SCD: Golos, Tired-Ass Pilgrim

[RxPhantom]

When it comes to banning, I don't think it's gonna happen. He's too popular.

The RC has - to be fair - proven they are willing to take a beating for the format.

They got absolutely incinerated for Paradox Engine and Prophet of Kruphix, cards with 10%+ market share (PoK was probably close to 20% at its peak).

So I have more hope than you I think. If they don't ban it, eventually Golos is going to become the default best commander for so many archetypes it's going to be quite boring

But when was the last time they banned a popular commander, though? I don't know that they ever have. Griselbrand was banned not long after he came out, but that was nine years ago. I think they're reticent to do it, and they sure as hell have waited too long.

[FenrirRex]

When it comes to banning, I don't think it's gonna happen. He's too popular.

The RC has - to be fair - proven they are willing to take a beating for the format.

They got absolutely incinerated for Paradox Engine and Prophet of Kruphix, cards with 10%+ market share (PoK was probably close to 20% at its peak).

So I have more hope than you I think. If they don't ban it, eventually Golos is going to become the default best commander for so many archetypes it's going to be quite boring

But when was the last time they banned a popular commander, though? I don't know that they ever have. Griselbrand was banned not long after he came out, but that was nine years ago. I think they're reticent to do it, and they sure as hell have waited too long.

Leovold, Emissary of Trest also had his fans prior to his banning, and while they were faster on the trigger with Griselbrand you also have to keep in mind that Golos has taken a little more time to find his stride/become a problem. Griselbrand was griselbanned for immediate and obvious degenerecy, where as the problem of the pilgrim started out more subtle.

In addition, Golos really got his groove on in the years that spawned an increasing deluge of product, including a healthy chunk of time combating a game threatened heavily by the pandemic. Incidentally, the number of Golos decks would likely be exponentially higher if not for said pandemic stiffling a year of his play.

[RxPhantom]

The RC has - to be fair - proven they are willing to take a beating for the format.

They got absolutely incinerated for Paradox Engine and Prophet of Kruphix, cards with 10%+ market share (PoK was probably close to 20% at its peak).

So I have more hope than you I think. If they don't ban it, eventually Golos is going to become the default best commander for so many archetypes it's going to be quite boring

But when was the last time they banned a popular commander, though? I don't know that they ever have. Griselbrand was banned not long after he came out, but that was nine years ago. I think they're reticent to do it, and they sure as hell have waited too long.

Leovold, Emissary of Trest also had his fans prior to his banning, and while they were faster on the trigger with Griselbrand you also have to keep in mind that Golos has taken a little more time to find his stride/become a problem. Griselbrand was griselbanned for immediate and obvious degenerecy, where as the problem of the pilgrim started out more subtle.

In addition, Golos really got his groove on in the years that spawned an increasing deluge of product, including a healthy chunk of time combating a game threatened heavily by the pandemic. Incidentally, the number of Golos decks would likely be exponentially higher if not for said pandemic stiffling a year of his play.

I can't believe I forgot about Leovold. I think you have a point about Golos's issues not being immediately obvious, too. Still, I don't know if the Golos numbers would be all that much higher. They're already super high.

[FenrirRex]

I can't believe I forgot about Leovold. I think you have a point about Golos's issues not being immediately obvious, too. Still, I don't know if the Golos numbers would be all that much higher. They're already super high.

The pandemics impact is speculative- its a year of paper decks potentially not being built, but I know a lot of people turned to their magic collections first when it came to things to tinker with when stuck in the bunker.

However, I do think that the influx of magic product, and their 4-5 color goodstuff options, most definitely stymied his growth (which is, as you say, really saying something considering how pervasive he is), given that he has been directly competing with Jodah, Kenrith, Sisay, Omnath, and now Esika for most of his existence- people are more and more coming around to Golos being the best option among these and others, which is showing the problem.

[pokken]

So overall, I'd say no, I'm not any more concerned by Golos than by Kenrith, Sisay, Atraxa or Korvold. Popular commanders are popular, but I think Golos at least has the merits of spreading his popularity over lots of different themes, unlike some of the other powerhouses in the top 10 of EDHrec.

I think it's fair to be concerned by Korvold and Sisay (and to an extent kenrith, although his power level is quite a bit lower) -- Atraxa less so because her archetypes are kind of a joke, infect/+1+1 counter are not exactly hopping archetypes Atraxa is basically the only serious proliferate commander and gets most of the proliferate decks. Thankfully Atraxa is obviously toxic and it's pretty rare to see it these days (at east in my community people usually ask before bringing it out).

I think your list illustrates the point pretty well that there are is a pretty good list of overrepresented commanders who are problematic right now.

Rather than saying "golos is just like korvold and fine" I would say more that both of them are problematically overrepresented.

The thing is that this is just one metric to look at, and I think it shows very clearly that along one axis Golos is in company with commanders who are overly popular because of being overly pushed. (Other aspects beyond representation are what make Golos bannable; that's just one of the factors)

Anyway I certainly appreciate your effort and I don't want to appear to be moving the goalposts so I'll say that your survey surely shows that Golos is not unique in being overrepresented in various archetypes.

[Dragoon]

I think it's fair to be concerned by Korvold and Sisay (and to an extent kenrith, although his power level is quite a bit lower) -- Atraxa less so because her archetypes are kind of a joke, infect/+1+1 counter are not exactly hopping archetypes Atraxa is basically the only serious proliferate commander and gets most of the proliferate decks. Thankfully Atraxa is obviously toxic and it's pretty rare to see it these days (at east in my community people usually ask before bringing it out).

