Should banned as commander come back?

[plaganegra]

I just wanted to say that I think Braids, Cabal Minion is probably safe to unban when it would probably never see the command zone over something like Tergrid, God of Fright. This is not my main point, however.

More relevantly, I would love to play her in the 99 of one of my mono black decks, where it is just a really easy to kill smokestack.

Commander is such a complex format, mashing all of magics history and cardpool into one play environment with tons of different expectations of what "fun" is - I hardly think that having a "banned as commander" list is that confusing to new players in actual context. I feel it would open up more cards to play that are too powerful when you can cast them over and over again while providing the flexibility to put some of the more problematic commanders in a place where maybe they belong.

If one of the points of commander is to play with the cards you own and love - then the BaC list just allows people to play more of the cards they own and love. Even if a card that might otherwise be banned, just gets added to this purgatory.

[DirkGently]

I just wanted to say that I think Braids, Cabal Minion is probably safe to unban

The more I've thought about it, the more I think braids being on the banlist is probably unnecessary. Could you make a pretty brutal braids list? Probably. Would it be better than, say, Urza? Really doubt it. Nasty things exist, and braids doesn't exactly scream "casual funtimes". I guess you could argue she's a symbolic ban, but I feel like there are plenty of cards that would be better suited to being such a symbol.

Not to wade too deep into these waters again, but what BaaC is, in essence, is a new rule in order to make perhaps 1-4 cards playable in the 99. Braids almost certainly, and arguably Rofellos, Leovold, and Erayo. Now it's all well and good to say "one extra rule isn't that hard", and that's true, but when we're talking about such a tiny number of cards, I don't see any reason to prioritize braids over, say, the people who want to make hybrid mana legal in either color, or Lutri available outside of the companion zone, or make lessons work normally, or whatever. If there were dozens of banned cards that could move to the BaaC list then it would make a lot more sense, but as things stand now I think it would just resume being the vestigial rule it always was.

The other reason not to recreate BaaC, imo, is that of those 4 cards, arguably (in my personal opinion but also a lot of people's) are not very fun. 3/4 of them are stax pieces, and Rofellos is a pretty potent ramp tool in a color that already excels at ramp (albeit it's strongest in mono-green, which is obviously less powerful than multicolor). I'm of the opinion that the banlist should be as short as possible without hurting gameplay, which is why I don't want to ban all the little cards that I think lead to bad play experiences. To me, rules simplicity is the biggest cost to adding cards to the banlist. If the BaaC cards were nonlegendary I don't think they'd be worth the cost of adding to the banlist. However, we're not talking about removing them from the banlist, we're talking about moving them to a different banlist. What this means is that there's no difference in terms of rules simplicity between banning them as a commander and outright banning them, even if BaaC is already assumed to exist as a category. Rules-simplicity-wise, there's no cost to banning them. And if there's no cost to banning them, then personally I think banning them is a good thing even if they're only slightly detrimental to the format in the 99.

Now, one could argue that rules simplicity isn't the only cost, that there's also a cost of not getting to play with the card that you like. To which I would say that you also don't get to play with an infinite number of cards that were never made. Of course a banned card seems a lot closer than a never-printed one, but the end result is still the same. There are so many cards that exist, I don't understand why someone would get so hung up on just a couple of them. I want gifts to be unbanned, it would make a huge impact in my most personal deck (Phelddagrif) and I'd probably play it in most blue decks because it's such a cool effect. But I don't lose any sleep over it. The most I do is bring it up occasionally when people are talking about cards that should be unbanned. But I don't see it as some horrible injustice that I can't play the card, even if I'd be playing it in a very fair way.

All that said, obviously there doesn't have to be logic behind personal feelings towards a card, and if someone really just loves the character of Leovold and wants to play him even in the 99 then I can't really say anything to change that feeling. But I don't think the rules should be dictated by those sorts of feelings.

[pokken]

Leovold never comes back in the 99 with hullbreacher on the banlist.

(and, previously mentioned in the thread is the idea that the BaaC list should be much longer now and those cards, e.g. Golos, Tireless Pilgrim are not problematic in the 99)

[BeneTleilax]

The major part is that you don't make format-level rules for corner cases.

Companions and Grist are laughing at this. They absolutely make format level rules for corner cases when it suits them. They should do so now, when it suits the community. I'm almost certain that more players will play (in fun ways) Braid and Rofellos in the 99 than will run Grist as their general. I don't get how hard Dirk is arguing that the inelegance of changing the format rules for half a dozen cards is inexcusable, when he argued for days about how they were correct to change the rules for one. The RC should change the rules based on how many players it will affect, rather than how many cards (their estimate of the number of players it will affect, rather, before Vandertroll shows up and demands a t-test).

