It always amuses me that these concern trolls assume the RC is made up of some group of random people rather than WotC employees and high-level judges.
Public Mod Note
(bobthefunny):
Warning: Flaming/Trolling
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
Sorry for taking as long as I have getting back to you. I didn't mean to ignore your response. Writing is just a pretty involved process for me and typically takes me a good chunk of time, time that I haven't been able to spend until just recently.
At the root it is that independence from WotC that I think causes my problem. Look at how WotC was handling stores running proxy Legacy tournaments. Proxies are not a copyright violation, they are not trying to be passed off as original creations or sold for profit, but WotC will remove you from the WPN if your store runs these. Calling Proxy Legacy a "homebrew format" does not somehow excuse it from WotC policy. The same should apply to Commander. WotC should encourage the RC to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience.
I really don't know what to say here. I mean, yeah, you can call proxy legacy a homebrew format and that would be true. That would be a homebrew format. It isn't much of a homebrew, but it is one. If Wizards wants to reprimand stores for hosting proxy legacy tournaments, they can do that. They have that power, just like they could reprimand stores for anything else they want. I don't see the issue here.
You're saying that you think Wizards should encourage the Rules Committee to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience, but I don't really understand what you mean by that. What do you mean by normalize? Commander is already reaching a broad audience.
I'm confused here, so you do see problems but don't think the RC could help them by changing the way they manage the format?
Man. So, this is a rather complicated question to answer. I suppose if I had to answer with one word: yes. I do see problems with EDH, and I don't think the Rules Committee can do much of anything to mitigate those problems. What problems am I talking about specifically? Well, I wouldn't really call them problems. I'd call them limitations.
EDH is a mod of Magic, and being a mod of any game tends to come with a lot of limitations. In EDH's case, its designers had to craft the format in such a way that past, present, and future Magic cards would play nicely with it. Why? Because those designers don't work at Wizards of the Coast. They can't create cards to suit their needs, and the cards Wizards already printed aren't going to retroactively change. If lots of Magic cards didn't play well in EDH because its designers didn't craft EDH to play much like Magic, EDH would be broken. Not broken like overpowered. I mean broken as in the format wouldn't function properly. Too many Magic cards just wouldn't play correctly. As such, the format must suit the cards. As a format, EDH does a really good job of making most Magic cards compatible, but differences between ordinary Magic and EDH have still led to some undesirable outcomes regardless, outcomes that would have never occurred had EDH been its own independent card game rather than a mod.
Serra Ascendant is one example that immediately comes to mind. I think everyone will agree with me when I say that a turn one 6/6 flying lifelinker isn't something EDH wants. Nonetheless, it's something that the format has to deal with because Wizards hardcoded the card to work in ordinary Magic. EDH is full of these kinds of cards, and there's nothing that can really be done about it. To list a few more off the top of my head, Sorin Markov sets life to 10 rather than halving it, myojins don't enter the battlefield with a divinity counter when cast from the command zone, and Armageddon downright exists. The volume of undesirable effects resulting from EDH's modhood is undeniably numerous, and the amount of bans and erratas necessary to patch all of these resulting problems would be untenable. Fortunately, not all of these problems are as bad as Serra Ascendant, and players have shown remarkable restraint when it comes to playing most of these cards, proving that players can generally be trusted to enforce good gameplay at a local level.
As far as I can tell, the best way for the Rules Committee to manage their format is by continuing to do what they already do: educate the public, and encourage social games over competitive ones. EDH can't be balanced like traditional Magic formats because it's a mod, so the only way for players to get great games of Commander is to ultimately entrust one another with policing the spirit of the format themselves. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but there really isn't any other viable alternative because, from a rules perspective alone, EDH is just too different from regular Magic. It would need to completely divorce itself from Magic to be the best at what it wants to be and that just isn't going to happen.
As you'll see above, I think it would be better for the RC to come together and establish a set of concrete criteria for banning cards, then move on to the individual problem cards.
As Lou often points out, there is a big inconsistency between the Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk having a separate fate. Additionally, no one ever talks about how Boonweaver Giant will function exactly like Hulk with regards to combos (it even requires the same G/W or G/W/B to combo). The only thing that Hulk does better than Boonweaver is have a fair value use, and that is the argument to keep T&N unbanned. In my mind, a good format would not need the weird jumps in logic in order to have this outcome on 3 similar cards.