Well, you are lucky on that side because I definitely see way more Atraxa decks than Golos decks. The fact that they are all pretty much the same while the Golos decks all happen to focus on different things may explain why I'm less bothered by Golos, although I'm still not really bothered by Atraxa either. I might have a higher threshold of tolerance, I don't know.

I think your list illustrates the point pretty well that there are is a pretty good list of overrepresented commanders who are problematic right now.

Rather than saying "golos is just like korvold and fine" I would say more that both of them are problematically overrepresented.

The thing is that this is just one metric to look at, and I think it shows very clearly that along one axis Golos is in company with commanders who are overly popular because of being overly pushed. (Other aspects beyond representation are what make Golos bannable; that's just one of the factors)

Anyway I certainly appreciate your effort and I don't want to appear to be moving the goalposts so I'll say that your survey surely shows that Golos is not unique in being overrepresented in various archetypes.

I think that sums it up pretty well, there is probably some other better metrics to look at, but I'm not used enough to EDHrec to get them (after all, I can't find how @DirkGently managed to look at the number of Atraxa decks on March 5th 2019).

As a rather mild anti-banlist preacher though, it just reinforces my opinion that there is just no good way to do it. I don't think banning all the most popular commanders will end up being good for the format, they are popular for a reason and they are the most susceptible ones to be picked up by new players. We might as well get rid of the banlist and instead present actual guidelines that people should read, instead of just looking at a bunch of cards. Although, we can maybe still have a "tournament mindset only" banlist, at destination of cEDH, since they are probably the only group needing one.

[WizardMN]

Taking a couple comments here about Golos being able to effectively replace any general with minimal changes, I decided to try it in Windgrace and played some games online. This seemed to make the most sense as both are pretty land centric. The changes I made were adding Field of the Dead (probably should be in the Windgrace deck anyway), Cascading Cataracts, and The World Tree. And Cataracts isn't actually needed as The World Tree does everything.

I did some solitaire and it was pretty astounding. Golos on turn 4 followed up with activating him and spinning the wheel into Apex Devastator on turn 5.

However, the reality was a bit more subdued. I played 4 games and only got to activate Golos the first time in game 3. Game 3 was pretty much the breakout hit of the series as I got a bunch of lands and was able to activate him a bunch of times while Game 4 still saw Golos being activated but did not see as much of an impact as part of it.

A few things I noticed over the course of these games though: Golos still has a pretty big target on his back. I chose not to inform people of what I was doing as I wanted opponents to treat it as a "true" Golos deck. Case in point, one player commented on the "3 blue players" just trying to get to Rift expecting me to have Rift. In another game, Golos was bounced before my turn even though I didn't have the right mana to activate him. I went with Field of the Dead first expecting the board to be wrathed since one opponent was getting out of control. I was surprised Golos just ended up being bounced. Which of course worked in my favor as I could then recast him and get World Tree.

In another game he was stolen right away and I won pretty easily without him. In the games I did get to activate him, he actually didn't do much. That is, he did get me 2 removal spells and I got them both back with Once and Future to completely wipe a player's board but I had Glacial Chasm (another good land for Golos to get) and Constant Mists so while Golos sped the game up, I don't think he actually won the game for me.

From my perspective though, the games did tend to revolve around Golos to a significant degree. That is, just having him in the command zone led players to playing differently to help ensure he never went off. Which, to my opponents' credit, they did a reasonable job of in 3 of the 4 games.

But I think the points being made about Golos always being accessible still ring true. There was no way to truly stop Golos without him being stolen like he was in one game and, even then, I got him back by wrathing. And opponents were definitely wary of him so I did tend to get targeted a little more than I think I would have with Windgrace.

This exercise was mostly just to see how accurate the statement of "add Golos and World Tree to make your deck better" actually is and I am not sure if I buy that. This is certainly a small data point, but I never felt that the deck was considerably superior with Golos at the helm. In fact, I truly believe the deck played worse for it. I do believe that if I had tailored the deck for Golos, and even added Sol Ring the outcome would have been different, but a straight swap didn't really showcase any power behind the change.

Also, as another data point, out of the 4 games I played, I did not see another Golos deck, a Korvold deck, an Atraxa deck, or any other "degenerate" general. The worst I saw was Derevi, Empyrial Tactician which, admittedly, was pretty powerful. Again, this doesn't mean much for the overall format but this mirrors my normal experience pretty well in that I don't see these generals pop up all that often and even when I do, it never seems that they are excessively present online.

I am still in the camp of Golos being problematic and I am not sure how much I attribute that to being able to helm any deck. It was shown earlier that while Golos isn't the top of any one archetype he is in the top 5 of quite a few. But the reality I think is more general. That is, building around him, even slightly, just creates a pretty significant advantage if he does survive which is why I think the games I played seemed to warp around getting rid of Golos or me. And I don't think that is generally healthy, but I don't disagree with my opponents who decided Golos was the threat and acted accordingly.

On a more personal level, I did find the game play boring. For example, in the game where Golos was stolen, my entire focus was just on getting Golos back so I could activate him. I did a few other things obviously but I ended up with tunnel vision over just getting back to Golos. It wasn't fun and I know that alone is enough for me to avoid building a proper deck with him in the future.

