Any official person saying it makes it too complicated is being condescending. We play this game, banned as commander is easy to grasp and all new players are going to fumble a bit. We will gladly help newcomers.
Especially now with MtG Card design becoming more complicated and wordy! IMO if you can read Nadu's text box, and understand what it does enough to build a deck around it, you can understand the concept of a commander ban list
They say it for the same reason they say Panoptic Mirror is banned due to extra turns/boardwipes: because the real reason for it completely negates any credibility behind the decision. Panoptic Mirror was banned because they were testing it in 2 player matches when the rules said that life points were to be 200 divided evenly between all participants, meaning they were playing with 100 life - and Shahrazad is legal. Panoptic Mirror was banned because of every other turn starting with a 100 life Shahrazad subgame. And they didn't ban Shahrazad until 3 years later. By the same token, Banned As Commander was dropped because WotC told the RC that they weren't sure MTGO could handle 2 banlists for the same format, meaning the complexity excuse is just that - an excuse.
the "banned as commander" list is not complicated at all, i feel like its not an issue for new players to understand, and i feel like its way more simple than the rule 0 talk or house bans like armeggedon or juakulhops. idk if thats just me but i dont thinknhaving a couple cards that just cannot be your commander isnt that hard to understand
Also, the least equipped players to handle a rule 0 talk are new players, due to their lack of knowledge of the game. reliance on rule 0 talk is explicitly not new player-friendly.
Bringing up the Rule 0 talk being more convuluted than banned as commander is the strongest argument Ive heard that I could get behind. That said, when I played during the banned as commander, I did find it confusing, not from the perspective of of not knowing what could and couldnt be played, but the fact that something could be OP as a commander, but not just in the 99.
I think bringing it back would be great. I’m all about banning Nadu as a commander and everyone hates Tergrid. I also think some currently banned cards could be moved to that list pretty easily. Great video.
should have never been removed. it was super easy to understand lutri should have just been banned as companion because that card is not ban worthy aside from its compaion requirement simple and easy
Not Even banned as commander maybe just banned as companion. Althouh dualcaster mage on the command zone might be broken. Still lutri in the 99 is just a dual caster mage
Been playing for 3 months in commander. I can compare "banned as commander" as the same complexity as "color identity." i forgot a green phyrexian mana was in my dimir deck. Someone explained why thats not allowed. We moved on. Its really not that complicated
In my opinion, either take bans seriously, and ban all the cards that are proven to be overpowered (say, all cards that are restricted in legacy). Or just toss the ban list, as it serves little to no purpose in its current form, apart from the cards that do not function in commander, the power 8 (time twister is commander legal) and the 4 or so cards that cedh cares about. Sign post bans are fun and all, however I don't thing any normal person would play sway the stars. And if anticlimactic draws are a problem, however unplayable, then make it complete and also ban divine intervention and other nonsensical cards. In short I think that properly managing the ban list is far more important than banned as commander. And that said list should be consistent. Sign post bans do nothing if you only ban one of a group of similar cards to indicate the card is mean. As most people just check the ban list to see if their deck is legal the moment they learn about the banlist and nothing more.
Golos' issue is genuinely that there's almost zero deck in the game that wouldnt be better if you took your commander, moved it to your deck, adding cascading cataracts to your mana base and putting golos in your command zone
Gonna have to hard disagree here. Yes. Golos is a stupid card. But I do not agree that decks would be better if you shoved your commander into the 99 and replaced it with golos. Not only is that boring as hell, but it slows down getting a lot of commanders out for what reason.
@@imhoenn5710 most decks are capable of playing a golos on 3 with a reasonable hand. This means you can start activating golos turn 4. The number of commanders who are generating more value then a golos activation per rotation is very small.
@@thehatcaseonyoutube you're ignoring my entire point. Golos does only 1 thing. He doesn't do what 99% of commanders do. He's boring. On top of that, gonna use the main two decks I play right now as an example. 1. Minn Wily Illusionist. Why would I want to put her in the 99 and use golos instead when I want to be dropping her on turn 3 and immediately generating tokens with a looter I played turn 2? 2. Ragavan Nimble Pilferer. Why would I want to be playing a golos on turn 3 and flipping the top cards of my deck when the point of the deck is drop monkey turn 1 and ramp into playing swords. I'm not arguing that Golos isn't a strong card. But making every deck a Golos deck is incredibly boring and simply doesn't make things stronger.
@@imhoenn5710 it doesnt do 1 thing. He can do everything. Ramps for every land, then with his activated ability play cards from your deck. He can slot in every theme and the power level wouldnt fall off that much
It would be cool to one day see a separate banned list for cedh just so we can see what cards from the current ban list would be fine in the higher levels of commander. I definitely feel like multiple bans on the list are only protecting lower level tables
I'd argue that cards banned as Commander would be pretty simple to grasp. They have immensely powerful effects that are polarizing while they exist as a commander because they can come right back fairly easily. They should also just ban companions. It breaks one of the foundational deck building rules of Commander, that being your deck being exactly 100 cards.
The argument for the removal of "banned as commander" always sounded like the dumbest things to me. What do you mean it's too convoluted for casual players? Do you know what casuals have to do to even learn that a banlist exists in commander? Well too be fair that's in line with the comittee
Tergrid is a good call. She's actually pretty fun in the 99 specifically with wheels. You get tons of stuff and its super good, but youre not engaging resource denial for the rest of the table.
Before I watch, just want to say that just this year, in the same month, I ran into someone that actually had a deck worse than a precon, like Nicanzil, Current Conductor with THREE!!! explore cards in the whole deck, and someone who didn't know Karakas was banned. Same store, different people. That really made me consider how easy we think these things are to know. Edit for more context: just want to bring up that those stories of crazy things happening do in fact happen. _I_ don't think banned as commander is confusing, but there are going to be people who do. Is it still worth it to change? I don't know.
I think people should read the take on this by Toby Elliot on the commander rc page about banned as commander from about 2 months ago. He essentially says both how the banned cards that can be your commander can still be problematic in the 99 and how if more cards like golos exist that are problematic as general but the rc is fine with in the 99 then banned as commander is possible to make a return
I'm biased because I want Braids in the 99 of my mono-B Cabal lore deck under Cabal Patriarch, I am that guy. Banned as Commander is plenty easy to understand, the trick is that it's such a short list at this point that it feels weird to make the distinction when the 99 feels like the bigger problem most of the time. Lutri for instance is not as big of a problem as a commander as it is in the 99 simply because it'll be your only commander. Repeatedly being able to flash in a 3/2 that copies a spell from the command zone is still strong, but commander tax makes it less good on repeat casts, and it's no longer a free include in every UR EDH deck on account of the Companion requirement being literally nothing for EDH. Iona is in the same boat: expensive mono-W commander really restricts the degeneracy otherwise possible when she's hiding in the 99 of a WB deck that can dump her with Entomb and Animate Dead her with a Painter's Servant by turn 3. Again, Braids only being banned as commander is probably fine because 99 cards is inconsistent, and even if you're going full cEDH Demonic Tutor sweat with the decklist you're in the bounds of the format that should be able to handle it. Same with Leovold, the consistently-available oppression piece is much less oppressive when it's much less available, and Nadu is a similar kind of blatant value. Golos of course goes here too simply because he's WUBRG identity, there are very few decks he can go into if he's banned as commander. Erayo, has to be drawn into as well as having the deck built around it. Emrakul... probably fine in the 99, 15 mana is 15 mana? Griselbrand though, sad as I am to say it for my mono-B Liliana lore deck, is going to have to stay banned in the 99 and probably also as commander, simply because of the starting life totals in the format. Same likely goes for Rofellos, as much as I'd like to include him in my Weatherlight deck, having a Priest of Titania for Forests in a mono-G command zone is not a good idea, and possably not in the 99 when Yavimaya is a legal land. As for the unbanned commanders to put onto a banlist? I dunno, sure it's annoying to see the thousandth Sythis in the command zone for the same Enchantress decklist, or groan every time someone says "no this Ur-Dragon/Edgar Markov deck is fair, honest," but aside from cards like Jodah, Atraxa, or Miirym that at my LGS see *zero* play as commanders for honest decks, I don't think any of them are that oppressive if people are actually playing EDH and not value piles pretending to be a casual singleton deck. Which implies that EDH players can actually be honest with their deck's powerlevel (impossible) but I would like to believe that maybe you _can_ run a Niv-Mizzet, Parun deck as an Izzet Guild pile and have it be fun once you actively avoid including infinite burn combos.
Commander is a casual format. It should NOT have a "ban" list. It should have a "avoid" list. They SUGEST what cards to avoid. Either in the deck, or just as the commander.
The Commander rules committee's rulings are almost always completely arbitrary, and then the justifications are always just clusters of weasel words like "isn't satisfying" or "not the style we want to promote." Then the banned cards are things like Coalition Victory and Iona, meanwhile cards actually printed this decade that do warp the entire format are perfectly fine. I'd bet money on the ban list just being cards that they personally got very salty about one too many times in their private games. "Asymmetric resource denial." You mean the entire game plan of stax? "Card is always available and benefits from high life total." OK, so the premise of the format then? "Effectively removes a player from the game." Correct. As a nine mana spell with no counter-protection should. Lutri is the only card on the ban list that was announced with an actual reason beyond, "we just don't like it."
Banned as a commander makes a lot of sense, there's some cards that are nasty but manageable if you'll only expect to see it a few times due to playing it and playing reanimation/protection cards for it and those all ostensibly have an opportunity cost. Nadu would be nasty in the 99, but manageable. As a Commander? Good luck dealing with that ever, you're always two for oneing yourself if you use spot removal on Nadu, and if they're a Commander? That's just untenable and you are going to lose the game if you have to resort to that, it'll just be replayed immediately since Nadu ramps and draws cards.
Rofellos is honestly fine, being mono green alone is enough to make it fine. Mono color just isnt enough in most higher powered games which is a shame.
OMFG, thank you so much. I built a 5 color Eldrazi deck years before Ulalek, and I played Golos in the 99, LIKE A GENTLEMAN. A bunch of sweaty degenerates (you know who you are, and I know you're not actually sorry) ruined my fun by jamming him into the command zone like the spikes they are. JUSTICE FOR GOLOS. BRING BACK BANNED AS COMMANDER.
Golos should be fully unbanned. It’s 5 mana and sure you can grab gayas cradle of whatever but is that really that powerful for 5 mana when other cards do that. It’s ability also whifs for 7 mana AND it has not protection built in. Golos allowed fringe tribal decks to be playable in EDH more so than other 5 color commanders because of its medium power in low budget and high power when tuned. 5 color Sisay is better than Golos…
I agree. I got into commander just after he was banned so never got to see him in action He seems fairly chill compared to what sissay is right now in cedh
I didn't mind him that much when it was legal but it is a commander which kinda cheats on commander tax ( Always brings atleast one of the 2 mana in a lot of cases more) and when not dealt with an okay mana sink. When golos was legal most games i played with in mtgo had atleast one if not 2 golos players. Straight up powerlevel I agree that sisay is better but sisay ia usually easier to handle sure she is cheaper but she doesnt always come with a land attached making removing her much more viable. She needs to be build more specific as well whereas golos can helm pretty much any deck which was the boon but also the bane of golos, as a lot of time golos was the more "optimial" choice for many strategies even over some extreme niche commanders.IDC if he gets unbanned or not since I agree you can get more powerful commanders but I understand why they did it.
The problem was that golos was the most used commander ever. By a mile. You could do every deck with him, on every color, and the power level wouldnt fall off that much
Mate if banned as commander is brought back i can guarantee that all the casuals that play at a lower level would want all the competitive commanders banned. It would just be terrible if we start banning cards as commanders just because casual players thought it was a problematic card just because they got a feels bad vibe from it. If ya ask me i say abolish the entire banlist and allow the players to play whatever they want especially since Rule 0 is supposed to be a fix all by the RC in the first place
No. The entire banlist needs to be removed and rebuilt from the ground up, THEN 'Banned as Commander' should exist. Most legends on the list aren't even problems in the modern game. We have so much interaction, so many solutions to problems, and - hopefully - people have grown wiser in terms of threat assessment. Golos isn't as broken as he once was, nor OG Mono Black Braids, nor Lutri ['zomg free 101 card!' Cool, and?], nor Iona. Leo, Erayo, and Griselbrand in that order MIGHT still be issues even in the 99, but then exile effects solve that issue. Modern Magic has sped up, answers have become cheaper, and players have generally improved overall. The current banlist shows a clear lack of any desire to actively deal with issues and reintroduce once-perceived as 'broken' cards. If you see a Leovold or Erayo as a commander, chances are you want them gone, but Golos? Cool, 5-color good stuff. Iona as commander is kill-on-sight for ANY mono color deck due to sheer fear. My issue with most of the banned legends is 'Are you banned because you're broken or because of the bad apples?' I've argued to unban Iona for my Jodah Goodstuff deck and the SAME counter 'argument' from one of my pod is 'Then I get Leovold'. The power difference between 1 clearly in the 99 and the other as a Commander with the INTENT of creating a hostile play environment is the issue. People shouldn't see a card and try to build the most toxic and degenerate deck around them, people should be building for the fun of the game and those around them. Yes, winning is the goal, but would YOU enjoy being staxed out? Being focused out? Being wheeled out?
I am old enough to remeber rofels being banned as commander and everyone said it was terrible as commander because you could drop eldrazis turn 3. We were able to run it in the 99 though. we shpould deff bring back the baned as commander shit. It was dumb and lazy they ever took it away in the first place
The thing with banning as commander is that certain cards being freely accessible and repeatable make the cards significantly more oppressive than if they were in the 99. Plus on top of that you won't be building the entire deck around that creature since you won't be consistently drawing them every game. I.e. Nadu as commander you stack your deck with effects like shuko and lightning grieves to spam value. But Nadu in the 99 you're likely not going to build your entire deck with cheap do nothing cards that target repeatedly just to get value out of your Nadu if you draw him. He's still obviously going to be valuable in the 99 if you're putting him in, but he's not going to be anywhere near as oppressive as he is when he's sitting at the helm.
In addition to “banned as commander”, I propose a “banned in 99” list. There’s no reason Griselbrand should be banned as a commander but in the 99, he’s busted as hell. Tergrid is absolutely fine in the format. If you see someone playing it, it is possible to walk away. The format has self-policed. It's too powerful for casual and too weak for competetive. The only time she's ever played is in the 99 as far as I'm concerned. EDHRec be darned, I don't believe most of the data on the site. It can be useful but I take deck popularity for cards as unpopular as Tergrid with a grain of salt. Most are probably only online decklists. I only know one person with a Tergrid deck and it's not his only deck. He has dozens of decks.
Me: "I assume, based on the paltry amount of bans you've introduced, that you meant to say that you don't want to confuse the community with multiple bannings?" EDHRC "No, you heard correctly. Multiple banlists would confuse MTG players." Me: "Da fuq, you say, good sir?!? There's like 17 formats already, and they all have their own banlist. Not to mention that CEDH shares a banlist with my kitchen table. PROVIDE US SOME CLARITY. IF "PLAYER EXPERIENCE" IS SO IMPORTANT, TELL PEOPLE THAT ALL THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF CASUAL EDH ACTUALLY FUCKING EXIST. WHAT DOES AN EDH BANLIST EVEN MEAN WHEN FUCKING WINTER ORB IS LEGAL??? DO. SOMETHING. PLEASE."
@@featherfailing in the case of him getting unbanned and without banned as commander coming back the fact that you always have access to said spell. In case of him just getting banned as commander not that much besides giving them another good tutor target.
It seems like you think cards are banned for their “power level”. Most of the cards on the ban list are pretty bad, they’re just “feel bads”. The commander committee really only cares about new players not “feel bad” and making sure commander at low power is 4 player solitude. Magic is probably one of the only card games where you can build a deck with hand disruption and stax (probably because it was originally made to be good rather than drive profits) if you don’t like that play a different game.
He is not that bad as a commander maybe it will be it will just have ppl use interaction right and run the right amount any deck that does can beat it i have been locked out with counters or kill spells its not that strong and can wif if u don't hit a land in a few turns
Saying we cant track it is insane and frankly ibsult to our intelligence. Sure youll get newcomers who dont know that their sick erayo deck is illegal and that sucks but they A) That already happens if any single legend is banned at all, if they want to avoid that happebing the should never ban commanders B) If they come to an lgs and only have a Griselbrand deck (frankly griselbrand shouldmt be banned as a commander he should stay banned in the 99 only but I digress) I'm 100% confident they can work something out with the table, whether they continue that game with their commander, swap it out with a different commander or someone lends them a different deck, they'll figure something out c) in the absolute worst case scenario where the table is full of dicks and they refuse to compromise, that changes nothing because theyvwouod have done that if the commander was regular banned too and they probably would react ad poorly if the newbie only had an annoying or op commander like Urza that isnt illegal. d) There isn't really a case at all where somebody could stumble into a sanctioned comp event eith an illegal deck. If theyre going to a cedh tournament yhey arent just randomly stumbling in there they lnow the banlist it isnt their first rodeo. Theres like 0 scenarios this makes any worse and about a billion games it makes better by virtue of letting people play more cards they want in decks, occasionally let people play cool commanders that are too problematic in the 99 (lutri lol) and also lets the rc ban some cards they sre hesistsnt to ban om them being bysted commanders alone while being tame in the 99. Its just all upside, the fsct they did away with it is absurd. Anyways I'll start the video now see what you have to say.
For me, the confusion about banned as commander wasnt where the card belonged, but why they would be fine in one and. Not the other. I could understand people wanting it back, and if it would lead to actual bans and not just a change that then means nothing except allowing degeneracy in the 99, but not the 100th, then I dont think it's worth splitting the banlist up like that.
Not super familiar with the banlist but Rofellos being banned is insane. THAT'S the ramp we're worried about? Even as commander, it's just doubling your mana? Green decks are already doing that in so many other ways.
I just don’t see the point. The format was created to allow players to have fun and if your pod wants to play gross stuff like Tergrid or Braids as a commander then rule 0 it. Some people will always be Turds and ruin a game for new players, you don’t need Braids/Yuriko or name whatever to ruin someone’s game experience. Just don’t agree to play in a pod with Tergrid.
I really don't understand wotc reluctance with this one. Having a banned as commander list would likely help reintroduce some equity into some cards that can be used in the 99. The whole argument about complexity doesn't hold up against FIRE design
Any official person saying it makes it too complicated is being condescending. We play this game, banned as commander is easy to grasp and all new players are going to fumble a bit. We will gladly help newcomers.
Especially now with MtG Card design becoming more complicated and wordy! IMO if you can read Nadu's text box, and understand what it does enough to build a deck around it, you can understand the concept of a commander ban list
Yeah as long as you understand that the first step in making a commander deck is to choose a commander, the "banned as commander" ban list makes sense
They say it for the same reason they say Panoptic Mirror is banned due to extra turns/boardwipes: because the real reason for it completely negates any credibility behind the decision.
Panoptic Mirror was banned because they were testing it in 2 player matches when the rules said that life points were to be 200 divided evenly between all participants, meaning they were playing with 100 life - and Shahrazad is legal. Panoptic Mirror was banned because of every other turn starting with a 100 life Shahrazad subgame. And they didn't ban Shahrazad until 3 years later.
By the same token, Banned As Commander was dropped because WotC told the RC that they weren't sure MTGO could handle 2 banlists for the same format, meaning the complexity excuse is just that - an excuse.
the "banned as commander" list is not complicated at all, i feel like its not an issue for new players to understand, and i feel like its way more simple than the rule 0 talk or house bans like armeggedon or juakulhops. idk if thats just me but i dont thinknhaving a couple cards that just cannot be your commander isnt that hard to understand
Also, the least equipped players to handle a rule 0 talk are new players, due to their lack of knowledge of the game. reliance on rule 0 talk is explicitly not new player-friendly.
