Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

[DirkGently]

If you remove the Companion mechanic then the cards aren't broken or ban-worthy... Apart may be from Gyruda, Doom of Depths which becomes better the higher the number of opponents you have.

none of these cards (except lutri) are broken with companion either. And lutri isn't exactly overpowered, it's just zero opportunity cost which is problematic for ubiquity and balance reasons. If you think playing Gyruda is worth losing vampiric, sol ring, skullclamp, brainstorm, mystical, SDT, swan song, vault, remora, reanimate, pongify, rhystic study, phyrexian arena, toxic deluge, disallow....I could go on forever...then you're out of your mind.

That you'd even think Gyruda is banworthy is absurd. That card is deeply mediocre in the 99 and absolutely nowhere near worth sacrificing the above cards to play out of the sideboard.

[Atraxian]

Ok, Gyruda isn't banworthy in any way.
I phrased it the wrong way.
Yet, I wouldn't put it past players to find ways to abuse it to mill the whole table in one go.

About the whole mechanic being banworthy, I'm one of those who believes that in commander most non-land tutors should be banned (so I'm heavily biased here) and this mechanics works pretty much like a free tutor of sorts.
Is it worth to build your deck around the gimmick? Probably not, but will it potentially open the floodgates for broken cards that can be "freely tutorable" through companion? Absolutely.

[DirkGently]

I mean, in theory, sure. In practice, I'm hoping wotc has seen how hearthstone, for example, got rekt with a horrible stale meta by pulling a similar gimmick. Based on how conservative these designs seem to be - and while lutri is obviously strong here, in standard that is a pretty heavy restriction - I think they're playing it pretty cautiously. But we will have to wait and see.

While I don't love it aesthetically, so long as the power level isn't problematic I'm ok with this being another one of those gimmicks that you bump into every once in a while. I think it seems like a huge violation now, but once it's been a few years and you only see it once every few dozen games, everyone will stop worrying so much about it.

But then, I figured functionally unique BaB promos would be something they'd play safe and then nexus happened so idfk. I do expect that, if any of these are problematic that the RC will ban them with extreme prejudice, though, simply because it'll be something that instantly becomes a major part of the meta since it'll show up in, potentially, nearly every game, like Lutri if Lutri wasn't banned.

[BeneTleilax]

I actually don't run mana crypt in Feather, on account of how cheap and colored pretty much all the spells there are

[MAGUSZANIN]

I think the rather serious deck building constraints from the others will offset the advantages quite handily. These don't come for free (other than Lutri, in Commander). Keruga, the Macrosage is likely going to be the least difficult to pull off in casual, but even then the payoff isn't much greater than a Shamanic Revelation. And at that, people will quickly realize that losing their Cyclonic Rift, sakura tribe elder, counterspell, rampant growth, etc, might not be the greatest decision just to run another massive draw effect that the colors already have no issue with. Or maybe they will want to, because they can blink/bounce him to get far more advantage than a Revelation... But at least there it's a deck building decision with real consequences and decisions. Not having Rift, Hybridize, Pongify, Reality Shift - you lose some of your best removal and counterspells.

I would agree.... if we were allowing them as Companions. My entire argument is that we should not have allowed the mechanic in the first place. It was already non-playable because of Rule 11, and that should have been followed. Lutri should have been a decent Dualcaster Mage Variant in the Command Zone/99, we wouldn't have 101 card Commander decks mucking up people's math, and the number of cards with Companion playable playable in the format would be 10 instead of 9. These creatures are perfectly playable missing their Companion text, and should have been played as such.

I get that Lutri is a problem if we're allowing them to be played from the sideboard, but the solution is not to violate long established norms of the format, not open the can of worms that is preemptive bans to cover for 9 other cards. By allowing Rule 11 to stand as is, this whole mess could have been avoided.

Instead, we have the worst of both worlds. Not only are we allowing 101 card decks, we have the first and only preemptive ban in the game's history, something that is so problematic not even Memory Jar or Copy Cat crossed that line. The precedent this sets is that it's ok to paper over Wizard's mistakes with bans before the cards are even in player's hands, and I refuse to be ok with that. There is no rationalization that should make preemptive bans ok.

[Sharpened]

Two thoughts:
First:
While I see the comparisons to wishes, it just doesn't hold up. It's the difference between letting a little old lady with 1 item go ahead of you in line at the checkout vs letting every and anyone do it. It's a matter of scale and scale matters.

Companions (excluding the otter): If you make massive deckbuilding concessions, you get access to this 1 card.

Wishes: If you play these cards, we have to have a sideboard (which the RC doesn't want) or deal with a bunch of logistical and rules issues, in order to effectively make your deck size limitless and leads to play patterns which are less than good (to put it mildly).

As far as a mechanic goes, its more like Eminence than Wishes, and while Eminence isn't everyones favorite, it doesn't break the game.

Second:
Printing a card that they know they have to ban in 1 format (2 counting Brawl), while not ideal, is not the end of the world. While I can't see the payoff for the card being *worth it* in a competitive sense for any format, tempting players to play singleton in nonsingleton formats is worthwhile. The card is effectively Battle of Wits. Having it banned the day its previewed is actually preferable. No one is spending money acquiring the card then loses out when its banned. It's just a card that is basically to be ignored by this format, and that's fine. Not every card works everywhere.

I do feel for people who would love to play the otter in commander and not as companion. In the 99 he's not really necessary, but as a commander he's somewhat unique and looks fun. I'd personally say "Sure" if someone wanted to play with him not as a companion, and I find myself to be a bit of a stickler about most rules. I support the RC's decision to keep the rules simple with "banned" and "not banned" as the only categories, and I think they make the right decision with this, but yeah, not going to object if I see it as something other than a 101st card.

[MAGUSZANIN]

I support the RC's decision to keep the rules simple with "banned" and "not banned" as the only categories, and I think they make the right decision with this, but yeah, not going to object if I see it as something other than a 101st card.

The problem here is that you're ignoring the third option. It's not a "banned totally" or "banned as a Companion" dichotomy. We could simply follow Rule 11 and everything would be fine. Nothing banned. No deck size issues. We get a net increase of cool cards to play with. Wizards gets to sell more packs because a better Dualcaster Mage is probably a net gain for the EV of the set. Everyone wins this way, and we don't set the precedent that preemptive bannings to paper over a mistake is acceptable.

[DirkGently]

I would agree.... if we were allowing them as Companions. My entire argument is that we should not have allowed the mechanic in the first place. It was already non-playable because of Rule 11, and that should have been followed. Lutri should have been a decent Dualcaster Mage Variant in the Command Zone/99, we wouldn't have 101 card Commander decks mucking up people's math, and the number of cards with Companion playable playable in the format would be 10 instead of 9. These creatures are perfectly playable missing their Companion text, and should have been played as such.

I get that Lutri is a problem if we're allowing them to be played from the sideboard, but the solution is not to violate long established norms of the format, not open the can of worms that is preemptive bans to cover for 9 other cards. By allowing Rule 11 to stand as is, this whole mess could have been avoided.

Instead, we have the worst of both worlds. Not only are we allowing 101 card decks, we have the first and only preemptive ban in the game's history, something that is so problematic not even Memory Jar or Copy Cat crossed that line. The precedent this sets is that it's ok to paper over Wizard's mistakes with bans before the cards are even in player's hands, and I refuse to be ok with that. There is no rationalization that should make preemptive bans ok.

There is not a single human being on the entire planet, in the history of time, that got excited about commander because of rule 11.

And while we're at it, the 100 card maximum thing is a pointless hanger-on of a rule as well. I don't particularly mind either rule I guess, but they're not exactly what makes the format great. Sticking to the letter of the law, when the law is very changeable and not particularly important to the core of the format is silly. Somebody is going to get excited about, and really enjoy making a crappy evens-only deck so they can play partners with gyruda. That's way more important than sticking to some arbitrary rules invented a decade ago.

And what on EARTH are you talking about "mucking up people's math" with regards to 101 card decks?

you: "how many cards are in your graveyard?"
them: "uh......65"
you: "and your hand?"
them: "5"
you: "ok, your board state?"
them: "25 cards milord"
you: "HAHAHA, EXCELLENT! I have calculated this exact moment with perfect precision, because now - the turn before you overrun me with combat damage - I will mill you for your final 5 cards, and you will have no library left, and you will LOSE, because you have 100 cards total!!! Behold the power of my INCREDIBLE MATH!!!!!"
them: "uh, it's 6 cards. I had an extra card because of my companion which I told you about 5 hours ago when we started this game, remember?"
you: "NOOOOOO!!!! FIE ON YOU WIZARDS, FIE ON YOU FOR CRIPPLING MY BEAUTIFUL AND PERFECT CALCULATIONS!!! NO MAN CAN COUNT TO 101, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!! YOU'VE RUINED IT, YOU'VE RUINED IT ALLLL!!!"
them: "ok, so uh...I'm gonna go..."

[MAGUSZANIN]

There is not a single human being on the entire planet, in the history of time, that got excited about commander because of rule 11.

No, but "I'm excited to play this new Dualcaster Mage in my Nekuzar/Kess/whoever deck" is something I've heard from 3 people in the last 24 hours, and I informed all 3 that it was banned. That's a shame, and should never have happened.

And what on EARTH are you talking about "mucking up people's math" with regards to 101 card decks?

It's not about that math per se, it's the headache of keeping track of it at all. I have to constantly remind myself that they have 5 "cards in hand" instead of the 4 I can see, and that next turn they can definitely cast x assuming one of those 4 is a land, etc. EDH boardstates get super complex as it is, and adding to that with pieces that aren't even in play is one of the big issues Eminence has that made it so annoying. The issue is not that having one extra card is that big of a burden, the issue is math tracking is already a potential problem, please don't make it harder.

Wizards themselves has come out and said this is one of the largest barriers to entry for the game, and have gone far out of their way to curtail it because of that (new world order being the largest example, but not one that's relevant here). Why are we adding more exceptions to the rules when allowing the rules to stand as they are allows more cards to be played while making explaining things to new players easier?

[DirkGently]

No, but "I'm excited to play this new Dualcaster Mage in my Nekuzar/Kess/whoever deck" is something I've heard from 3 people in the last 24 hours, and I informed all 3 that it was banned. That's a shame, and should never have happened.

So house rule it. I'd let 'em play it, IDGAF. In terms of cool deckbuilding possibilities, though, getting to play pseudo-partners with any multicolor commander is a lot more interesting than having a worse backup dualcaster mage. Whoop-de-doo.

Anyway, if you want to get mad at anyone, I'd get mad at WotC for printing a restriction they knew would be problematic for commander and almost certainly result in a banning. I think the RC made the right call.

(I do wish wotc had made a different criteria on lutri, but I'm also kind of ok with it, it's not a huge deal)

It's not about that math per se, it's the headache of keeping track of it at all. I have to constantly remind myself that they have 5 "cards in hand" instead of the 4 I can see, and that next turn they can definitely cast x assuming one of those 4 is a land, etc. EDH boardstates get super complex as it is, and adding to that with pieces that aren't even in play is one of the big issues Eminence has that made it so annoying. The issue is not that having one extra card is that big of a burden, the issue is math tracking is already a potential problem, please don't make it harder.

Wizards themselves has come out and said this is one of the largest barriers to entry for the game, and have gone far out of their way to curtail it because of that (new world order being the largest example, but not one that's relevant here). Why are we adding more exceptions to the rules when allowing the rules to stand as they are allows more cards to be played while making explaining things to new players easier?

I find it weird that eminence is your example here. Eminence has a direct impact on the board. Companions do not. They can be cast, and you know about them in advance, yes, but that's basically the exact same thing as a regular commander, not an eminence one. It's only different from a normal card in your hand in that it's revealed. Until they're cast they have no impact on the game. And thus far none of them seem like the sort of thing you'd really need to be aware of to make reasonable plays. If you're really trying to play well, then sure, it's good to keep track of the information, maybe you're more likely to board wipe the turn before keruga or whatever. But for casual play it's really not that crucial. If you're trying to play super tryhard seriously (as I often do, much to my opponents' annoyance), then (1) dude get your %$#% together, it's not that hard to keep track of one more card if you're actually a good player, and (2) you get a lot of free information about what cards they have in their deck from their companion, which gives you a HUGE edge.

The game should be accessible on a casual level, sure. I don't think companions really complicate the game for casual players who just play their cards and don't pay too much attention to what's going on. And for those of us who are tryhards, it gives a lot more information to min-max. Plus it opens up some fun ideas to play with in deckbuilding. Win-freaking-win.

If you're worried about rules complexity, then we should stab rule 11 in the head. It's just arbitrary. I bet most casual players don't even know about it anyway. They're not going to lose sleep if it changes slightly. Nor will I.

[Kavu Enthusiast]

And Reddit is already up in arms. It probably wouldn't even be competitively viable (no Heat Shimmer combo, maybe in Storm, but not sure what you'd be copying), so no biggie.

Yeah, that's not the metric most people use when deciding whether they like or want to play cards in casual play.

[Airi]

So house rule it. I'd let 'em play it, IDGAF. In terms of cool deckbuilding possibilities, though, getting to play pseudo-partners with any multicolor commander is a lot more interesting than having a worse backup dualcaster mage. Whoop-de-doo.

I have to point out that this is not an option for all of us. For those of us who predominately play in PuGs, we can't rely on people being cool with you playing an illegal card. It's not really an answer.

[Kavu Enthusiast]

I thought the whole point was wishes don't work now, so this won't work. Or am I missing something here?

Dragonlover

I also don't understand this. If cards outside the game are not allowed, and Wishes don't work, why allow Companion? Why ban a poor elemental otter from being played at all because of a poorly designed mechanic for commander? I'm sorry, but I'm completely opposed to this solution. It makes absolutely zero sense that, in competitive formats, Companion cards go into the sideboard, where wishes are supposed to work, yet in Commander, they are allowed outside your collection, where wishes do not work? This is neither flavorful, elegant or coherent, and opens a terrible precedent for the format. What will happen if Wizards decides to print another mechanic or cards that work from outside game and would be an absolute blast to use in Commander?

I agree with most of this, but the last sentence, in particular, is the crux of the issue here I feel.

As soon as I saw the reminder text on Companion I immediately thought "oh man they just playing chicken with EDH now aren't they?". Companion itself just seems like a willful wrench being thrown into the stated philosophical framework of EDH's rules on par with printing Planeswalkers that say 'I can be your commander'; at least given that there is a clear statement about cards that work with 'outside the game' areas like wish cards.
It feels very 'oh yeah? Well here's a loophole for your rule'.

It does feel a bit like WotC %$#% with how the RC has made clear the general feel of EDH should be. WotC ends up acting like a pushy Magic player that gets to force the RC to accept the changes to the format they want to happen.

RC: No, Planeswalkers shouldn't be commanders as a rule, it should just be creatures.
WotC: Ok here are some Planeswalkers that explicitly say they can be commanders. You'd have to ban them and invalidate all the people that spent money on the decks to call our bluff.

RC: Cards outside the game don't function and cards that deal with cards outside the game don't function.
WotC: Yeah ok but what if they did, and especially what if they did in a way that effectively changed the format from 100 cards to 101 cards?

In the end, it just feels like Companion as a mechanic should just blanket *not work* in EDH because of Rule 11, and then this wouldn't be a problem. It should just be another example of not all mechanics and such working in the same way or at all in all formats. I love Grandeur, but I would never try to force some sort of change to EDH to make it functional there; there are other formats you can play to experience the mechanics. Companion likely *should* be handled exactly like that, a mechanic that works in other formats, but is non-functional in EDH based on the core format rules. People could play those cards in their 99 or as a commander and nothing about the format's core rules or theme or structure is threatened. So long as Companion *is* allowed to function though, Lutri does need to be banned though, and anyone that thinks it shouldn't be so long as it can be a Companion isn't thinking clearly and/or is stuck in the 'but I *want* to' mindset of arguing for something.

[DirkGently]

I have to point out that this is not an option for all of us. For those of us who predominately play in PuGs, we can't rely on people being cool with you playing an illegal card. It's not really an answer.

Hey, you stole my line! (normally I'm the one complaining about house rules being used as a panacea)

But seriously, even in the pickup games I play, I've almost always seen people be cool with this kind of thing. I see one guy at commander nights playing one of those my little pony cards as his commander and nobody minds. I think most reasonable people can see it was banned purely for the companion thing and it's fine in the 99. As long as you're not trying to do something annoying, the rules are pretty flexible. You can always bring a backup.

That said, besides being cuter and a little more mana flexible (though more deck restrictive), it's usually equal or worse than dualcaster, so at worst you're losing a little redundancy by not getting to run it. That doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Certainly it seems like a minor tradeoff for all the interesting options they can provide in the not-quite-command zone.

It does feel a bit like WotC %$#% with how the RC has made clear the general feel of EDH should be. WotC ends up acting like a pushy Magic player that gets to force the RC to accept the changes to the format they want to happen.

While I do get that vibe sometimes, I think it's more likely in this case that wotc is trying to capture the "feel" of commander in a way that'll work in standard and other formats. Building around an always-in-your-hand legend is pretty fun, I think that's probably what attracts most people to the format. I think they want some cross-pollination between standard and commander.

[Airi]

I have to point out that this is not an option for all of us. For those of us who predominately play in PuGs, we can't rely on people being cool with you playing an illegal card. It's not really an answer.

Hey, you stole my line! (normally I'm the one complaining about house rules being used as a panacea)

But seriously, even in the pickup games I play, I've almost always seen people be cool with this kind of thing. I see one guy at commander nights playing one of those my little pony cards as his commander and nobody minds. I think most reasonable people can see it was banned purely for the companion thing and it's fine in the 99. As long as you're not trying to do something annoying, the rules are pretty flexible. You can always bring a backup.

I am personally of the opinion that if I like a general enough to build it, I do not want to have to swap it out. It just feels bad because it's no longer my deck, and I know I'm not going to be able to use it all the time, there are some sticklers for the rules at my LGS.

That said, besides being cuter and a little more mana flexible (though more deck restrictive), it's usually equal or worse than dualcaster, so at worst you're losing a little redundancy by not getting to run it. That doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Certainly it seems like a minor tradeoff for all the interesting options they can provide in the not-quite-command zone.

I would happily burn the entire mechanic to the ground to run Lutri for his art, regardless of what abilities he had, even if his mechanic was worse. I do also think it sets a bad precedent for if wishes or other 'outside the game' mechanics become legal, to start banning cards for how they function outside of a deck they are actually being run in. I wouldn't make Lutri legal as a companion, that being said. I'd just rather see companion go.

[Kavu Enthusiast]

Anyway, if you want to get mad at anyone, I'd get mad at WotC for printing a restriction they knew would be problematic for commander and almost certainly result in a banning.

It's yet another action from them that feels like they are trying to test the waters of how much control over the format they can wrench away from the EDH community through rules text on cards. There's a line between creating cards and mechanics with EDH in mind and creating cards and mechanics that change how the format is supposed to work in ways that run in direct opposition to how the format is supposed to work by carving out exceptions in restrictions the format created that make the format unique from other formats. Lutri is the most problematic because it's the logical furthest point that you could take the mechanic: to the point it's just a literal free 101st card available at all times for no design or investment costs. It masks the fact that the Companion mechanic on the whole attempts to subvert/create a loophole for one of the established key restrictions of the format.

[DirkGently]

I would happily burn the entire mechanic to the ground to run Lutri for his art, regardless of what abilities he had, even if his mechanic was worse. I do also think it sets a bad precedent for if wishes or other 'outside the game' mechanics become legal, to start banning cards for how they function outside of a deck they are actually being run in. I wouldn't make Lutri legal as a companion, that being said. I'd just rather see companion go.

Well, I'll refer you to my point above, which is that personally I'd get annoyed at wotc for putting that particular restriction on lutri knowing it would be a problem, not the RC. If it's really just the art you love, though, just take a pair of scissors to the dude and paste him onto whatever commander you fancy.

Personally I'm fine with outside the game mechanics becoming legal. I'm also fine with them remaining illegal. I don't get why anyone would care so passionately about it.

And plenty of cards are "banned for how they function outside of a deck they are being run in". If you wanted erayo for your moonfolk tribal deck, sorry, that's banned. If you wanted leovold for your "dudes in chairs" theme deck, sorry, that's banned. Tolarian academy for teferi theme deck...you get the picture. These cards have fair uses and unfair uses, and they get banned because people tend to use them in ways that aren't super fair. Same dealio for Lutri, he'd be used almost exclusively in the unfair way, so he's banned, even for those who would have treated him right. Sad fact of life. I'm still waiting for my gifts ungiven to come back to me...I just want to set up my loam piles....maybe one day...

It's yet another action from them that feels like they are trying to test the waters of how much control over the format they can wrench away from the EDH community through rules text on cards. There's a line between creating cards and mechanics with EDH in mind and creating cards and mechanics that change how the format is supposed to work in ways that run in direct opposition to how the format is supposed to work by carving out exceptions in restrictions the format created that make the format unique from other formats. Lutri is the most problematic because it's the logical furthest point that you could take the mechanic: to the point it's just a literal free 101st card available at all times for no design or investment costs. It masks the fact that the Companion mechanic on the whole attempts to subvert/create a loophole for one of the established key restrictions of the format.

If WotC were the brilliant conniving masterminds you think they are, I feel like they wouldn't have printed Lutri in the first place. Lutri made it significantly more likely the RC would just say "screw it, no companions at all".

I mean yes, they're exploring fresh design space. It's a little crazy but I'd rather they try new things than stick with the status quo forever. Even if sometimes I really hate their new ideas. In this case they went very conservative, though, which I think was smart. This'll be fun but not powerful to build.

I think it's funny that commander players seem to think this is subverting THEIR format. We've had stuff being played from outside the deck since the format's inception. This is a WAY bigger subversion for standard players.

[HoffOccultist]

I don't have much to add that hasn't been already said.

I do wish that Companion didn't function in EDH, even though I think 3 of the 4 designs are fairly interesting for EDH. But if Companion is going to exist in EDH, banning Lutri was 100% the right choice.

I also think the outcry would be very different if Lutri were something less interesting in its art. If this was just a regular old guy, I don't think nearly as many people would be upset about this decision.

[Airi]

And plenty of cards are "banned for how they function outside of a deck they are being run in". If you wanted erayo for your moonfolk tribal deck, sorry, that's banned. If you wanted leovold for your "dudes in chairs" theme deck, sorry, that's banned. Tolarian academy for teferi theme deck...you get the picture. These cards have fair uses and unfair uses, and they get banned because people tend to use them in ways that aren't super fair. Same dealio for Lutri, he'd be used almost exclusively in the unfair way, so he's banned, even for those who would have treated him right. Sad fact of life. I'm still waiting for my gifts ungiven to come back to me...I just want to set up my loam piles....maybe one day...

I specifically mean literally outside of a 100 card decklist, as in, you are pulling the card in from outside the game.

[MrMystery314]

I feel like this is the same situation with every card that's either banned at any point or has a ban discussed where everyone suddenly comes out of the woodwork with a ton of fair, casual, and not ban-worthy uses or justifications for a card, as if your Elemental tribal deck is somehow more important than what a pretty significant chunk of players will be doing. If you don't like bans, house-rule them out, don't complain they're infringing on your rights as a player. There are plenty of fun cards out there, but as soon as one is denied to players they suddenly can't live without it.

[DirkGently]

I specifically mean literally outside of a 100 card decklist, as in, you are pulling the card in from outside the game.

If you're playing with a companion, it's part of your deck. Saying it's "outside the game" is just pointless semantics.

[onering]

Gyurda wouldn't be, plenty of cards scale with multiplayer, and when it mentions opponents it's designed to. It only becomes a problem when scaling causes it to become so good it becomes centralizing, where everyone starts going for it. Sylvan primordial always removed something for each opponent and grabbed that many basics, it was always great value everyone could use. Gyurda will whiff, sometimes on everyone. Its an effect that needs multiple opponents to be worth it.

[Airi]

I missed half of my earlier post, so I'm adding it here.

Well, I'll refer you to my point above, which is that personally I'd get annoyed at wotc for putting that particular restriction on lutri knowing it would be a problem, not the RC. If it's really just the art you love, though, just take a pair of scissors to the dude and paste him onto whatever commander you fancy.

I'm not sure that the level of sarcasm here was warranted, but I'm going to pass on very poorly defacing a card and probably ruining another card because I cannot do those kinds of alters. I'm not any more annoyed at the RC than I am at WotC. I'm not even upset at the restriction existing on Lutri, I'm upset that they put the otter legend on a card they'd intended to be insta-banned in singleton formats, but that doesn't negate my irritation at the way companion is being handled as well.

I don't get why anyone would care so passionately about it.

This repsonse is probably going to come off a bit ruder than intended and I'm going to apologize in advance for that, because I just had an argument over twitter being told that having any form of emotion over this wasn't a "worthwhile endevor", but it's because I care about the format? Like, a great many things about this are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Banning a card prior to it's release one announcement after telling us they preferred to wait and see. The fact that even if this ends in wishes being legal, there's a lot of bending over backwards to make this mechanic work against the rules already in place (regardless of how elegant they say the solution is). The fact that it's a blanket ban, which I don't agree with for legendary creatures (see: BaaC complaints from me pretty much since they abolished it). The fact that they banned my adorable otter son, who would have been perfect for my Ral Zarek deck as a general that, due to circumstances I can't control, I cannot play now.

It's fine that people disagree with those things, I don't expect everyone else's view of the format to conform to my own, but I absolutely hate when people look down on why someone might feel strongly about it. I do care. I am upset, in general at a few different parties for the way this whole thing has gone. I am not lesser for caring. Even if that's not necessarily your intent with what you said, that's how it comes off.

Edit: And again, I know that's not entirely what you were trying to say, but I am very frustrated at constantly getting that line of approach. It kind of just serves to make the person feel bad for having an opinion.

I specifically mean literally outside of a 100 card decklist, as in, you are pulling the card in from outside the game.

If you're playing with a companion, it's part of your deck. Saying it's "outside the game" is just pointless semantics.

It is outside the game by the literal definition of reminder text on the companion mechanic. The distinction is important to me, and I oppose the general rule of allowing cards outside of the game, particularly when their "outside the game" aspect is what gets them banned. See: Wishes. Companion is a little different, I'll grant you, but it does not change my stance on it.

[Kavu Enthusiast]

Personally I'm fine with outside the game mechanics becoming legal. I'm also fine with them remaining illegal. I don't get why anyone would care so passionately about it.

Here's the thing, I'm also fine with Rule 11 staying as is or getting the axe and letting people have 10 card wish boards or whatever to essentially have a 10 card silver bullet toolbox in the shape of 1 card. It's not one of the rules I have strong feelings for or against. I have some experience with Wish effects in a 300 card format I used to play prior to EDH being popular and Wishes were all banned because the general consensus was you had 300 cards already and it would just make a toolbox format more toolbox-y and you should probably be able to find slots for all the cards you wanted given 300 cards without needing Wish effects. I have the same general opinion about Wishing in EDH, but it's not one I'd generally die on a hill over... BUT... it should be the RC making the change, not WotC forcing the change. That's the thing to care passionately about, not just the rules changing in general, but people who aren't supposed to be at the wheel of changes deciding they get to do so unilaterally.

It's yet another action from them that feels like they are trying to test the waters of how much control over the format they can wrench away from the EDH community through rules text on cards. There's a line between creating cards and mechanics with EDH in mind and creating cards and mechanics that change how the format is supposed to work in ways that run in direct opposition to how the format is supposed to work by carving out exceptions in restrictions the format created that make the format unique from other formats. Lutri is the most problematic because it's the logical furthest point that you could take the mechanic: to the point it's just a literal free 101st card available at all times for no design or investment costs. It masks the fact that the Companion mechanic on the whole attempts to subvert/create a loophole for one of the established key restrictions of the format.

If WotC were the brilliant conniving masterminds you think they are, I feel like they wouldn't have printed Lutri in the first place. Lutri made it significantly more likely the RC would just say "screw it, no companions at all".

I mean yes, they're exploring fresh design space. It's a little crazy but I'd rather they try new things than stick with the status quo forever. Even if sometimes I really hate their new ideas. In this case they went very conservative, though, which I think was smart. This'll be fun but not powerful to build.

I think it's funny that commander players seem to think this is subverting THEIR format. We've had stuff being played from outside the deck since the format's inception. This is a WAY bigger subversion for standard players.

I don't think they have to be masterminds to be smart enough to realize they stand to make quite a lot of money from EDH. They clearly already have realized that given the current product line ups and some of the changes in design headspace and card rules text that acknowledges that multiplayer and different starting life totals are things you need to consider and balance around we've seen over the past years. I think there are many, many people on the business end of WotC that feel that they could monetize it even more if they were in the driver seat instead of an outside group. They've hitched their money wagon to a grassroots format that has arbiters that don't answer to them and I'm sure that makes more than a few of them anxious that they lack the control they classically have had over the formats of the game they design and make product for. And I 100% guarantee you that there is someone from Hasbro breathing down their necks about that very situation, even if they are resisting them rather than agreeing with them.

I will admit you are very right that Lutri is definitely the riskiest thing they could have done short of just having all Companions function like Lutri to have the mechanic axed by the RC. I don't know if that proves they weren't trying to influence how EDH functions or proves that they were on its own because you could see how maybe it was just as far as they thought they could push the envelope before they got real pushback and wanted to see the outcome. Similar to printing 'can be your commander' on some planeswalkers and not others instead of all of them from the moment the first one had that text. Doing that would have had real consequences, it would have required a response from the RC and would likely have wasted all their design time and money if it didn't go in their favor. It was still quite risky to do it *at all*, but probably pushed just to the brink of the risky design they thought they could get away with. Having just *1* Companion with the ability feels like 'we know what we're doing and we're just doing it one time to see what happens so if it blows up in our face it's limited to this card'

As for the whole 'their format' thing from EDH players...I mean, it definitely isn't *WotC's* format is it? Truly it's the RC's format to be sure. It's their baby first, but it's a baby they shared with us all and we all love and they want us to love. It existed and become popular and had a community before WotC lifted a finger to support it or design pushed legends and cards specific for the format. It's the RC's baby, but we players are its extended family in that metaphor...WotC is maybe the Godfather that is getting more and more possessive and it's getting kinda weird.

[digitalfire]

With Lutri you sacrifice absolutely not a single damn thing. As I said above, 100% of RU decks would be improved by playing it. Not 99%. Not 99.9%. 100%. There is literally no thinking except "do I pay the money to get that card". It's literally pay-to-win, with no extra steps to actually have to do any critical thinking. That's not really a good thing for the format, imo.

I agree completely if this were a competitive only format. But the mantra of "Build casual, play competitive" seems to be the majority opinion in this format (not in my experience, but I guess I've just gotten lucky with landing in competitive circles). Should people really buy this card just to optimize their deck? Yes. Will they? Depending on the price of the card, the answer is more likely no.

Like... how is Sol Ring only in 81% of decks? If people can't include Sol Ring when it's handed out like candy in every Commander product, how can you expect players to go out of their way to buy this extra card? The majority of players actively eschew optimization because the Rules Committee encourages them to.