[pokken]

This exercise was mostly just to see how accurate the statement of "add Golos and World Tree to make your deck better" actually is and I am not sure if I buy that. This is certainly a small data point, but I never felt that the deck was considerably superior with Golos at the helm. In fact, I truly believe the deck played worse for it. I do believe that if I had tailored the deck for Golos, and even added Sol Ring the outcome would have been different, but a straight swap didn't really showcase any power behind the change.

Yeah I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say a straight swap, most of the time it's more like a handful of cards (adding Homeward Path for instance is a pretty good idea in Golos over some of your other colorless lands). Obviously adding sol ring and mana crypt is a pretty huge upgrade.

I would question based on what you said though of how much the increased threat Golos draws played into the differences in effectiveness. Golos draws a ton of aggro, but in a vacuum I wouldn't be surprised if the deck was stronger with Golos + world tree + cataracts - just less effective because people focus on you

A general being kept in check by table aggro is really not a good scenario imho, since it becomes a poor tool when multiple generals needing table aggro containment show up

[materpillar]

This exercise was mostly just to see how accurate the statement of "add Golos and World Tree to make your deck better" actually is and I am not sure if I buy that. This is certainly a small data point, but I never felt that the deck was considerably superior with Golos at the helm. In fact, I truly believe the deck played worse for it. I do believe that if I had tailored the deck for Golos, and even added Sol Ring the outcome would have been different, but a straight swap didn't really showcase any power behind the change

I was talking in terms of pure goldfish deck power-level, independent of the political implications resulting from that increased power-level. Increasing your deck's raw strength does not necessarily increase your decks win %. Becoming the arch-enemy turn 0 is an extremely poor strategy for maximizing win %. Most of my decks intentionally play "suboptimal cards" because they effectively have shroud since no one wants to blow removal on my "bad" cards. Playing bad cards gives stealthy virtual card advantage. That's not what I was referring to as Golos does the opposite (like you noticed extremely quickly).

Doing the Golos, Tireless Pilgrim + The World Tree swap for my my decks, I'm almost positive the raw strength of Esika, God of the Tree // The Prismatic Bridge, Tivadar of Thorn, Progenitus, and Chromium goes up dramatically. I'd guess that Gishath, Sun's Avatar, Jaya Ballard, Task Mage, The Ur-Dragon also get stronger, but I'm not 100% positive. Lazav, the Multifarious is the only deck of mine that definitely gets weaker. My sample set isn't fantastic since I run some pretty janky generals. It definitely feels bad that upon some light reflection I think Golos, Tireless Pilgrim is likely a stronger dinosaur general than Gishath, Sun's Avatar.

If you 1v1 throw down your Lord Windgrace vs Lord Windgrace except helmed by Golos, Tireless Pilgrim+The World Tree, do you actually think that the Lord Windgrace version would actually win the majority of the games?

[pokken]

upon some light reflection I think Golos, Tireless Pilgrim is likely a stronger dinosaur general than Gishath, Sun's Avatar.

I think Gaea's Cradle is definitely a better dinosaur general than Gishnath lol

(Sorry, Gaea's Cradle with attached wheel of value)

[WizardMN]

I would question based on what you said though of how much the increased threat Golos draws played into the differences in effectiveness. Golos draws a ton of aggro, but in a vacuum I wouldn't be surprised if the deck was stronger with Golos + world tree + cataracts - just less effective because people focus on you

A general being kept in check by table aggro is really not a good scenario imho, since it becomes a poor tool when multiple generals needing table aggro containment show up

Which is a fair point to make but it is still something worth considering. More powerful but less effective isn't exactly advocating for him being a problem. Not on its own anyway. That is, if he is relatively easy to hate out, the power level can take a back seat to real world experience. The way the game potentially needs to warp around him to make that happen though....

The second point is an interesting one because it is the main reason the third game went the way it did. I wasn't the only threat and Malcolm and some red Partner were basically on the edge of going infinite. They were just short of doing so but that threat did leave Golos open to get a little crazy.

If you 1v1 throw down your Lord Windgrace vs Lord Windgrace except helmed by Golos, Tireless Pilgrim+The World Tree, do you actually think that the Lord Windgrace version would actually win the majority of the games?

My guess is that is goes somewhere around 50/50 to be honest. I think Windgrace has enough spot removal to mostly contain Golos for the most part after the first activation (I do believe Golos probably gets at least one activation) which means they would cast him over and over but not be able to activate him more than once. Windgrace's first ability is enough to keep cards in hand and allowing for ramp to make the game...interesting at least.

As I said, the deck did seem to play worse but part of that might have been the increased focus on me. But if I actually "tuned" the Golos version of the deck I believe the Golos version wins in this hypothetical way more than Windgrace would. Maybe that speaks to the nature of the "base" deck. I really don't know.

[pokken]

The second point is an interesting one because it is the main reason the third game went the way it did. I wasn't the only threat and Malcolm and some red Partner were basically on the edge of going infinite. They were just short of doing so but that threat did leave Golos open to get a little crazy.

yeah, when there're two normal powered generals and two overpowered generals at the table, that's probably the worst balance of experience - because whoever the normal decks choose to squash the other guy will win

Three OP generals, and the odd-person-out probably needs to change decks. Four OP generals is generally close to CEDH (everyone is a problem). One OP general, the table can contain it and one of the three normals usually takes it.

It's almost like the superpowered generals belong in their own format or something or a self-selecting subset of the game like CEDH.