I've put a lot of thought into what criteria I believe the Rules Committee should use for determining whether or not a card is ban-worthy, and the conclusion I reached is that, for a card to be ban-worthy, it needs to be causing significant harm to the format. For a thorough explanation, check out my posts in the Limited Resources thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I don’t know what it is about the law that everyone believes that unqualified speculation counts for something.
The key fact that has changed between pre-Commander EDH years and now is that WOTC is now deriving commercial benefit from goods sold under a registered Trademark. So even with no competing claims on the IP directly, there are all sorts of grounds for a possible injunction against someone co-opting that property – tortious interference, trademark tarnishment, various conversion theories, etc.
Broadly speaking, the law is not favorable toward a third party deriving commercial benefit (direct or indirect) by telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner. Those are not very common grounds for suit, but it shouldn’t really be that hard of a call from gut-feeling standpoint. WOTC is highly interested in the safekeeping of the Commander format.
Before you start going off about unqualified speculation, you should probably understand the subject. WotC has no control over Elder Dragon Highlander. It is currently a defunct format with a different rule set than Commander. In many ways, it is very similar to Duel Commander, which WotC does nothing to stamp out, and quite honestly cannot. WotC can not dictate to you how to use their product, nor can they stop people from giving out advice on how to use their product. If the RC tried to make money off of EDH, then WotC would have standing, but obviously as they did not previously make money off of EDH, and do not currently make money off of Commander, they probably aren't going to try to make money off of a hypothetical split. For them it has always been about maintaining a fun, casual format that they think is a great way to play the game, and then posting their decisions so that other people can do the same.
Is the Duel Commander rule committee "telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner"? You think WotC would win a lawsuit against them? Do you think Disney could win a lawsuit against groups or websites that promote watching the Star Wars movies in the Machete Order? Please, make that argument, it'll be funny.
The fact is, without a commercial interest and without impersonating the property in some way (such as by trying to use a copyrighted name), you are just giving your opinion and the U.S. government is restrained by the First Amendment from stopping you.
Oh, and you legally can make a business around telling everyone that the seller of an IP is doing it wrong, to the detriment of the IP owner. Have you ever read a negative review for a movie, game, or *gasp* mtg set? All of those criticize the IP holder and damage the value they can get from the IP, but unlike negative reviews or anti-corporate blogs or humor magazines that rag on a specific IP as a go to joke, fan formats (like EDH pre commander, Duel Commander, Frontier, insert custom format here) actually can increase sales for the IP holder, so the argument that a fan format that requires people to purchase an IP product from the IP holder in order to play is somehow detrimental to the IP holder is laughable.
Maybe you missed the point that if a split occurred and the RC revived EDH, EDH and Commander would be two separate formats? Outside of the fact that WotC probably isn't dumb enough to waste money on a case they'd lose, they could just ignore EDH the way they ignore Duel Commander, and that's most likely what they would do.
Edit: And this is the last bit I care to discuss this subject, because I realize its getting far off the topic of the banlist.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Serra Ascendant is one example that immediately comes to mind. I think everyone will agree with me when I say that a turn one 6/6 flying lifelinker isn't something EDH wants.
You could replace Serra Ascendant with Sol Ring. Would everyone still agree with you? Just as they did with Sol Ring, the apologists will say Serra Ascendant can be easily dealt with in a multiplayer setting.
"My friend Tony had a t1 Serra Ascendant but he didn't win. So your point is moot."
Serra Ascendant is one example that immediately comes to mind. I think everyone will agree with me when I say that a turn one 6/6 flying lifelinker isn't something EDH wants.
You could replace Serra Ascendant with Sol Ring. Would everyone still agree with you? Just as they did with Sol Ring, the apologists will say Serra Ascendant can be easily dealt with in a multiplayer setting.
"My friend Tony had a t1 Serra Ascendant but he didn't win. So your point is moot."
Why do you use "apologist" to describe those that don't share your same opinion? I know it's the flavor of the week(year), but it really doesn't apply here. I don't think any rational EDH player, which is most, would ever say that Serra Ascendant isn't a broken EDH rules bender. However, its only good early, and I've seen players skip a mulligan to hold a land, this, and a bunch of chaff just to have it die to Doom Blade after a single swing, if it even got that far, and then promptly fall behind the rest of the table for some or most of the remaining play-time.
You could replace Serra Ascendant with Sol Ring. Would everyone still agree with you? Just as they did with Sol Ring, the apologists will say Serra Ascendant can be easily dealt with in a multiplayer setting.
"My friend Tony had a t1 Serra Ascendant but he didn't win. So your point is moot."
