[Speculation] Ban List Update Prediction Thread

[CylonSupreme]

With companion it should go one of two ways. Either they admit everyone is capable of intense deck building restrictions, in which case "banned as a commander" is much easier to understand.

Or they say because "banned as a commander" is too difficult to keep track of, in which case companion is too difficult to keep track of.

BaaC made a couple cards legal in the 99. Out of 20,000. And they were mostly not-very-fun cards in the 99 either.

Companion allows a totally different form of deckbuilding. In terms of the impact on deckbuilding BaaC had versus companion legalization, it's not close.

It's fine to think companion will overly complicate the rules, but saying "companion is (potentially) complicated, therefore anything I like that also complicates the rules should also be allowed" is a pretty ridiculous argument. The RC feels the complication of companion is worth it for how cool companions will be and what they'll bring to the format. BaaC brought very little to the format and was complication for no real purpose.

Banned as a commander was removed "due to it being too complicated to have multiple banlists". Companion and its deck building requires are WAY more complicated.

They either admit BaaC wasn't as complicated and reinstate it or ban these dumb mechanic which overly complicate the game.

[DirkGently]

Banned as a commander was removed "due to it being too complicated to have multiple banlists". Companion and its deck building requires are WAY more complicated.

They either admit BaaC wasn't as complicated and reinstate it or ban these dumb mechanic which overly complicate the game.

1) We don't have the new rule in front of us, so we have no idea how complicated, or not, it's going to be.

2) You know what's complicated? Having a commander, with a replacement effect when it changes zones, that has "commander-ness" that's intrinsic to the card and counts damage for itself specifically (but only combat damage), defining a whole new concept of "color identity" and restricting your deck that way, etc etc. Those rules are complicated but we love them because they add a LOT to the format. They add EVERYTHING to the format.

Obviously "the companion rule", however that is implemented, isn't as important as those rules. But it will add a lot to the format. BaaC added NOTHING to the format. It was complication with ZERO payoff.

Let's just make a simple formula to illustrate what I mean.

This is how I'd define how good a rule is:

value / complexity = worthiness

Obviously these numbers are made up, and just my opinion. But they illustrate why I think a rule like "the companion rule" can be worth it while "baac" isn't.

"the commander rule"

value = 10, complexity = 5, therefore worthiness = 2. It's great!

"the companion rule"
value = 4, complexity = 4 (total guess), therefore worthiness = 1. Nowhere near as good as the commander rule, but it's still probably worth it!

"BaaC rule"
value = 0, complexity = 2, therefore worthiness = 0. It's a steaming pile of worthless garbage!

Simply being complex does mean it's bad. It just means that it has to add something to the format to compensate. Companion adds to the format, so it's worth the complexity. BaaC doesn't so it isn't.

If you don't like companion you can just ignore it. Then you don't have to fret your pretty head about the "complexity".

[RxPhantom]

With the strict restrictions this first crop of companions pose to deck building, how many of them do you actually think you'll see out in the wild? Generally, the payoffs aren't worth hobbling you deck. Some of them look great for the 99 though.

[ZenN]

I think implying that companions are "too complicated" is silly. Thinking banned as a commander was "too complicated" is also silly.

The more common/realistic issues I see people having with it are that they feel it goes against the spirit of the format, by allowing you to have 101 cards and essentially a second commander, or that the rules preventing cards that refer to outside the game from working should stop this as well.

With two actual legitimate arguments out there, I don't think it's necessary to butt heads with each other about whether or not something is too complicated. It's obviously not, or else the entire format, the entire game even, is too complicated, and we should all just stop playing.

[DirkGently]

With the strict restrictions this first crop of companions pose to deck building, how many of them do you actually think you'll see out in the wild? Generally, the payoffs aren't worth hobbling you deck. Some of them look great for the 99 though.

I think they'll usually be for fun, not for power. Which is a good thing imo. I definitely don't want a crop of auto-includes that get played from outside the game.

I'm certainly going to try them out in some decks, especially decks that might be too strong without a restriction on them. I can't speculate on what other people will do. But the pull of a new challenge is strong for some players (myself included).