I'm at the point where I straight up refuse to play against some of the worst ones (Sisay, Weatherlight Captain is probably my personal least favorite, I'd rather play against Golos all things considered).

Malcolm, Keen-Eyed Navigator from that small subset where if it's played fairly it's fine but if you're playing the infinite combos it's a pretty toxic experience most of the time unless you're all going super hard.

[DirkGently]

I think that sums it up pretty well, there is probably some other better metrics to look at, but I'm not used enough to EDHrec to get them (after all, I can't find how @DirkGently managed to look at the number of Atraxa decks on March 5th 2019).

-Go to the wayback machine.
-Plug in the URL you want to look at (commanders/top or whatever it is).
-Pick a date, click on it, and wait for it to load (can take a while).
-For the date I looked at, the site is old so you have to mouse over the commander to see the number.
-I used the top cards to figure out number of decks (since every deck can play sol ring, I used the denominator of sol ring decks for the total).

[Dragoon]

I think that sums it up pretty well, there is probably some other better metrics to look at, but I'm not used enough to EDHrec to get them (after all, I can't find how @DirkGently managed to look at the number of Atraxa decks on March 5th 2019).

-Go to the wayback machine.
-Plug in the URL you want to look at (commanders/top or whatever it is).
-Pick a date, click on it, and wait for it to load (can take a while).
-For the date I looked at, the site is old so you have to mouse over the commander to see the number.
-I used the top cards to figure out number of decks (since every deck can play sol ring, I used the denominator of sol ring decks for the total).

Thank you, sir! I didn't know that website, I thought you were just using those words as a sort of idiomatic expression and there was an option on EDHrec itself that I somehow missed.

[onering]

Since there has been a lot of discussion, I wanted to briefly sum up the two sides:

Arguments in favor of banning:

Golos is omnipresent in the format. As a corollary, commanders should be considered omnipresent in the format at a lower number of decks than cards in the 99, because commanders are always available while cards in the 99 aren't (you have about a 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 chance of seeing them for most decks depending on meta speed and draw, though decks with lots of tutors and draw can significantly increase the odds of seeing a card).

Golos has very repetitive play patterns (ramp into Golos, spam his ability). For the most part, it doesn't actually matter what the rest of the deck is, the game plays the same because its all being spit out via Golos' ability.

Golos has a high enough power level to centralize gameplay around him when he's in a game. The game becomes focused on preventing the Golos player from activating his ability. Archenemy is often a result.

Golos provides, through its etb and its ability, both significant mana discounts and card advantage, making it a source of lopsided resource advantage for little investment.

Golos is broadly useful and so can easily be slotted into the command slot for many decks, with minimal changes otherwise (cascading cataracts being added is enough to let you activate his ability), and once the change is made he encourages other changes that get more out of him. The series is "This deck is better if all I do is swap the commander for Golos and a basic for Cataracts ----> Now that Golos is in this deck it would be even better if I add X, Y, and Z, which would not have fit into the previous deck."

While Golos enables some weak or esoteric strategies and can be built "fairly" or uniquely, it must intentionally and carefully be built that way, and the practical reality is that the vast majority of Golos decks are not built that way.

Golos is one of a number of somewhat recent commanders that promote repetitive gameplay, increase the speed of the casual side of the format, promote noninteractive gameplay, and contribute to a homogenization of the format. Golos is the the worst offender of the bunch, and banning him would do the most to resolve the issue, or at least lessen these problems to an acceptable level.

Golos is fun for the pilot and perhaps more importantly looks both fun and powerful, so he attracts many deck builders, especially newer and less enfranchised ones, but he is miserable to play against. One of the purposes of the ban list is to steer players away from cards that seem fun or even are fun for the pilot but ruin the game for everyone else, even if that is unintentional.

Golos is a very popular commander, and has been for years. His staying power indicates that he is a long term problem, and his popularity necessitates action because it ensures his negative impact on the format is both widespread and felt often.

Arguments against banning Golos:

Golos is heavily represented as a commander, but does not lead any archetype, and is second only in one. Commanders should not be judged more harshly than cards in the 99 when it comes to omnipresence, and Golos is not omnipresent compared to a card like Sol Ring.

It doesn't matter if most Golos decks ramp into him and spam his ability, because Golos helms a wide variety of decks the outputs of this play pattern are varied. No extra turn Golos Good Stuff is different enough from Golos God Tribal and Golos Eldrazi Tribal, Golos Big Mana, etc that these should all be considered different play experiences, and Golos is actually increasing deck diversity by helming so many different decks, even if they all rely on ramping Golos and activating his ability to function this is not repetitive because the cards cast this way are different.

Golos lands specifically stands apart from this as a more unique strategy that lets you basically have a land as your commander, which is a unique thing that the format is better off with.

Additionally Golos enables a number of offbeat strategies, and this overrides the decks that are built "problematically." The problems with Golos are player problems, not problems with the card. These decks should not suffer as collateral damage.

Golos is one of a number of somewhat recent commanders that promote repetitive gameplay, increase the speed of the casual side of the format, promote noninteractive gameplay, and contribute to a homogenization of the format. Banning Golos would not solve this problem, and the "problematic" Golos decks would simply adopt one of the other problem commanders while the only decks that would be hurt are the "fair" Golos decks.

Golos is a very popular commander, and it would cause more harm than good to the format to kill a commander that is used by so many people.

The format will adjust overtime to handle Golos and the other "problem" commanders, so a ban is unneeded.