I'm not sure what I said that prompted you to make this response, but yes, you could replace Serra Ascendant with Sol Ring in this example and still have it prove true. I haven't read through the Sol Ring thread, so I'm ignorant to the kinds of arguments being made there, but I would hope everyone there is in universal agreement regarding Sol Ring being undesirable for EDH. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean Sol Ring deserves to be banned. The criteria for being undesirable in EDH should be different than the criteria for being ban-worthy. All I'm trying to conveying through my Serra Ascendant example is that several Magic cards create undesirable gameplay in EDH due to EDH being a mod of Magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
However, its only good early, and I've seen players skip a mulligan to hold a land, this, and a bunch of chaff just to have it die to Doom Blade after a single swing
However, its only good early, and I've seen players skip a mulligan to hold a land, this, and a bunch of chaff just to have it die to Doom Blade after a single swing
I've also seen the Ascendant get countered by Force of Will, but that's significantly -EV compared to countering a Sol Ring.
No, I'll just run plain old efficient removal instead of incredibly narrow answers that are only good if drawn in the opening hand.
If any card in this format forces me to run Mental Misstep, I'd suggest it be banned. Seriously. I'd run it in duel, Burt never in traditional. It belongs in playgroups outside of the RC's scope.
What I find interesting is that almost all of those were cards that could have been on the BaaC before it got removed. Had you ever discussed them as potential additions, especially the older ones like Arcum and Zur?
What I find interesting is that almost all of those were cards that could have been on the BaaC before it got removed. Had you ever discussed them as potential additions, especially the older ones like Arcum and Zur?
Possibly Arcum since it seems reasonable that we would have talked about it, but not that I specifically recall.
I'm sorry, but that Prossh thing?
The "easy commander KO" is more damning than all his crazy interactions with Purphoros, God of the Forge, Earthcraft, Grave Pact and god knows what else? I'm not even including Food Chain there because Spikes gonna Spike and all that but there are SO MANY things that make Prossh threatening and obnoxiously hard to deal with, and you point towards the commander damage as the real threat? I...I can't...
Okay, and another thing. Why is Leovold perfectly fine "managed by social contract" but Braids isnt? Braids locks out a lot less often as Leovold does and has a lot less options too, but somehow Leovold is perfectly fine being managed by social contract but Braids isnt?
I don't get this article Sheldon. I really don't. And I figure it's best being blunt about it. In general I think the banlist is in a reasonable place, but some of the arguments in this article...to say it made me raise an eyebrow is a wee understatement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
I'm not sure I follow the logic in this article. How does BaaC lead to cascading bans in the 99?
A thousand times this. There's really no reason why reinstating Banned as a Commander would affect the current 99-banned list at all. If you don't want to add a dozen-plus cards to the Banned as a Commander list (because that is realistically what you'd need to cover just the worst of the worst) just say so.
The logic is that organizationally you make all the painful changes at once instead of spreading them out. Bringing back BaaC wouldn't necessarily lead to cascading or expanded bans, but it would be the time to do it if we had the inclination.
The logic is that organizationally you make all the painful changes at once instead of spreading them out. Bringing back BaaC wouldn't necessarily lead to cascading or expanded bans, but it would be the time to do it if we had the inclination.
Maybe I am not following you correctly, but are you implying that if BaaC would happen, then the concern is you'd make too many changes at once?
Maybe I am not following you correctly, but are you implying that if BaaC would happen, then the concern is you'd make too many changes at once?
I think what he was saying is that in this hypothetical scenario where the RC decided to bring back the BaaC list, the only way it would have any justification is if it were to be a much larger list. They would also take this opportunity to make large changes to the main list at the same time. To rip the Band-Aid off, as it were, on any cards which may have been otherwise questionable one way or the other.
Maybe I am not following you correctly, but are you implying that if BaaC would happen, then the concern is you'd make too many changes at once?
I think what he was saying is that in this hypothetical scenario where the RC decided to bring back the BaaC list, the only way it would have any justification is if it were to be a much larger list. They would also take this opportunity to make large changes to the main list at the same time. To rip the Band-Aid off, as it were, on any cards which may have been otherwise questionable one way or the other.
But the correct time to do this would be sooner rather than later, because "ripping the bandaid off" after it's been there for longer without peeling is going to hurt more. Though they could just use a slower strategy on this front and unban/ban problems 1-by-1 or few-by-few.
Yeah, cryogen got it right. Again, this was a thought experiment, not a plan or even foreshadowing. There is no current plan to bring back BaaC or institute major changes to our Banned List.