The more common/realistic issues I see people having with it are that they feel it goes against the spirit of the format, by allowing you to have 101 cards and essentially a second commander, or that the rules preventing cards that refer to outside the game from working should stop this as well.

Obviously it's just a matter of opinion, but I have a hard time understanding people who feel the 100 card limit is sacred, or that rule 11 is gospel. Rule 11 exists because wishes are kind of complicated to legislate and the RC didn't want to deal with it. Not because outside the game is the realm of satan. Companions are very straightforward and self-contained. They violate the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

As far as having a second commander, that's already a thing - it's called partner. If WotC wants to bend the rules of the game, WotC can bend the rules of the game. The RC doesn't have to allow it, but then they could also ban companions if they wanted to, but why bother except spite? WotC makes this wackadoo gamechanging stuff because it's novel and people will want to play it. It's a much more dramatic shift for standard than commander, they're not used to having a commander at all.

[Gudleikr]

B-A-C provided a useful measuring stick of "Is this legendary still as strong as they were but being inside of the actual deck instead of the command zone?" Well such an answer can't be had unless Rule 0 is invoked to allow B-A-C within playgroups. We will never know thoroughly if something like Leovold, Emissary of Trest would have been fine as B-A-C instead of just banned because there is no middle ground within commander, Its either banned or unbanned.

[DirkGently]

B-A-C provided a useful measuring stick of "Is this legendary still as strong as they were but being inside of the actual deck instead of the command zone?" Well such an answer can't be had unless Rule 0 is invoked to allow B-A-C within playgroups. We will never know thoroughly if something like Leovold, Emissary of Trest would have been fine as B-A-C instead of just banned because there is no middle ground within commander, Its either banned or unbanned.

Why is that a useful measurement?

They were banned because they created unpleasant games. If they're banned as a commander, they create those unpleasant games less frequently, but they don't stop creating them. They aren't suddenly fun if they're not in the CZ. Maybe it wouldn't cause as big of a problem, and maybe they wouldn't have caused enough outrage to get banned if they weren't available as a commander (see blue narset v Leovold), but would the game actually be IMPROVED by having, say, Braids outside the command zone?

(the answer's no)

Besides that, we're talking about a tiny handful of at-best-borderline-acceptable cards out of the 20K available. Just play something else.

[CylonSupreme]

B-A-C provided a useful measuring stick of "Is this legendary still as strong as they were but being inside of the actual deck instead of the command zone?" Well such an answer can't be had unless Rule 0 is invoked to allow B-A-C within playgroups. We will never know thoroughly if something like Leovold, Emissary of Trest would have been fine as B-A-C instead of just banned because there is no middle ground within commander, Its either banned or unbanned.

Why is that a useful measurement?

They were banned because they created unpleasant games. If they're banned as a commander, they create those unpleasant games less frequently, but they don't stop creating them. They aren't suddenly fun if they're not in the CZ. Maybe it wouldn't cause as big of a problem, and maybe they wouldn't have caused enough outrage to get banned if they weren't available as a commander (see blue narset v Leovold), but would the game actually be IMPROVED by having, say, Braids outside the command zone?

(the answer's no)

Besides that, we're talking about a tiny handful of at-best-borderline-acceptable cards out of the 20K available. Just play something else.

There are tons of cards that create unpleasant games. Why is Cyclonic Rift not banned? Why is Timetwister not banned? Stasis? Winter Orb? Armageddon?

They all create unpleasant games, in contrast, way more than Braids/Rofellos in the 99.

The truth is, all these legends would be equally salty in the 99 as the aforementioned cards, but they are not broken. That is why they should have a banned as commander list.

And I'm not just talking out of nowhere here, my local playgroup allows almost all the banned list. The only ones that should really be on there are cards designed without this format in mind (limited resources, worldfire, etc). I honestly feel like the rules committee just bans cards they don't like and allows their favorites to stay. Case and point Cyclonic Rift and Deadeye Navigator. Rift is one of the saltiest cards in existence, and half of they're excuses for banning creatures is "its broken with deadeye".

[DirkGently]

There are tons of cards that create unpleasant games. Why is Cyclonic Rift not banned? Why is Timetwister not banned? Stasis? Winter Orb? Armageddon?