Golos enables super budget 5 color decks to function, as Golos finding Cascading Cataract singlehandedly replaces an expensive mana base, opening up 5 color to players on a strict budget.




Please let me know if I missed anything so I can add it. I will likely move all this to the first post at some point. I have intentionally left off broader arguments around signaling to WotC or being generally opposed to bans because those are more generalized attitudes and ideas not focused on Golos specifically. They are relevant to the discussion as always, but I'm only collecting reasons for and against Golos specifically for the thread summary.

[Dragoon]

Seems good to me!

Golos is heavily represented as a commander, but does not lead any archetype, and is second only in one. Commanders should not be judged more harshly than cards in the 99 when it comes to omnipresence, and Golos is not omnipresent compared to a card like Sol Ring.

My only nitpick would be on this part, comparing Golos to Sol Ring seems a bit biased as a comparison, as Sol Ring is pretty much everywhere (77% of decks), even compared to Golos, who sits at "only" 1,3%.

If I take the "1 in 10 chance" to see a card in the 99 compared to a Commander, this would mean than any card present in more than 10 times the number of Golos decks, i.e. more than 61470 decks, would be more "omnipresent" than Golos.

This would leave us with (not an exhaustive list):

• Swords to Plowshares in 114477 decks (52% of 219140 decks)
• Cultivate in 113981 decks (49% of 235008 decks)
• Counterspell in 107630 decks (43% of 251206 decks)
• Cyclonic Rift in 96838 decks (39% of 251206 decks)
• Beast Within in 80994 decks (34% of 235008 decks)
• Smothering Tithe in 77600 decks (35% of 219140 decks)
• Demonic Tutor in 74675 decks (30% of 247630 decks)
• Rhystic Study in 71515 decks (28% of 251206 decks)
• Chaos Warp in 63680 decks (27% of 233258 decks)
• Llanowar Elves in 61230 decks (26% of 235008 decks)

By that metric, Golos would be more comparable to Chaos Warp or Llanowar Elves rather than Sol Ring.

[onering]

Seems good to me!

Golos is heavily represented as a commander, but does not lead any archetype, and is second only in one. Commanders should not be judged more harshly than cards in the 99 when it comes to omnipresence, and Golos is not omnipresent compared to a card like Sol Ring.

My only nitpick would be on this part, comparing Golos to Sol Ring seems a bit biased as a comparison, as Sol Ring is pretty much everywhere (77% of decks), even compared to Golos, who sits at "only" 1,3%.

If I take the "1 in 10 chance" to see a card in the 99 compared to a Commander, this would mean than any card present in more than 10 times the number of Golos decks, i.e. more than 61470 decks, would be more "omnipresent" than Golos.

This would leave us with (not an exhaustive list):

• Swords to Plowshares in 114477 decks (52% of 219140 decks)
• Cultivate in 113981 decks (49% of 235008 decks)
• Counterspell in 107630 decks (43% of 251206 decks)
• Cyclonic Rift in 96838 decks (39% of 251206 decks)
• Beast Within in 80994 decks (34% of 235008 decks)
• Smothering Tithe in 77600 decks (35% of 219140 decks)
• Demonic Tutor in 74675 decks (30% of 247630 decks)
• Rhystic Study in 71515 decks (28% of 251206 decks)
• Chaos Warp in 63680 decks (27% of 233258 decks)
• Llanowar Elves in 61230 decks (26% of 235008 decks)

By that metric, Golos would be more comparable to Chaos Warp or Llanowar Elves rather than Sol Ring.

I agree, but this is where, once again, I call EDHrec into question, as the numbers they give are confusing and don't explain what they actually are. The numbers you are showing for those cards aren't the percentage of ALL decks that run them, but the percentage of all decks that CAN run them that run them. With the exception of colorless cards like Sol Ring, those numbers don't actually reflect the percentage of decks they show up in overall, which is much lower. Based on Golos commanding 1.3% of all commander decks over the past 2 years, and that being 6,161 decks (about 150% more decks than the runner up btw, despite only being able to helm 5 color decks), that leaves us with about 474,000 decks. That means that STP isn't in 52% of decks, but more like about 23%. And that means that Smothering Tithe is actually in about 16% of all decks, rather than 35%, and Chaos warp is in about 13%. One of the problems I have with EDHrec is that they don't make it very clear exactly what the numbers represent all the time, and "of X decks" reads as "of all decks" rather than the "of all decks that can run this card" that it actually means. When the latter is intended it should be spelled out (and really both should be). Its also inconsistent, as when they rate what percent of decks a card in the 99 shows up they rate it based on the decks that could include it, while when they measure the percent of decks a card shows up in as the commander they rate it out of all decks, including decks without the color requirements. There's also the central issue of whether EDHrec is representative of the meta or if the average uploader and the average edh player differ, what percent of listed decks are actually built and played rather than uploaded as thought experiments, whether there is significant differentiation between the decks uploaded and the decks built and played but not uploaded, and the degree of variation between how often the decks that are actually built are actually played (like, lets say a guy has a Golos deck, a Sharuum deck, and a Gallia deck, and plays 6 games one month. Does he play an even 2 - 2 - 2 game split between the decks? 3 - 2 - 1? 4 - 1 - 1? 5 - 1 - 0? All six with one deck? EDHrec can't capture this.) Overall, I think EDHrec is perhaps the best we have to go on but doesn't actually give a terribly accurate picture of the meta game. The best we can hope for is that its in the ballpark, but I think its more likely just in the right city (to extend the metaphor).