Bringing up the Rule 0 talk being more convuluted than banned as commander is the strongest argument Ive heard that I could get behind.
That said, when I played during the banned as commander, I did find it confusing, not from the perspective of of not knowing what could and couldnt be played, but the fact that something could be OP as a commander, but not just in the 99.
I think bringing it back would be great. I’m all about banning Nadu as a commander and everyone hates Tergrid. I also think some currently banned cards could be moved to that list pretty easily. Great video.
should have never been removed. it was super easy to understand
lutri should have just been banned as companion because that card is not ban worthy aside from its compaion requirement
simple and easy
Not Even banned as commander maybe just banned as companion. Althouh dualcaster mage on the command zone might be broken. Still lutri in the 99 is just a dual caster mage
@@lorpuz4664Naru Meha:
@@lorpuz4664Lutri is legendary though so it doesn't work in dualcaster combos.
Been playing for 3 months in commander.
I can compare "banned as commander" as the same complexity as "color identity." i forgot a green phyrexian mana was in my dimir deck. Someone explained why thats not allowed. We moved on.
Its really not that complicated
In my opinion, either take bans seriously, and ban all the cards that are proven to be overpowered (say, all cards that are restricted in legacy). Or just toss the ban list, as it serves little to no purpose in its current form, apart from the cards that do not function in commander, the power 8 (time twister is commander legal) and the 4 or so cards that cedh cares about.
Sign post bans are fun and all, however I don't thing any normal person would play sway the stars. And if anticlimactic draws are a problem, however unplayable, then make it complete and also ban divine intervention and other nonsensical cards.
In short I think that properly managing the ban list is far more important than banned as commander. And that said list should be consistent. Sign post bans do nothing if you only ban one of a group of similar cards to indicate the card is mean. As most people just check the ban list to see if their deck is legal the moment they learn about the banlist and nothing more.
Golos' issue is genuinely that there's almost zero deck in the game that wouldnt be better if you took your commander, moved it to your deck, adding cascading cataracts to your mana base and putting golos in your command zone
Gonna have to hard disagree here.
Yes. Golos is a stupid card.
But I do not agree that decks would be better if you shoved your commander into the 99 and replaced it with golos. Not only is that boring as hell, but it slows down getting a lot of commanders out for what reason.
@@imhoenn5710 most decks are capable of playing a golos on 3 with a reasonable hand. This means you can start activating golos turn 4. The number of commanders who are generating more value then a golos activation per rotation is very small.
@@thehatcaseonyoutube you're ignoring my entire point.
Golos does only 1 thing. He doesn't do what 99% of commanders do. He's boring.
On top of that, gonna use the main two decks I play right now as an example. 1. Minn Wily Illusionist. Why would I want to put her in the 99 and use golos instead when I want to be dropping her on turn 3 and immediately generating tokens with a looter I played turn 2? 2. Ragavan Nimble Pilferer. Why would I want to be playing a golos on turn 3 and flipping the top cards of my deck when the point of the deck is drop monkey turn 1 and ramp into playing swords.
I'm not arguing that Golos isn't a strong card. But making every deck a Golos deck is incredibly boring and simply doesn't make things stronger.
People always say this but it's just like untrue. Idk what decks people are playing but it's true of exactly zero of my decks.
@@imhoenn5710 it doesnt do 1 thing. He can do everything. Ramps for every land, then with his activated ability play cards from your deck. He can slot in every theme and the power level wouldnt fall off that much
More than anything. Free my boy Lutri, ban him as companion, let me play him in Oops all otters.....
Banned as commander is easier to grasp than a nadu or other commander combos.
I'm not opposed to banned as commander but I don't want Iona on it keep that thing banned completely.
It would be cool to one day see a separate banned list for cedh just so we can see what cards from the current ban list would be fine in the higher levels of commander. I definitely feel like multiple bans on the list are only protecting lower level tables
There's so many banned list cards that wouldn't even be good in cedh
I'd argue that cards banned as Commander would be pretty simple to grasp. They have immensely powerful effects that are polarizing while they exist as a commander because they can come right back fairly easily.
They should also just ban companions. It breaks one of the foundational deck building rules of Commander, that being your deck being exactly 100 cards.
The argument for the removal of "banned as commander" always sounded like the dumbest things to me. What do you mean it's too convoluted for casual players? Do you know what casuals have to do to even learn that a banlist exists in commander? Well too be fair that's in line with the comittee
Tergrid is a good call. She's actually pretty fun in the 99 specifically with wheels. You get tons of stuff and its super good, but youre not engaging resource denial for the rest of the table.
Before I watch, just want to say that just this year, in the same month, I ran into someone that actually had a deck worse than a precon, like Nicanzil, Current Conductor with THREE!!! explore cards in the whole deck, and someone who didn't know Karakas was banned. Same store, different people. That really made me consider how easy we think these things are to know. Edit for more context: just want to bring up that those stories of crazy things happening do in fact happen.
_I_ don't think banned as commander is confusing, but there are going to be people who do. Is it still worth it to change? I don't know.
I think people should read the take on this by Toby Elliot on the commander rc page about banned as commander from about 2 months ago. He essentially says both how the banned cards that can be your commander can still be problematic in the 99 and how if more cards like golos exist that are problematic as general but the rc is fine with in the 99 then banned as commander is possible to make a return
I REALLY wish the rules committee was more active. There are so many cards that could be banned that are obnoxious or make the games the same.
There should be 3 banlists:
•Banned as Commander
•Banned in the 99
•Banned as Companion
No points for guessing the sole inhabitant of the third list.
I'm biased because I want Braids in the 99 of my mono-B Cabal lore deck under Cabal Patriarch, I am that guy. Banned as Commander is plenty easy to understand, the trick is that it's such a short list at this point that it feels weird to make the distinction when the 99 feels like the bigger problem most of the time.
Lutri for instance is not as big of a problem as a commander as it is in the 99 simply because it'll be your only commander. Repeatedly being able to flash in a 3/2 that copies a spell from the command zone is still strong, but commander tax makes it less good on repeat casts, and it's no longer a free include in every UR EDH deck on account of the Companion requirement being literally nothing for EDH. Iona is in the same boat: expensive mono-W commander really restricts the degeneracy otherwise possible when she's hiding in the 99 of a WB deck that can dump her with Entomb and Animate Dead her with a Painter's Servant by turn 3.
Again, Braids only being banned as commander is probably fine because 99 cards is inconsistent, and even if you're going full cEDH Demonic Tutor sweat with the decklist you're in the bounds of the format that should be able to handle it. Same with Leovold, the consistently-available oppression piece is much less oppressive when it's much less available, and Nadu is a similar kind of blatant value. Golos of course goes here too simply because he's WUBRG identity, there are very few decks he can go into if he's banned as commander. Erayo, has to be drawn into as well as having the deck built around it. Emrakul... probably fine in the 99, 15 mana is 15 mana?
Griselbrand though, sad as I am to say it for my mono-B Liliana lore deck, is going to have to stay banned in the 99 and probably also as commander, simply because of the starting life totals in the format. Same likely goes for Rofellos, as much as I'd like to include him in my Weatherlight deck, having a Priest of Titania for Forests in a mono-G command zone is not a good idea, and possably not in the 99 when Yavimaya is a legal land.
As for the unbanned commanders to put onto a banlist? I dunno, sure it's annoying to see the thousandth Sythis in the command zone for the same Enchantress decklist, or groan every time someone says "no this Ur-Dragon/Edgar Markov deck is fair, honest," but aside from cards like Jodah, Atraxa, or Miirym that at my LGS see *zero* play as commanders for honest decks, I don't think any of them are that oppressive if people are actually playing EDH and not value piles pretending to be a casual singleton deck. Which implies that EDH players can actually be honest with their deck's powerlevel (impossible) but I would like to believe that maybe you _can_ run a Niv-Mizzet, Parun deck as an Izzet Guild pile and have it be fun once you actively avoid including infinite burn combos.
Commander is a casual format. It should NOT have a "ban" list. It should have a "avoid" list. They SUGEST what cards to avoid. Either in the deck, or just as the commander.
Played Nadu in 99 with Mothman deck. Didn't even last 1 turn rotation, immediately rained with PTE STP lol. In 99 Nadu is easily manageable threat.
I could agree with that. No one wants to play against a Nadu deck, not even someone playing a Nadu deck
"emrakul is fine, can totally be unbanned."
Aight imma head out.
The Commander rules committee's rulings are almost always completely arbitrary, and then the justifications are always just clusters of weasel words like "isn't satisfying" or "not the style we want to promote." Then the banned cards are things like Coalition Victory and Iona, meanwhile cards actually printed this decade that do warp the entire format are perfectly fine.
I'd bet money on the ban list just being cards that they personally got very salty about one too many times in their private games. "Asymmetric resource denial." You mean the entire game plan of stax? "Card is always available and benefits from high life total." OK, so the premise of the format then? "Effectively removes a player from the game." Correct. As a nine mana spell with no counter-protection should.
Lutri is the only card on the ban list that was announced with an actual reason beyond, "we just don't like it."
Banned as a commander makes a lot of sense, there's some cards that are nasty but manageable if you'll only expect to see it a few times due to playing it and playing reanimation/protection cards for it and those all ostensibly have an opportunity cost. Nadu would be nasty in the 99, but manageable. As a Commander? Good luck dealing with that ever, you're always two for oneing yourself if you use spot removal on Nadu, and if they're a Commander? That's just untenable and you are going to lose the game if you have to resort to that, it'll just be replayed immediately since Nadu ramps and draws cards.
10:24 “fast mana is bad” says the format where sol ring is ubiquitous
Rofellos is honestly fine, being mono green alone is enough to make it fine. Mono color just isnt enough in most higher powered games which is a shame.
Iona is fine as there's now plenty of colorless removal that any deoc can run.