They all create unpleasant games, in contrast, way more than Braids/Rofellos in the 99.

The truth is, all these legends would be equally salty in the 99 as the aforementioned cards, but they are not broken. That is why they should have a banned as commander list.

And I'm not just talking out of nowhere here, my local playgroup allows almost all the banned list. The only ones that should really be on there are cards designed without this format in mind (limited resources, worldfire, etc). I honestly feel like the rules committee just bans cards they don't like and allows their favorites to stay. Case and point Cyclonic Rift and Deadeye Navigator. Rift is one of the saltiest cards in existence, and half of they're excuses for banning creatures is "its broken with deadeye".

If stasis had been banned at any point in the format's history I can pretty much guarantee it never would have come off. Momentum keeps it there. And the fact that, at least in my (and I think most people's) experience, the card is not frequently played, and thus isn't a huge problem. If stasis started showing up everywhere all of a sudden and people got annoyed about it, smart money is on it being banned, and staying that way forever.

The desirability of keeping the banlist short is less about ensuring that people have the ability to play with super fun cards like stasis, and more about keeping the rules simple. If every card with a high edhrec salt score were banned, it would be a huge added cognitive weight to keep track of while building a deck. Is braids terribly different than smokestack in the 99? Not really. Probably neither is something you should play in "normal" commander game. But adding smokestack to the banlist would be adding an entire additional card. Adding braids to the banlist for the 99 isn't - she already needed to be on the banlist because she was problematic as a commander. Moving her from BaaC to fully banned makes the banlist simpler, rather than more complex.

I have absolutely no idea by what metric timetwister would be banned.

Cyc Rift is a very powerful card, and it's certainly very popular, but it's an answer, not a threat. If anything I think we need more strong answers these days, rather than fewer, because WotC sure isn't printing weaker threats. But that's just my opinion on the matter. If the RC bans it, it'll be banned. But personally I hope they don't.

Winter orb and 'geddon do pop up from time to time. I find geddon more problematic than winter orb, personally, since at least artifact removal interacts with winter orb. Geddon is usually forever, and not interactable outside of counterspells a few other tricks. I'd be glad if either was banned, but they're not a hugely common problem in my experience.

[onering]

Rift can be a threat, but only if you've got lethal on the board already, in which case Sleep is also a threat. Rift is a powerful answer but it doesn't ruin games. Its better than Worldfire type cards by a mile because its more broadly useful, and actually matters even when its not winning the game by itself, but its also a good deal less problematic. It leaves everyone with lands and the ability to rebuild. When I hear people hate Rift, its generally complaining that their threats got answered or just that they see it too often.

[Drusus]

For something in the same vein as Upheaval, I present Worldfire. Same trick as before. You float a bunch of mana, Worldfire, then when its on the stack, you use TP. Not only are opponents denied their hands and graveyards and permanents, but each opponent is at 1 life. The main differences is that first of all Teferi's Protection prevents your lifetotal from changing, so you still have whatever life you had when you cast Worldfire. Also that when your turn rolls around, you still have cards in your hand and the permanents on the board, just not the ones in your graveyard. The cost is just two cards and a measly 9RRRW for a real game ending haymaker.

To quote myself. If Worldfire was allowed, when properly used, its a stronger threat than Cyclonic Rift could ever be. The worst even that could happen is a Timetwister after a Rift to simulate the experience of Worldfire, but Worldfire lowers life totals to 1, Rift doesn't. And when Worldfire is used in tandem with Teferi's Protection, its even harsher than a Cyclonic Rift with a Timetwister. As with Rift you still need either an alt win-condition or the ability to deal enough damage to each opponent. As with Teferi's Fire, you only need to deal 1 damage, and your commander could do that even if they are not meant to be going into the red zone.

There is also the trick of just using a suspend card like Arc Blade with Worldfire. Suspend the spell, then cast Worldfire next turn, two upkeeps later and you knock out a player with the Arc Blade. Then every three upkeeps later, you kill another player without having to play another card.