Good. There are minor tweaks that I would make, but nothing drastic is needed. I don't even miss the BaaC list or tuck rule. I disagree with the changes as an older player that was used to them, but I don't miss them anymore.
Yeah, cryogen got it right. Again, this was a thought experiment, not a plan or even foreshadowing. There is no current plan to bring back BaaC or institute major changes to our Banned List.
I didn't think there was any intention behind the thought excercise, I was just trying to get clarity on what you were saying. Thanks cryogen/Sheldon.
Personally, I'd be a fan of the BaaC list returning and going back to how it was before the list was removed - I think all the legendaries that are banned right now would not be major issues as one of the 99 in a given deck. It was the repeated access to the card as a commander that made them cross over that threshold of being troublemakers.
I really don't know what to say here. I mean, yeah, you can call proxy legacy a homebrew format and that would be true. That would be a homebrew format. It isn't much of a homebrew, but it is one. If Wizards wants to reprimand stores for hosting proxy legacy tournaments, they can do that. They have that power, just like they could reprimand stores for anything else they want. I don't see the issue here.
You're saying that you think Wizards should encourage the Rules Committee to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience, but I don't really understand what you mean by that. What do you mean by normalize? Commander is already reaching a broad audience.
Man. So, this is a rather complicated question to answer. I suppose if I had to answer with one word: yes. I do see problems with EDH, and I don't think the Rules Committee can do much of anything to mitigate those problems. What problems am I talking about specifically? Well, I wouldn't really call them problems. I'd call them limitations.
EDH is a mod of Magic, and being a mod of any game tends to come with a lot of limitations. In EDH's case, its designers had to craft the format in such a way that past, present, and future Magic cards would play nicely with it. Why? Because those designers don't work at Wizards of the Coast. They can't create cards to suit their needs, and the cards Wizards already printed aren't going to retroactively change. If lots of Magic cards didn't play well in EDH because its designers didn't craft EDH to play much like Magic, EDH would be broken. Not broken like overpowered. I mean broken as in the format wouldn't function properly. Too many Magic cards just wouldn't play correctly. As such, the format must suit the cards. As a format, EDH does a really good job of making most Magic cards compatible, but differences between ordinary Magic and EDH have still led to some undesirable outcomes regardless, outcomes that would have never occurred had EDH been its own independent card game rather than a mod.
Serra Ascendant is one example that immediately comes to mind. I think everyone will agree with me when I say that a turn one 6/6 flying lifelinker isn't something EDH wants. Nonetheless, it's something that the format has to deal with because Wizards hardcoded the card to work in ordinary Magic. EDH is full of these kinds of cards, and there's nothing that can really be done about it. To list a few more off the top of my head, Sorin Markov sets life to 10 rather than halving it, myojins don't enter the battlefield with a divinity counter when cast from the command zone, and Armageddon downright exists. The volume of undesirable effects resulting from EDH's modhood is undeniably numerous, and the amount of bans and erratas necessary to patch all of these resulting problems would be untenable. Fortunately, not all of these problems are as bad as Serra Ascendant, and players have shown remarkable restraint when it comes to playing most of these cards, proving that players can generally be trusted to enforce good gameplay at a local level.
As far as I can tell, the best way for the Rules Committee to manage their format is by continuing to do what they already do: educate the public, and encourage social games over competitive ones. EDH can't be balanced like traditional Magic formats because it's a mod, so the only way for players to get great games of Commander is to ultimately entrust one another with policing the spirit of the format themselves. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but there really isn't any other viable alternative because, from a rules perspective alone, EDH is just too different from regular Magic. It would need to completely divorce itself from Magic to be the best at what it wants to be and that just isn't going to happen.
I've put a lot of thought into what criteria I believe the Rules Committee should use for determining whether or not a card is ban-worthy, and the conclusion I reached is that, for a card to be ban-worthy, it needs to be causing significant harm to the format. For a thorough explanation, check out my posts in the Limited Resources thread.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Before you start going off about unqualified speculation, you should probably understand the subject. WotC has no control over Elder Dragon Highlander. It is currently a defunct format with a different rule set than Commander. In many ways, it is very similar to Duel Commander, which WotC does nothing to stamp out, and quite honestly cannot. WotC can not dictate to you how to use their product, nor can they stop people from giving out advice on how to use their product. If the RC tried to make money off of EDH, then WotC would have standing, but obviously as they did not previously make money off of EDH, and do not currently make money off of Commander, they probably aren't going to try to make money off of a hypothetical split. For them it has always been about maintaining a fun, casual format that they think is a great way to play the game, and then posting their decisions so that other people can do the same.
