Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

[Airi]

To clarify, I'm talking about thieving otter. Maybe you are too, but it seems like you're talking about eon frolicker.

I could see putting thieving otter into, for example, vela the night-clad. There might also be a way to play it as a pinger, I haven't looked super hard.

I am talking about the thief, I was making it clear that the extra turn otter is a non-bo. No amount of cuteness overrides that particular aspect of my play, which is a shame because it's really really cute. Mostly, I was differentiating which otter I was talking about, sorry if it was confusing.

And yes, if I make a deck where the otter will fit in, it's going in. But I need a deck it fits in first. Might be Otrimi, but I'm not even concepting that until I see what morph cards get spoiled over all and how many I'll actually need for the deck to function.

so I ask, if rule elegance is important to you, why do you want to keep BaaC, something that objectively makes the rules more complicated?

Because treating legendary creatures as different than a standard card ban is necessary, imo. Because they are different, they do different things when you have access to them all the time versus when you don't. It's not even really about elegance, I only used the word because it was used by the RC previously here. So, to sum up the original statement you're taking issue with:

It doesn't matter how elegantly they fit companion into the rules, or how nice of a bow they put on it, I disagree with the choice to use it.

OK, so what's your reasoning for not wanting companions to work that isn't based on Lutri specifically being banned? All you've stated is that you don't want them legal, not why, except for allusions to "rule elegance", which you don't seem to care about when it's restricting cards you want to play.

I disagree with cards pulling things in from outside the game being legal. They are in the same vein as wishes to me. You've argued they're not, it's a fair viewpoint to hold, it is not the viewpoint I hold. If Lutri's companion ability was super niche and he weren't banned, I still wouldn't want companions to be legal.

We're arguing in circles over semantics in my writing style, at this point.

[MrMystery314]

I think the main issue here is that people are trying to stick to principles. This is a game, not a religion or political philosophy. Play what makes you happy, because that's what rule 0 is for, right?

[DirkGently]

Because treating legendary creatures as different than a standard card ban is necessary, imo. Because they are different, they do different things when you have access to them all the time versus when you don't.

So by that logic, limited resources should be banned only for multiplayer commander, right? It does a very different thing in 1v1, after all. Let the 1v1 players have LR! But for some reason that's not "necessary". Hmm.

BaaC did nothing except make a couple cards legal, while not even reducing the length of the banlist. It was a waste of words.

I disagree with cards pulling things in from outside the game being legal. They are in the same vein as wishes to me. You've argued they're not, it's a fair viewpoint to hold, it is not the viewpoint I hold. If Lutri's companion ability was super niche and he weren't banned, I still wouldn't want companions to be legal.

ok cool but why tho.

if you think wishes are bad then explain to me what problems wishes have, and why companions have those same problems.

[DirkGently]

I think the main issue here is that people are trying to stick to principles. This is a game, not a religion or political philosophy. Play what makes you happy, because that's what rule 0 is for, right?

I agree, but I will say - as far as rule 0 is concerned, companions are in a tricky spot. If you want to play Lutri in the 99, and you go to your LGS and they're hard-liners about it and won't let you, it's easy enough to have a sub-in. For a commander it's a bit harder, but still doable - there are plenty of spellslinger UR commanders.

With companions...

Well, for one thing, if companions didn't work as intended, and someone brought a deck with a companion, I think that'd be a LOT less likely to fly than someone playing Lutri in the 99. Personally I'd allow it, but I could easily see people not allowing it. It's not quite as egregious as "I can play with this conspiracy, right?", but it's not TOO far away from it.

And for a second thing, it's not a simple sub-in. I mean, technically you don't need to make any changes, but you've effectively gimped the crap out of your deck to play this cool companion, and now you don't get that companion. You could have lots of synergies with the companion that no longer work as well. So it's not some trivial card switch to remedy the problem.