[DirkGently]

Leovold never comes back in the 99 with hullbreacher on the banlist.

Most likely not, for the second reason I stated above. If Leovold was nonlegendary, though, I don't think it would justify banning for the same reason Narset hasn't been banned, plus add to that the fact that he's tricolor and thus hard to use.

(and, previously mentioned in the thread is the idea that the BaaC list should be much longer now and those cards, e.g. Golos, Tireless Pilgrim are not problematic in the 99)

And as previously mentioned in the thread, letting someone play their commander in the 99 is a pittance. If Golos was BaaCed, it would erase one of my decks from existence. Being able to play him in the 99 would be utterly meaningless (the same would be true for my other decks, although none of them are likely to be banned).

The option to baac a commander shouldn't make the RC any less reticent to ban a commander, especially one played by casual-level players. At least Leovold (who I think was the last popular commander to be banned) was only ever played by tryhards.

The major part is that you don't make format-level rules for corner cases.

Companions and Grist are laughing at this. They absolutely make format level rules for corner cases when it suits them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Grist didn't change the rules of the format. He was just an unusual case that needed the rules to be clarified, not modified.

Companions had the potential to make a huge impact on deckbuilding options. The difference between a companion version of a commander, and a non-companion version, is quite significant and offers a lot of additional variety, far more than adding a few cards to the pool is going to accomplish. Of course the mechanic getting nerfed into oblivion has dampened people's enthusiasm to building companion decks, but the RC couldn't have foreseen that one coming.

They should do so now, when it suits the community.

I could be wrong, but I think it's mostly the always-online crowd of commander players that tilt towards baac. I think most players don't care. And even within the online community, I think its mostly people who have a personal interest in playing one of the cards whose voices are loudest, and covering up the majority who are ambivalent or apathetic.

To a certain extent I agree that they should be beholden to the wishes of the community, but so long as I think the community is wrong and I have a voice in that community, I'm going to keep using it.

I'm almost certain that more players will play (in fun ways) Braid and Rofellos in the 99 than will run Grist as their general.

Not really a fair comparison imo - an entire deck is a much greater impact than a single card in the 99. That said, if they had/did change the rules for Grist then I do think that would be/was a mistake.

Rofellos is $75 while being banned. He's on the reserved list too. And outside of monocolor, he's significantly stronger with a fetch/dual manabase. Probably not a great combination for one of the format's strongest mana dorks to have (I say this as someone who owns one).

Braids I doubt would see much play. Smokestack is only in a few thousand decks on EDHrec and imo it's significantly better, plus it's colorless where braids is color-restricted. Also idk what the fun application for braids is tbh. I don't think she's busted or banworthy but I don't see how she's fun.

They should change the rules based on how many players it will affect, rather than how many cards

I'm not sure what this means. Every rule affects every player in some way, even if it's just learning that rule. Some of those effects are positive, some negative.

Considering Rofellos is likely to become another powerful option available only to enfranchised players that further divides the haves and have-nots, and Braids is unlikely to see much play and will likely annoy people playing against her, I think the assumption that these effects will be net positive is questionable at best.

[plaganegra]

I just wanted to say that I think Braids, Cabal Minion is probably safe to unban

The more I've thought about it, the more I think braids being on the banlist is probably unnecessary. Could you make a pretty brutal braids list? Probably. Would it be better than, say, Urza? Really doubt it. Nasty things exist, and braids doesn't exactly scream "casual funtimes". I guess you could argue she's a symbolic ban, but I feel like there are plenty of cards that would be better suited to being such a symbol.

Not to wade too deep into these waters again, but what BaaC is, in essence, is a new rule in order to make perhaps 1-4 cards playable in the 99. Braids almost certainly, and arguably Rofellos, Leovold, and Erayo. Now it's all well and good to say "one extra rule isn't that hard", and that's true, but when we're talking about such a tiny number of cards, I don't see any reason to prioritize braids over, say, the people who want to make hybrid mana legal in either color, or Lutri available outside of the companion zone, or make lessons work normally, or whatever. If there were dozens of banned cards that could move to the BaaC list then it would make a lot more sense, but as things stand now I think it would just resume being the vestigial rule it always was.

The other reason not to recreate BaaC, imo, is that of those 4 cards, arguably (in my personal opinion but also a lot of people's) are not very fun. 3/4 of them are stax pieces, and Rofellos is a pretty potent ramp tool in a color that already excels at ramp (albeit it's strongest in mono-green, which is obviously less powerful than multicolor).