But I digress. What data we do have makes the 10x hunch I had for commanders seem more realistic to me, as If a card in the 99 showed up as often as Chaos Warp or Llanowar Elves, and was as problematic as Golos, then it would be problematically omnipresent. Part of the omnipresence criteria is that its specifically "problematic" omnipresence that's an issue, not merely being played often, which has always made it one of the odder criteria as on its own, even at its most extreme, it wouldn't be enough for a ban but could only add weight to banning a problematic card (something that was sort of borderline by the RC's assessment like PE got pushed over the edge by its stubbornly high casual play rate).

[Dragoon]

I agree, but this is where, once again, I call EDHrec into question, as the numbers they give are confusing and don't explain what they actually are. The numbers you are showing for those cards aren't the percentage of ALL decks that run them, but the percentage of all decks that CAN run them that run them. With the exception of colorless cards like Sol Ring, those numbers don't actually reflect the percentage of decks they show up in overall, which is much lower. Based on Golos commanding 1.3% of all commander decks over the past 2 years, and that being 6,161 decks (about 150% more decks than the runner up btw, despite only being able to helm 5 color decks), that leaves us with about 474,000 decks. That means that STP isn't in 52% of decks, but more like about 23%. And that means that Smothering Tithe is actually in about 16% of all decks, rather than 35%, and Chaos warp is in about 13%. One of the problems I have with EDHrec is that they don't make it very clear exactly what the numbers represent all the time, and "of X decks" reads as "of all decks" rather than the "of all decks that can run this card" that it actually means. When the latter is intended it should be spelled out (and really both should be). Its also inconsistent, as when they rate what percent of decks a card in the 99 shows up they rate it based on the decks that could include it, while when they measure the percent of decks a card shows up in as the commander they rate it out of all decks, including decks without the color requirements.

I know that, I only indicated the parenthesis part because it was there as well. What I focused on was the first number, which is the number of decks that run this card. Chaos Warp and Llanowar Elves are both at around 60k, which is 10 times the number of Golos decks. But I should have been clearer.

There's also the central issue of whether EDHrec is representative of the meta or if the average uploader and the average edh player differ, what percent of listed decks are actually built and played rather than uploaded as thought experiments, whether there is significant differentiation between the decks uploaded and the decks built and played but not uploaded, and the degree of variation between how often the decks that are actually built are actually played (like, lets say a guy has a Golos deck, a Sharuum deck, and a Gallia deck, and plays 6 games one month. Does he play an even 2 - 2 - 2 game split between the decks? 3 - 2 - 1? 4 - 1 - 1? 5 - 1 - 0? All six with one deck? EDHrec can't capture this.) Overall, I think EDHrec is perhaps the best we have to go on but doesn't actually give a terribly accurate picture of the meta game. The best we can hope for is that its in the ballpark, but I think its more likely just in the right city (to extend the metaphor).

That is certainly true, it's the best that we can get, but it has its limitations. I just started using this site for all the numbers because many people in this topic were stating that "Golos is everywhere" and I was just curious. I think it is a vastly better metric than MTGO though, I remember reading some articles mentioning than MTGO was already surpassed by Arena one or two years ago.

But I digress. What data we do have makes the 10x hunch I had for commanders seem more realistic to me, as If a card in the 99 showed up as often as Chaos Warp or Llanowar Elves, and was as problematic as Golos, then it would be problematically omnipresent. Part of the omnipresence criteria is that its specifically "problematic" omnipresence that's an issue, not merely being played often, which has always made it one of the odder criteria as on its own, even at its most extreme, it wouldn't be enough for a ban but could only add weight to banning a problematic card (something that was sort of borderline by the RC's assessment like PE got pushed over the edge by its stubbornly high casual play rate).

True as well, but I think that at the end of day, this is mostly subjective. Cyclonic Rift for example could be seen as more problematic and is vastly more played, at more than 100k decks.

[onering]

See, while all of this is somewhat subjective, its not totally subjective. Cyclonic Rift doesn't meet any of the ban criteria EXCEPT being highly played. It doesn't win out of nowhere, doesn't create large resource imbalances, isn't a difficult to interact with threat (it is itself interaction), doesn't centralize the meta OR the game (instants/sorceries are less susceptible to this in the first place as its harder to steal them, and overload is a mechanic that makes it harder to copy, recast, or even steal the full effect, since many of the effects that do it and are not severely restricted in their window of opportunity don't allow for alternate costs).

Out of the listed cards, the only ones that actually hit ban criteria are Smothering Tithe and Rhystic Study, as both are capable of creating large resource imbalances, and that's were the subjectivity of whether those imbalances are large enough to justify a ban, or if the ease with which the opponent's can prevent that advantage from accruing is a strong enough mitigating factor to make a ban unjustified (more relevant for Study than Tithe).

[pokken]

I think 10x is a bit lowballing it honestly. Commanders get recast. If you do it strictly percentage-wise, a typical card in your deck shows up 1 in 5 games, but your commander may as well be showing up 3-5 times a game (or more if you're Maelstrom Wanderer or Karador, Ghost Chieftain ).

The combination of availability and people's general disinclination to blow targeted removal on commanders makes them a huge factor in every game pretty much. It's way more than any card in your 99. That doesn't even get into how much you can bank on your commander allowing you to warp your deck based on its capabilities.

