'm not sure how I would feel about using BaC to control the metagame. I understand that it could be a useful release valve for omnipresent/overpowered legends across the global metagame, but as a player who has dedicated groups and established rule-0 expectations I would probably chaff at it a bit. I'd probably just do what I do with Genju of the Realm, but instead ask if I can play experience counters Atraxa, Praetors' Voice.

RE: conversation above
As with rest of post, just my opinion, but I don't find the manner in @DirkGently portrayed his opinion to be one I normally want to engage with. The quotes Pokken pulled out are good examples. Unless it's a topic which is significantly more important than an opinion/theorycrafting about my hobby that type of rhetoric just makes me disengage. Just a heads up Dirk.

[DirkGently]

Very well, I've toned down the rhetoric a bit.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the depth of your Winota experiences. You said "There's a whole huge pool of cards (non-humans) that make Winota, Joiner of Forces oppressive. What's even the point of playing her as a commander if you're not going to hit all the time and have powerful things come out." That certainly implies that the things which make her oppressive (non-humans) are the powerful things (which are hits & come out). And nothing about the way you mentioned drannith magistrate implies whether it's attacking or being pulled from the deck.

At any rate I wouldn't consider skepticism a personal attack. But it's also not really relevant to my point, so I've deleted it.

[pokken]

I can't speak beyond my own metagame, but even the extremely pushed Commanders of recent memory haven't been over-centralizing; at least locally. I'm not sure how I would feel about using BaC to control the metagame. I understand that it could be a useful release valve for omnipresent/overpowered legends across the global metagame, but as a player who has dedicated groups and established rule-0 expectations I would probably chaff at it a bit. I'd probably just do what I do with Genju of the Realm, but instead ask if I can play experience counters Atraxa, Praetors' Voice.

This is a really important point to make and think about. The continuous evolution of Commander from small-groups to free-range gameplay is a tough topic that is very connected to the impact of these overpowered commanders.

I have found that actual playgroups, as opposed to say, free-range areas like game stores and MTGO and Cockatrice, are barely affected by stuff like Golos, Tireless Pilgrim. The smaller playgroup I have here in Erie that I tend to play most of my games with is super reasonable and most people have better stuff to do than slam chulane/golos/whatever all the time. The place I notice those problematic dudes is when I've branched out of my normal group and especially online. It feels like 75% of the online meta is a powerhouse commander in my experience.

I'm sensitive to the idea of balancing the needs of broader metagame and smaller groups where people are likely to self-police personally and I wouldn't ever hand-waive and say it's as simple as "well, the needs of the broader metagame should obviously come first." There're definitely effects on smaller groups when these bans hit, and they're largely the group that would suffer for a more aggressive banning strategy.

While there're a ton of people out there in the wild jamming Golos, Tireless Pilgrim decks that make people miserable, and I have very little sympathy for those people having their commander banned (no more than I felt for people who had to give up blinking Sylvan Primordial) I absolutely have sympathy for small-group players who self-police and have fun with their Golos, Tireless Pilgrim decks in their small meta.

It'd be presumptuous on my part to say well, those guys should be the ones to just rule 0 stuff, because by and large people do not do that very much - and they're the ones doing the right thing who should not have to ask permission every time they trot out their decks.

All that said, I do think that the current printing of overpowered legends is having a nasty effect on the free range metagame, and I think the BAAC list is a potentially viable way to fix it.

[DirkGently]

There are people in my LGS playing Golos (and others) that are relatively fair. Or at least, they were made because the owner thought Golos looked fun and not because they were trying to roll over people. As strong as Golos is, afaik he's not top-tier cEDH. The thing that makes him annoying is that he looks designed for casual but is stronk as hell. Anyway, I wouldn't generalize between public play and group play as far as good intentions are concerned. WotC made Golos because they knew it'd appeal to people. Some of those players are spikes but I think the majority are people who got suckered in by something that looked fun and turned out to be evil.

I agree that the printing of annoying overpowered crap is hurting the free-range metagame. But I don't think reinstituting BaaC would have any real effect. If the RC thought Golos was a problem, they could just ban him outright. As you said, he's not getting a lot of 99 play, so the main disincentive to banning him is people playing him as a commander. But they're not doing that, probably because (1) they know it'd create a negative experience for a lot of people in the format and (2) wotc isn't going to stop printing this sort of stuff. Golos, Kenrith, Sisay, Najeela, Jodah, First Sliver, Ramos, Esika...those are just the problematic 5c commanders from the past few years. If you try to ban all this crap you're going to end up with a constant cycle of people getting excited, making decks, and then having that deck get ripped apart. Not to mention a constantly inflating banlist since there's no rotation. I don't think that's a healthy environment. As much as I dislike how WotC designs cards, I think the problem needs to be solved at the source (if it can be solved at all, which unfortunately I doubt...unless y'all take "solve it at the source" very literally and we end capitalism, and then maybe).