Lutri, the Spellchaser Preemptively Banned

[DirkGently]

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.

As a general concept I think it's fine - though I think the people who would, for example, not let someone play Lutri as a commander are going to do that regardless of the existence of nonexistence of rule 0.

But it only really bothers me when the RC acts like creating meta-specific rules is something available to everyone because they view the default experience as 4 friends playing with each other and nobody else, when I think the reality is that most people are playing at their LGS with a rotating cast of characters.

Happily in this case they decided to enable companions, but if they hadn't, trying to get people to allow me to use them with "rule 0" in my LGS would be a real pain in the butt since it's always different people.

Anyway, I'm not really sure that it has much to do with Lutri. As I've said, I'm happy to let someone else play it outside of the companion-zone, personally.

[TerrorChicken]

But it only really bothers me when the RC acts like creating meta-specific rules is something available to everyone because they view the default experience as 4 friends playing with each other and nobody else, when I think the reality is that most people are playing at their LGS with a rotating cast of characters.

What led to you having this conclusion? In my experience most people have established groups that they frequently play with. Right now with people being quarantined and playing with friends over webcam/skype etc, this is more apparent than ever.

Even when I see players at the LGS with EDH decks, they are actually meeting up with their friends. The lone straggler looking for EDH pickups is a rare sight for me.

[cryogen]

I'm not just trying to get the last word. I just enjoy arguing...

It is coming off very aggressively though, no matter your intent or desire to keep it good-natured.

But it only really bothers me when the RC acts like creating meta-specific rules is something available to everyone because they view the default experience as 4 friends playing with each other and nobody else, when I think the reality is that most people are playing at their LGS with a rotating cast of characters.

But it's true (even without the pandemic locking down the world). Outside-LGS play has always been greater. And even inside LGS's and at CommandFest environments Rule 0 still gets used successfully, with obvious exceptions of sanctioned events where you cannot legally depart from the ban list.

[onering]

Even in mtgo, where rule 0 doesn't work for allowing you to play banned cards because bans are hardcoded, it works for allowing more limitations or advertising styles of play, like cEDH. I see far more games set up with comments describing what the host is looking for in commander than any other format. Part of that, I think, is rule 0 establishing the built in expectation that you should talk about what you want out of the experience as part of the format.

[MrMystery314]

What led to you having this conclusion? In my experience most people have established groups that they frequently play with. Right now with people being quarantined and playing with friends over webcam/skype etc, this is more apparent than ever.

Even when I see players at the LGS with EDH decks, they are actually meeting up with their friends. The lone straggler looking for EDH pickups is a rare sight for me.

Since you have an anecdote, here's mine: in my experience, for in-person EDH most play with some subset of the regulars at their store, either during events or on separate occasions, never just with the same three others always. The people with whom I generally play in-person MTG with have simply switched to Arena or Untap for the time being and haven't bothered with dealing with webcams. There aren't really "lone stragglers" at my store too frequently; most end up coming from other stores temporarily because their friends happen to be somewhere else, and in that case they're absorbed seamlessly.

So you have an anecdote and I have an anecdote. Who is more reliable? It's a common trend with these lengthy arguments that somehow personal opinions are as meaningful as real data. Sorry, that's not true. What does matter, and is indisputable, is that there's enough diversity in play styles where any rule that is open to extensive subjective interpretation is doomed on a general scale, even if local groups find specific compromises.

Part of that, I think, is rule 0 establishing the built in expectation that you should talk about what you want out of the experience as part of the format.

As I've stated elsewhere, people do this anyway, regardless if it's a codified rule. It's common courtesy, and using common courtesy to put a rule on a pedestal gives undue credence to the rule. If I make it illegal to chew with one's mouth open, something I'd certainly hope people were doing anyway, I cannot then cite my law as having changed the course of society. And for the "maladjusted" people who don't respect common courtesy, especially with a non-binding rule like rule 0, they aren't going to suddenly correct their behavior because of peer pressure.

Then again, that's just, like, my opinion, man. If you're annoyed that random groups won't let you play your house-ruled deck that's an extension of your personality and encapsulates everything that makes you live, then play by yourself. Paint, draw, play music, or find a group of players who think likewise. Being told you can't do something isn't persecution, it's part of being a member of society.

[onering]

What led to you having this conclusion? In my experience most people have established groups that they frequently play with. Right now with people being quarantined and playing with friends over webcam/skype etc, this is more apparent than ever.

Even when I see players at the LGS with EDH decks, they are actually meeting up with their friends. The lone straggler looking for EDH pickups is a rare sight for me.

Since you have an anecdote, here's mine: in my experience, for in-person EDH most play with some subset of the regulars at their store, either during events or on separate occasions, never just with the same three others always. The people with whom I generally play in-person MTG with have simply switched to Arena or Untap for the time being and haven't bothered with dealing with webcams. There aren't really "lone stragglers" at my store too frequently; most end up coming from other stores temporarily because their friends happen to be somewhere else, and in that case they're absorbed seamlessly.

So you have an anecdote and I have an anecdote. Who is more reliable? It's a common trend with these lengthy arguments that somehow personal opinions are as meaningful as real data. Sorry, that's not true. What does matter, and is indisputable, is that there's enough diversity in play styles where any rule that is open to extensive subjective interpretation is doomed on a general scale, even if local groups find specific compromises.

Part of that, I think, is rule 0 establishing the built in expectation that you should talk about what you want out of the experience as part of the format.

As I've stated elsewhere, people do this anyway, regardless if it's a codified rule. It's common courtesy, and using common courtesy to put a rule on a pedestal gives undue credence to the rule. If I make it illegal to chew with one's mouth open, something I'd certainly hope people were doing anyway, I cannot then cite my law as having changed the course of society. And for the "maladjusted" people who don't respect common courtesy, especially with a non-binding rule like rule 0, they aren't going to suddenly correct their behavior because of peer pressure.

Then again, that's just, like, my opinion, man. If you're annoyed that random groups won't let you play your house-ruled deck that's an extension of your personality and encapsulates everything that makes you live, then play by yourself. Paint, draw, play music, or find a group of players who think likewise. Being told you can't do something isn't persecution, it's part of being a member of society.

Well that last part there is a bit stupid, and I'm not sure what prompted it, but you do you bro.

But to address the part of your post that isn't rambling nonsense, Rule 0 simply encourages good behavior. You seem to have this odd notion that I'm suggesting that its responsible for all good behavior, but I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that the rule, which encourages people to discuss the sort of experience they want to have and to deviate from the official rules if that makes things work better. Yes, lots of people would do that anyway, but others would be resistant to it. Sometimes people aren't resistant to going outside the rules for any reason related to the change being proposed, but because they are just uncomfortable with deviating from the rules generally, and a rule 0 that serves as a guiding philosophy for the format helps signal to people like that that its ok. Some people might not have an issue with it but won't even consider deviating from the rules or the banlist to be an option without something like rule 0, because Magic's rules, and the rules of most games, train people to expect that the rules are the rules. Commander differs in that the rules are meant to serve the players, and encouraging playgroups to experiment and craft the format to their own tastes. From my own experience, I've seen more willingness by people to house rule things in commander than in any other format that has a banlist. Its equivalent to generic 60 card casual in this. You sit down to a game of standard or modern, you expect standard or modern. You sit down to a game of commander, you expect to talk about it to find out if its cEDH or 75% or if its ok to run your silver border deck. That's pretty unique for a structured format, and its due in large part to the philosophy behind it. Yeah yeah, that's anecdotal on my part, I did say "from my experience," but so is everything you've said. The only people who might actually collect data on this are WotC and the RC + CAG.

But I really want to circle back around to how stupid your closing paragraph was. What prompted that drivel?

Trolling/flaming warning - cryo

[UnNamed1]

I know I am very late to the party on this topic but figured I would throw my two cents out there.

Lutri didn't need banned, "companion" needed banned. The whole philosophy of having no side board has changed my view of deck building, and has steamlined my builds more than I would have otherwise. My whole philosophy behind a build now is that every card needs to have a purpose. Why would I need such strict building requirements if I could just pull my answers out of a sideboard....that isn't a sideboard. While some of these cards have obvious deck building restrictions, something so obviously catered to commander seems like a crack at a floodgate. Companion is even strictly better than any sideboard will ever be, as a companion can be pulled out without having to find something in the 99 first.

Next come the issue of "oh you have a companion? Cool, I'm going to use my Karn to pull a Mycosynth Lattice out of my (sideboard)". I've seen this addressed here but honestly, it falls back to the rule 0 issue. You cannot have one without the other in my opinion. In fact, a sideboard should be legal long before "companion" should be. With a sideboard, you have to at least consider how to get the items out of your sideboard before you play, companions you can just play.

[DirkGently]

What led to you having this conclusion? In my experience most people have established groups that they frequently play with. Right now with people being quarantined and playing with friends over webcam/skype etc, this is more apparent than ever.

Even when I see players at the LGS with EDH decks, they are actually meeting up with their friends. The lone straggler looking for EDH pickups is a rare sight for me.

I've moved several times, to several different countries, in the past year. Whenever I've asked around/gone looking for a way to play commander, it leads me to the big commander night that everyone goes to at their LGS (or in one case, a local pub), not a party-of-four situation.

This is, of course, completely personal which is why I said "I think" and not "I have extensive peer-reviewed evidence".

But it's true (even without the pandemic locking down the world). Outside-LGS play has always been greater. And even inside LGS's and at CommandFest environments Rule 0 still gets used successfully, with obvious exceptions of sanctioned events where you cannot legally depart from the ban list.

What do you base that on?

My sister's bf picked up magic (and I think later commander?) with some of his friends. They played it in their flatshare and got pretty into it. Then one lost interest, which caused a cascading loss of interest, and within 6 months none of them played it anymore.

Obviously small groups do sustain interest in mtg, but I think it's a lot harder when you're depending on a small number of people than when you've got a consistently large group to play with at an LGS. I think most players who stick with the game long-term will find their way to their LGS.

But again - "I think" not "peer-reviewed evidence".

The whole philosophy of having no side board has changed my view of deck building, and has steamlined my builds more than I would have otherwise.

I don't think anyone here, including the RC ofc, wants actual sideboards.

I like sideboarding in limited (where it seems more natural and also more nuanced) but it's something that turns me off of other constructed formats. "Oh, you've got the 'destroy my specific deck' card so now I lose, cool."

My whole philosophy behind a build now is that every card needs to have a purpose.

I should hope that's always true, even in a sideboard.

Why would I need such strict building requirements if I could just pull my answers out of a sideboard....that isn't a sideboard.

Uh...why are we talking about sideboards? I mean I'm happy to talk wishboards but that's not the primary topic of conversation in this thread, so unless you're responding to someone who mentioned wishboards/sideboards I don't get it.

While some of these cards have obvious deck building restrictions

I'd go so far as to say that all of them do (except Lutri obviously, hence banhammer).

something so obviously catered to commander

I really don't think this is aimed towards the commander format specifically, though it's probably aimed at commander PLAYERS.

seems like a crack at a floodgate.

"That's not magic!"

Companion is even strictly better than any sideboard will ever be

lolwut?

as a companion can be pulled out without having to find something in the 99 first.

It's stronger in the sense of "if you've already done the requirements then it's a free card"...but...the requirements are really steep...so accommodating it almost certainly going to overall weaken whatever deck it's used with...

Next come the issue of "oh you have a companion? Cool, I'm going to use my Karn to pull a Mycosynth Lattice out of my (sideboard)". I've seen this addressed here but honestly, it falls back to the rule 0 issue. You cannot have one without the other in my opinion.

I think you'll be surprised then, when we do have one without the other.

In fact, a sideboard should be legal long before "companion" should be.

What? Why?

With a sideboard, you have to at least consider how to get the items out of your sideboard before you play, companions you can just play.

I'm genuinely baffled that you can look at the companions we've had spoiled and say "companions you can just play". Running a companion will require a complete overhaul of virtually any deck planning to use them, not inserting a single wish card. It's going to be a huge PitA to make a companion work. I can't wait.

[Inkeyes22]

I have been debating on adding Lurrus of the Dream Den to my Karador, Ghost Chieftain deck without modifications vs. either modifying it or building another one using Lurrus as companion. I think adding it would be good as I sometimes want to play Sun Titan and Sakura-Tribe Elder from my graveyard on the same turn,

I want companions to be good, but not too crazy. As some have mentioned it will likely be a thing that shows up on occasion, but I would be suprised if I saw a companion in more than 1:4 games in a few months. Still sad that Lutri got banned though.

[pokken]

I have been debating on adding Lurrus of the Dream Den to my Karador, Ghost Chieftain deck without modifications vs. either modifying it or building another one using Lurrus as companion. I think adding it would be good as I sometimes want to play Sun Titan and Sakura-Tribe Elder from my graveyard on the same turn,

I want companions to be good, but not too crazy. As some have mentioned it will likely be a thing that shows up on occasion, but I would be suprised if I saw a companion in more than 1:4 games in a few months. Still sad that Lutri got banned though.

There appear to be only two generals that work with Lurrus as a companion, Ayli and Karlov. It's a bit..wonky tbh.

[bobthefunny]

I honestly wonder how companion would have been received if Lutri had not been immediately banned, and thus made it seem like we were 'losing' something for companion.

I wouldn't say it's been a 'huge' ask or consistent request, but I do recall requests and brainstorming for a "Lieutenant" option for Commander. Something like your commander, but a second in command. Since Commanders are a creature that is always available, but restrict your deckbuilding options - Companion seems like an amazing interpretation of the Lieutenant idea: A creature that further restricts your deckbuilding, but is immediately available as a reward for that. Of course, your lieutenant isn't as important as your commander - so there's no recasting it from Command later. This makes it clear that your main deckbuilding impetus is still the Commander, and that the Companion takes second seat.

From an ideal/concept standpoint, I think the flavor and ideal is spot on. I have some serious questions when it arrives to the execution, but I'm waiting for the written rules to really understand the how and why.


=====


As far as Lutri vs. Companion,

I think that Companion is the better thing to keep. Is it harder to get the payoff? Sure. Would Lutri possibly alone see more play than a companion? Maybe. But - Companion adds a new element to the game and to deckbuilding, and opens new doors of brewing with increased restrictions. Lutri, sadly, is just another commander. While I would love to have a fork in the commandzone, there's still the option for them to add this later. Adding a "Lieutenant" option for Commander is by far the more interesting and flavorful option here.


====

That said, did Lutri need to be banned at all?

On one side, I see the argument that Free advantage to a color pair+ is problematic. But... do I really care about the power level increase? This is already a format where people don't have to be forced to have the best cards or an optimal solution. Some people don't have OG duals. Some people already avoid playing certain powerful cards because they are not fun, or are simply too powerful. I can see Lutri going that same route - Yes, it might feel like an important "must-have" investment... but people already forgo several other powerful includes. I think Lutri could go the same way, though I do fear that this analogy isn't quite perfect. OG Duals feel a bit like a "obviously this is better, but it's a nice to have upgrade," while it's possible that Lutri would feel more like "You must have this."

Next up is what Lutri would adds to the deck. Red Blue decks aren't stupidly crazy, it's already generally accepted that GB and GU are more powerful, and that GUB is more powerful than a URx alternative, so giving UR an outright power boost isn't necessarily the end of the world. That said, storm decks are already unfun enough (this from someone who has extensively played it), and encouraging more of those isn't exactly what I want to see.

I also think the Otter's ubiquity would be problematic. At first he might be cool, but when every RU+ deck has it, every game, all the time... It would get tiring fast. And then I would hate it. And I don't want to hate the Otter. I would really hate to see how much I would hate seeing the otter when every single RU+ deck has it, always and forever. It would be boring, and tiring, and I would hate that water rat.


====

In the end, I am most upset at Wizards for this. I think this was a missed ball on the design of this card. While Singleton might be an interesting deck building requirement to add in to 60 card formats, I have doubts that it will see realistic impact there, and I would much rather have had a workable restriction that would include Commander as well.

I think that the Committee is justified in banning it on the grounds of "Interacts badly with the format." I wonder if it might have been prudent to let it sit a season though, just so that we could all get sick of it immediately as well.

[RxPhantom]

Honestly, this ban makes a lot of sense for myriad reasons, and I'm surprised that there have been eight pages about it already. I suppose, though, that the first ever preemptive ban would be a hot topic in and of itself.

[Inkeyes22]

I have been debating on adding Lurrus of the Dream Den to my Karador, Ghost Chieftain deck without modifications vs. either modifying it or building another one using Lurrus as companion. I think adding it would be good as I sometimes want to play Sun Titan and Sakura-Tribe Elder from my graveyard on the same turn,

I want companions to be good, but not too crazy. As some have mentioned it will likely be a thing that shows up on occasion, but I would be suprised if I saw a companion in more than 1:4 games in a few months. Still sad that Lutri got banned though.

There appear to be only two generals that work with Lurrus as a companion, Ayli and Karlov. It's a bit..wonky tbh.

Yeah, not sure why I was thinking the commander was exempt from the criteria. I might still put Luttus into Karador, but probably only if I open one. I don't think I will go seeking one now.

[UnNamed1]

While some of these cards have obvious deck building restrictions

I'd go so far as to say that all of them do (except Lutri obviously, hence banhammer).

But Lutri was obviously a test to see how this went for commander....

seems like a crack at a floodgate.

"That's not magic!"

Floodgate is an amazing card, I don't know what you are talking about...

as a companion can be pulled out without having to find something in the 99 first.

It's stronger in the sense of "if you've already done the requirements then it's a free card"...but...the requirements are really steep...so accommodating it almost certainly going to overall weaken whatever deck it's used with...

But it is still an extra card that can be played at anytime, sure none of these will probably ever see cEDH, but as I've been told, this format is catered toward casual play.

Next come the issue of "oh you have a companion? Cool, I'm going to use my Karn to pull a Mycosynth Lattice out of my (sideboard)". I've seen this addressed here but honestly, it falls back to the rule 0 issue. You cannot have one without the other in my opinion.

I think you'll be surprised then, when we do have one without the other.

Sure, you could say that. But rule 0 says I can have my sideboard (my playgroup allows sideboards but it has to be setup prior to the game) and as long as people play with cards outside the game, I will do the same. Companion is a sideboard with deck building restriction, kind of like how if you want a sideboard, you should have ways in the deck to get cards from sideboard while playing. Yes companion will cause some wonky builds, and good for them. But down the road there may be more like Lutri, that are extremely simple to slot into an archetype of deck. Also, who's to say we won't be getting "companion" spells?

With a sideboard, you have to at least consider how to get the items out of your sideboard before you play, companions you can just play.

I'm genuinely baffled that you can look at the companions we've had spoiled and say "companions you can just play". Running a companion will require a complete overhaul of virtually any deck planning to use them, not inserting a single wish card. It's going to be a huge PitA to make a companion work. I can't wait.

I have already seen people running the companion that requires every card to be odd in the deck (granted he never cast it) and its just an annoying threat to keep track of. At any point in the game it could have been cast and it never was because I think he forgot about its existence. Wizards has already shown that they are willing to make companion an auto-include for commander just by printing Lutri.

[DirkGently]

But Lutri was obviously a test to see how this went for commander....

I'm not even sure what you're saying. What would Lutri be testing exactly?

Lutri was printed by wizards with advance knowledge that it would be pre-banned in commander. Lutri has nothing to do with commander.

But it is still an extra card that can be played at anytime, sure none of these will probably ever see cEDH, but as I've been told, this format is catered toward casual play.

A cEDH deck will likely weaken itself overall to play a companion. A 75% deck will likely weaken itself overall to play a companion. I don't see what your point is. Regardless whether you're playing competitive or casual, it's still going to be a net negative to run a companion (as I say this, though, maybe not the 5C one, I'm not a huge fan of that one).

Sure, you could say that. But rule 0 says I can have my sideboard (my playgroup allows sideboards but it has to be setup prior to the game) and as long as people play with cards outside the game, I will do the same. Companion is a sideboard with deck building restriction, kind of like how if you want a sideboard, you should have ways in the deck to get cards from sideboard while playing.

Wait what? So you're already house-ruling wishboards. And you're worried that this will slippery slope into wishboards? I really don't get it.

While I'd be happy for the RC to legalize wishboards, I'm fairly certain the plan is to enable companions but not wishboards. Sorry if that's confusing for you.

But down the road there may be more like Lutri, that are extremely simple to slot into an archetype of deck. Also, who's to say we won't be getting "companion" spells?

What if, what if, what if. What if tomorrow wotc prints 1 mana win tooth and nail? Don't worry about what hasn't happened.

If something does become too ubiquitous, I expect the RC will step in with their banhammer of justice.

I have already seen people running the companion that requires every card to be odd in the deck

Sounds like he worked his butt off to make that fit, what's the problem? How does that contradict what I said?

its just an annoying threat to keep track of. At any point in the game it could have been cast and it never was because I think he forgot about its existence.

It really doesn't sound hard to keep track of one more card - especially one with no active impact on the board state - but ok. If it's really so hard on you, you could just ignore it until he casts it. It's a sorcery-speed play that he gets to make once.

Wizards has already shown that they are willing to make companion an auto-include for commander just by printing Lutri.

Wizards printed Lutri KNOWING he would be banned. The intention was never to make an auto-include for commander.

Wizards does actually have some notion of balance. They know getting something for nothing isn't good for the game. That's why there's no companions that are free to run in a 60-card deck. Which is what Lutri was clearly designed for.

[cryogen]

I'm going to need a source for that claim. I haven't seen anyone state that they knew Lutri would be banned prematurely, and considering Ikoria was probably at or almost at the printer by the time Sheldon would have seen it, your claim is pretty farfetched.

[TheGildedGoose]

I'm going to need a source for that claim. I haven't seen anyone state that they knew Lutri would be banned prematurely, and considering Ikoria was probably at or almost at the printer by the time Sheldon would have seen it, your claim is pretty farfetched.

Considering Lutri is also banned in Brawl, WotC's own format, I think the article releasing on the 13th will explain that they knew this well in advance.

[DirkGently]

I'm going to need a source for that claim. I haven't seen anyone state that they knew Lutri would be banned prematurely, and considering Ikoria was probably at or almost at the printer by the time Sheldon would have seen it, your claim is pretty farfetched.

I was involved in discussions about the mechanic and this card while I was there in Oct-Nov. This decision was complicated and nuanced. There are reasons why some seemingly good suggestions can't or won't work. Rest assured, no good argument regarding this issue begins with "You can just..."

I think there were other mentions from the RC specifically about the ban, but I'm on my phone so looking around is a pain.

At any rate the brawl ban implies they planned for it to be banned.

[papa_funk]

If the claim you are referring to is "Wizards printed Lutri KNOWING he would be banned," then I don't think you'll find a source. If the claim is slightly modified to "Wizards printed Lutri EXPECTING he would be banned," then yes, most definitely. At no point was Lutri intended for Commander.

[cryogen]

If the claim you are referring to is "Wizards printed Lutri KNOWING he would be banned," then I don't think you'll find a source. If the claim is slightly modified to "Wizards printed Lutri EXPECTING he would be banned," then yes, most definitely. At no point was Lutri intended for Commander.

Interesting. Thank you for the definitive response.

[Sheldon]

Yeah, if you watched lead designer Dave Humpherys' video on DailyMTG, he said what Toby just repeated. We knew it was coming a long time ago.

[pokken]

I don't understand why they bother with stuff like Lutri and the Y-guy--it's not like they add anything at all to standard since no one plays 80 card decks in modern/pioneer/etc. Feels like they could be designed for both commander and casual, instead of basically being nothings.

Nobody is gonna play a Lutri deck in standard, there just aren't enough cards, and it's pretty unlikely it sees any play in eternal formats.

So why waste the slots? It's a mystery.

[onering]

I don't understand why they bother with stuff like Lutri and the Y-guy--it's not like they add anything at all to standard since no one plays 80 card decks in modern/pioneer/etc. Feels like they could be designed for both commander and casual, instead of basically being nothings.

Nobody is gonna play a Lutri deck in standard, there just aren't enough cards, and it's pretty unlikely it sees any play in eternal formats.

So why waste the slots? It's a mystery.

Agreed. Its the Timmiest set ever, and companion is a Timmy/Johnny mechanic. Two have two of the cards with the ability not work in the format designed to appeal to Timmy is weird.

[Inkeyes22]

I don't understand why they bother with stuff like Lutri and the Y-guy--it's not like they add anything at all to standard since no one plays 80 card decks in modern/pioneer/etc. Feels like they could be designed for both commander and casual, instead of basically being nothings.

Nobody is gonna play a Lutri deck in standard, there just aren't enough cards, and it's pretty unlikely it sees any play in eternal formats.

So why waste the slots? It's a mystery.

Agreed. Its the Timmiest set ever, and companion is a Timmy/Johnny mechanic. Two have two of the cards with the ability not work in the format designed to appeal to Timmy is weird.

This set seems like it will be a lot of fun, but I certainly am saddened that 2 companions won't work at all and at least one that I would love to run won't work with who I want to run it with (Karador/Lurrus). I will likely buy less of it. I will likely buy the C20 decks and maybe a handful of boosters, but might just not buy boosters at all.

[DirkGently]

I don't understand why they bother with stuff like Lutri and the Y-guy--it's not like they add anything at all to standard since no one plays 80 card decks in modern/pioneer/etc. Feels like they could be designed for both commander and casual, instead of basically being nothings.

Nobody is gonna play a Lutri deck in standard, there just aren't enough cards, and it's pretty unlikely it sees any play in eternal formats.

So why waste the slots? It's a mystery.

I can't claim to know enough about standard to say anything for certain, but having a free angel with a pretty strong ability could well be worth playing another 20 cards. You lose some consistency, you gain some. Honestly it seems like a fairly small ask to me.

Not sure on Lutri, that seems like a MUCH bigger ask in standard. But who knows, it still might be worth it. I think part of the allure is that he basically turns standard into commander/brawl.

In both cases, there's one place they're both very likely to see a lot of play as companions: limited. Lutri is *almost* free in limited, so it'll be a bomb draft pick there. Yorion is a LOT more work, but for a guaranteed bomb in hand every game, it could easily be worth it. I think all the companions will be pretty fun to try out in limited.