You can also just float enough mana to cast Worldfire, then follow it up with a cast of your commander.

if Jhoira of the Ghitu is your commander you could also just suspend Worldfire first, wait a turn and possibly recast Jhoira again due to removal, then suspend a Breath of Darigaaz.

You could even just Scroll Rack a Memnite back on top of your deck, then cast Worldfire. When its your turn, you got a 1/1, likely no one else does.

I hope I illustrated my point well. As Cyclonic Rift might be that boogeyman in the average game, but if it was so much better than a Worldfire, then it should be the banned card and Worldfire would be unbanned.

[DirkGently]

If stasis started showing up everywhere all of a sudden and people got annoyed about it, smart money is on it being banned, and staying that way forever.

This is kind of neither here nor there (and I know quoting myself is pretty gauche), but if wotc ever wants to get stasis on the commander banlist, all they'd have to do is print the Seb McKinnon Stasis|PRM online promo in paper. It'd get played in every deck, even ones that couldn't abuse it at all, and then hastily banned before every game becomes a stasis game.

[papa_funk]

and half of they're excuses for banning creatures is "its broken with deadeye".

Huh. TIL.

[pokken]

and half of they're excuses for banning creatures is "its broken with deadeye".

Huh. TIL.

There's a lot to learn about your own motivations from participating in forums.

[Maluko]

I do have a large problem with Cyclonic Rift and I would dance in the rain if it ever becomes banned in Commander. I hate that card with a passion for two reasons. For one, it's very hard to interact with it. There are virtually less than ten cards (outside of countermagic, discard, and similar effects) in the entire game that can deal efficiently with Rift. Second, the card is just too versatile. I have yet to witness a player feeling bad for drawing a Cyclonic Rift at any stage in the game. At least Sol Ring can be dealt with artifact removal and is often a dead draw late game. There is a reason why almost half the decks registered in EDHREC that can run blue also run this card. And banning Rift would not result in a cascade of bans for mass blue removal spells because no other is even comparable. The closest I can think of is River's Rebuke, which is cast at sorcery speed, only affects one player, and can't be cast as a last resort for two mana. Cyclonic Rift is the complete antithesis of "restrictions breed creativity".

As for Primeval Titan and Sylvan Primordial, I would literally quit playing Commander if either of these two is ever unbanned. I've played the format when they were legal, and those times were very miserable indeed. It reached a point where I witnessed players, including myself, attacking their opponents just for running Forests. Those two cards were frequently the main targets of tutors and clones, and I completely praise the RC's decision in never taking them off the ban list.

[freelunch]

Sheldon recently did an interview with Gavin Verhey and he said something that I'd love to get some more discussion about. Sheldon said, "We don't make rules changes for corner cases."

To me, making a big rules change all over 10 measly cards is a major rules change just for a corner case.

I really can't grasp what the point of the statement, "We don't make rules changes for corner cases." is in this case, if that's literally whats going to happen on Sunday.

Maybe 10 cards out of 20,000 isn't a corner case? I don't know, but that meets my definition.

[DirkGently]

I'm not clear what the context was. Was there something he was describing as a "corner case"?

At any rate, while there's only a few cards (8 really, since UR is banned and UW doesn't work), they have the potential to unlock a lot of deckbuilding possibilities. As compared to, for example, BaaC since that just unlocks a couple more cards for the 99.

Also we really don't know how big of a rules change this is going to be. I think with the right wording it might be a pretty small change. Anyway it presumably won't affect any existing cards, so I wouldn't call it a "change" in practical terms. Any more than adding any new mechanic "change the rules" because it adds more entries to the comp rules.

[Airi]

At any rate, while there's only a few cards (8 really, since UR is banned and UW doesn't work), they have the potential to unlock a lot of deckbuilding possibilities.

It's a lot closer to 7 (but not quite) because Lurrus can only legally be run as a companion for two generals.

[DirkGently]

It's a lot closer to 7 (but not quite) because Lurrus can only legally be run as a companion for two generals.

True, but both of those commanders play really nicely with Lurrus, imo. I've been tooling around with an Ayli + Lurrus build, actually. Whereas I really like Zirda and it's got a lot of legal commanders, but most of them don't interact very well and the rest aren't very interesting imo =/ So I'm more likely to brew it as a commander tbh. Really wish Syr Gwyn had an activated ability, having Zirda as a pre-commander voltron plan would have been sweet.