Is the Duel Commander rule committee "telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner"? You think WotC would win a lawsuit against them? Do you think Disney could win a lawsuit against groups or websites that promote watching the Star Wars movies in the Machete Order? Please, make that argument, it'll be funny.
The fact is, without a commercial interest and without impersonating the property in some way (such as by trying to use a copyrighted name), you are just giving your opinion and the U.S. government is restrained by the First Amendment from stopping you.
Oh, and you legally can make a business around telling everyone that the seller of an IP is doing it wrong, to the detriment of the IP owner. Have you ever read a negative review for a movie, game, or *gasp* mtg set? All of those criticize the IP holder and damage the value they can get from the IP, but unlike negative reviews or anti-corporate blogs or humor magazines that rag on a specific IP as a go to joke, fan formats (like EDH pre commander, Duel Commander, Frontier, insert custom format here) actually can increase sales for the IP holder, so the argument that a fan format that requires people to purchase an IP product from the IP holder in order to play is somehow detrimental to the IP holder is laughable.
Maybe you missed the point that if a split occurred and the RC revived EDH, EDH and Commander would be two separate formats? Outside of the fact that WotC probably isn't dumb enough to waste money on a case they'd lose, they could just ignore EDH the way they ignore Duel Commander, and that's most likely what they would do.
Edit: And this is the last bit I care to discuss this subject, because I realize its getting far off the topic of the banlist.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
"My friend Tony had a t1 Serra Ascendant but he didn't win. So your point is moot."
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Why do you use "apologist" to describe those that don't share your same opinion? I know it's the flavor of the week(year), but it really doesn't apply here. I don't think any rational EDH player, which is most, would ever say that Serra Ascendant isn't a broken EDH rules bender. However, its only good early, and I've seen players skip a mulligan to hold a land, this, and a bunch of chaff just to have it die to Doom Blade after a single swing, if it even got that far, and then promptly fall behind the rest of the table for some or most of the remaining play-time.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Or get countered by Mental Misstep, which people should run and hope to have in opening hand anyways to respond to Sol Ring, Sensei's Divining Top, Skullclamp, Burgeoning, or any other powerful, commonly played 1 drop.
I've also seen the Ascendant get countered by Force of Will, but that's significantly -EV compared to countering a Sol Ring.
No, I'll just run plain old efficient removal instead of incredibly narrow answers that are only good if drawn in the opening hand.
If any card in this format forces me to run Mental Misstep, I'd suggest it be banned. Seriously. I'd run it in duel, Burt never in traditional. It belongs in playgroups outside of the RC's scope.
What I find interesting is that almost all of those were cards that could have been on the BaaC before it got removed. Had you ever discussed them as potential additions, especially the older ones like Arcum and Zur?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Possibly Arcum since it seems reasonable that we would have talked about it, but not that I specifically recall.
The "easy commander KO" is more damning than all his crazy interactions with Purphoros, God of the Forge, Earthcraft, Grave Pact and god knows what else? I'm not even including Food Chain there because Spikes gonna Spike and all that but there are SO MANY things that make Prossh threatening and obnoxiously hard to deal with, and you point towards the commander damage as the real threat? I...I can't...
Okay, and another thing. Why is Leovold perfectly fine "managed by social contract" but Braids isnt? Braids locks out a lot less often as Leovold does and has a lot less options too, but somehow Leovold is perfectly fine being managed by social contract but Braids isnt?
I don't get this article Sheldon. I really don't. And I figure it's best being blunt about it. In general I think the banlist is in a reasonable place, but some of the arguments in this article...to say it made me raise an eyebrow is a wee understatement.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
I think what he was saying is that in this hypothetical scenario where the RC decided to bring back the BaaC list, the only way it would have any justification is if it were to be a much larger list. They would also take this opportunity to make large changes to the main list at the same time. To rip the Band-Aid off, as it were, on any cards which may have been otherwise questionable one way or the other.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But the correct time to do this would be sooner rather than later, because "ripping the bandaid off" after it's been there for longer without peeling is going to hurt more. Though they could just use a slower strategy on this front and unban/ban problems 1-by-1 or few-by-few.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Personally, I'd be a fan of the BaaC list returning and going back to how it was before the list was removed - I think all the legendaries that are banned right now would not be major issues as one of the 99 in a given deck. It was the repeated access to the card as a commander that made them cross over that threshold of being troublemakers.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar