(Lutri, the Spellchaser | Art By: Justine Mara Andersen)

In February 2006, the now-disbanded Rules Committee made a new rule for a very young format. Heartless Hidetsugu, Kaervek the Merciless, and Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind were all banned as commanders only. While they could not lead your deck, you could still play them in the 99. As the years passed, different legendary creatures went on and off this list.

After three years, in February 2014, the "banned only as commander" rule was eliminated, and Braids, Cabal Minion, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary became banned in the format, and so far, they have stayed there.

I wonder if they have remained for too long. Currently, there are ten legendary creatures banned in the format. I want to examine whether any of them should be the reason for bringing back the "banned only as commander" rule. Should they stay or go, or should some current creatures be added?

My name is Nick; this is Myth Realized - Should We Bring Back Banned Only As Commander?

The Otter Problem

One card on the banned list for Commander is unlike any other. It is not because it is possibly the cutest card on the banned list, but it is not specifically because it is the only card with the creature-type Otter. It is because it is the only card on the list with the rule text Companion.

This card has never seen the light of day in the commander format being banned before the release of Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths. So first, we need to take a look at Companion.

Companion

Ten companions came with the release of Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths. Each card has some restriction that allows you to play the card out of the sideboard of your deck once per game after meeting some deck-building restriction.

Only Yorion, Sky Nomad cannot be played as a companion in Commander due to it violating the inherited rules of the format, only allowing 100 (or if using a companion, 101) cards. With Commander having no sideboards, these cards all exist in the "companion zone."

The Companion mechanic, however, was possibly the most broken thing ever printed. This caused a laundry list of things related to these cards that had never been seen in the game's history.

Lurrus of the Dream-Den is banned in the Vintage format, which combats problem cards by restricting the number of individual cards you can play rather than banning them.

The most significant first-time change was that all of these cards got a post-release errata to how they worked. When these cards were reprinted as Multiverse Legends, they featured new rules and text following the word Companion.

It now would read: Companion — Each nonland card in your starting deck has a different name. (If this card is your chosen companion, you may put it into your hand from outside the game for  as a sorcery.)

While this did not change the ability to play Yorion, Sky Nomad in the Commander format, it did change some hearts and minds when it came to if Lutri, the Spellchaser and if it should finally see legality.

Spellchasing

With all the talk about what the Companion mechanic does, what exactly do we get out of Lutri regarding gameplay? We get a 3/2 Elemental Otter with Flash that costs and gives every deck in Blue or Red another copy of Dualcaster Mage.

Secretly, you get a "free" 101st card that would cost nothing regarding how you would build your deck to fulfill the Companion requirement that every Izzet-colored deck would play.

The restriction of "Each nonland card in your starting deck has a different name" would only not be doable if you played something like Dragon's Approach inside these colors.

Contrast this with a card like Zirda, the Dawnwaker, which has one of the more burdensome restrictions of all the Companions.

Izzet Spellslinger is one of the most popular ways to play both the Spellslinger strategy and the Izzet two-color combination, according to EDHrec. While it might be hyperbolic, I still feel safe to say that all of these decks would love to be able to add Lutri, the Spellchaser, as a Companion.

As a commander, Lutri would give Izzet an effect it has but is not often seen in the command zone. As previously mentioned, Dualcaster Mage is often seen to copy spells, but there is no shortage of options.

Burden of Proof

If the card's overall power is not the issue and the Companion requirement also shows no signs of breaking any format rules, why is this card now featuring an errata and not off the banned list?

The first reason is that it tips the format scales towards homogeneity. Izzet decks would be willfully powering themselves down by not playing Lutri, and it would make no sense to not slot this card into the Companion Zone of every deck within its colors.

Second, how exactly would you unban this card? Would you unban it like any other card? Should we ban it as a commander so it is only usable inside the 99 or as a companion? Or would you have to make yet another distinction, ban it as a companion, and decide if it can be your commander?

Logistically speaking, this card could burden the format too much to make freeing it from the banned list worth it. The card would be very good inside of Izzet decks, but with the errata to the Companion mechanic costing an extra , it would keep it in check enough to prevent it from running wild.

Yes, Otter No?

I would like to see this card off the list personally. I do not think it will ever be unless they outlaw the Companion mechanic altogether. If that happened, then this card would be free with no restrictions. Play it inside the 99 or as the deck commander with no problem. But that is just my opinion.

If it was unbanned, would you play Lutri, the Spellchaser? Do you think this card has a chance of being removed from the banned list? Let me know what you think about the adorable Otter. Stay tuned for a few more articles asking: Should We Bring Back Banned Only As Commander?