It's definitely pretty subjective. But golos is awful for far more reasons than his prevalence, so it's important not to get too hyper-focused on prevalence as a metric I think.

Edit to say: I think it's totally feasible that a commander could be fun, fair and healthy and soak up 1.5-2% of the meta, maybe even more for some periods of time. There's nothing wrong with being popular as long as you don't create awful experiences while you're at it. Golos could very easily have been that commander if his ability tapped to activate.

[Dragoon]

See, while all of this is somewhat subjective, its not totally subjective. Cyclonic Rift doesn't meet any of the ban criteria EXCEPT being highly played. It doesn't win out of nowhere, doesn't create large resource imbalances, isn't a difficult to interact with threat (it is itself interaction), doesn't centralize the meta OR the game (instants/sorceries are less susceptible to this in the first place as its harder to steal them, and overload is a mechanic that makes it harder to copy, recast, or even steal the full effect, since many of the effects that do it and are not severely restricted in their window of opportunity don't allow for alternate costs).

And yet, you can also see a bunch of people arguing over a Cyclonic Rift ban from time to time.
Some people will be more bothered by some type of cards than others and it's difficult to quantify which group is larger without large ranges of data.

I think 10x is a bit lowballing it honestly. Commanders get recast. If you do it strictly percentage-wise, a typical card in your deck shows up 1 in 5 games, but your commander may as well be showing up 3-5 times a game (or more if you're Maelstrom Wanderer or Karador, Ghost Chieftain ).

The last stats episode from the Command Zone concluded that, on average, a Commander is cast 1.5 time per game, if I recall correctly. Now again, small sample of data, but that's all we have. Golos might have a slightly higher average, but it is difficult to tell.

Edit to say: I think it's totally feasible that a commander could be fun, fair and healthy and soak up 1.5-2% of the meta, maybe even more for some periods of time. There's nothing wrong with being popular as long as you don't create awful experiences while you're at it. Golos could very easily have been that commander if his ability tapped to activate.

On that last sentence, I agree wholeheartedly. I don't see the need at all to not make him tap to use it.

[Ertai Planeswalker]

Golos is not the problem. The rest of the deck is. Golos is a perfect commander to be able to built a 5 color commander deck without having to take a second mortgage for the mana base. You find Cascading Cataracts or The World Tree and can continue playing magic.

None of my decks are build to the maximum possible power level. I always keep in mind whether it is fun to play against. Not every deck with blue runs Hullbreacher. Not every deck with black in it Opposition Agent. So in a sense, I always play "watered down" versions of what the deck could be from a pure powerplay perspective. The reason is because I want each of my decks to be fun to play and feel distinct from one another. You can do the same with Golos. Golos is not fun to play, his abilities aren't "interesting". But he does allows decks that would otherwise be unplayable or only playable with a million dollar mana base to become viable I think the problem OP describes is more an issue of people playing a more powerfull Golos deck than OP likes rather than Golos himself being the issue. Take Illuna, Apex of Wishes as another example. Can be played as a perfectly fine commander. But the Omniscience version of the deck is kind of OP and unfun. But that does not make Illuna, Apex of Wishes OP.

[onering]

Golos is not the problem. The rest of the deck is. Golos is a perfect commander to be able to built a 5 color commander deck without having to take a second mortgage for the mana base. You find Cascading Cataracts or The World Tree and can continue playing magic.

None of my decks are build to the maximum possible power level. I always keep in mind whether it is fun to play against. Not every deck with blue runs Hullbreacher. Not every deck with black in it Opposition Agent. So in a sense, I always play "watered down" versions of what the deck could be from a pure powerplay perspective. The reason is because I want each of my decks to be fun to play and feel distinct from one another. You can do the same with Golos. Golos is not fun to play, his abilities aren't "interesting". But he does allows decks that would otherwise be unplayable or only playable with a million dollar mana base to become viable I think the problem OP describes is more an issue of people playing a more powerfull Golos deck than OP likes rather than Golos himself being the issue. Take Illuna, Apex of Wishes as another example. Can be played as a perfectly fine commander. But the Omniscience version of the deck is kind of OP and unfun. But that does not make Illuna, Apex of Wishes OP.

Go back and read the thread, and you'll see that the problem extends well beyond optimized lists.

But I'm going to add your point about enabling cheaper mana bases to my list of pro Golos arguments. Its the best one I've heard in Golos' favor. Though with the amount of basic typed duals available now, and three visits getting a reprint, and all the signets and talismans and arcane signet, and 5 color lands I'd say that argument has a lot less value than it would have five years ago. Its not nearly as expensive to build a functional five color mana base. But if you want to go super budget, Golos and Cataracts is unbeatable.

[onering]

I think 10x is a bit lowballing it honestly. Commanders get recast. If you do it strictly percentage-wise, a typical card in your deck shows up 1 in 5 games, but your commander may as well be showing up 3-5 times a game (or more if you're Maelstrom Wanderer or Karador, Ghost Chieftain ).

The combination of availability and people's general disinclination to blow targeted removal on commanders makes them a huge factor in every game pretty much. It's way more than any card in your 99. That doesn't even get into how much you can bank on your commander allowing you to warp your deck based on its capabilities.

It's definitely pretty subjective. But golos is awful for far more reasons than his prevalence, so it's important not to get too hyper-focused on prevalence as a metric I think.

Edit to say: I think it's totally feasible that a commander could be fun, fair and healthy and soak up 1.5-2% of the meta, maybe even more for some periods of time. There's nothing wrong with being popular as long as you don't create awful experiences while you're at it. Golos could very easily have been that commander if his ability tapped to activate.