[freelunch]

I'd have to watch the interview again, I believe it was during his answer to the idea of banned as companion, but the statement was made as a very stratght, "We don't do this."

Any modification to the rules is a change. Full stop. There is no playing with semantics, Dirk. Even a change to punctuation is a change. Adding or removing any words to or from the rules is most definitely a change.

Edited to add: Here's the video:

[DirkGently]

Any modification to the rules is a change. Full stop. There is no playing with semantics, Dirk. Even a change to punctuation is a change. Adding or removing any words to or from the rules is most definitely a change.

So if they changed the rules in a non-functional way - maybe because they thought the wording was unclear - you would care? Why would you care about that?

Change doesn't intrinsically matter. What matters is the mental load on players of remembering those changes - or on the load of modifying their decks if necessary. That's not going to happen here, because the change won't affect any existing cards or interactions.

[freelunch]

There's no need to create a strawman, Dirk. You're right though, change doesn't intrinsically matter.

However, a change for a corner case does matter to me, especially when the voice of the format says, "We don't make changes for corner cases."

[DirkGently]

You literally said "a change to punctuation is a change." I don't think I was strawmanning, I think you strawmanned yourself. That, or you just wanted to win some point on a technicality, which is just an annoying waste of my time.

Anyway, how one defines a "corner case" is obviously a bit subjective, but if he was literally talking about making a BaaCompanion list for Lutri alone, then I think there's a pretty decent amount of space between 1 card versus 8 - even ignoring how much more potential a card being used in an entirely new way has, compared to just another card (and that rule 11 is merely changing, not adding new rules, whereas BaaC/BaaCompanion add additional rules). I'm fairly certain 8 is also more than the number of BaaC cards at its peak. So maybe Sheldon defines a corner case as "affects 5 or fewer cards". Gotta draw a line somewhere. Although I think it's more likely that the reason to allow companion is that it opens up a whole new way of deckbuilding, which is a lot more interesting than just another card imo.

[freelunch]

I was responding to this portion of your initial reply to me:

Anyway it presumably won't affect any existing cards, so I wouldn't call it a "change" in practical terms. Any more than adding any new mechanic "change the rules" because it adds more entries to the comp rules.

Where you've chosen to play semantics rather than actually address my points. I replied with:

Any modification to the rules is a change. Full stop. There is no playing with semantics, Dirk. Even a change to punctuation is a change. Adding or removing any words to or from the rules is most definitely a change.

Therefore, I've taken the following to be a strawman:

So if they changed the rules in a non-functional way - maybe because they thought the wording was unclear - you would care? Why would you care about that?

This is clearly a false construction used to attack my argument, and I do not appreciate it being used on a forum that is supposed to be civil. I'm fairly convinced at this point that you're not addressing my posts in good faith and that's a shame. At any rate, that's enough about that, we've deviated too far from the topic at hand.

Companion may very well add new design space for decks. However, I don't think a change for a corner case (that is, allowing the companion mechanic to work in commander) is appropriate to allow that new design space to function in commander.

[DirkGently]

You may notice that I put the word "change" in quotes, to indicate that I wasn't speaking literally. And then I further clarified by saying "in practical terms" as being different from strict terms. I assumed we were arguing about what mattered, and not what technically qualifies as a change. But even if you think my point was poorly argued, though, I'm afraid I don't see how it wasn't civil. I just asked a simple question. Harrumphing hardly seems warranted.

Besides which, in additional to this fairly pointless ping pong "no, you're being semantic!" "argument" (see those quotes? That indicates it's not meant to be taken literally) I have still been responding to your other points. But I'm afraid the answer is rather simple and likely unsatisfying to you. A corner case is subjective, and he presumably sees the impact companion has as large enough to not be a corner case, whereas he sees a single card being banned as small enough to be a corner case.

That's just his subjective opinion, of course you are free to disagree, but that's clearly what he meant. There isn't a strict criteria for what a corner case is. So if you say that you think companion is a corner case, then there's not much argument to be had except that I don't agree.