I can totally see your point of view on the simplicity of it all, which would just change my opinion to unban braids please hahah. Yeah it is an "unfun" card, but I already have a Tergrid deck put together, and would just swap it out for Braids. Which would actually make the deck more fun to play against (probably) and less backbreaking, more fair. Which is a hilarious situation if you think about it lol.

[BeneTleilax]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Grist didn't change the rules of the format. He was just an unusual case that needed the rules to be clarified, not modified.

Most abilities that don't function on the battlefield state what zone they do function in. Grist, the Hunger Tide has a new kind of ability that instead states what zone it doesn't function in. A new rule tells us that this functions in every other zone, including outside the game and before the game begins. This means that Grist can be your commander but can't be played in a deck with Kaheera, the Orphanguard as your companion.

This is why I was so annoyed when it was spoiled. Not because Grist breaks anything, but because it's inelegant as %$#%.

Companions had the potential to make a huge impact on deckbuilding options. The difference between a companion version of a commander, and a non-companion version, is quite significant and offers a lot of additional variety, far more than adding a few cards to the pool is going to accomplish. Of course the mechanic getting nerfed into oblivion has dampened people's enthusiasm to building companion decks, but the RC couldn't have foreseen that one coming.

Disagree that Companions were worth the rules finagling, or would have even made the format more interesting in the long run, but I concede that it's a matter of taste, and we never really got a chance to watch that experiment play out in EDH. It's a moot point by now anyways. I hope that WotC's whipsawing on that mechanic gives the RC pause before they make accommodations for the next big gimmick.

I think its mostly people who have a personal interest in playing one of the cards whose voices are loudest, and covering up the majority who are ambivalent or apathetic.

I don't have either, and while I might put Braids in the next Bx aristocratish thing I make if she's unbanned, I have no set plans to run any of the candidates in the 99. I'd like either BaaC or a ban for Golos (be fine with either for Chulane or Korvold, though I'm not pushing real hard for either), but it's not like I think BaaC is necessary to get rid of Golos. I just think the marginal advantage is larger than the marginal disadvantage.

Considering Rofellos is likely to become another powerful option available only to enfranchised players that further divides the haves and have-nots, and Braids is unlikely to see much play and will likely annoy people playing against her, I think the assumption that these effects will be net positive is questionable at best.

Rofellos will be no worse than Cradle, and dies much easier, I imagine. I don't think there's that much pressure to run him outside of elfball, especially with the strength of recent green ramp effects. Braids is probably just another matter of taste, but I think midgame stax pieces like Braids, Savra and Grave Pact have their place, and make for interesting games. Smokestack, on account of its typeline, isn't nearly as good in the more casual grindy aristo builds, so only gets run by purer stax/prison decks hoping to combine multiple stax pieces at once. Because of this, it's become a signal that a deck is dedicated stax, raising its threat profile, which makes it less useful in decks just dipping into effects like this, furthering the cycle.

[DirkGently]

Interesting thing to note: even if BaaC was a thing, I think I'd still rather that banned cards got fully legalized instead of baaced. If someone sits down with Erayo or Leovold, you know exactly what you're getting into and you can pull the plug or take out your cEDH deck.

In a certain way, letting cards be legal as commanders is the safest way for them to be legal, because in the CZ everyone can see them. I'm a lot more okay with losing to an Erayo lock because I agreed to that game in the first place, than losing to some jackass playing a Roon deck that T&Ned into deadeye palinchron because I assumed it was going to be casual blink.

This is why I was so annoyed when it was spoiled. Not because Grist breaks anything, but because it's inelegant as %$#%.

I believe that means a new rule in terms of the comp rules, not the commander rules.

Obviously wotc is constantly adding new things to the comp rules. Anyone who gets too worried about elegance in the comp rules is doomed to frustration, I suspect.

I don't think it's the cleanest mechanic but it doesn't bother me that much. In a lot of ways I prefer it to just sticking the text "this can be your commander" on something, although I'm also glad that they're not (presumably) going to stick that sort of text on many cards because it would get tedious. As a one-off, though, I think it's kinda cute.

Disagree that Companions were worth the rules finagling, or would have even made the format more interesting in the long run, but I concede that it's a matter of taste, and we never really got a chance to watch that experiment play out in EDH. It's a moot point by now anyways. I hope that WotC's whipsawing on that mechanic gives the RC pause before they make accommodations for the next big gimmick.

I wouldn't say it's moot. I know I built a decent number of companion decks, and likely will in the future. And last time I played, one of my opponents had a companion as well. Not sure what the frequency is, but it's definitely not moot.

I think the egg was far more on wotc's face than the RC's on that one. Within commander the mechanic was always fine, it was WotC's recklessness with other formats that caused problems. Even though I wish we had un-nerfed companions, I'm still glad we have companions. It could have been annoying if they became important for a lot of powerful builds, but as they were, I think they were fine - a cool variant to build around that was overall generally weaker but gave a fresh option.

Rofellos will be no worse than Cradle, and dies much easier, I imagine.

I don't think he'd break the world, but is another cradle really something we want in the format though?

(note that I think he's a fair bit weaker than cradle since he's a creature and is somewhat hard to run outside mono-green, but he'd still be a very powerful option)

I don't think there's that much pressure to run him outside of elfball, especially with the strength of recent green ramp effects.

What cards would realistically compete with him at such a low cmc? They've printed powerful top-end ramp but I can't think of anything reliably producing 2+ mana for 2.

Braids is probably just another matter of taste, but I think midgame stax pieces like Braids, Savra and Grave Pact have their place, and make for interesting games.

Magus of the Abyss is damn similar to Braids, and he's getting run in fewer than 1K decks on rec. The reason people would play Braids isn't for creature control, it's because they've already gotten creature control and want to remove lands.

[BeneTleilax]

Interesting thing to note: even if BaaC was a thing, I think I'd still rather that banned cards got fully legalized instead of baaced. If someone sits down with Erayo or Leovold, you know exactly what you're getting into and you can pull the plug or take out your cEDH deck.

You are almost guaranteed to run into their general though, while none of these cards are really gonna be tutor targets.

I don't think he'd break the world, but is another cradle really something we want in the format though?

(note that I think he's a fair bit weaker than cradle since he's a creature and is somewhat hard to run outside mono-green, but he'd still be a very powerful option)

Answered yourself there. If you're running that many basic forests, Gaea's Touch arguably competes with this, and is about a buck.

Magus of the Abyss is damn similar to Braids, and he's getting run in fewer than 1K decks on rec. The reason people would play Braids isn't for creature control, it's because they've already gotten creature control and want to remove lands.

Magus doesn't say sacrifice, which matters for things like Mazirek and Mayhem Devil.

[DirkGently]

You are almost guaranteed to run into their general though, while none of these cards are really gonna be tutor targets.

That's fine, I knew that was going to happen going into the game. It's my opinion that games are a lot worse when you get surprised by some annoying BS than when you go in expecting it. My most disliked game endings is when someone playing a seemingly casual deck suddenly drops a combo.

When it's in the CZ, if you don't have a deck to compete against erayo, or just don't want to - nbd, just ask them to play something else. Imo this is a much better experience. Up to personal preference, obviously, and a lot of newer players won't necessarily know what to expect, so it's not cut and dried. But for me personally, put that crap in the CZ and let me make an informed decision, rather than hide it in the 99.

Answered yourself there. If you're running that many basic forests, Gaea's Touch arguably competes with this, and is about a buck.

uhhhhh lol what? To generate 2 extra mana on 3 you'd need at least 5 lands in hand, and you're ultimately down a card. Rofellos just needs 3 forests and he's already generating more than the optimal case with touch with no card disadvantage.

But more importantly, you said "the strength of recent green ramp effects."...and I don't know about you, but I have a hard time calling the dark "recent". So I'm still not sure what you could be referring to.

Magus doesn't say sacrifice, which matters for things like Mazirek and Mayhem Devil.

I can't tell if you're being serious or just grasping at straws. Do you really think that people are going to play Braids over magus because of its oh-so-crucial synergy with mayhem devil?

Look, I don't hate braids, I'd legalize her, but she's primarily used to kill lands. That's how it was when she was legal in the 99 and that's how it'd be if she's legalized again. Ain't nobody getting excited for a color-intensive -2/-1 magus of the abyss just because she lets you trigger mayhem devil. Pretending otherwise weakens your argument for legalizing her, imo, because it makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.

[BeneTleilax]

That's fine, I knew that was going to happen going into the game. It's my opinion that games are a lot worse when you get surprised by some annoying BS than when you go in expecting it. My most disliked game endings is when someone playing a seemingly casual deck suddenly drops a combo.

People in my experience tend to be quite dishonest about the power level of their build. I've seen enough "I'm not like other Chulanes" turn out exactly like every other Chulane. The general indicates build direction somewhat, but it's not a sufficient signal for power level.

But more importantly, you said "the strength of recent green ramp effects."...and I don't know about you, but I have a hard time calling the dark "recent". So I'm still not sure what you could be referring to.

Kinnan, though he's not cheap. Not mono-green, but I'm pretty sure there's more UGx than mono-green decks around right now.

Look, I don't hate braids, I'd legalize her, but she's primarily used to kill lands. That's how it was when she was legal in the 99 and that's how it'd be if she's legalized again. Ain't nobody getting excited for a color-intensive -2/-1 magus of the abyss just because she lets you trigger mayhem devil. Pretending otherwise weakens your argument for legalizing her, imo, because it makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.

I mean, when I was running Mazirek I always wanted to play her as exactly that. The word "sacrifice" is increasingly relevant in those kind of decks.

[DirkGently]

People in my experience tend to be quite dishonest about the power level of their build. I've seen enough "I'm not like other Chulanes" turn out exactly like every other Chulane. The general indicates build direction somewhat, but it's not a sufficient signal for power level.

Imo it's a lot easier to mask power level with a goodstuff commander than something like leovold. Leovold you can just ask "are you running any wheels?" And unless they just point-blank lie to you, you'll have your answer. Whereas with chulane it's kinda subjective how strong it is.

Kinnan, though he's not cheap. Not mono-green, but I'm pretty sure there's more UGx than mono-green decks around right now.

how many decks do you think are running more nonland mana producers than lands? It's not zero, but c'mon, Kinnan is niche. You have to be running a lot of mana dorks/rocks for him to be viable, let alone comparable to rofellos. Rofellos just needs forests. No build-around required.

I mean, when I was running Mazirek I always wanted to play her as exactly that. The word "sacrifice" is increasingly relevant in those kind of decks.

There's a small number of cards that care about that sort of thing (should have mentioned tergrid, a lot more important than mayhem devil) but virtually all of them are new. Historically, the reason to play her has been land destruction. You might have pure as the driven snow motives, but based on her history I highly doubt she'll be used against creatures primarily. And even if you don't intend to make people sac lands, when the rest of your deck forces sacrifices, it's going to happen anyway because people will often be out of other fodder.

Braids is not a nice lady. Probably not banworthy but definitely no saint.

[pokken]

Kinnan is niche. You have to be running a lot of mana dorks/rocks for him to be viable, let alone comparable to rofellos. Rofellos just needs forests. No build-around required.

Kinnan is "niche" and yet played 3x more than Azusa (and significantly more than any mono green commander), and so much more powerful than Rofellos as to be laugh-inducing.

Much like the Paradox engine discussions, "Play the best cards in the format" is not much of a build around requirement

[DirkGently]

Kinnan is "niche" and yet played 3x more than Azusa (and significantly more than any mono green commander), and so much more powerful than Rofellos as to be laugh-inducing.

Kinnan is played in 5030 decks ( 6887 if we include as a commander)
Azusa is played in 23449 decks ( 24117 if we include as a commander)

So…

Kinnan has more decks as a commander because he's strong when built around (and because he gives access to an extra color) which is viable in the CZ, but he's not as broadly useful as Azusa.

And Azusa is more niche than rofellos since she needs to have a lot of lands in hand where rofellos just wants you to hit your land drops normally, and synergizes with other ramp too. Rofellos would be useful in far more decks than either of them. Unless you're playing 3+ colours he's the best 2-mana ramp I can think of, and even in 3c a good mana base could make it work. In the 99 rof is far more useful and it's not close.

As far as whether he's be stronger than Kinnan in the CZ it's hard to say. He requires a lot less support both in build and board, but he cuts you off blue, is more vulnerable to removal, and doesn't have a built-in payoff. Both have infinite combos. I don't think it's cut and dry, but I suspect access to blue gives kenny the edge.

I'm not necessarily against unbanning him but I'd be a lot more trepidatious than with braids.

[onering]

I mean, when I was running Mazirek I always wanted to play her as exactly that. The word "sacrifice" is increasingly relevant in those kind of decks.

There's a small number of cards that care about that sort of thing (should have mentioned tergrid, a lot more important than mayhem devil) but virtually all of them are new.

Which is why Braids in the 99 is more relevant today than it was when BaaC went away.

[pokken]

Kinnan is played in 5030 decks ( 6887 if we include as a commander)
Azusa is played in 23449 decks ( 24117 if we include as a commander)

Given that we are in the banned as a commander thread I think you might charitably assume that I was talking about *as a commander* Where the numbers are 3-1 as I mentioned.

[DirkGently]

Which is why Braids in the 99 is more relevant today than it was when BaaC went away.

There's also more competition, though.

I'm not sure how popular braids would be, we didn't have edhrec back in 2014 (or at least I wasn't aware of it) for point of comparison. However, my point was that, if she is played, it will be primarily because of her ability to kill lands, not creatures. If you want more points of comparison that use the word "sacrifice", Call to the Grave, Kuon, Ogre Ascendant // Kuon's Essence, Anowon, the Ruin Sage...none of these cards are pulling in big numbers - call and anowon are being used almost exclusively in tribal decks that can ignore the sac, and kuon's numbers are abysmal.

So I'm dubious that she'll see a lot of play, but if she does, it'll be because she can kill lands, because that's what makes her stand out from other similar effects. That's fine by me, tbh, but I don't appreciate people pretending like she's just an innocent board-control tool.

Given that we are in the banned as a commander thread I think you might charitably assume that I was talking about *as a commander* Where the numbers are 3-1 as I mentioned.

I would say the opposite - isn't the argument whether Rofellos should be BaaCed? In which case his strength as a commander is irrelevant, what matters is whether he's dangerous to unban in the 99. If you just want to fully unban him then this seems like the wrong thread (and also considering his strength in the 99 is still very relevant).

Or are you trying to get Kinnan BaaCed? Then it would make sense I suppose? But prior to that point we'd been comparing Rof to "recent green ramp" in the 99 so forgive me if I assumed you were continuing with the topic at hand.

The only other way I can make sense of comparing commander numbers only is if you wanted to unban rof strictly as a commander. Which would be a novel approach, I suppose...

[pokken]

I would say the opposite - isn't the argument whether Rofellos should be BaaCed? In which case his strength as a commander is irrelevant, what matters is whether he's dangerous to unban in the 99. If you just want to fully unban him then this seems like the wrong thread (and also considering his strength in the 99 is still very relevant).

Or are you trying to get Kinnan BaaCed? Then it would make sense I suppose? But prior to that point we'd been comparing Rof to "recent green ramp" in the 99 so forgive me if I assumed you were continuing with the topic at hand.

It's more that the reason Rofellos is banned we know factually is exclusively due to his problems as a commander (since he was previously on the BaaC list).

So the Kinnan dimension is that Kinnan should 100% be banned if Rofellos was, because he's 1) more powerful in basically every respect, and 2) already pretty ubiquitous for a commander, being in the top 75 or so overall.

More generically the argument is (as made previously in the thread):

* there exist many commanders who are more problematic than Rofellos that are not banned (even in the same way as Rofellos)
* therefore Rofellos should not be banned

This obviously runs afoul of the RC's general 'contextual' concept which is that they do not apply comparisons significantly in discussion of bans, e.g. they don't say "every card worse than another card on the banlist must be banned."

But I think Kinnan is a really great example of almost strictly better commander who, had Rofellos had his rules text back in the 2005s or whatever, would have 100% been banned. Like the reason they banned Rofellos was because dudes were doing Staff of Domination bs with him too much. RIP Basalt Monolith (temporarily anyway lol) had Kinnan been printed instead of Rofellos is all I'm sayin

They have not looked at Rofellos fairly in light of their recent stance on bannings. I think it's really hard to argue that Kinnan survives the 2005 ban criteria

[DirkGently]

It's more that the reason Rofellos is banned we know factually is exclusively due to his problems as a commander (since he was previously on the BaaC list).

Okay, so then you're wanting to fully-unban Rofellos. In which case his potential uses across both the 99 and the CZ is completely relevant. I don't really appreciate getting called out for being "off topic" when I wasn't.

So the Kinnan dimension is that Kinnan should 100% be banned if Rofellos was, because he's 1) more powerful in basically every respect, and 2) already pretty ubiquitous for a commander, being in the top 75 or so overall.

Do you think this sort of hyperbole is necessary to make your point? At least from my perspective, it just looks like you're not being clear-headed, and relying on motivated reasoning.

Kinnan is powerful when used in a deck with a very high percentage of mana rocks and/or dorks. However, most green decks are running hardly any rocks, and rarely more than 10 dorks or so, making him mediocre, if not unplayable. Rofellos only requires forests to be effective, which are obviously going to be in a very high count in nearly any mono-green deck, and with a strong manabase can easily be at a high effective count in 2 and potentially even 3 color decks. He synergizes with the land ramp that most people prefer - Cultivate is at almost double the usage of the top mana dorks on rec.

Are there decks where Kinnan is better? Sure. Does he have a ton of power when built-around? Absolutely. But gtfo with this "more powerful in basically every respect" garbage. This isn't Lightning Bolt vs Shock. This is more like Rhystic Study vs Kindred Discovery. Discovery has a higher potential, but study doesn't require any work...it's not a simple direct comparison, and it's far from cut and dried.

And while he may be pretty highly ranked, he's still less than 1/3 of 1% of the EDHrec meta. I think I've played against him once? Idk what definition of "ubiquitous" you're using, but I don't think playing against him one in a hundred games qualifies.

More generically the argument is (as made previously in the thread):

* there exist many commanders who are more problematic than Rofellos that are not banned (even in the same way as Rofellos)
* therefore Rofellos should not be banned

ok cool but wtf does that have to do with BaaC? Go find the Rofellos thread.

But I think Kinnan is a really great example of almost strictly better commander who, had Rofellos had his rules text back in the 2005s or whatever, would have 100% been banned. Like the reason they banned Rofellos was because dudes were doing Staff of Domination bs with him too much. RIP Basalt Monolith (temporarily anyway lol) had Kinnan been printed instead of Rofellos is all I'm sayin

That's probably true but (1) it's irrelevant to the BaaC topic (2) Kinnan is not even close to "strictly better", cut that crap out, (3) even if it's just inertia keeping the banlist the way it is...that's kind of fine? Deleting people's decks is a pretty harsh blow, whereas unbanning a card isn't that big of a deal in a game where a thousand new cards are printed every year. Hitting pitch-perfect balance isn't worth waffling on bans when people's decks are on the line, not in a casual format. (4) Minor point, but Rofellos staff is an instant-win whereas Kinnan monolith isn't necessarily, since it only generates infinite colorless. Not that I think either should be a major consideration in banning.

[pokken]

Chill out bud I stand by my Kinnan being basically strictly better. He makes more mana faster in most decks and he's blue. The decks Rofellos can make are just weaker, except at the bottom end of the power spectrum. While his "combo" with Basalt Monolith requires a second payoff card you can just chain Kinnan's ability as long as you have UG, *and* you do not require a haste enabler.

I was just following your line of discussion about how Kinnan compares to Rofellos - it's a bit of a tangent, but understanding that there are a ton of commanders who are not banned that would have been in the BaaC era demonstrates a lot about the current banlist philosophy and how it is failing to protect the meta from overpowered commanders.

[DirkGently]

Not really sure which part of my response wasn't calm, but I guess if there's nothing else to distract from being off-topic and wrong, you can always pull the "you mad bro?" defense.

What do you think the world "strictly" conveys that wouldn't be more succinctly stated by just saying "better"? If you want to argue Kinnan is better in the CZ I might agree with you on that, but this hyperbole is completely unnecessary and distracting, especially when we're talking about the 99 (which we kind of have to when discussing full unbans) where Rofellos is significantly more versatile.

I'll agree that, if Kinnan was printed in Urza's Legacy instead of Rof he would likely have gotten banned as Rof did, but that doesn't imply that Kinnan would have been banned today if BaaC was a thing. It's clear from the data that Rof is primarily a commander, and has a much lesser relative popularity in the 99, for obvious reasons. If he was banned today, the vast majority of the impact would be on those playing him as a commander, which would still happen if he was BaaCed. There's no other UG commander that comes to mind that wants 35+ mana dorks and rocks, nor that generates the same payoff. I doubt most of those decks would survive without massive overhaul. So I doubt the option to BaaC him moves the needle very far towards being an acceptable casualty. As with all the other commanders that you want banned (which seems to be quite a few) I don't think there's anything preventing them from being banned completely, except the general RC philosophy of nonintervention, which seems to be where your actual complaint lies.

While my experience is just one, of course, I haven't had that many problems recently with overpowered commanders. In most cases, being able to see them in the CZ gives a heads up and a tool to direct collective hate. I don't love the way wotc has designed many commanders, but they seem to be reversing course a bit, and I don't find the ones that exist to be a major detriment to my play experience. If anything, they're just more satisfying to beat.

[Candlemane]

I voted no.

The reasoning behind this is that as the game goes on, things like "hidden commanders" can just be tutored up or drawn up and it, in most cases, wouldn't really matter. I've been in games where the face commander was there doing things and I was on the winning side of a battle, and then out of the 99 Chulane or Urza drops and the entire games shifts the other way. Not much different than some other cards. If the cards are problematic, they should be banned outright.

That said, I think the course of action here is just doing what is usually my experience; they're legal of course, but realize what the consequences are on running "problematic" commanders. You may get hated out of a game, you may reach a compromise on how often you can use it, or your group or meta will just say no. Our group has some problematic commanders, but it's just understood over time that you can't use it every game and maybe even only two-four times a month per meta / group (seems to average that way for us). They get there fancy OP stuff we try to defeat, and the rest of us get some actual games in. Win win.

[onering]

I voted no.

The reasoning behind this is that as the game goes on, things like "hidden commanders" can just be tutored up or drawn up and it, in most cases, wouldn't really matter. I've been in games where the face commander was there doing things and I was on the winning side of a battle, and then out of the 99 Chulane or Urza drops and the entire games shifts the other way. Not much different than some other cards. If the cards are problematic, they should be banned outright.

This is an interesting argument. I both agree and disagree. I think its possible for a commander to be enough of a problem that it should be banned outright, but I also think that some of the things that are problems in the command zone aren't nearly as bad when they are in the 99 even if they play out the same when you drop them and they don't get answered. Chulane coming out of the 99, for instance, is going to do so less consistently and just goes away when answered, possibly being reanimated maybe once. n the CZ he just keeps getting recast because his ability helps ramp and eat into the ability of commander tax to police him. Urza is the same, except when he's gone there's no way to get him back. Lots of cards in the 99 come down and shift games, that's fine. The issue with them being commanders is that they add a level of consistency and repetitive play patterns that makes them more problematic than their power level alone. Leovold, on the other hand, was probably banworthy even in the 99, as I played against enough Ydris Wheels decks to see how easy it was for those decks to get him out early and consistently. Same for Grislebrand, as he was just Yawg's Bargain on a stick with lifelink.

[Candlemane]

I voted no.

The reasoning behind this is that as the game goes on, things like "hidden commanders" can just be tutored up or drawn up and it, in most cases, wouldn't really matter. I've been in games where the face commander was there doing things and I was on the winning side of a battle, and then out of the 99 Chulane or Urza drops and the entire games shifts the other way. Not much different than some other cards. If the cards are problematic, they should be banned outright.

This is an interesting argument. I both agree and disagree. I think its possible for a commander to be enough of a problem that it should be banned outright, but I also think that some of the things that are problems in the command zone aren't nearly as bad when they are in the 99 even if they play out the same when you drop them and they don't get answered. Chulane coming out of the 99, for instance, is going to do so less consistently and just goes away when answered, possibly being reanimated maybe once. n the CZ he just keeps getting recast because his ability helps ramp and eat into the ability of commander tax to police him. Urza is the same, except when he's gone there's no way to get him back. Lots of cards in the 99 come down and shift games, that's fine. The issue with them being commanders is that they add a level of consistency and repetitive play patterns that makes them more problematic than their power level alone. Leovold, on the other hand, was probably banworthy even in the 99, as I played against enough Ydris Wheels decks to see how easy it was for those decks to get him out early and consistently. Same for Grislebrand, as he was just Yawg's Bargain on a stick with lifelink.

Them being in the command zone is more of an issue, true. Despite that, I think that if they are that bad they should be left out entirely. I'm not advocating for their bans understand, I just appreciate a more all-or-nothing approach since the card will always do what it does, and some can potentially always be available no matter here they might end up (give it another 3 years. There will be a legendary you can cast from exile I wager).

As for the repetitive play patterns, I wholly agree. I've found even building with less than stellar commanders and sprinkling in the good tutors that not going for the easy win is sometimes really hard, and frankly often disappointing. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but sitting across from those decks and commanders does me no good mentally either. Still, people like what they like. If there is some rapport amongst a group, maybe the decks or commander's use can be curbed a bit and a compromise reached. Win win.

[ISBPathfinder]

Them being in the command zone is more of an issue, true. Despite that, I think that if they are that bad they should be left out entirely. I'm not advocating for their bans understand, I just appreciate a more all-or-nothing approach since the card will always do what it does, and some can potentially always be available no matter here they might end up (give it another 3 years. There will be a legendary you can cast from exile I wager).

As for the repetitive play patterns, I wholly agree. I've found even building with less than stellar commanders and sprinkling in the good tutors that not going for the easy win is sometimes really hard, and frankly often disappointing. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but sitting across from those decks and commanders does me no good mentally either. Still, people like what they like. If there is some rapport amongst a group, maybe the decks or commander's use can be curbed a bit and a compromise reached. Win win.

Squee, the Immortal can be cast from exile. As sad as it is I have had him both stolen and transformed to not be a creature more than once lol.