Comments on: On Fire: Lurrus Burn https://www.quietspeculation.com/2020/05/on-fire-lurrus-burn/ Play More, Win More, Pay Less Wed, 06 May 2020 17:29:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: David Ernenwein https://www.quietspeculation.com/2020/05/on-fire-lurrus-burn/#comment-2130251 Wed, 06 May 2020 17:29:07 +0000 https://quietspeculation.com/?p=21621#comment-2130251 In reply to Dan W..

I’ll be exploring the fundamental question of the companions next week. The data’s still coming in, but the picture I have right now is somewhat ambiguous.

I’m actually not convinced that the companions are well designed for Standard and Limited. Standard have Keruga and Yorion in the same proportions that Modern has Lurrus. And in draft whoever builds around the companion generally wins. I personally think that some higher up looked at Commander, didn’t get why it’s so popular, and decided that everything must do the popular thing regardless of consequence.

Changing the rules or simply disallowing using the companion mechanic would be unprecedented. Swaths of cards have been banned before, but that’s because they referenced ante. I don’t know that Wizards would be willing to do something like that, even if I do think its the right call.

]]> By: Dan W. https://www.quietspeculation.com/2020/05/on-fire-lurrus-burn/#comment-2130250 Wed, 06 May 2020 17:03:35 +0000 https://quietspeculation.com/?p=21621#comment-2130250 If/when it is demonstrably proven that in eternal formats like Modern running a companion (whether integral to the deck’s design or not–I’m looking at something like Jegantha in humans or Niv-to-light) provides a statistical advantage, then I don’t see how a rule change could not be a mandate. An edge, however small, will warp competitive play around it. Right?

What I can’t wrap my head around is that Wizards didn’t seem to consider this while developing companions. While it seems like they designed these companion cards for standard and limited only–which I think is generally the right thing to do–here it came with a significant side effect: a fundamental change to how the game is played. Sure, it’s an optional change, but if a player doesn’t want to be at a disadvantage why wouldn’t he/she run one? I play Merfolk…I can run Lurrus without giving up much at all. Why would I not? (Which really irks me because Brazen Borrower was not cheap–particularly online.)

Which brings to mind an additional unintended consequence–the creation of a gulf within archetypes themselves. Companions essentially just created two versions of MANY decks, one that runs a companion and is more competitive and one that doesn’t and is less competitive. I think this rings true for A LOT of decks. Is this an issue? I don’t really know, but it seems like one. Would a rule change like the Davis suggestion fix it? I think it would help, but it wouldn’t eliminate the underlying problem which remains no matter what is done. Companions change the way constructed Magic is played. And this is what I believe most people are upset about.

]]>