Does commander need a banned list? That’s my question. I believe the RC ran into issues once it started trying to control “fun”. Commander is a weird format that heavily relies on the social construct.
I originally thought yea, but honesty maybe no. The ban list has been so poorly managed for so long that I fail to see how it could be improvement for such a poorly managed format. If the format was actually managed instead of just marinating like it had been 16 of the last 17 years (recent bans notwithstanding) then I would be a proponent. But if they don’t ban anything anyways why bother?
IIRC , Niv was banned as commander originally cause his ping damage counted as commander damage, making it super easy to commander damage someone out. Kaerevek and heartless might have been the same reasoning. Once they ruled that commnader damage = combat damage, they didn't need to ban them anymore.
Yeah, that was was immediately jumped out for me, that they all deal damage and they probably had to be banned because commander damage wasn't as it is now.
Was just going to comment, this was the exact reasoning, all damage from a creature counted as commander damage, but they changed it to only combat damage counting as commander damage so it didn't matter after that
Rachel briefly mentioned the concept of having categories of a ban list that playgroups could elect which I think is really smart. It's all the ban list, but if the cards are categorized into why they are bad, and your group decides that "that reason is not bad," then it becomes much simpler to hand wave certain cards back into the game. I think this topic deserves more discussion, along the lines of, does it make it easier to hand wave cards out of the game? There have been discussions about creating a "miserable cards" list separate from the ban list -- does that list suddenly get adopted onto a ban list that has labeled buckets?
my issue with this sort of system is that anything in a bucket is banned by default in every environment except your home playgroup, which a lot, I would even say most, people don't have. plus there's the logistical issue of "I don't want to make multiple versions of this same deck, and I don't want to have a deck that only works in a specific configuration of buckets"
@@Silas_MN If the issue arises from home groups that you admit most ppl don’t have, then your concern about not wanting different versions of the deck is way less of an issue. I have one specific deck that I want to be able to play at every level, aside from cEDH, and so I carry a bunch of cards to swap into it to better fit the table. I wouldn’t want to do that for every deck, so instead, every other deck I have is intended for a different power level. I’m pretty sure this is how most people, who consider power levels, tend to build.
Yes. Banned as Commander, Banned as Companion (which should be all of them, if we can't have wish boards then companions shouldn't function either, but I digress) and Banned in the 99 should all be separate ban lists for the Commander format. It's 2024, we can very easily handle that amount of "complexity" in deck building.
@@PapaJu1ce it's not a "power house" as a companion either. before the change to Companion I agreed with the decision on Lutri, being able to play it from outside the game was a bit on the broken side. but paying 6 mana, 3 of it at sorcery speed, to be able to copy a single spell one time is the weakest version of the effect in the entire game.
@@markos50100 no. instead of having multiple ban lists, this would be a singular list. the EFFECT would be the same, but it would alleviate some of the complexity issues around having multiple lists to keep track of.
@TheVWarriors we would still have two ban lists regardless, a fully banned card and a limited to the 99 list. In fact, this would actually artificially create three lists since it would still need a allowed as commander list.
I believe Heartless Hidetsugu, Kaervek the Merciless and Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind were banned when the Commander Damage rule wasn't "21 Combat Damage" but was "21 of ANY damage done by a Commander" - meaning you could basically play these as your Commander and just win the game on the spot or in 1-2 turns with them out. When they changed Commander damage to 21 Combat damage done by your Commander these were safe to be unbanned.
You haven't mentioned one thing about the banlist that I think it's important to note: It is built for the game at large, but they focus on the low/mid tier power levels, and new players. That's why a lot of ostensibly bad cards are on the list. It's also a lot of signpost bans to help push players in a better direction.
This. A "ban" list on most formats is geared towards competitive play to help balance it. This is unnecessary in "normal" commander games. Your playgroup/pod will naturally do this either by refusing to play against certain archetypes/cards or agreeing on the types of decks they want to play against. Therefore the ban list should focus on the competitive side of the game.
The new tier system was built so wizards / Hasbro could not have to ban cards anymore still making money off of high value cards that are a problem by saying well if you don't want to play against it don't play in this tier
@@vexxbane6172no, in a competitive format you would be right, but this isnt a competitive format its a casual format that some people play competitively. Its easy to say "oh casual pods will just rule zero so its should focus on me instead" but thats not realistic for a lot of players who font have regular pods of the same people. Alot of the players go to their lgs and play in pods randomly cobbled together, so it helps to have a baseline for casuals that can be tweaked quickly if they need to, then changed when u find a group u stay with for prolonged periods of time. This is what the banlist is for
@@vexxbane6172 The big mana rock bans and the resulting people saying mana crypt is casual suggest otherwise. Someone asking if they can play a banned card, and telling them no, is more casual than telling someone you won’t play against a legal card.
I think banning the top commanders because they are “strong” is a very bad thing for the format . Taking away peoples entire commander deck essentially would reduce faith in the format.. we just need a really good bracket system and let people do what they want
@@justharry2190 not so much about clauses but moreso principle for me. I think they should just delete the entire mechanic from the game and keep the cards, they already don’t work as printed anyways, and it dilutes the “commanderness” of the format having multiple different “command zones” allowed
@@Lazydino59 yeah and like Yorion is effectively already ‘banned as companion’ in Commander because its restriction is impossible to meet in the format and it’s… completely fine. As you said, the IKO printings don’t even work the way they’re printed anyway.
I have been of the opinion that the “command zone” is such a powerful place in regards to the game state (it is virtually impossible to remove a commander anymore compared to when you could tuck them or back when the legend rule applied differently). A cards value in the 99 is fundamentally different from a cards value in the command zone. To not acknowledge that very obvious difference in order to simplify the rules is a disservice to maintaining a reasonable banlist.
similar to this, in our playgroup we "unbanned" iona. We said "she can be the commander but not in the 99. her high cost in the command zone helps regulate her a bit but in the 99 its too easy to cheat out"
Then I hear people complain about stuff like Drannith Magistrate, deeming it too oppressive, while they are playing cEDH commanders and builds that aim to win as fast as possible. Most of them don't realize that Najeela in the command zone is very different from your average commander, and that it gives them a huge advantage before the game has even started. Truly ironic
Great video and discussion guys, I really love these in-depth discussions and theorizing about the game. 1:40:54 I don't think its a "Waste of time" because yeah right Now it's only about a few cards, but now that this video is out there it can be used as a starting and continuation point for discussing Other cards and their design, play-ability, and ban-worthiness. It's a look at the good and the bad from multiple sides of the problem.
@frigginresulrum Removal is FAR more effective against Nadu if he's not a Commander, though. One of the main issues was Nadu's "Commander tax" being mitigated by his ability, making removal redundant, if not a massive liability, against the deck.
The other issue with Golos is that his triggered ability made him very difficult to interact with outside of counter magic. Even if you kill him, the land he found meant that all his owner needed to do was hit a land drop and Golos was coming right back.
Nah dawg, golos paid for his tax, play the lands that tap for 2 colorless under conditions, he can fulfil alot of them, like false god and the one for colorless creatures
Also, not that it's a reason to ban by itself, but for extra evidence on the pile of how stupid Golos is, you can have 5 Wastes in play, play Golos, search up a Cascading Cataracts or World Tree or whatever and immediately go from having no colors to having access to all five colors.
@@dapperghastmeowregard yea people be reading golos and assuming the first ability grabs basics. Especially with utility lands, he's a massive lockpick, gy deck getting outta hand, search bog
I really appreciate what a quality show the Command Zone is, and how much value having dissenting viewpoints can bring. It's nice to see the various members acknowledge that they don't necessarily agree with each other, but that they can clearly articulate why they feel the way they do. Great stuff and keep up the good work!
There could be the banlist, then a "special restriction" list as an addendum for cases like Lutri. This list can encompass these niche cases and keep it "simple" to add and remove these niche cases of mechanic issues
Honestly? The command zone adds enough of an eighth card problem that anything else that makes a card available outside the 99 should be ignored in commander. Like how we don't have a wish board in commander, Companions shouldn't function like that. (And, frankly, Partner and similar effects that let you put more than one card in the command zone are a design mistake).
The Golos homogenization problem wasn't just everyone playing Golos. It was people playing Golos over other reasonable commanders. Golos pushed other commanders out of the format. Why would I play Giada Angels when I can play Golos Angels instead. Why play Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm when I can play Golos dragons with Miirym in the 99. Why play Nine Fingers Keene when I can play Golos Gates. The examples I gave were of commanders that came out AFTER the ban. Those cards would see little to no play if Golos was still legal. I myself designed a Golos deck when it came out. I was putting the finishing touches on the deck when Golos was banned. Luckily, I was still designing the deck. I hadn't bought the cards to build the deck yet. I changed 4/5 card in the deck and made it a Jodah, Archmage Eternal deck. Golos had pushed Jodah out of the command zone into the 99. That's what Golos does. That's one of many reasons why he was banned.
I remember seeing random targeted ads for custom commander decks. My favorite was a Sliver deck. You know, slivers, the famously extremely insular creature type that basically wants you to play as many slivers as possible with like 4 or 5 fairly powerful legends? The surprise is probably ruined by me responding to this comment, but guess what. The commander was Golos.
@@dapperghastmeowregardtbh just sounds like players themselves have no imaginations, and no self control. I’d never build a tribal deck with cards that aren’t of the appropriate tribe. Golos Slivers would function differently to First Sliver.
as someone who pulled the lutri with the artwork you showd on screen and didnt really understand what companion does and was just focused on its effect, i was very sad seeing it on the commander banlist so i would like a "banned as companion" banlist so i can put it in the 99 of my mizzix deck^^ its so cute :3
When I played magic before EDH existed, one of my favorite cards was Kokusho. When I returned to play magic and fell in love with EDH I put up together a Kokusho deck (with my unsleeved foil and highly played Kokusho). Each pod I play it I warn people about how good it could be in commander and that I should probably be the archenemy. Obviously is not a deck for all pods but I have decks for all power levels. Hope banned cards stay at the minimum. I believe the great thing about EDH is the capacity to use all the wanky crazy cards. The problem is when people are not sincere about their decks power level, wincons, fast mana, etc.
I believe you guys are overthinking it. If I remember correct Sheldon didn't want it because of unnecessary rules/complication. I'm sure you know better but I feel we need to purge the ban list as much as possible in order to allow as many cards as possible. Thinking of it as extra bans is wrong if it allows more cards in the 99. Free the elf on shrooms "limited to the 99" is fine
I never want to see Golos again. For the time it was legal half the people at my lgs ran it. On average there was 25-30 people a night for commander, Thursday-Sunday. You could NOT be in a pod without it. It was MISERABLE.
@xiqy1959 be slightly more creative. It was a bad design because for a majority of casual strategies, the best way to build it was to put in all the same cards and then just play the golos lotto as much as possible. Why should you play anything else when the golos player gets 3x as much value from their commander alone
@@jkattack2640 exactly. It was always the same thing. If I wanted to watch a solitaire game I'd play yugioh. I played against a miserable Zacama land destruction deck. But at least it was unique and cool. It was the only Zacama deck I've EVER seen. But once I've seen one golos I've seen them all
You kind of discussed it but I think idea of managing the ban list so that it isn't confusing to new players is a red herring. New players are probably buying pre-cons! They are trying to remember what all the keywords do. They probably don't know that there even is a ban list. And with the most recent bans as exceptions, usually they can't even open those cards in boxes when they get banned. If you want it to be simple so that it is simple for the rules committee, there's a point to that for sure, but also it's not rocket science. No one dies if they have to ban a card and then unban it later. I think they should try to make a decision that will lead to the best play experience, while trying to avoid too many changes at once. Making (or avoiding) decisions because "if we use this reason than what happens if X in 5 years??? does that mean we'll have to do X???" seems ridiculous to me. In 5 years you can make a new decision as you get new data or a better understanding of what leads to the best experience.
Always enjoy your videos. Thanks for the great content, personally I support the pre-game convo over a hard ban list for games with folks at my LGS, but favor specific card bans for large events where you play with strangers.
“Banned as Commander” is also unnecessary from a gameplay standpoint in that a deck’s commander is face up information you have before the game, so it’s easy to say, “I don’t want to play against Tergrid today.” They touch on this at 1:20:40. Whereas banning things in the 99 prevents someone representing their deck as a casual midrange thing that starts looping dockside on turn 4, which may not have been an experience the table was expecting/desiring.
I don't see how you hide Dockside in a casual 99. If you're playing tutors to get Dockside then you probably aren't playing casual. Sometimes people play powerful cards and get lucky to draw them in certain situations. I know I have opened my share of Sol Ring + Arcane Signet.
This was one of my favorite discussions on the channel, thank you! So many concepts covered and in really good detail. Also, my opinion is one ban list.
as for the last point of buckets/brackets, I'm REALLY not a fan of generalizing commanders like that. playing jank urza is NOT the same as playing a good urza and everyone can realise that
I think the wording here needs to be changed to get away from emotion when it comes to why we ban these “unfun” cards. We ban them because they are overtly oppressive and restrictive. They are too harsh for a social format and create “non-games” because other players are not allowed to effectively play the game. I would call them “oppressive” which is more meaningful and objective than “unfun”.
I think the “buckets” concept is genius. It makes the ban list a lot easier to look over, and clearly and efficiently explains the reasoning behind the bans
Yes! I was lucky enough to pull a Rofellos back in the day and it was always one of my favorite cards. I got back into Commander Magic during the pandemic and was saddened to see Rofellos on the Commander ban list. Now granted I think he is too powerful to be your commander but I see no problem if he’s in your 99. So I’m hoping that there will be a day that I can finally put him into my Green Elf deck again…legally I mean. 😅
Honestly I really think the best answer tmfor this. Is just have an Tier one list of commanders, like the best in class for commanders. Not necessarily banning them but as a giant red flag to new players that these are top tier of what we can happen.
1:19:40 I feel the need to add to the discussion around self-policing here. Commander is the most popular format. It's more likely new players will join it specifically. Knowing the commander doesn't self-police for those players because they don't have the experience and know-how to realize when they might be facing a "problem commander," for lack of a better phrase. Edit: to clarify, my concern here is that those situations aren't welcoming to new players, and that's a great way to make someone think that maybe this game just isn't for them, when it absolutely could be, but they just didn't get a good starting point.
I felt like they got really close to this point but ultimately still seemed to miss it. The banlist (and the bracket system) aren’t for the enfranchised players; they’re for the new players who don’t yet know how to have the conversations needed to have a good game experience. You may not see Tegrid or Urza or whatever all that much, but the new players don’t know to ask for people not to play them and when they get stomped into the dirt, they’re much less likely to ever come back. This is the same reason I wouldn’t unban Braids or Leovold or Erayo. Yeah, they’ll get self policed out, sometimes. But every game they don’t get self policed out of they’re likely to ruin, and I know I’m not coming back to a game where I’m expecting to have a fun time playing some Otters and I never get to have a third land or a second card in my hand.
This happened to me. I was a veteran competitive player that was getting back into the game and was invited to play commander with some guys I met at a prerelease. I built a gruul deck with Klothys as a commander. All 3 of them played various stacks pieces that made attacking and eventually paying for my creatures on upkeep impossible. Took me a couple years to give the format another shot and I'm still having trouble just dealing with the subjective "this is cool but not that" nature of the format. I miss 60 card where both players are trying to win. So simple. Commander has warped magic so much man. RiP
I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion presented here. Thank you @commandcast This discussion further solidifies my position that bans are not a good thing and I'm of the opinion that nothing should be banned.
Lutri is one of my fav commanders, have to rule 0 it every time, but I feel my deck is really special with him and I flippin love Otters. We got some great otter support in Bloomburrow, but I really love having Lutri as my commander. Thankfully noone has said they dont want to play against him, but would love to have him unbanned (outside of companion). Also, I do really like the idea of getting a benefit from restricting your deck in a certain way. Doesn't have to be companion, but I wish they would do more of that stuff. Otherwise there isnt much built-in motivation to not include the best cards from each color in your deck's identity.
Bro, i wish they made manders that had restrictions to be ur commander. Could u imagine how cool it would be if they gave enchantress a really broken commander, but it limits you to 15 enchantments, or the enchantments must be a certain cost
in the 99, yes. its actually kinda broken as a Commander though, way more so than as a Companion, due to recursion and flash, so that would be a no imo.
I personally think having the banned as a commander ruling just makes way more sense and more cards are able to be played with. Its only 5ish cards now but as magic grows you now have 2 seperate alleys to ban cards in commander. I dont really understand the negative side of the argument. Yes it should be back, flatly.
I think the analogy kind if is bad or at least leads to conclusion that I feel go against Josh's general ban philosophy (being basically very against bans). Example: Lets say you are planning a wedding. You want to invite most your cousin, but one of them is very problemic and make things alot harder. Do you 1) not message any of the cousin? 2) message the cousin you like and tell your cousin you dont like why you didnt invite him. 3) let them all in? I think its generally agree that inviting none of your cousin would be consider pretty bad as you are basically punishing alot of cousin you like for the sake of saving the feelings of someone that you dont. IMHO the more adult thing to do is to invite the people you care about, and when the people not invite you "why not me" you give them an honest thoughtful answer. Is it a "hard line to draw"? yes, but a line being hard to draw is not an excuse to not draw it. Not drawing lines has just as much impact as drawing them. The harder the lines are to draw the more thought should be put in them. We shouldnt default to "bans bad so no bans". Just like you wont default to "family drama bad so we dont invite anyone to the wedding avoid family drama". How to ban cards is always case by case base. Just like the reason to invite someone is a case by case base. Its hard and sucks and alot of work. But you can embrace that and try to do the best you can, or can not (but that doesnt mean people will not be hurt/mad at you for inaction)
36:11 I would like to know why stax is considered a negative play pattern but cards that steal or goad mechanics are fine, every other format seems to not have an issue with stax
Because resource denial was a strategy in early magic but has more or less been designed out 10 or so years ago, so so many players just aren’t used to it being able to be a tool to play with unless you played eternal formats (which most modern commander players never have).
Stax slows down games, and prevents people from playing their cards. Most people have limited time to play mtg, and they want to actually do their deck’s “thing”, rather than getting locked behind stax. Goad can definitely get oppressive, but so can most mechanics when abused, and when a mechanic gets abused in a way that becomes oppressive, I’d argue most people consider that a negative play pattern. Stax is oppressive by definition, so it gets to be the poster boy for the concept. Casual edh is primarily about having fun, so in theory nobody should be playing decks that are considered oppressive to their opponents. At least that’s the common consensus, and what makes edh different from other formats.
nothing wrong with stax decks just the people who are pissy when people play them. or they play overly CEDH tier stax decks in a non CEDH format or table.
It's the same reason some hate counter spells, but don't mind kill spells. They're rather have played and lost their cards then not get to play their cards at all.
@@neapoi he's right though. there are hundreds of far more complicated interactions that are currently legal in the format. banned as commander and banned as companion would be the least complicated rules added to the game in over 20 years.
Yeah I don’t understand how that is ever a valid excuse for a banning. It’s like wizards is saying that most people’s brains aren’t big enough, when all it takes to understand any interaction in this game is about 5 minutes of research. If it’s not broken it shouldn’t be banned, and complex interactions is one reason that I love magic.
When they say it's to complex, they are not referring to the player base. It adds yet another layer of complexity to ban decisions for the people making the bannings. Bans already split the community in two, adding more levels to that equation would only make that worse and thus far more difficult for those making the decisions.
One of the reason I loved commander, one the format was great... Two nothing was ever banned... Since cards started getting banned in EDH is when I started losing faith.. It's just Modern 2.0 with one card limit now... kinda disappointing
I think we need a shift in the language we use to get out of this "banned or not banned" mindset. Instead, we should view cards in terms of how much of an impact they have on a game, and how easy they are to deal with. The new bracket system is a great way to do this - separating types of effects into different categories for players to align with each other better. We don't need every card labelled - just a general idea with a couple of examples mentioned (e.g. "Fast mana cards, which net you mana the turn you play them. Some examples are Sol Ring and Mana Crypt."). The crucial part is not saying any of these cards are "banned", just that they are more suited to be played against decks with effects in the same bracket, and playing a game with decks from different brackets may not be as enjoyable. I really think it would be a great and healthy change to everyone's mindset if we do away with the idea of cards being "banned" outright! The whole idea of the banlist for commander as it exists today is to highlight the types of cards and effects that you should talk about before a game with strangers, but everybody seems to get hung up on it being a hard and fast rule and that it's inconsistent. *Disclaimer* Obviously, all the culturally insensitive cards, ante cards and dexterity cards / un-cards that are currently banned should remain that way, or at the very least have their own category of "bracket" to be mentioned pre-game.