In 1v1 Commander there is a "banned as commander" list.
OMFG, thank you so much. I built a 5 color Eldrazi deck years before Ulalek, and I played Golos in the 99, LIKE A GENTLEMAN. A bunch of sweaty degenerates (you know who you are, and I know you're not actually sorry) ruined my fun by jamming him into the command zone like the spikes they are. JUSTICE FOR GOLOS. BRING BACK BANNED AS COMMANDER.
"Reserved list should not be allowed in commander". A pretty hot take, yeah, but based.
Golos should be fully unbanned. It’s 5 mana and sure you can grab gayas cradle of whatever but is that really that powerful for 5 mana when other cards do that. It’s ability also whifs for 7 mana AND it has not protection built in. Golos allowed fringe tribal decks to be playable in EDH more so than other 5 color commanders because of its medium power in low budget and high power when tuned. 5 color Sisay is better than Golos…
I agree. I got into commander just after he was banned so never got to see him in action
He seems fairly chill compared to what sissay is right now in cedh
I didn't mind him that much when it was legal but it is a commander which kinda cheats on commander tax ( Always brings atleast one of the 2 mana in a lot of cases more) and when not dealt with an okay mana sink. When golos was legal most games i played with in mtgo had atleast one if not 2 golos players. Straight up powerlevel I agree that sisay is better but sisay ia usually easier to handle sure she is cheaper but she doesnt always come with a land attached making removing her much more viable. She needs to be build more specific as well whereas golos can helm pretty much any deck which was the boon but also the bane of golos, as a lot of time golos was the more "optimial" choice for many strategies even over some extreme niche commanders.IDC if he gets unbanned or not since I agree you can get more powerful commanders but I understand why they did it.
The problem was that golos was the most used commander ever. By a mile. You could do every deck with him, on every color, and the power level wouldnt fall off that much
@@vittoriosavian9964 I see your point and agree. I like that he enables niche strategies but that's a double edged sword
Mate if banned as commander is brought back i can guarantee that all the casuals that play at a lower level would want all the competitive commanders banned. It would just be terrible if we start banning cards as commanders just because casual players thought it was a problematic card just because they got a feels bad vibe from it. If ya ask me i say abolish the entire banlist and allow the players to play whatever they want especially since Rule 0 is supposed to be a fix all by the RC in the first place
No. The entire banlist needs to be removed and rebuilt from the ground up, THEN 'Banned as Commander' should exist.
Most legends on the list aren't even problems in the modern game. We have so much interaction, so many solutions to problems, and - hopefully - people have grown wiser in terms of threat assessment. Golos isn't as broken as he once was, nor OG Mono Black Braids, nor Lutri ['zomg free 101 card!' Cool, and?], nor Iona. Leo, Erayo, and Griselbrand in that order MIGHT still be issues even in the 99, but then exile effects solve that issue.
Modern Magic has sped up, answers have become cheaper, and players have generally improved overall. The current banlist shows a clear lack of any desire to actively deal with issues and reintroduce once-perceived as 'broken' cards. If you see a Leovold or Erayo as a commander, chances are you want them gone, but Golos? Cool, 5-color good stuff. Iona as commander is kill-on-sight for ANY mono color deck due to sheer fear. My issue with most of the banned legends is 'Are you banned because you're broken or because of the bad apples?' I've argued to unban Iona for my Jodah Goodstuff deck and the SAME counter 'argument' from one of my pod is 'Then I get Leovold'. The power difference between 1 clearly in the 99 and the other as a Commander with the INTENT of creating a hostile play environment is the issue. People shouldn't see a card and try to build the most toxic and degenerate deck around them, people should be building for the fun of the game and those around them. Yes, winning is the goal, but would YOU enjoy being staxed out? Being focused out? Being wheeled out?
I am old enough to remeber rofels being banned as commander and everyone said it was terrible as commander because you could drop eldrazis turn 3. We were able to run it in the 99 though. we shpould deff bring back the baned as commander shit. It was dumb and lazy they ever took it away in the first place
Idk with legendary creatures I see little reason to only ban as commander when banning in totality does the trick
The thing with banning as commander is that certain cards being freely accessible and repeatable make the cards significantly more oppressive than if they were in the 99. Plus on top of that you won't be building the entire deck around that creature since you won't be consistently drawing them every game.
I.e. Nadu as commander you stack your deck with effects like shuko and lightning grieves to spam value. But Nadu in the 99 you're likely not going to build your entire deck with cheap do nothing cards that target repeatedly just to get value out of your Nadu if you draw him. He's still obviously going to be valuable in the 99 if you're putting him in, but he's not going to be anywhere near as oppressive as he is when he's sitting at the helm.
This is such a good video, very concise and easy to understand
In addition to “banned as commander”, I propose a “banned in 99” list.
There’s no reason Griselbrand should be banned as a commander but in the 99, he’s busted as hell.
