Being that my original post in this thread was a direct opinion for the original posters topic, (which he then replied to agreeing with), and everything after was me replying to your derailing rant, I'd have to disagree. The topics I introduced here were all in response to your earlier spam.
The topic created is about speculating how the committee may handle changing the rules or what new rules may come. This doesn't mean an exclusive conversation regarding the vintage banlist.
We've already shared our opinions, so how's about we don't make this topic more uninviting for actual conversation.
I'm assuming NGW (as well as the other people who responded to you) just didn't notice that what you said was irrelevant. The topic title was about the upcoming bans, which are not going to include any updates to the commander rules - but will include updates for vintage that will potentially have downstream effects on commander. Nothing in the OP, title, or any other posts before yours says anything that would make your post relevant to the topic of this thread. And your post implies that breaking companion functionality in commander would fix this problem, which it does not. You can pretend you're justified if you must.
That said, you're 100% correct that I've also contributed to the derailing of this thread, and I'm just repeating myself anyway. So I'm going to stop.
The topic of this thread is about how the potential additions (most likely Lurrus) to the vintage banlist could have implications for commander, since we use "vintage legal cards" as the starting point for card legality.
How companions work in commander has nothing to do with that topic. Nothing whatsoever. You introduced it when it was irrelevant. You aren't adding to this thread. You're derailing it.
On top of which, you haven't added anything to previous conversations (on the unrelated topic of companions function in commander) except to restate your opinion with no additions or refinement. So yes, it gets fairly frustrating when you do nothing except keep repeating the same thing in increasingly inappropriate threads. If you want to talk about that topic, talk about it in the dedicated thread for that topic, and try to actually say something new instead of the same thing over, and over, and over...along with the half-dozen other people who keep saying the same thing. It's incredibly tedious.
Did you read what I wrote? Are you paying attention?
HOW COMPANION WORKS IN COMMANDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROBLEM. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
If Lurrus is banned in vintage, then the RC will have to decide whether to let him be banned in commander, or to go out of sync with the vintage banlist. Whether Lurrus can be used as a companion in commander is 100% irrelevant to that discussion. Whether Lutri is banned is also 100% irrelevant to that discussion.
Lutri is one card in 20,000, and not a very interesting one either, since as you point out Naru Meha and dualcaster exist. If you honestly feel that one not-particularly-interesting card getting banned is worth all this effort to whine about, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand you, at all. Especially if you're advocating a "banned as a companion" classification, in which case you wouldn't even be shortening the banlist, you'd just be lengthening it. BaaC is a waste of time because it doesn't simplify the banlist, it complicates it, and while some cards - erayo, braids, leovold - might be tolerable in the 99 they're not actually GOOD or FUN for the game. What's the point in making the rules MORE complicated to accommodate cards that are tolerable at best?
This format is not a competitive format. Do most companions probably lower your winrate overall? Probably. Is that a thing that matters when playing a casual format for fun?
Personally I'm psyched to try the companions out in multiple decks, even if it'll probably mostly just be silly. Complaining about how they aren't powerful enough just makes me think you don't understand the first thing about commander.
.....Why would you ban Yorion because of it being unable to work? That doesn't even make sense. It's already de-facto banned as a companion, why would you ban it elsewhere?
The fix for WHAT? THIS PROBLEM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW COMPANIONS WORK IN COMMANDER. How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you stop running to the same irrelevant argument? You're like that guy who will blame it on "the liberals" five times before he realizes that people are just asking what he wants for lunch. SMH...
I am kinda worried that all the obnoxious whining from change-averse crybabies will make the RC consider changing its mind. But I don't see any reason why, even if Lurrus gets banned in vintage, that would change anything about how companions work in commander. They're totally unrelated issues. Lurrus would still need to be considered separately.
It would be so much easier to just remove the companion mechanic from edh. Unban the otter and permit the legendary creatures to be used as commanders or in the 99 only. Clean and simple.
What are you even talking about? That doesn't fix this problem at all. The problem is that, since commander uses the vintage banlist, if lurrus gets banned in vintage he'll also become banned in commander, despite being a totally fine card here - whether he's available as a companion or not. It has nothing to do with how companions are used in commander. Even if they removed the option to use companions, if Lurrus is banned in vintage they'll still need to decide whether to keep using the vintage banlist or detach themselves from it to keep Lurrus legal as a commander and in the 99.
I'm so tired of this bashing against the companion mechanic. Is it problematic - to varying degrees - for every OTHER format? Sure. Commander is the one place where it's basically fine. Yet still you all whine. And you're all so excited to have another excuse to say "whoops, looks like it was a huge mistake!" that you didn't even realize that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOLVING THIS PROBLEM. You just immediately knee-jerk "oh, there's a problem that's companion is related to? MAKING COMPANIONS WORK IN COMMANDER WAS A MISTAKE! What was the problem again?"
If Lurrus gets fully banned in vintage (BaaC seems unlikely since there's no precedent for half-bans in other formats afaik), there are really only three options (as far as addressing that particular issue) for the RC:
-Lurrus gets banned despite being fine and cool.
-Detach themselves from the vintage banlist and just list out all those cards on their own like it does on the wotc banlist pages.
-Make an exception for Lurrus, like Shahrazad used to be (so, vintage banlist minus Lurrus).
It'd be a real shame if Lurrus wasn't available in commander. He's obviously problematic elsewhere, but he's good clean fun here. Obviously as a companion he's very far from overpowered. In the 99 he seems strong but fine. As a commander he seems pretty neat. Personally I've got an Ayli list with him as companion I'm dying to try out. It'd be pretty hilarious if he ended up banned before I could put him onto my playmat.
Interestingly, while the RC's website says vintage legal cards, WotC's site does not - instead it references the ante cards, the conspiracy cards, and then lists out the 2 manual dex cards and shahrazad individually. The pairing with the vintage banlist was always, imo, about conciseness and not about anything power-level-related, since all the other cards banned in vintage are banned for other reasons.
While I doubt wotc will break vintage so badly it need a ban very often, I think the RC might want to get ahead of the game and break away from the vintage banlist to prevent this becoming a bigger deal in the future.