It's always wild that this conversation is so complex and so in depth, but it really just ends up being a rule 0 conversation. Communication I guess is the most important part.
Banned as commander really doesn't stop someone from tutoring that card and effectively making a list around, especially if you're in black or green. If you design a deck to do it, you can easily run enough creature tutors and hit that "secret commander". I personally don't think we're losing much by just banning those legends. Though, I'm not convinced that some of the old bans are powerful enough to merit the ban that they have. I don't think unbanning Rofellos would shift any metas.
Bans just limit how much I play MTG, where, and who I play with. It has nothing to do with which cards I will choose to play with. Pregame talk serves it's purpose. Those whom I play with have not yet ever complained that anything that I've done was unfair. There was 1 player that I chose to avoid because I can not appreciate his style of play. I understand what is fun. I run a infinite combo or two however they are not the type that brings about turns playing "solitaire".
I think the best way to do the half ban measure that keeps it to one list outside of banned in general would be a "Banned outside the 99" list which is all encompassing for any cards you may use outside of the 99 cards of the deck
Possible hot take, but rather than having a "banned as companion" list, I believe it would be easier and more flavourful to ban the companion zone as a wish zone. The companion mechanic already breaks the 100-card rule, was possibly broken pre-errata, and 2 of the 10 (Yorion and Lutri) cannot even be played as companions. Banning the companion zone as Wish would fix the problem without creating a new banlist, plus you can play every companion as the commander or in the 99 then. In short, justice for my boy Lutri, he deserves to be free 🦦
@@daltronius "If you’re playing a companion, it must adhere to color identity and singleton rules. While it is not part of the deck, it is effectively a 101st card. " Which makes lutri as a companion really have no downside at all.
This has been very helpful. I was tentatively pro banned as commander before the podcast, and have now changed my mind. I like the commander-bracket idea way more than the deck list bracket idea, I need to think on it, but it’s basically already how I play, so it makes sense!
The more I look at Rofellos the more I think to myself as a mono green lover, “damn I really want to play with this card. Should I just build a deck and attempt to rule zero it?” And after listening to Josh and Rachel talk about Kinnan and Urza and the plethora of other supremely powerful commanders that exist I might just do it.
@@Lazydino59yeah talked to a couple of my pod mates and the only condition they had was they’d prefer if the 99 excluded Ashaya the Staff of Domination, umbral mantle kinda of cards the untap shenanigans. Which I wasn’t planning on a build like that anyways I just think his art is cool and I wanna play elf’s but not any of the plethora of other elf commanders
It's fine if they're cool with it of course, but rofellos is not an ok card. You're untapping on turn 3 with 6 mana without any additional help besides hitting your third land. No other card let's you do that.
I thought I was pro banned as commander list. I really did. But after this episode I’ve flipped; it all boils back down to my basic belief about the “casual format” of commander: there should be no banlist at all. Let playgroups and players police themselves. People enjoy different things. Let them.
Protip: You can already do that, but it's easier to be like "Hey, mind if I play Limited Resources?" before the game than it is to be like "Hey, please take Sol Ring and Screaming Nemesis out of your decks before starting."
"adds complexity to the banlist" ... anyone ever saw ygo's banlist? thre are dozens of cards banned, limited, semi-limited, same split (3 categories) and that game is less complex then magic. if that player sometimes young kids, are able to understand the banlist, there's no reason why a split between "ban everywhere, ban as comander, ban as companion" would be too complex xd.
In addition, "banned as commander" would only be relevant for people with the intent of building commander Decks already. Precon players wouldn't be affected. Yet if you already have the intent of building a deck from the ground up, then having a "banned as commander" list is _definitely_ not too much.
@@Lazydino59 They said somewhere in the video that by complexity they mean that the rc or now wotc need to maintain more different lists with different rules for the banning, so it especially adds complexity on the side of the people that have to ban the cards. The complexity it adds to players is negligible.
Something I find really funny is that the current version of Niv-Mizzet actually infinites off the Firemind. Fits so well with a character as arrogant and self-absorbed as him.
The fixed Alchemy version of Nadu is actually not that bad. It's basically the Nadu ability twice across your whole board instead of granting the ability
You can get 2 Nadu triggers on your turn and 2 triggers on your opponent. BUT currently, multi targets will trigger for every target, as long as you had one left.
Best words of wisdom was to understand that not every game will be great. When you sit down with new players you don't know who is a brand new and who has 30 years of experience. Adjusting your expectation allows you to enjoy those games and eventually get to equal power levels.
My hot take is that people need to get a little more used to grinding through board states they don’t prefer. There’s an overarching presumption among commander players that they should be left alone to do their thing. There are ways to shut down a Nadu. There are ways to stop Urza. I say this as a player with an Urza deck which does not have a Winter Orb in it.
Yes you can beat a nondeterministic combo, but that's half the problem. I came to play a game and have fun and you decided to sit down and play with yourself for 20 minutes while I have to wait to see what happens. The Nadu deck is fundamentally disrespectful of its opponents TIME. Same reason paradox engine got the axe. I'd muuuuuch rather you played a a+b combo that wins instantly if it resolves because then we get to shuffle up and play again.
Nadu’s problem is that the play pattern is disrespectful of people’s time and encourages poor playing/deckbuilding. There’s no loop to present and no guarantee you’re winning after that 20 minute turn. It’s less so that Nadu is good and more so that I came to play Magic and I don’t want to spend my 4 hours on Friday night on a single game because one dude is eating all the time equity. I do agree with you on Urza is though and I say that as someone who does run an Urza deck with Winter Orb. Cards like Urza don’t need a ban of any kind you just need to have a Rule 0 conversation so everyone knows not to run a precon. Also, despite running Winter Orb and other Stax pieces it presents a win on turn 4 consistently so people aren’t in misery for hours on end.
@121Xander121 commander as a format is disrespectful of people's time. If you want to "play magic" then play a 1 on 1 format. Nadu is fine and if you can't handle the turn just tell the table "I think he has it, do we want to shuffle up and go to the next game?"
@@Hapkins-le6xf If all players share the same amount of time, you cannot call it disrespectful. It doesn't matter how many players there are, as long as time spent is somewhat equal. It's not a matter of whether someone can handle a 25 min durdle fest, it's whether you have something better to do with your life which you clearly do not.
The question is when we start removing Urza every turn, does that player start whining about being targeted? Because Urza should be removed every turn with prejudice.
Definitely need a "banned for special mechanic" category. Lutri might be the only thing in there right now, but having it as an optional lever is a good idea going forward.
It makes sense to not ban any legendary creature at all, but those currently on the ban list should just go into the highest bracket/tier or whatever system they're working on currently. So you know you can expect the mana crypts and docksides and urza as a Commander :)
I would lovento see "banned as Commander" make a return. There are certain cards that are unfun to play against when you have it as the 8th card in your starting hand, but there are plenty that are fair when just in your 99.
stop banning from a casual format.. trust the community and play groups we can solve our problems we dont need that much caretaking the only thing you do with banning is diminishing the fun and giving reason to complain to ppl who dont like some playstyles or commanders etc. there is yuriko and ppl still going after other cards like golos is stupid.
I am a lowly new MTG player but I don't think ANY card should be banned. It's a social game and I believe we as a community should just talk to each other when we sit down to play a game and tell each other what kind of game we're looking to play (casual, super CEDH, pure jank etc.). I also think WOTC shouldn't be printing cards like Nadu that instantly get broken lol like that was a dumb move.
I understand where you're coming from, and somewhat agree. I'm a veteran player (started playing way back in 1999), so I can tell you that, back then , Wotc used to print balanced cards They once made a public statement saying they were sorry about banning a single card out of standard. Nowadays, when they print whatever they think will sell, we *do* need ban lists. Not everyone is willing (or cares) about having a pre game talk, so having a ban list serves as a basis for what everyone can expect from total strangers. Then again, with your own friends? Go ahead using Pikachu as your commander in your energy themed deck, if the others are ok with that!
Yes yes yes. But also hot take; rofellos doesn’t even need banned as commander, the game’s power creep has caught up with him. And let’s be real banned as commander existed really just for him
@ you are 100% right, but in 2024 magic playing only basic forests is a real drawback, and selvala can do similar (and I argue is a better commander), and even in cEDH games are ending too fast for him. He may be on an above-average power level, but there are many many more already legal commanders that are flat out better in 2024.
Honestly, I think "Banned as Commander" takes 3 forms. First is Rule 0, the personal choice to not play against a certain commander, where the player is in full control. Second is an actual banning, where playability is decided by a committee, but said committee's decisions are based on what the playerbase wants (and obviously you can choose to play against a banned commander casually, if you want to). Third, is actual out-and-out design choices by WotC. What I mean with the last one is something like the rider they chose to leave on the new Myojins from Neon Dynasty Commander, where the effect can only easily be used if cast from your hand. (This is the same as what was on the old Myojins, but WotC has stated this was kept on the new ones as an intentional limiter for commander.) This third option essentially puts all the control in the hands of designers, rather than the players (even Rule 0 would shudder at the idea of pretending a card works differently than its actual rules text). Intentional or not, designers essentially have the power to choose whether something is a commander by how they make it work. Taken to its logical conclusion, could you imagine a legendary creature with the text "This card CAN'T be your commander"?
On the Lutri discussion when it was discussed that there could be future mechanics which interact with zones outside of [Library, Command Zone, Graveyard, etc.] there's a more elegant solution than "Banned as Companion." Since Commander doesn't have a sideboard/wishboard/lessonboard, there could be something like a "banned outside of maindeck" list to account for always accessible tutor mechanics like companion, lesson/learn, or own outside of the game. Unfortunately that would also preclude Lutri from being a commander since the command zone is outside of the maindeck, but Lutri isn't usually the first choice for an otter or copy spells commander anyways.
The problem is that according to the rules, commander doesn't *have* an outside the game. The wishes are restricted to your sideboard only. So, technically, you shouldn't be able to run the companions outside the 99.
Every time I consider "what cards should we ban?" or "how we ban cards?" or "what should be considered in bans?" I end up landing on the thought that we really should just split up the ban list into two. One for casual and one for competitive. I understand the argument that it gets to a point of being too confusing or too complex. But only banning powerful stuff leads to pissing off players who enjoy high-power games, and banning stuff that goes "against the creative nature" ends up pissing off players who like what they play in the 99 vs what their commander does. I really don't think we can have both. Maybe since the format is already considered split between casual vs competitive we can officially split it into two separate formats with their own bans lists. So that each can focus on what makes their player-bases happy and not step on each other's toes by banning certain cards. Thanks for the great discussion. I really enjoy listening to these episodes and digging into other players perspectives. It's very insightful and intriguing especially since these aren't cut-and-dry topics. Lots of love and everyone take care
No cards should be banned. If you're going to pull off some degenerate infinite combo on turn three go for it. I just won't play against it more than once.
couldnt agree more. fair game to play any deck once, but if its overly oppressive or no fun to play vs then i just wont play it a second time either. especially if the deck people play is a cedh tier deck in a commander non CEDH format. commander is meant to be fun, i do not mind inifnite combos but if there extremly oppressive then nope not happening again. or i find something equally oppresive to play against to make it fair.
This is the enlightened take. Unban everything, and let us all sorted out like adults. 95% of “problematic” cards are not banned, and never will be, and people do just fine.
😁🤙 I really like the "buckets" idea for bans. I feel like if a play group can say "hey no fast mana bucket" then people know ok all cards in that ban bucket are out for this game. I think it allows play groups to tailor the ban list for their games, thus can make more people happy. Fast mana lovers can look for groups where that bucket is allowed VS people who hate it can state they don't want that bucket in their game. 😁🤙
Lurris is so fun though. My gf plays a Bartolomie Lurris deck that the professor showcased on his channel. She loves it, I love it. You hate all the companions enough to want to ban them?
Think the big thing about the Nadu 'ban as commander' discussion that's missed here, is that even in the 99, it combos with a card that is already so so common in people's decks, with an inclusion rate of 25% (1 in 4!) on EDHrec: Lightning Greeves. Means adding Nadu in the 99 becomes really really easy for any deck in Green & Blue to do without really loosing much.
Playing devil's advocate so... Is a Nadu combo really that common and oppressive that it warrants a ban though? We have other powerful combos like with cards like Thassa's Oracle and Torment of Hailfire existing and don't see much more than an eye-roll when they happen. I agree that overpowered or oppressive cards need to be addressed but you kind of keep going down the ladder and we get in to the weird area of where do we actually draw the line of what is acceptable?
@@dat_man_sam9823 Thassa is a 2 second win, Torment is a pretty quick late game finisher more often than not. Nadu's loop is a nondeterministic one that takes an incredibly long time to play out, and you can't actually tell if it wins until you've fully spent that time to see if it whiffs or not. The comparison to stuff like Paradox Engine in the video (if memory serves) is really quite apt.
No, especially because it's infinitely easier to rule zero commanders than it is cards. People need to learn to communicate. We infantilze mtg players and then when they throw tantrum and GameKnights does their annual "We are so shocked that the community was toxic when X happened," we pretend that we don't nurture that sort of rot.
@@VvVLuffyM2 ok, cedh totally needs a ban list to be a comparable competitive environment. However, it should be understood, that for everything non cedh winning is not the main objective, but fun with friends or people who could be friends. People who don't understand this are at fault, no matter the cards in their decks.
Josh feeling like he can’t talk about a very stupid thing that happened in the mtg community is so ridiculous to me. The fact he had to apologise for not saying anything wrong about the crypt lotus bans is absolutely crazy. It’s something that happened and you should be able to talk about it cause it was insane! So many backhanded shady things were going on and even if they weren’t it 100% felt like it.
The thing with Lutri though, I think very few people would be upset if you asked to Rule Zero him into your 99. It's very similar to Reverberate. The only difference is Lutri has a body and 1 more mana, while reverberate lets you copy enemy spells. I don't know that a banned as companion is necessary. Rule Zero should be used more often for these type of scenarios.
When I returned to magic, I had to scratch my head many times, wondering why hullbreacher was banned. But dockside was legal. Really enjoyed the video.
I really liked the idea of having categories of Bans but not really having separate things like "banned as commander". Just one list that are just flat banned but having those descriptive buckets make a clear tool for playgroups to decide if any categories they are ok with.
before getting into the episode: i honestly was waiting for an episode about the recent changes in combat rules and how that effects commander and certain strategies/decks. also i havent seen any commentary on the whole "from 2025 forth 50% of magic releases will be universes beyond". have i missed something?
In the case for Lutri, i was wondering if we could make ban that is a bit more univeral. What if we name it "Only for the 99". That could include every exception pretty nicely.
Again, coming back to rule zero. For tournament play, there should be a band list. Or a ranking system to what commander is being played. There should not be a band list. Wotc should never make campanion mechanics. The commander committee should just band companions mechanics to make it easy.
It’s turn zero I sit down with my Ivy gleeful spell thief deck. I start by saying I have a copy of nadu in this deck, I will gladly replace it with my Sakura tribe elder. However It’s an aura deck, and I don’t play any of the free equip artifacts (not even lightning greaves) do you say keep nadu? Or swap for Steve? I am fine either way just looking for some opinions
Depends of the power level you want to play at. Putting nadu in with many 1 or 2 mana auras is still incredibly powerful even if it not optimal. At a higher powerlevel though I would be fine to at least try nadu out in the 99 of that deck and see how it plays.
@@Orkimtor the power level is mid tier, it’s got some decent spells but I wouldn’t consider it a “powerful” deck. It does however have a lot of 1 or 2 coat auras that come out quick.
The reason I ask is I bought nadu for $24 during the height of its crazyness, I have played 8 games with my Ivy deck whike nadu has been in it and I have never once drawn it 😂
I normally watch your shows in order (I'm years behind) but I jumped on this one. 100% DO NOT do BaC, pretty much for the reasons you covered. I get that it's the difference between "Magic is already so complex, what's one more data point?" vs "Magic is already so complex, WHY one more data point?" but culling complexity is always in the best interest of the game; there's a reason we never see banding or haunt anymore.
What do you think about bringing back a "Banned as a Commander" list? What legendary creatures would you put on it?
Rofellos. As a creature in the 99 he is suuuuper easy to deal with plus his activation ability makes him slow (barring a haste effect).
Basically any legendary that's on the list could just be banned as commander. Even Golos.
Does commander need a banned list? That’s my question. I believe the RC ran into issues once it started trying to control “fun”. Commander is a weird format that heavily relies on the social construct.
@@andrewwaring3643 I agree. Let the players figure it out
I originally thought yea, but honesty maybe no. The ban list has been so poorly managed for so long that I fail to see how it could be improvement for such a poorly managed format. If the format was actually managed instead of just marinating like it had been 16 of the last 17 years (recent bans notwithstanding) then I would be a proponent. But if they don’t ban anything anyways why bother?
IIRC , Niv was banned as commander originally cause his ping damage counted as commander damage, making it super easy to commander damage someone out. Kaerevek and heartless might have been the same reasoning. Once they ruled that commnader damage = combat damage, they didn't need to ban them anymore.
Really? They changed that, it wasn't always just combat damage? That would definitely explain such bannings.
This should be higher, a huge piece of context towards the decision making
Yeah, that was was immediately jumped out for me, that they all deal damage and they probably had to be banned because commander damage wasn't as it is now.
🎉dddde÷
Was just going to comment, this was the exact reasoning, all damage from a creature counted as commander damage, but they changed it to only combat damage counting as commander damage so it didn't matter after that
Rachel briefly mentioned the concept of having categories of a ban list that playgroups could elect which I think is really smart. It's all the ban list, but if the cards are categorized into why they are bad, and your group decides that "that reason is not bad," then it becomes much simpler to hand wave certain cards back into the game.
I think this topic deserves more discussion, along the lines of, does it make it easier to hand wave cards out of the game? There have been discussions about creating a "miserable cards" list separate from the ban list -- does that list suddenly get adopted onto a ban list that has labeled buckets?
my issue with this sort of system is that anything in a bucket is banned by default in every environment except your home playgroup, which a lot, I would even say most, people don't have. plus there's the logistical issue of "I don't want to make multiple versions of this same deck, and I don't want to have a deck that only works in a specific configuration of buckets"
@@Silas_MN If the issue arises from home groups that you admit most ppl don’t have, then your concern about not wanting different versions of the deck is way less of an issue. I have one specific deck that I want to be able to play at every level, aside from cEDH, and so I carry a bunch of cards to swap into it to better fit the table. I wouldn’t want to do that for every deck, so instead, every other deck I have is intended for a different power level. I’m pretty sure this is how most people, who consider power levels, tend to build.
Yes. Banned as Commander, Banned as Companion (which should be all of them, if we can't have wish boards then companions shouldn't function either, but I digress) and Banned in the 99 should all be separate ban lists for the Commander format. It's 2024, we can very easily handle that amount of "complexity" in deck building.
Totally agree, I’m running Lutri in my otter deck in the 99 and it is not the powerhouse it is as a companion.
Ain’t nothing wrong with Kaheera.
Actually we need less bans. Like no more bans. Please.
@@TripsAhoy Yup
@@PapaJu1ce it's not a "power house" as a companion either. before the change to Companion I agreed with the decision on Lutri, being able to play it from outside the game was a bit on the broken side. but paying 6 mana, 3 of it at sorcery speed, to be able to copy a single spell one time is the weakest version of the effect in the entire game.
Instead of a commander banned list or companion banned list, make a single "limited to the 99" list and add lutri/golos...etc to that.
That, that works so well, I love it.
That's a good idea.
It's literally the same thing. If a card is banned as a commander, it is implied limited to the 99...
@@markos50100 no. instead of having multiple ban lists, this would be a singular list. the EFFECT would be the same, but it would alleviate some of the complexity issues around having multiple lists to keep track of.
@TheVWarriors we would still have two ban lists regardless, a fully banned card and a limited to the 99 list. In fact, this would actually artificially create three lists since it would still need a allowed as commander list.
I believe Heartless Hidetsugu, Kaervek the Merciless and Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind were banned when the Commander Damage rule wasn't "21 Combat Damage" but was "21 of ANY damage done by a Commander" - meaning you could basically play these as your Commander and just win the game on the spot or in 1-2 turns with them out. When they changed Commander damage to 21 Combat damage done by your Commander these were safe to be unbanned.
Also, the fact that Hidetsugu often caused draws, because you'd deal 21+ commander damage to yourself at the same time.
Same with nekuzar
You haven't mentioned one thing about the banlist that I think it's important to note: It is built for the game at large, but they focus on the low/mid tier power levels, and new players. That's why a lot of ostensibly bad cards are on the list. It's also a lot of signpost bans to help push players in a better direction.
This. A "ban" list on most formats is geared towards competitive play to help balance it. This is unnecessary in "normal" commander games. Your playgroup/pod will naturally do this either by refusing to play against certain archetypes/cards or agreeing on the types of decks they want to play against. Therefore the ban list should focus on the competitive side of the game.
The new tier system was built so wizards / Hasbro could not have to ban cards anymore still making money off of high value cards that are a problem by saying well if you don't want to play against it don't play in this tier
@@vexxbane6172no, in a competitive format you would be right, but this isnt a competitive format its a casual format that some people play competitively. Its easy to say "oh casual pods will just rule zero so its should focus on me instead" but thats not realistic for a lot of players who font have regular pods of the same people. Alot of the players go to their lgs and play in pods randomly cobbled together, so it helps to have a baseline for casuals that can be tweaked quickly if they need to, then changed when u find a group u stay with for prolonged periods of time. This is what the banlist is for
@@vexxbane6172 The big mana rock bans and the resulting people saying mana crypt is casual suggest otherwise.
Someone asking if they can play a banned card, and telling them no, is more casual than telling someone you won’t play against a legal card.
@@vexxbane6172 Wouldn't "normal" commander games already be doing this then?
I think banning the top commanders because they are “strong” is a very bad thing for the format . Taking away peoples entire commander deck essentially would reduce faith in the format.. we just need a really good bracket system and let people do what they want
I don’t know, but I do know that we need ‘banned as companion’.
Justice for my boy Lutri. Bring him home. 🦦
Lutri needs to be united with his fellow otters. Alania is his boo thang
Just have companion not even be allowed at all.
@@Lazydino59 nah all the other clauses are strict enough.
@@justharry2190 not so much about clauses but moreso principle for me. I think they should just delete the entire mechanic from the game and keep the cards, they already don’t work as printed anyways, and it dilutes the “commanderness” of the format having multiple different “command zones” allowed
@@Lazydino59 yeah and like Yorion is effectively already ‘banned as companion’ in Commander because its restriction is impossible to meet in the format and it’s… completely fine. As you said, the IKO printings don’t even work the way they’re printed anyway.
I have been of the opinion that the “command zone” is such a powerful place in regards to the game state (it is virtually impossible to remove a commander anymore compared to when you could tuck them or back when the legend rule applied differently). A cards value in the 99 is fundamentally different from a cards value in the command zone. To not acknowledge that very obvious difference in order to simplify the rules is a disservice to maintaining a reasonable banlist.
Very well spoken. Completely agree!
similar to this, in our playgroup we "unbanned" iona. We said "she can be the commander but not in the 99. her high cost in the command zone helps regulate her a bit but in the 99 its too easy to cheat out"
Definitely agree! I've been an advocate of bringing back the banned as commander list for a while! Banned as companion would be a welcome addition imo
Then I hear people complain about stuff like Drannith Magistrate, deeming it too oppressive, while they are playing cEDH commanders and builds that aim to win as fast as possible. Most of them don't realize that Najeela in the command zone is very different from your average commander, and that it gives them a huge advantage before the game has even started.
Truly ironic
Mono black golos was my favorite. RIP
Great video and discussion guys, I really love these in-depth discussions and theorizing about the game.
1:40:54 I don't think its a "Waste of time" because yeah right Now it's only about a few cards, but now that this video is out there it can be used as a starting and continuation point for discussing Other cards and their design, play-ability, and ban-worthiness. It's a look at the good and the bad from multiple sides of the problem.
37:26 No way that tiny bones pickpocket was the right one for "other tiny bones"
Nadu only banned as commander means every Nadu deck now has Momir Vig at the helm. One slippery bogle and you have Nadu.
@frigginresulrum Removal is FAR more effective against Nadu if he's not a Commander, though. One of the main issues was Nadu's "Commander tax" being mitigated by his ability, making removal redundant, if not a massive liability, against the deck.
Fair point, but you'd have to invest much more of your deck into protecting Nadu, which effectively tanks the potency.
The other issue with Golos is that his triggered ability made him very difficult to interact with outside of counter magic. Even if you kill him, the land he found meant that all his owner needed to do was hit a land drop and Golos was coming right back.
And lands have only gotten better. So you get 5 color good stuff that also has a tutor for interaction in the command zone.
My current Golos build actually is around that. But specifically it’s around Maze’s End
Nah dawg, golos paid for his tax, play the lands that tap for 2 colorless under conditions, he can fulfil alot of them, like false god and the one for colorless creatures
Also, not that it's a reason to ban by itself, but for extra evidence on the pile of how stupid Golos is, you can have 5 Wastes in play, play Golos, search up a Cascading Cataracts or World Tree or whatever and immediately go from having no colors to having access to all five colors.
@@dapperghastmeowregard yea people be reading golos and assuming the first ability grabs basics. Especially with utility lands, he's a massive lockpick, gy deck getting outta hand, search bog
I really appreciate what a quality show the Command Zone is, and how much value having dissenting viewpoints can bring. It's nice to see the various members acknowledge that they don't necessarily agree with each other, but that they can clearly articulate why they feel the way they do. Great stuff and keep up the good work!
There could be the banlist, then a "special restriction" list as an addendum for cases like Lutri. This list can encompass these niche cases and keep it "simple" to add and remove these niche cases of mechanic issues
Honestly? The command zone adds enough of an eighth card problem that anything else that makes a card available outside the 99 should be ignored in commander. Like how we don't have a wish board in commander, Companions shouldn't function like that. (And, frankly, Partner and similar effects that let you put more than one card in the command zone are a design mistake).
The Golos homogenization problem wasn't just everyone playing Golos. It was people playing Golos over other reasonable commanders. Golos pushed other commanders out of the format.
Why would I play Giada Angels when I can play Golos Angels instead.
Why play Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm when I can play Golos dragons with Miirym in the 99.
Why play Nine Fingers Keene when I can play Golos Gates.
The examples I gave were of commanders that came out AFTER the ban. Those cards would see little to no play if Golos was still legal.
I myself designed a Golos deck when it came out. I was putting the finishing touches on the deck when Golos was banned. Luckily, I was still designing the deck. I hadn't bought the cards to build the deck yet. I changed 4/5 card in the deck and made it a Jodah, Archmage Eternal deck.
Golos had pushed Jodah out of the command zone into the 99. That's what Golos does. That's one of many reasons why he was banned.
I remember seeing random targeted ads for custom commander decks. My favorite was a Sliver deck. You know, slivers, the famously extremely insular creature type that basically wants you to play as many slivers as possible with like 4 or 5 fairly powerful legends? The surprise is probably ruined by me responding to this comment, but guess what. The commander was Golos.
@@dapperghastmeowregardtbh just sounds like players themselves have no imaginations, and no self control. I’d never build a tribal deck with cards that aren’t of the appropriate tribe.
Golos Slivers would function differently to First Sliver.
as someone who pulled the lutri with the artwork you showd on screen and didnt really understand what companion does and was just focused on its effect, i was very sad seeing it on the commander banlist so i would like a "banned as companion" banlist so i can put it in the 99 of my mizzix deck^^ its so cute :3
U could probaly rule zero it in 99
Cockatrice is a very nice FREE way to play commander online and they usually update cards when sets drop.
When I played magic before EDH existed, one of my favorite cards was Kokusho. When I returned to play magic and fell in love with EDH I put up together a Kokusho deck (with my unsleeved foil and highly played Kokusho). Each pod I play it I warn people about how good it could be in commander and that I should probably be the archenemy. Obviously is not a deck for all pods but I have decks for all power levels. Hope banned cards stay at the minimum. I believe the great thing about EDH is the capacity to use all the wanky crazy cards. The problem is when people are not sincere about their decks power level, wincons, fast mana, etc.
I believe you guys are overthinking it. If I remember correct Sheldon didn't want it because of unnecessary rules/complication. I'm sure you know better but I feel we need to purge the ban list as much as possible in order to allow as many cards as possible. Thinking of it as extra bans is wrong if it allows more cards in the 99. Free the elf on shrooms "limited to the 99" is fine
also adds another lever for the future.
I love how well spoken and educated this whole episode is. So many great points that made me double take just how i think of the banlist as a whole.
I never want to see Golos again. For the time it was legal half the people at my lgs ran it. On average there was 25-30 people a night for commander, Thursday-Sunday. You could NOT be in a pod without it. It was MISERABLE.
cry.
@@xiqy1959playing against the same commander over and over is boring though?
@xiqy1959 be slightly more creative. It was a bad design because for a majority of casual strategies, the best way to build it was to put in all the same cards and then just play the golos lotto as much as possible. Why should you play anything else when the golos player gets 3x as much value from their commander alone
@@jkattack2640 exactly. It was always the same thing. If I wanted to watch a solitaire game I'd play yugioh. I played against a miserable Zacama land destruction deck. But at least it was unique and cool. It was the only Zacama deck I've EVER seen. But once I've seen one golos I've seen them all
@@xiqy1959like you when Golos was banned?
You kind of discussed it but I think idea of managing the ban list so that it isn't confusing to new players is a red herring. New players are probably buying pre-cons! They are trying to remember what all the keywords do. They probably don't know that there even is a ban list. And with the most recent bans as exceptions, usually they can't even open those cards in boxes when they get banned. If you want it to be simple so that it is simple for the rules committee, there's a point to that for sure, but also it's not rocket science. No one dies if they have to ban a card and then unban it later. I think they should try to make a decision that will lead to the best play experience, while trying to avoid too many changes at once. Making (or avoiding) decisions because "if we use this reason than what happens if X in 5 years??? does that mean we'll have to do X???" seems ridiculous to me. In 5 years you can make a new decision as you get new data or a better understanding of what leads to the best experience.
I’m planning my wedding right now and really appreciated the cousin analogy. Too real
Always enjoy your videos. Thanks for the great content, personally I support the pre-game convo over a hard ban list for games with folks at my LGS, but favor specific card bans for large events where you play with strangers.
“Banned as Commander” is also unnecessary from a gameplay standpoint in that a deck’s commander is face up information you have before the game, so it’s easy to say, “I don’t want to play against Tergrid today.” They touch on this at 1:20:40. Whereas banning things in the 99 prevents someone representing their deck as a casual midrange thing that starts looping dockside on turn 4, which may not have been an experience the table was expecting/desiring.
I don't see how you hide Dockside in a casual 99. If you're playing tutors to get Dockside then you probably aren't playing casual. Sometimes people play powerful cards and get lucky to draw them in certain situations. I know I have opened my share of Sol Ring + Arcane Signet.
This was one of my favorite discussions on the channel, thank you! So many concepts covered and in really good detail.
Also, my opinion is one ban list.
as for the last point of buckets/brackets, I'm REALLY not a fan of generalizing commanders like that. playing jank urza is NOT the same as playing a good urza and everyone can realise that
1:24:39 this was an amazing reaction! “I love this deck, I never want to see it again but it was amazing.”
Not everyone had the same understanding of what "fun" is. Banning based on "fun" just feels so icky.
I think the wording here needs to be changed to get away from emotion when it comes to why we ban these “unfun” cards. We ban them because they are overtly oppressive and restrictive. They are too harsh for a social format and create “non-games” because other players are not allowed to effectively play the game. I would call them “oppressive” which is more meaningful and objective than “unfun”.
@@ana-alyciajuarez5958wouldn’t this essentially ban stax decks
Rule 0 convos are important.
@@black_iron_tarkus2375yes, which is why banning based on vibes is bad. Unfortunately, commander is a format based on vibes.
I think the “buckets” concept is genius. It makes the ban list a lot easier to look over, and clearly and efficiently explains the reasoning behind the bans
Yes! I was lucky enough to pull a Rofellos back in the day and it was always one of my favorite cards. I got back into Commander Magic during the pandemic and was saddened to see Rofellos on the Commander ban list. Now granted I think he is too powerful to be your commander but I see no problem if he’s in your 99. So I’m hoping that there will be a day that I can finally put him into my Green Elf deck again…legally I mean. 😅
Marwyn is more powerful imo. Rofellos is fine. Very fast but fine
@@maxbodifee3263it's the speed that makes rofellos a problem. If course, gaea's cradle is legal. So it's not a good answer.
Honestly I really think the best answer tmfor this. Is just have an Tier one list of commanders, like the best in class for commanders. Not necessarily banning them but as a giant red flag to new players that these are top tier of what we can happen.
1:19:40 I feel the need to add to the discussion around self-policing here. Commander is the most popular format. It's more likely new players will join it specifically. Knowing the commander doesn't self-police for those players because they don't have the experience and know-how to realize when they might be facing a "problem commander," for lack of a better phrase.
Edit: to clarify, my concern here is that those situations aren't welcoming to new players, and that's a great way to make someone think that maybe this game just isn't for them, when it absolutely could be, but they just didn't get a good starting point.
I felt like they got really close to this point but ultimately still seemed to miss it. The banlist (and the bracket system) aren’t for the enfranchised players; they’re for the new players who don’t yet know how to have the conversations needed to have a good game experience. You may not see Tegrid or Urza or whatever all that much, but the new players don’t know to ask for people not to play them and when they get stomped into the dirt, they’re much less likely to ever come back.
This is the same reason I wouldn’t unban Braids or Leovold or Erayo. Yeah, they’ll get self policed out, sometimes. But every game they don’t get self policed out of they’re likely to ruin, and I know I’m not coming back to a game where I’m expecting to have a fun time playing some Otters and I never get to have a third land or a second card in my hand.
This happened to me. I was a veteran competitive player that was getting back into the game and was invited to play commander with some guys I met at a prerelease. I built a gruul deck with Klothys as a commander. All 3 of them played various stacks pieces that made attacking and eventually paying for my creatures on upkeep impossible. Took me a couple years to give the format another shot and I'm still having trouble just dealing with the subjective "this is cool but not that" nature of the format. I miss 60 card where both players are trying to win. So simple. Commander has warped magic so much man. RiP
I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion presented here. Thank you @commandcast
This discussion further solidifies my position that bans are not a good thing and I'm of the opinion that nothing should be banned.
Lutri is one of my fav commanders, have to rule 0 it every time, but I feel my deck is really special with him and I flippin love Otters. We got some great otter support in Bloomburrow, but I really love having Lutri as my commander. Thankfully noone has said they dont want to play against him, but would love to have him unbanned (outside of companion).
Also, I do really like the idea of getting a benefit from restricting your deck in a certain way. Doesn't have to be companion, but I wish they would do more of that stuff. Otherwise there isnt much built-in motivation to not include the best cards from each color in your deck's identity.
Bro, i wish they made manders that had restrictions to be ur commander. Could u imagine how cool it would be if they gave enchantress a really broken commander, but it limits you to 15 enchantments, or the enchantments must be a certain cost
@daltronius Ooh I like that a lot, yes!
Nope we dont need bans from Wizards if you have a strong Rule zero discussion with your group
I want to play lutri in the 99 or as commmander
in the 99, yes. its actually kinda broken as a Commander though, way more so than as a Companion, due to recursion and flash, so that would be a no imo.
We need mana crypt and JLo back. Nothing else matters Dx
I personally think having the banned as a commander ruling just makes way more sense and more cards are able to be played with. Its only 5ish cards now but as magic grows you now have 2 seperate alleys to ban cards in commander. I dont really understand the negative side of the argument. Yes it should be back, flatly.
I absoloutely LOVE the wedding invite comparison! Excellent analogy, Josh!
I think the analogy kind if is bad or at least leads to conclusion that I feel go against Josh's general ban philosophy (being basically very against bans).
Example: Lets say you are planning a wedding. You want to invite most your cousin, but one of them is very problemic and make things alot harder. Do you 1) not message any of the cousin? 2) message the cousin you like and tell your cousin you dont like why you didnt invite him. 3) let them all in?
I think its generally agree that inviting none of your cousin would be consider pretty bad as you are basically punishing alot of cousin you like for the sake of saving the feelings of someone that you dont. IMHO the more adult thing to do is to invite the people you care about, and when the people not invite you "why not me" you give them an honest thoughtful answer.
Is it a "hard line to draw"? yes, but a line being hard to draw is not an excuse to not draw it. Not drawing lines has just as much impact as drawing them. The harder the lines are to draw the more thought should be put in them. We shouldnt default to "bans bad so no bans". Just like you wont default to "family drama bad so we dont invite anyone to the wedding avoid family drama".
How to ban cards is always case by case base. Just like the reason to invite someone is a case by case base. Its hard and sucks and alot of work. But you can embrace that and try to do the best you can, or can not (but that doesnt mean people will not be hurt/mad at you for inaction)
36:11 I would like to know why stax is considered a negative play pattern but cards that steal or goad mechanics are fine, every other format seems to not have an issue with stax
Because resource denial was a strategy in early magic but has more or less been designed out 10 or so years ago, so so many players just aren’t used to it being able to be a tool to play with unless you played eternal formats (which most modern commander players never have).
Stax slows down games, and prevents people from playing their cards. Most people have limited time to play mtg, and they want to actually do their deck’s “thing”, rather than getting locked behind stax. Goad can definitely get oppressive, but so can most mechanics when abused, and when a mechanic gets abused in a way that becomes oppressive, I’d argue most people consider that a negative play pattern. Stax is oppressive by definition, so it gets to be the poster boy for the concept. Casual edh is primarily about having fun, so in theory nobody should be playing decks that are considered oppressive to their opponents. At least that’s the common consensus, and what makes edh different from other formats.
Mostly because commander only players are babies who get upset when they cant have all there toys at once
nothing wrong with stax decks just the people who are pissy when people play them. or they play overly CEDH tier stax decks in a non CEDH format or table.
It's the same reason some hate counter spells, but don't mind kill spells. They're rather have played and lost their cards then not get to play their cards at all.
Today I learned: Lutri is a GREAT addition in the 99 for my Alania, Divergent Storm deck. Thanks Command Zone :)
"Too much complexity" is one of the laziest stupidest excuses I've ever heard for mtg bans.
You sound like a lot of fun to play with!
@@neapoi he's right though. there are hundreds of far more complicated interactions that are currently legal in the format. banned as commander and banned as companion would be the least complicated rules added to the game in over 20 years.
Yeah I don’t understand how that is ever a valid excuse for a banning. It’s like wizards is saying that most people’s brains aren’t big enough, when all it takes to understand any interaction in this game is about 5 minutes of research. If it’s not broken it shouldn’t be banned, and complex interactions is one reason that I love magic.
When they say it's to complex, they are not referring to the player base. It adds yet another layer of complexity to ban decisions for the people making the bannings. Bans already split the community in two, adding more levels to that equation would only make that worse and thus far more difficult for those making the decisions.
One of the reason I loved commander, one the format was great... Two nothing was ever banned... Since cards started getting banned in EDH is when I started losing faith.. It's just Modern 2.0 with one card limit now... kinda disappointing
I think we need a shift in the language we use to get out of this "banned or not banned" mindset. Instead, we should view cards in terms of how much of an impact they have on a game, and how easy they are to deal with.
The new bracket system is a great way to do this - separating types of effects into different categories for players to align with each other better. We don't need every card labelled - just a general idea with a couple of examples mentioned (e.g. "Fast mana cards, which net you mana the turn you play them. Some examples are Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.").
The crucial part is not saying any of these cards are "banned", just that they are more suited to be played against decks with effects in the same bracket, and playing a game with decks from different brackets may not be as enjoyable. I really think it would be a great and healthy change to everyone's mindset if we do away with the idea of cards being "banned" outright!
The whole idea of the banlist for commander as it exists today is to highlight the types of cards and effects that you should talk about before a game with strangers, but everybody seems to get hung up on it being a hard and fast rule and that it's inconsistent.
*Disclaimer* Obviously, all the culturally insensitive cards, ante cards and dexterity cards / un-cards that are currently banned should remain that way, or at the very least have their own category of "bracket" to be mentioned pre-game.
It's always wild that this conversation is so complex and so in depth, but it really just ends up being a rule 0 conversation.
Communication I guess is the most important part.
Banned as commander really doesn't stop someone from tutoring that card and effectively making a list around, especially if you're in black or green. If you design a deck to do it, you can easily run enough creature tutors and hit that "secret commander". I personally don't think we're losing much by just banning those legends. Though, I'm not convinced that some of the old bans are powerful enough to merit the ban that they have. I don't think unbanning Rofellos would shift any metas.
Rofellos and biorythm are definitely not actually very powerful compared to other cards that are currently legal.
Bans just limit how much I play MTG, where, and who I play with. It has nothing to do with which cards I will choose to play with. Pregame talk serves it's purpose. Those whom I play with have not yet ever complained that anything that I've done was unfair. There was 1 player that I chose to avoid because I can not appreciate his style of play. I understand what is fun. I run a infinite combo or two however they are not the type that brings about turns playing "solitaire".
Wooo a new command zone discussion episode!!! This is a great day
I think the best way to do the half ban measure that keeps it to one list outside of banned in general would be a "Banned outside the 99" list which is all encompassing for any cards you may use outside of the 99 cards of the deck
Possible hot take, but rather than having a "banned as companion" list, I believe it would be easier and more flavourful to ban the companion zone as a wish zone.
The companion mechanic already breaks the 100-card rule, was possibly broken pre-errata, and 2 of the 10 (Yorion and Lutri) cannot even be played as companions.
Banning the companion zone as Wish would fix the problem without creating a new banlist, plus you can play every companion as the commander or in the 99 then.
In short, justice for my boy Lutri, he deserves to be free 🦦
How does it break the 100 card rule, ur deck is still 100 cards, just only 98 in ur main
@@daltronius "If you’re playing a companion, it must adhere to color identity and singleton rules. While it is not part of the deck, it is effectively a 101st card. " Which makes lutri as a companion really have no downside at all.
This has been very helpful. I was tentatively pro banned as commander before the podcast, and have now changed my mind.
I like the commander-bracket idea way more than the deck list bracket idea, I need to think on it, but it’s basically already how I play, so it makes sense!
I was never on board with banned as commander and will NEVER be on board with this bracket BS
Yes, we do. Their whole "it's too confusing for players" shtick is dumb as Magic has literally been named the most complex game ever created.
Enough with the bans honestly. Let people have a rule 0 with the bracket system .
The more I look at Rofellos the more I think to myself as a mono green lover, “damn I really want to play with this card. Should I just build a deck and attempt to rule zero it?” And after listening to Josh and Rachel talk about Kinnan and Urza and the plethora of other supremely powerful commanders that exist I might just do it.
Selvala is a strictly superior commander (build is a little different) that is legal. So if your pod understands that I doubt they would mind much.
@@Lazydino59yeah talked to a couple of my pod mates and the only condition they had was they’d prefer if the 99 excluded Ashaya the Staff of Domination, umbral mantle kinda of cards the untap shenanigans. Which I wasn’t planning on a build like that anyways I just think his art is cool and I wanna play elf’s but not any of the plethora of other elf commanders
I think it's RL so if you want it I'd get it now just in case it were to get unbanned. If that happens the price will double or triple over night
@@jacobnordquist3448 Yeah will probably buy a copy with the store credit I get from the black Friday sales when I get it sometime next week
It's fine if they're cool with it of course, but rofellos is not an ok card. You're untapping on turn 3 with 6 mana without any additional help besides hitting your third land. No other card let's you do that.
I thought I was pro banned as commander list. I really did. But after this episode I’ve flipped; it all boils back down to my basic belief about the “casual format” of commander: there should be no banlist at all. Let playgroups and players police themselves. People enjoy different things. Let them.
Protip: You can already do that, but it's easier to be like "Hey, mind if I play Limited Resources?" before the game than it is to be like "Hey, please take Sol Ring and Screaming Nemesis out of your decks before starting."
"adds complexity to the banlist" ... anyone ever saw ygo's banlist? thre are dozens of cards banned, limited, semi-limited, same split (3 categories) and that game is less complex then magic. if that player sometimes young kids, are able to understand the banlist, there's no reason why a split between "ban everywhere, ban as comander, ban as companion" would be too complex xd.
Also what level of iq are they trying to appeal with with “complexity” XD a 4 year old could comprehend banned versus banned as commander.
In addition, "banned as commander" would only be relevant for people with the intent of building commander Decks already. Precon players wouldn't be affected. Yet if you already have the intent of building a deck from the ground up, then having a "banned as commander" list is _definitely_ not too much.
@@Lazydino59 They said somewhere in the video that by complexity they mean that the rc or now wotc need to maintain more different lists with different rules for the banning, so it especially adds complexity on the side of the people that have to ban the cards. The complexity it adds to players is negligible.
Something I find really funny is that the current version of Niv-Mizzet actually infinites off the Firemind. Fits so well with a character as arrogant and self-absorbed as him.
The fixed Alchemy version of Nadu is actually not that bad. It's basically the Nadu ability twice across your whole board instead of granting the ability
Twice total across your entire board, or twice per turn across your entire board?
@drdca8263 twice total per turn period. Not per creature. It's Nadu triggering up to two times
@@topherrobeson4446so it is per turn, not like, twice total across all turns. Alright, thanks
@@drdca8263 the ability is just on Nadu whenever you target anything and that fix is actually not that bad in Brawl
You can get 2 Nadu triggers on your turn and 2 triggers on your opponent. BUT currently, multi targets will trigger for every target, as long as you had one left.
Best words of wisdom was to understand that not every game will be great. When you sit down with new players you don't know who is a brand new and who has 30 years of experience. Adjusting your expectation allows you to enjoy those games and eventually get to equal power levels.
My hot take is that people need to get a little more used to grinding through board states they don’t prefer. There’s an overarching presumption among commander players that they should be left alone to do their thing. There are ways to shut down a Nadu. There are ways to stop Urza. I say this as a player with an Urza deck which does not have a Winter Orb in it.
Yes you can beat a nondeterministic combo, but that's half the problem. I came to play a game and have fun and you decided to sit down and play with yourself for 20 minutes while I have to wait to see what happens. The Nadu deck is fundamentally disrespectful of its opponents TIME. Same reason paradox engine got the axe. I'd muuuuuch rather you played a a+b combo that wins instantly if it resolves because then we get to shuffle up and play again.
Nadu’s problem is that the play pattern is disrespectful of people’s time and encourages poor playing/deckbuilding. There’s no loop to present and no guarantee you’re winning after that 20 minute turn.
It’s less so that Nadu is good and more so that I came to play Magic and I don’t want to spend my 4 hours on Friday night on a single game because one dude is eating all the time equity.
I do agree with you on Urza is though and I say that as someone who does run an Urza deck with Winter Orb. Cards like Urza don’t need a ban of any kind you just need to have a Rule 0 conversation so everyone knows not to run a precon.
Also, despite running Winter Orb and other Stax pieces it presents a win on turn 4 consistently so people aren’t in misery for hours on end.
@121Xander121 commander as a format is disrespectful of people's time. If you want to "play magic" then play a 1 on 1 format. Nadu is fine and if you can't handle the turn just tell the table "I think he has it, do we want to shuffle up and go to the next game?"
@@Hapkins-le6xf If all players share the same amount of time, you cannot call it disrespectful. It doesn't matter how many players there are, as long as time spent is somewhat equal.
It's not a matter of whether someone can handle a 25 min durdle fest, it's whether you have something better to do with your life which you clearly do not.
The question is when we start removing Urza every turn, does that player start whining about being targeted? Because Urza should be removed every turn with prejudice.
Definitely need a "banned for special mechanic" category. Lutri might be the only thing in there right now, but having it as an optional lever is a good idea going forward.
I can't get over Josh' pronounciation of Kinnan at 36:16 XD
Lol Keenan
Keenan, Weenota, Seesay, Thraseeos, Teevit, Kenreeth, Eenalla, Yureeko, Neev-Meezet
It makes sense to not ban any legendary creature at all, but those currently on the ban list should just go into the highest bracket/tier or whatever system they're working on currently. So you know you can expect the mana crypts and docksides and urza as a Commander :)
I would lovento see "banned as Commander" make a return. There are certain cards that are unfun to play against when you have it as the 8th card in your starting hand, but there are plenty that are fair when just in your 99.
My wife at the hair stylist: “Give me ‘the Rachel’.”
“From Friends?”
“From Command Zone.”
stop banning from a casual format.. trust the community and play groups we can solve our problems we dont need that much caretaking the only thing you do with banning is diminishing the fun and giving reason to complain to ppl who dont like some playstyles or commanders etc. there is yuriko and ppl still going after other cards like golos is stupid.
Well said !
I am a lowly new MTG player but I don't think ANY card should be banned. It's a social game and I believe we as a community should just talk to each other when we sit down to play a game and tell each other what kind of game we're looking to play (casual, super CEDH, pure jank etc.). I also think WOTC shouldn't be printing cards like Nadu that instantly get broken lol like that was a dumb move.
I understand where you're coming from, and somewhat agree.
I'm a veteran player (started playing way back in 1999), so I can tell you that, back then , Wotc used to print balanced cards
They once made a public statement saying they were sorry about banning a single card out of standard.
Nowadays, when they print whatever they think will sell, we *do* need ban lists.
Not everyone is willing (or cares) about having a pre game talk, so having a ban list serves as a basis for what everyone can expect from total strangers.
Then again, with your own friends?
Go ahead using Pikachu as your commander in your energy themed deck, if the others are ok with that!
Yes yes yes. But also hot take; rofellos doesn’t even need banned as commander, the game’s power creep has caught up with him. And let’s be real banned as commander existed really just for him
Turn 3 minimum 6 mana very easy 7 is still insanely strong.
@ you are 100% right, but in 2024 magic playing only basic forests is a real drawback, and selvala can do similar (and I argue is a better commander), and even in cEDH games are ending too fast for him. He may be on an above-average power level, but there are many many more already legal commanders that are flat out better in 2024.
@@lordBeerus467 that's still easy to do with sol ring, ancient tomb and all these damn treasure cards.
Honestly, I think "Banned as Commander" takes 3 forms. First is Rule 0, the personal choice to not play against a certain commander, where the player is in full control. Second is an actual banning, where playability is decided by a committee, but said committee's decisions are based on what the playerbase wants (and obviously you can choose to play against a banned commander casually, if you want to). Third, is actual out-and-out design choices by WotC.
What I mean with the last one is something like the rider they chose to leave on the new Myojins from Neon Dynasty Commander, where the effect can only easily be used if cast from your hand. (This is the same as what was on the old Myojins, but WotC has stated this was kept on the new ones as an intentional limiter for commander.) This third option essentially puts all the control in the hands of designers, rather than the players (even Rule 0 would shudder at the idea of pretending a card works differently than its actual rules text). Intentional or not, designers essentially have the power to choose whether something is a commander by how they make it work.
Taken to its logical conclusion, could you imagine a legendary creature with the text "This card CAN'T be your commander"?
I just want to play Lutri ☹️
My narset needs lutri as companion
On the Lutri discussion when it was discussed that there could be future mechanics which interact with zones outside of [Library, Command Zone, Graveyard, etc.] there's a more elegant solution than "Banned as Companion." Since Commander doesn't have a sideboard/wishboard/lessonboard, there could be something like a "banned outside of maindeck" list to account for always accessible tutor mechanics like companion, lesson/learn, or own outside of the game.
Unfortunately that would also preclude Lutri from being a commander since the command zone is outside of the maindeck, but Lutri isn't usually the first choice for an otter or copy spells commander anyways.
The problem is that according to the rules, commander doesn't *have* an outside the game. The wishes are restricted to your sideboard only. So, technically, you shouldn't be able to run the companions outside the 99.
I want Banned As Commander back purely because I have a nice foil Rofellos that I want to play in decks xD
Every time I consider "what cards should we ban?" or "how we ban cards?" or "what should be considered in bans?" I end up landing on the thought that we really should just split up the ban list into two. One for casual and one for competitive. I understand the argument that it gets to a point of being too confusing or too complex. But only banning powerful stuff leads to pissing off players who enjoy high-power games, and banning stuff that goes "against the creative nature" ends up pissing off players who like what they play in the 99 vs what their commander does. I really don't think we can have both. Maybe since the format is already considered split between casual vs competitive we can officially split it into two separate formats with their own bans lists. So that each can focus on what makes their player-bases happy and not step on each other's toes by banning certain cards.
Thanks for the great discussion. I really enjoy listening to these episodes and digging into other players perspectives. It's very insightful and intriguing especially since these aren't cut-and-dry topics. Lots of love and everyone take care
No cards should be banned. If you're going to pull off some degenerate infinite combo on turn three go for it. I just won't play against it more than once.
couldnt agree more. fair game to play any deck once, but if its overly oppressive or no fun to play vs then i just wont play it a second time either. especially if the deck people play is a cedh tier deck in a commander non CEDH format. commander is meant to be fun, i do not mind inifnite combos but if there extremly oppressive then nope not happening again. or i find something equally oppresive to play against to make it fair.
I also completely agree.
This is the enlightened take. Unban everything, and let us all sorted out like adults. 95% of “problematic” cards are not banned, and never will be, and people do just fine.
😁🤙 I really like the "buckets" idea for bans. I feel like if a play group can say "hey no fast mana bucket" then people know ok all cards in that ban bucket are out for this game. I think it allows play groups to tailor the ban list for their games, thus can make more people happy. Fast mana lovers can look for groups where that bucket is allowed VS people who hate it can state they don't want that bucket in their game. 😁🤙
Instead of 'banned as companion' or keeping Lutri banned, IMO we should just ban the companion zone from Commander.
Lurris is so fun though. My gf plays a Bartolomie Lurris deck that the professor showcased on his channel. She loves it, I love it. You hate all the companions enough to want to ban them?
The reason they kept companions is because they knew that people would find them fun.
But if companion is ok...why not learn?
Think the big thing about the Nadu 'ban as commander' discussion that's missed here, is that even in the 99, it combos with a card that is already so so common in people's decks, with an inclusion rate of 25% (1 in 4!) on EDHrec: Lightning Greeves. Means adding Nadu in the 99 becomes really really easy for any deck in Green & Blue to do without really loosing much.
Playing devil's advocate so... Is a Nadu combo really that common and oppressive that it warrants a ban though? We have other powerful combos like with cards like Thassa's Oracle and Torment of Hailfire existing and don't see much more than an eye-roll when they happen. I agree that overpowered or oppressive cards need to be addressed but you kind of keep going down the ladder and we get in to the weird area of where do we actually draw the line of what is acceptable?
@@dat_man_sam9823 Thassa is a 2 second win, Torment is a pretty quick late game finisher more often than not. Nadu's loop is a nondeterministic one that takes an incredibly long time to play out, and you can't actually tell if it wins until you've fully spent that time to see if it whiffs or not. The comparison to stuff like Paradox Engine in the video (if memory serves) is really quite apt.
@@disbarredg0 Does that mean we should ban other combos that take over a certain amount of time?
No, especially because it's infinitely easier to rule zero commanders than it is cards. People need to learn to communicate.
We infantilze mtg players and then when they throw tantrum and GameKnights does their annual "We are so shocked that the community was toxic when X happened," we pretend that we don't nurture that sort of rot.
Just talk to people?! Can someone explain to me why there are ban lists in a social format? Honest question, because I only play with friends
Socially awkward losers show up to lgs' and just play solitaire
@VvVLuffyM2 Well, that is the target audience. Just don't be a socially awkward loser yourself and express your wish to not play with certain cards.
@LarsEckert_Molimo i played cedh with the cedh crew at the lgs, we weren't the problem.
@@VvVLuffyM2 ok, cedh totally needs a ban list to be a comparable competitive environment. However, it should be understood, that for everything non cedh winning is not the main objective, but fun with friends or people who could be friends. People who don't understand this are at fault, no matter the cards in their decks.
Short answer yes
Long anwser yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssss
No
Wait... Wasn't Edric Spy master of Trest banned as commander for a time for similar reasons to Roffelos?
Banned as commander brings FAR more issues than it solves in the short and long run.
Josh feeling like he can’t talk about a very stupid thing that happened in the mtg community is so ridiculous to me. The fact he had to apologise for not saying anything wrong about the crypt lotus bans is absolutely crazy. It’s something that happened and you should be able to talk about it cause it was insane! So many backhanded shady things were going on and even if they weren’t it 100% felt like it.
I think "banned as a commander" should include commanders that don't get commander tax i.e. Yuriko, and Derevi
The thing with Lutri though, I think very few people would be upset if you asked to Rule Zero him into your 99. It's very similar to Reverberate. The only difference is Lutri has a body and 1 more mana, while reverberate lets you copy enemy spells. I don't know that a banned as companion is necessary. Rule Zero should be used more often for these type of scenarios.
Keep Golos banned. I don’t care what happens besides. I hated seeing that dumb commander everywhere it was annoying.
When I returned to magic, I had to scratch my head many times, wondering why hullbreacher was banned. But dockside was legal. Really enjoyed the video.
Yes. Absolutely.
How about all the eminence commanders? 😂
This is what inwpuld say. Eminence just creates insanely powerful commanders.
You can’t ban your way into a casual play friendly philosophy.
I really liked the idea of having categories of Bans but not really having separate things like "banned as commander". Just one list that are just flat banned but having those descriptive buckets make a clear tool for playgroups to decide if any categories they are ok with.
I wish folks would stop asking for cards to be banned. Let the POD decide.
ban list is not for your playgroup it's for heading out to gamenight at your local shop and not getting ambushed with bullshit
@michaelhuerta7469 your naive if you think this doesn't affect the play group. Folks use the ban list to build their decks.
before getting into the episode: i honestly was waiting for an episode about the recent changes in combat rules and how that effects commander and certain strategies/decks. also i havent seen any commentary on the whole "from 2025 forth 50% of magic releases will be universes beyond". have i missed something?
"It's me! mono white :)" was my favorite quote so far
In the case for Lutri, i was wondering if we could make ban that is a bit more univeral. What if we name it "Only for the 99". That could include every exception pretty nicely.
Again, coming back to rule zero. For tournament play, there should be a band list. Or a ranking system to what commander is being played. There should not be a band list. Wotc should never make campanion mechanics. The commander committee should just band companions mechanics to make it easy.
It’s turn zero I sit down with my Ivy gleeful spell thief deck. I start by saying I have a copy of nadu in this deck, I will gladly replace it with my Sakura tribe elder. However It’s an aura deck, and I don’t play any of the free equip artifacts (not even lightning greaves) do you say keep nadu? Or swap for Steve? I am fine either way just looking for some opinions
If theres no free equips or ways to do the infinite* loop id be cool with it. Also nice playing ivy, i play grouphug ivy
Depends of the power level you want to play at. Putting nadu in with many 1 or 2 mana auras is still incredibly powerful even if it not optimal. At a higher powerlevel though I would be fine to at least try nadu out in the 99 of that deck and see how it plays.
@@daltronius I love Ivy but my deck is far from group hug 😂
@@Orkimtor the power level is mid tier, it’s got some decent spells but I wouldn’t consider it a “powerful” deck.
It does however have a lot of 1 or 2 coat auras that come out quick.
The reason I ask is I bought nadu for $24 during the height of its crazyness, I have played 8 games with my Ivy deck whike nadu has been in it and I have never once drawn it 😂
I normally watch your shows in order (I'm years behind) but I jumped on this one. 100% DO NOT do BaC, pretty much for the reasons you covered. I get that it's the difference between "Magic is already so complex, what's one more data point?" vs "Magic is already so complex, WHY one more data point?" but culling complexity is always in the best interest of the game; there's a reason we never see banding or haunt anymore.