I think we'll still see Lutri in the CZ/99 thanks to rule 0. I think if companion wasn't officially legal, we'd see close to zero companions, especially after month 1. I'm interested in them, but I'd feel pretty weird running them without official buy-in, and hoping rule 0 will work out in my favor.

[Airi]

So by that logic, limited resources should be banned only for multiplayer commander, right? It does a very different thing in 1v1, after all. Let the 1v1 players have LR! But for some reason that's not "necessary". Hmm.

I don't play 1v1, I will not speak to their banlist. It has a complex history that I have only skimmed at best as was required of me to moderate the French EDH forums at the time.

ok cool but why tho.

if you think wishes are bad then explain to me what problems wishes have, and why companions have those same problems.

I am not going to explain my full view on wishes, because there is a separate thread for that, that is an utter headache to deal with. I am simply going to shorten several years of thought and feeling into the principle that I do not support legal cards that expand your decklist beyond the typical allowance. I also don't support sideboards. That is the shared thread between them, in addition to the fact that the legality of would or has resulted in additional bans to make them legal. That is not a worthwhile cost to me. I'm not asking you to change your view, commander is a very individual and personal format.

What I want, and what my goal in this thread is, to articulate to the members of the RC who do read it to understand why their decision doesn't resonate with the parts of their player base that think like I do. I am in a group of players where I can't use Lutri now, or future cards that may banned should they choose to use companion again, and something similar comes up.

[DirkGently]

I don't play 1v1, I will not speak to their banlist. It has a complex history that I have only skimmed at best as was required of me to moderate the French EDH forums at the time.

I'm not talking about the french banlist (I assume it's not banned there). I'm talking on the current, official, RC banlist. I end up playing a decent number of 1v1 games if there aren't more people around. Why can't I play LR in those games?

Obviously the answer is because it's dumb to fracture the banlist just to partially-legalize some small number of cards. If there had been 100 cards on the BaaC that went fully-banned, fine, maybe there's a purpose to it. There were, what, like 3 of them? Waste of words.

I am not going to explain my full view on wishes

of course you won't, because the reasons wishes are potentially problematic doesn't apply to companions.

I do not support legal cards that expand your decklist beyond the typical allowance.

ok cool but why tho.

It's not like having more cards = making your deck better. We need to get rid of that pointless deck maximum too.

I also don't support sideboards.

Sure, me neither, because I don't like the idea of metagaming or putting in silver bullet answers. Companions have...zero of those downsides.

the legality of would or has resulted in additional bans

*ban, singular.

Conspiracies added 25(!) cards to the banlist, I don't remember people losing their %$#%$#% minds about that one. You'd think that'd be 25x more heinous.

That is not a worthwhile cost to me.

Of course it's not, when it's a card you like.

What I want, and what my goal in this thread is, to articulate to the members of the RC who do read it to understand why their decision doesn't resonate with the parts of their player base that think like I do. I am in a group of players where I can't use Lutri now

This really feels like your only actual argument.

or future cards that may banned should they choose to use companion again

I mean, unless they do the exact same text I can't see anything else getting banned because of companion. "If your starting deck has 100 or more cards" maybe? Anyway no reason to fret over things that haven't happened, and likely won't happen.

Although now that I say that, I do wonder if one of the companions will care about deck size. We really gotta get rid of that deck maximum.

[Airi]

Obviously the answer is because it's dumb to fracture the banlist just to partially-legalize some small number of cards. If there had been 100 cards on the BaaC that went fully-banned, fine, maybe there's a purpose to it. There were, what, like 3 of them? Waste of words.

Or because it's a multiplayer banlist and 1v1 would need something different to account for that. Much like I view legendaries.

of course you won't, because the reasons wishes are potentially problematic doesn't apply to companions.

Which I expanded on later on in my post if you weren't snipping things one line at a time to try to pick apart my argument. They are not the same, but they do share a similar point in cards that exist outside of your initial 100 card decklist, which is why I tie them together, to an extent. Just because you don't agree with me on the 100 card restriction doesn't make me or my points inherently wrong in the overall scheme of EDH, it just means we don't agree on the philosophy behind it.

ok cool but why tho.

Because I enjoy the restriction of 100 cards. It's not gonna go much deeper than that Dirk. There's only so far you can wring out answers on this one.

Of course it's not, when it's a card you like.

If it's any card.

This really feels like your only actual argument.

No, you just don't like my other arguments. That is different than me not having any argument.

I mean, unless they do the exact same text I can't see anything else getting banned because of companion. "If your starting deck has 100 or more cards" maybe? Anyway no reason to fret over things that haven't happened, and likely won't happen.

We're literally here, because a card was banned before it became ubiquitous and nothing had happened yet. Sure, maaaaaaybe (/s, if it weren't obvious) it would have dominated it's colors, but why fret if it hasn't happened yet?

Edit: fixing the atrocity that was my quote tags.

[Gashnaw]

No other Companion deck will work. So they ban the only one that does. Sure the other companions work in the 99, but not in a full deck based on it.

I say we start a petition to unban Lutri.

[Airi]

I can't really go much further with this thread. I've made my case, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to dislike companion or it's legality. Just to voice my disapproval with the way things turned out.

[DirkGently]

Or because it's a multiplayer banlist and 1v1 would need something different to account for that. Much like I view legendaries.

I don't see anything anywhere, on wotc's side or the RC's side, that specifies the banlist is multiplayer only.

If you want to start a banlist like the french 1v1 list that's a totally separate and not-approved-by-anyone-important for BaaC I would have zero problem with that. Would that satisfy you with regards to BaaC?

They are not the same, but they do share a similar point in cards that exist outside of your initial 100 card decklist, which is why I tie them together, to an extent. Just because you don't agree with me on the 100 card restriction doesn't make me or my points inherently wrong in the overall scheme of EDH, it just means we don't agree on the philosophy behind it.

Something being similar to another thing doesn't have relevance unless the way they're similar is the way that the first thing is a problem.

If you were allowed to have a "sideboard", but the rules still prevented you from wishing (or sideboarding) into it - making the cards functionally useless - would anyone care? Probably not, because the reason wishes are potentially problematic has nothing to do with being beyond 100 cards.

Because I enjoy the restriction of 100 cards.

That's not really a restriction. It's just good deckbuilding advice made into a rule.

For the record, if the 100 card maximum were eliminated I would never make a deck beyond 100 cards (well, 101 if you're counting companions). I have zero personal investment in this beyond making the rules cleaner.

If it's any card.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Not after how many words you've spent focused on how much you like Lutri specifically. You'd probably still be a little bothered by it, but you wouldn't care nearly as much.

We're literally here, because a card was banned before it became ubiquitous and nothing had happened yet. Sure, maaaaaaybe (/s, if it weren't obvious) it would have dominated it's colors, but why fret if it hasn't happened yet?

I've said this before, but if further companions have very lax requirements and/or are very powerful, and they become overly ubiquitous, I'll be on the front lines for them to get banned/rulechanged.

In Lutri's case, obviously it wasn't necessary to wait to see what would happen, but you know that already.

Edit: fixing the atrocity that was my quote tags.

How dare you try to whitewash the past.

[DirkGently]

No other Companion deck will work.

wtf does "work" mean in the context of commander?

So they ban the only one that does.

oh, it means "make every UR deck stronger with no compromises whatsoever".

Yeah I'm glad the other ones don't "work", then.

I say we start a petition to unban Lutri.

I'm glad you're here to let me know I'm on the right side of this issue, Gashnaw.

[Airi]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Not after how many words you've spent focused on how much you like Lutri specifically. You'd probably still be a little bothered by it, but you wouldn't care nearly as much.

I'm sorry but this part I do have to call out. If I did not point out my bias, you would still be accusing me of lying about how much I like Lutri, because of my first post in this thread. If I acknowledge my bias, then none of my opinions outside of this specific card matter, apparently. You don't have to believe me, but that does not diminish the fact that I firmly believe what I said. I have had to spend time talking specifically about how much I like Lutri, because you asked me about it and it's pointless to lie in a forum post about it just to make my position seem more secure so that one person believes me.

The only thing that would change if it weren't Lutri, is that I would have disengaged from this specific debate long ago. It's not that I'm trying to win anything against you, because I'm not. You're not the person I need to convince of anything here, it's because I will not have my stance misrepresented by your interpenetration of it, when other people are reading through here.

You can make of it what you will, I stand by what I said even if you don't believe it.

[Stapler]

Just tossing my hat in to say I'm very appreciative of the RC's decision.

Companions are a brewer's paradise and I've already had a lot of fun making decks for the few we've seen so far, and I would have been very disappointed if I wasn't able to utilize this unique and creativity-inducing mechanic in EDH. Bending the rules to enable Companion seems like an endeavour worth whatever headache it may have caused.

I could tell Lutri was obviously problematic in this format as soon as he was spoiled but was quite amused and surprised to see a day 0 ban. I wish WotC had chosen to either add an additional restriction on top of singleton that would have made him unplayable as a companion in EDH (how they could do that, I have no clue) or just straight up change the stipulation, though I understand why they would want a singleton Companion for non-EDH formats.

On the topic of wishes, I don't see how they compare in rules issues to Companion. One of the main issues I have with wishes is that if a player without a Wishboard casts a Diluvian Primordial effect on a Burning Wish or similar, they get punished/have fewer options for not going out of their way to bring along a pile of cards they had no intent to use during the actual game. Companion are just Partners that sit in a different zone (or the same zone? We'll have to see with the rules update) and if your opponent is using one, you aren't punished for not having one yourself, unlike wishes and wishboards. The Companion player have an extra resource available to them, but they had to gimp their deck to do so (assuming they don't print a Companion that's too abusable; once again, we'll see). Sideboards don't make much sense in what is often a best-of-1 format.

[Gashnaw]

No other Companion deck will work.

wtf does "work" mean in the context of commander?

So they ban the only one that does.

oh, it means "make every UR deck stronger with no compromises whatsoever".

Yeah I'm glad the other ones don't "work", then.

I say we start a petition to unban Lutri.

I'm glad you're here to let me know I'm on the right side of this issue, Gashnaw.

1) By work i mean, are you really gonna butcher or weaken your deck just to play a companion?

2) What do you mean UR decks? It can go in every deck. (Outside the game thus is not restricted to decks that contain red and blue. and instead can be played in any deck that can pay the cost. People seem to forget that the only cards that must match your commander's colour identity are the one sin your deck.

3) You're welcome.

[DirkGently]

I'm sorry but this part I do have to call out. If I did not point out my bias, you would still be accusing me of lying about how much I like Lutri, because of my first post in this thread. If I acknowledge my bias, then none of my opinions outside of this specific card matter, apparently.

It's been most of your posts, not just the first one. But regardless - you're allowed to like Lutri. You're allowed to be sad that it's banned. You're also allowed to also feel that rule simplicity is a positive and dislike that companion will probably make the rules slightly more complex.

The problem I have, and the reason why I've been engaging with you and not the myriad other people who pop out to say "I don't like that this will add to rules complexity" for the hundredth time, is that you've also explicitly endorsed another rule (BaaC) that objectively increases rules complexity. Or, for that matter, the 100-card maximum. This is why I don't believe you when you say your opinion is based on rules simplicity.

1) By work i mean, are you really gonna butcher or weaken your deck just to play a companion?

2) What do you mean UR decks? It can go in every deck. (Outside the game thus is not restricted to decks that contain red and blue. and instead can be played in any deck that can pay the cost. People seem to forget that the only cards that must match your commander's colour identity are the one sin your deck.

3) You're welcome.

1)Yes? Because it looks cool and fun, and maximum power has never been the goal of the format.

I'm excited to have a new method to limit my power - with a purpose! - going forward with my flex decks, which traditionally end up being a little too strong for many of the people at my LGS.

Probably won't change my perm decks, though I might try an all-odds version of Kaervek for funsies.

Phelddagrif gets essentially no benefit from the UG one and it removes most of my decklist. But it's a weird enough list that maybe the conditions for the UW or WG one won't be too hard to jump through (thought I doubt that GW one will do something I'm interested in for that deck). Phelddagrif is my anti-cEDH deck, though, so I'm not as interested in intentionally weakening that one specifically.

Zirilan, of course, is ineligible.

2) I'm 99% sure the new rules will not allow that. I'm not sure why you'd assume they would, given that the current rules don't cover this case at all.

If they do allow it, that'd certainly be strange. Personally I'm not a huge CI purist so I wouldn't mind, but it seems unlikely that the RC would want a mono-green deck casting Lurrus off city of brass and gemstone cavern.

3) Thanks for being so welcoming.

[Airi]

The problem I have, and the reason why I've been engaging with you and not the myriad other people who pop out to say "I don't like that this will add to rules complexity" for the hundredth time, is that you've also explicitly endorsed another rule (BaaC) that objectively increases rules complexity. Or, for that matter, the 100-card maximum. This is why I don't believe you when you say your opinion is based on rules simplicity.

For the love of.... It's not about the simplicity! I've said that, more than once. You took one quote where I mentioned the elegance of the potential rules rework for companion to take that I don't want companion because it's complex. It's not that it's complex, the entire mechanic, as well as several others in this set are more complicated than any single thing they could do to EDH's rules, specifically, regarding this. It's that it doesn't matter how simple the change ends up being, it's an overhaul of the existing rule, and I don't agree with that. By definition, an upheaval is not elegant to me.

[DirkGently]

It's that it doesn't matter how simple the change ends up being, it's an overhaul of the existing rule, and I don't agree with that. By definition, an upheaval is not elegant to me.

Oh, ok. Good you know that you wouldn't support big overhauls, like bringing back BaaC.

[Airi]

It's that it doesn't matter how simple the change ends up being, it's an overhaul of the existing rule, and I don't agree with that. By definition, an upheaval is not elegant to me.

Oh, ok. Good you know that you wouldn't support big overhauls, like bringing back BaaC.

And good to know you don't support rule 0. Except when you do. BaaC isn't coming back. That does not mean it should have gone in the first place, imo. We're all made up of contradictions, but I'm at least being honest about mine.

Edit: You can stop quoting me to get the last word. I'm not changing my stance, and it's taken an antagonistic tone to the point I don't feel like I can stay in it. If you've gotta feel you won in order to let it go so I stop getting notifications, then you win.

[Gashnaw]

2) I'm 99% sure the new rules will not allow that. I'm not sure why you'd assume they would, given that the current rules don't cover this case at all.

EXACTLY, there is no rule stating that cards outside the game must follow the commander identity and that is for the exact reason that outside of Wish cards, and Spawnsire of ulamog there is no way to get card from outside the game into play (That i know of) (And in the sense of wishes it is to your hand, so you wnat to cast it. (Of course this could still be outside the game and use things like cascading cataracts to cast it, but still. Wishes are a bit of a hazel to work around.

Though now I am temped to put burning wish in my mono red and cast Tooth and nail. To get Zealous conscripts and kiki jiki.

[DirkGently]

And good to know you don't support rule 0. Except when you do. BaaC isn't coming back. That does not mean it should have gone in the first place, imo.

I don't support rule 0 in the sense that I don't think it means anything. The existence or nonexistence of rule 0 makes no difference to me when I'm allowing someone to use an un-commander, play proxies, play Lutri as a commander, etc. That's just being a reasonable human being.

If isolated groups want to house rule stuff, I think they should do that, happy to let them. I just don't think many - probably most - players really have that option. So I don't think it's a good band-aid, especially to the sorts of things that people aren't likely to be chill about (like playing a companion if it wasn't allowed explicitly).

We're all made up of contradictions, but I'm at least being honest about mine.

If you say so.

Edit: You can stop quoting me to get the last word. I'm not changing my stance, and it's taken an antagonistic tone to the point I don't feel like I can stay in it. If you've gotta feel you won in order to let it go so I stop getting notifications, then you win.

I'm not just trying to get the last word. I just enjoy arguing, and I do feel fairly strongly that companions will be a net gain to the format worth the slight rules complication and loss of 1/20,000th of the card pool. And I don't want this thread - that members of the RC will possibly read - to be nothing but "boo companion", especially not when the reasons are exceedingly flimsy and repetitive. If you want to stop, stop, but I'm always glad to get a notification, personally.

[DirkGently]

EXACTLY, there is no rule stating that cards outside the game must follow the commander identity and that is for the exact reason that outside of Wish cards, and Spawnsire of ulamog there is no way to get card from outside the game into play (That i know of) (And in the sense of wishes it is to your hand, so you wnat to cast it. (Of course this could still be outside the game and use things like cascading cataracts to cast it, but still. Wishes are a bit of a hazel to work around.

Though now I am temped to put burning wish in my mono red and cast Tooth and nail. To get Zealous conscripts and kiki jiki.

Wait so...your position is that allowing companions will necessarily legalize wishes AND can't possibly have any restriction placed on the zone with regards to CI?

Is that really your argument?

Btw you should fix your close-parens key before you accidentally break a database somewhere :laugh:

[MrMystery314]

Could this ongoing battle be taken to PMs or something? I feel like most of the longer threads on this forum, especially ones about rules philosophy, devolve into two or three people writing increasingly verbose replies in an attempt to convince the others of something they'll never believe. At the very least, please get a glass of water and take a moment to breathe. A point being brought up the first time is helpful, but it being rehashed subsequently over and over again not only eliminates any claim of moral high ground, but also repels all who do not have similarly polarized views. Rule 0 is here for a reason.

[toctheyounger]

Could this ongoing battle be taken to PMs or something? I feel like most of the longer threads on this forum, especially ones about rules philosophy, devolve into two or three people writing increasingly verbose replies in an attempt to convince the others of something they'll never believe. At the very least, please get a glass of water and take a moment to breathe. A point being brought up the first time is helpful, but it being rehashed subsequently over and over again not only eliminates any claim of moral high ground, but also repels all who do not have similarly polarized views. Rule 0 is here for a reason.

Yeah, this. Let's all take a step back from this issue for now, I tuned out once this turned into a two horse race. Appreciate that you're both trying to be civil and still discuss, it's just a bit much for onlookers.

[Airi]

Yeah, this. Let's all take a step back from this issue for now, I tuned out once this turned into a two horse race. Appreciate that you're both trying to be civil and still discuss, it's just a bit much for onlookers.

I've said my piece, and would like to reiterate that I'd love to be left out of notifications so that I can cool down.

[onering]

Dirk, your stance on rule 0 is really odd. Not that I don't get where you're coming from, but still. It boils down to you feeling like rule 0 could go unsaid. Unfortunately, being a reasonable human being isnt universal, and the fact is that, even as traditionally nerdy hobbies like magic become more mainstream, they still draw a decent share of socially maladjusted people that you have to accommodate, and rule 0 helps communicate that house rules are encouraged in this format (and sometimes it's the less nerdy newcomers that need the reminder). Yeah, that %$#% should be obvious when it's casual, but so should showering regularly, and a lot of people need to be reminded of that as well.