Tergrid is absolutely fine in the format. If you see someone playing it, it is possible to walk away. The format has self-policed. It's too powerful for casual and too weak for competetive. The only time she's ever played is in the 99 as far as I'm concerned. EDHRec be darned, I don't believe most of the data on the site. It can be useful but I take deck popularity for cards as unpopular as Tergrid with a grain of salt. Most are probably only online decklists. I only know one person with a Tergrid deck and it's not his only deck. He has dozens of decks.
Me: "I assume, based on the paltry amount of bans you've introduced, that you meant to say that you don't want to confuse the community with multiple bannings?"
EDHRC "No, you heard correctly. Multiple banlists would confuse MTG players."
Me: "Da fuq, you say, good sir?!? There's like 17 formats already, and they all have their own banlist. Not to mention that CEDH shares a banlist with my kitchen table. PROVIDE US SOME CLARITY. IF "PLAYER EXPERIENCE" IS SO IMPORTANT, TELL PEOPLE THAT ALL THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF CASUAL EDH ACTUALLY FUCKING EXIST. WHAT DOES AN EDH BANLIST EVEN MEAN WHEN FUCKING WINTER ORB IS LEGAL??? DO. SOMETHING. PLEASE."
Grizzy B would be way worse than you think, especially as a commander and super needs to stay banned.
most of the format is about who can resolve a high mana value black spell that draws cards anyway, what changes?
@@featherfailing in the case of him getting unbanned and without banned as commander coming back the fact that you always have access to said spell. In case of him just getting banned as commander not that much besides giving them another good tutor target.
Golos should stay completely banned cause he’s not banned in brawl, and I want him banned there too
braids mentioned
It seems like you think cards are banned for their “power level”. Most of the cards on the ban list are pretty bad, they’re just “feel bads”. The commander committee really only cares about new players not “feel bad” and making sure commander at low power is 4 player solitude. Magic is probably one of the only card games where you can build a deck with hand disruption and stax (probably because it was originally made to be good rather than drive profits) if you don’t like that play a different game.
Kenrith is pretty much just golos 2.0
He is not that bad as a commander maybe it will be it will just have ppl use interaction right and run the right amount any deck that does can beat it i have been locked out with counters or kill spells its not that strong and can wif if u don't hit a land in a few turns
Saying we cant track it is insane and frankly ibsult to our intelligence.
Sure youll get newcomers who dont know that their sick erayo deck is illegal and that sucks but they A) That already happens if any single legend is banned at all, if they want to avoid that happebing the should never ban commanders B) If they come to an lgs and only have a Griselbrand deck (frankly griselbrand shouldmt be banned as a commander he should stay banned in the 99 only but I digress) I'm 100% confident they can work something out with the table, whether they continue that game with their commander, swap it out with a different commander or someone lends them a different deck, they'll figure something out c) in the absolute worst case scenario where the table is full of dicks and they refuse to compromise, that changes nothing because theyvwouod have done that if the commander was regular banned too and they probably would react ad poorly if the newbie only had an annoying or op commander like Urza that isnt illegal. d) There isn't really a case at all where somebody could stumble into a sanctioned comp event eith an illegal deck. If theyre going to a cedh tournament yhey arent just randomly stumbling in there they lnow the banlist it isnt their first rodeo.
Theres like 0 scenarios this makes any worse and about a billion games it makes better by virtue of letting people play more cards they want in decks, occasionally let people play cool commanders that are too problematic in the 99 (lutri lol) and also lets the rc ban some cards they sre hesistsnt to ban om them being bysted commanders alone while being tame in the 99. Its just all upside, the fsct they did away with it is absurd.
Anyways I'll start the video now see what you have to say.
Yes, it never should have been a thing
Ban Chulane for the same reasons as Golas but for bant. Braindead design.
For me, the confusion about banned as commander wasnt where the card belonged, but why they would be fine in one and. Not the other.
I could understand people wanting it back, and if it would lead to actual bans and not just a change that then means nothing except allowing degeneracy in the 99, but not the 100th, then I dont think it's worth splitting the banlist up like that.
Not super familiar with the banlist but Rofellos being banned is insane. THAT'S the ramp we're worried about? Even as commander, it's just doubling your mana? Green decks are already doing that in so many other ways.
Who are the official person and why do we keep on following these self labelled official persons???
The most broken commanders came from precons haha.
I just don’t see the point. The format was created to allow players to have fun and if your pod wants to play gross stuff like Tergrid or Braids as a commander then rule 0 it. Some people will always be Turds and ruin a game for new players, you don’t need Braids/Yuriko or name whatever to ruin someone’s game experience. Just don’t agree to play in a pod with Tergrid.
Absolutely
UNBAN EMMYYY
Rofellos doesn't deserve to be on the list tbh
I dont think they should bring back banned as commander just cuz there are tutors.
That's a terrible reason as good decks are allowed to exist
I really don't understand wotc reluctance with this one. Having a banned as commander list would likely help reintroduce some equity into some cards that can be used in the 99. The whole argument about complexity doesn't hold up against FIRE design
Oh this is an easy one, because wotc aren't the ones who control the banlist, the rules comittee works with but is seperate from them
Ban sol ring
"What is it? THE BRAIDS!?"
-Kendrick Lamar. euphoria. 2024.