Lutri, the SpellchaserLutri, the Spellchaser | Art by Lie Setiawan

Lutri has been officially unbanned! Well, mostly. It's still banned as companion, but it's got no problem being someone's commander or in the 99. The Commander Format Panel (CFP) has finally decided that Lutri was worth creating a special "banned as X" list after six years of Lutri being categorically banned from Commander.

Officially, the panel has stated that Lutri is a unique case and doesn't mean they're planning on creating any more "banned as X" lists, such as "banned as commander"... but how likely is this going to stay the case? Let's discuss first why Lutri is such a unique ban/unban before diving deeper.

Lutri, the Underdo- I mean, Underotter

In 2020, Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths was released into Standard and introduced two notable game mechanics: mutate and companion. The two mechanics received heavy critique from players of all formats, both digital and paper, but companion was especially disliked. As if the Commander format wasn't receiving enough attention from WotC, now every format could technically run a "commander" that required their deck to follow certain rules.

Companion cards were essentially a free 8th card in every players' hand whose deck building "requirement" often demanded very little. Companions are still disfavorably viewed for their pushed designs even after their errata which requires players to pay at sorcery speed to put the companion into their hand from outside the game (often a player's sideboard) as a special action.

Jegantha, the WellspringJegantha, the Wellspring was banned in Pioneer and Modern; Lutri was banned in Commander; Lurrus of the Dream-DenLurrus of the Dream-Den was banned in Pioneer, Modern, Vintage (but was later only restricted due to companion's errata), and Legacy; Yorion, Sky NomadYorion, Sky Nomad was banned in Modern (due to "dexterity issues"); and Zirda, the DawnwakerZirda, the Dawnwaker was banned in Legacy.

Half of all current companions in existence are banned in formats they are eligible to be played in. Clearly, they needed more time in Research and Design's oven before being printed.

But for Lutri specifically, its banning wasn't necessarily due to pushed design alone. As Gavin Verhey puts it, "Lutri itself is far from too strong of a card in a game of Commander. However, the problem is that if Lutri is legal as a companion, every deck for the rest of time that has a blue-red color identity should have Lutri as a companion. There is absolutely no downside to doing so."

Long before the CFP's inception, the Commander Advisory Group (CAG) worked with WotC's Commander Rules Committee when banning cards. These two groups had wrestled for quite some time about introducing additional ban lists like "banned as commander/companion/insert-category-here" but had held to keeping just one ban list.

Verhey was involved with the original decision to keep Lutri banned, but now that we have the Brackets and Verhey speaks for a larger panel that tries to work diligently with players directly, the panel has decided that now is the best time for Lutri to be reintroduced into the format.

Players already are getting comfortable with Brackets and Game Changers and other categories like Mass Land Denial, so what's the harm in adding a simple exception for Lutri?

The (Potential) Harm

Lutri itself has never been a problem for Commander, nor do I believe it ever will be. It's a legendary Dualcaster MageDualcaster Mage that only copies your own instants/sorceries. Nothing game breaking (or should I say... game changing??), so much so that Lutri is moving directly from being banned to being playable as your commander and in the 99 instead of receiving honorary Game Changer status for some time like other unbanned cards.

The CFP outright tells us "[not to] take this to mean we're likely to implement a banned-as-commander list in the future. This is a unique case and solution for an otter people have been waiting for."

But, let's be real. The discussion surrounding "banned as X" has existed for many years and will only be reinvigorated by Lutri's unbanning. After all, we now have two official ban lists: the original ban list and the "banned as companion" list.

The introduction of the Brackets saw similar arguments as to why new lists designating where certain cards can be played or not would unduly confuse players and create unnecessary struggles when deckbuilding. Before the Brackets, players had the one and only ban list to review. Now, players need to remember the ban list, the "banned as companion" list, the Game Changers list, and make an effort to abide by Brackets expectations like No Mass Land Denial, No Chaining Extra Turns, No Early Two-Card Combos, don't win before turn X, etc.

Lutri was the exception to the longstanding disdain from the original Rules Committee for additional ban lists due to, as Verhey puts it, "the failure case here [being] minimal." If someone doesn't realize Lutri's banned as a companion, the remedy is as simple as not playing Lutri as a companion.

This is different than a card being banned as a commander, in which case someone who doesn't realize this and builds a deck around a banned commander is very likely left with a stack of 99 cards and nothing to replace their commander with, and if they can find a legal replacement for their commander, it's likely a poor substitute.

Also, companion isn't expected to be explored in depth anytime soon, so Lutri will most likely remain the only card to be added to the "banned as companion" list for a long time, if not forever.

The fact remains that the CFP has shown numerous times now that they are willing to expand beyond Commander's ban list, first with Game Changers, then with Bracket expectations/sub-categories, and now with an additional ban list. Sure, they may claim that they aren't looking to add more ban lists today, but their actions have set the precedent to expect more addendums to what cards are considered banned and how such cards ought to be played.

Opening the Door to Even More “Ban” Lists

It's my genuine belief that the CFP will not just create more "banned as X" lists, but specifically a banned as commander list. The CFP has demonstrated a heavy motivation from player input when it comes to bans/unbans, changes to the Bracket system, even fundamental changes to Commander as a whole.

Ignoring for a moment additional ban lists would pose coding problems for digital Magic platforms and focusing solely on the concept, I believe that the CFP will make such decisions if they find enough player feedback to justify their decision.

Not that taking such feedback is bad; rather the CFP seems to exhibit an over-reliance on player input. So many of Verhey's articles discussing the CFP's decisions cite player data and feedback as a foundational argument as to make one choice over another.

"Should (card name) be banned? Here's what players are saying..." "Should hybrid mana be considered differently when it comes to color identity? Here's the feedback we've received..." Only a few times can I remember Verhey explicitly stating the CFP would be going against a majority public opinion, such as whether Sol RingSol Ring should be banned or the first few times Game Changers were added.

In these cases, the CFP's rationale was more fact-driven and focused on logical arguments (though we may disagree with those arguments) than player input. Yes, the CFP ought to consider player feedback and we're very fortunate that they've gone to such lengths to abide by our input. It's still the case that it appears they're relying too heavily on this input to make decisions.

I would be much more convinced one way or another if the CFP made a decision regarding banned as commander founded in reason and defensible argumentation rather than "many players wanted X choice, so we're doing it."

For example, if the CFP recognized that they've created a large precedent for adding more "banned as X" lists or other similar categories, I'd be much more confident in their authority over the format, regardless of whether or not I agree with their decision. I believe many of us would appreciate the CFP setting clear and concise expectations regarding their vision for the format as opposed to garnering favor from players by acknowledging our thoughts and feelings.

I've said before that the CFP is the best authority figure Commander players have ever had thus far, and I stand by my praise for the team and their hard work. I also believe many of us agree there's significant room for improvement, and it seems Lutri has once again become the center of a much larger problem.

Who knows? Maybe they'll dabble with planeswalkers as commanders first and similar changes before building up towards additional ban lists. I certainly hope not.

But what do you think? How do you feel about Lutri's unbanning? What are your thoughts on the CFP allowing exceptions like Lutri to the rules? Do you think additional ban lists are worthwhile?

I hope this article is helpful in discussing the CFP and the logic behind bans/unbans, addendums to Game Changers/sub-categories, and the Brackets at large. Find me on BlueSky at @ajwicker4.bsky.social, I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are.

Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!