That's a good point. I'm trying to only estimate a card actually showing up, whether it shows up and is immediately answered or shows up and is repeatedly recurred/recast/sticks around for 6 turns. Its a binary thing, so its limited and doesn't capture the full nuance of how games can play out. A commander is of course usually far more likely to be recast if its countered/killed than a card in the 99 (exceptions for native recursion like Reassembling Skeleton), and more so for commanders that help pay for their own commander tax like Golos, but I think that's already covered under the "difficult to deal with" criteria so it feels like double dipping if I were to use it to argue increased omnipresence. Its helpful to keep in mind that the ability to recast commanders raises the baseline difficulty of dealing with them, so on a one to ten scale commanders probably start at a 3 rather than a 1 for that criteria.

Off topic warning: I know this is the kind of %$#% most people would consider getting into the weeds of dissecting the argument itself, and it kind of is, but I think there's value in considering these sort of things. I view these conversations as considering the merits of both sides, and I try to make sure that I'm not making mistakes that cause me to overvalue the merits of my current position or undervalue the merits of the position I disagree with. People are naturally predisposed to be biased, and to allow that bias to cloud their judgement. Its just the way our brains are set up, an evolutionary adaptation that was beneficial to the species when we were living as hunter gatherer bands but maladaptive in the current era. So for instance, because my position is that Golos should be banned, I'm biased in favor of arguments that support this, so I need to consider that bias when considering the merits of those arguments and account for it. Because your argument can be applied to multiple aspects of the debate, there's a risk I could overvalue it in my own assessment, by subconsciously attributing its full value both as as an argument about Golos' omnipresence and as an argument about the difficulty in dealing with the card, so I either consciously associate it with just one aspect or split its value between the two. An argument's full value is subjective and somewhat arbitrary itself, a reaction to how convincing the argument is to me, so this isn't objectivity, but more an attempt to consciously argue in good faith. Not doing so is not arguing in bad faith, this is more like an extra attempt to get closer to the truth and understanding the reality of the situation, as far as can be done when so many aspects are subjective. This is all self reflection, I'm feeling philosophical at the moment.

[ZenN]

Since I've been mentioned here a few times, I figure I'll throw in my own anecdotal experiences and thoughts on the matter. In no particular order:

• I converted my Derevi, Empyrial Tactician ETB deck into a Golos, Tireless Pilgrim a few months ago. Since then, the deck is unarguably more effective, but also I've been having the most fun I think I've had with it in years.
• I think I probably activate his ability on average once, maybe twice, per game, and benefit from his ETB a few times more than that (though often thanks to blink effects, not recasting).
• Depending on my hand, I'd say it's about a 50/50 for whether my plan A is to cast Golos and try to activate him vs just playing out my hand.
• When I DO activate Golos, in the games where my group and I have been counting, I average 1 good hit per activation. Without significant amounts of top deck manipulation, I think this is pretty much the norm. Of course, confirmation bias will cause people to remember the times someone Golos'd into 3 Eldrazi, not the many, many more times when someone hits like land, counter spell, Sun Titan or something.
• In general, unless I've got absolutely nothing else going on, after the first cast Golos is really just not worth it. 7+ mana to fetch a land and MAYBE get to use his ability? It's nice to have as a backup plan when my hand is empty, or if I really need one specific land for one reason or another, but otherwise I'm just much better off playing out the rest of my deck as normal.
• The biggest improvement to power level I've gotten from Golos is that he has given me many fewer non-games. As I mentioned above, he's great for when my hand sucks, or is empty. When I was playing Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, she did very little on her own. If I had an empty hand and an empty board, I had nothing. With Golos, if my hand and board are empty, I have a relatively reliable way to get back into the game. This is where the much more fun comes in. Sitting there doing nothing is miserable. Having Golos in the command zone has made that happen significantly less frequently, and I'm very happy about that.
• I've mentioned this before, but I've encountered only a handful of Golos decks when playing with randoms, and they were all fun to play against except for the dedicated combo deck (which are never fun to play against, regardless of the commander, so that doesn't count for much).
• I have had many fewer complaints, or instances of getting prematurely hated out of a game, with Golos in the command zone than I encountered when running Derevi. Most people saw Derevi and assumed it would be unfun degenerate Stax. The only random I've had complain about me playing Golos before the game started was also someone who scooped a 7-8 power level game because I had Sun Titan + Skyclave Apparition on like turn 7 or something.

Do I think Golos is good? Yes. Do I think he's banworthy? No.

Lastly, since my group's meta power level was mentioned (as something "near cEDH", which I definitely can't say I agree with), here's a quick breakdown of the decks currently being played the most for the core 4 of us:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Player A (Me)
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim - ETB, barely any black or red, couple combos
Maelstrom Wanderer - no combos, no MLD
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - no combos, tokens and sac value

Player B
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - superfriends control
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim - enchantresses, no black
Jirina Kudro - human tribal

Player C
Thraximundar - good stuff control
Scion of the Ur-Dragon - dragon ramp
Damia, Sage of Stone - ramp good stuff
Rune-Tail, Kitsune Ascendant - surprisingly strong aggro

Player D
Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis - group slug + tokens
That's actually the only deck he has played consistently for the last several sessions. He has a bit of deck ADD and is constantly picking up and dropping new decks. Seems to bring some other pile to the table every session.