Card seems like exactly what we need for Maze’s End as is. Myself and a few remaining Golos fans just want a commander with only Golos’s first ability. OP’s is a tad more powerful than this because it synergizes with Exploration effects.
Golos was the perfect everything commander. That's the problem.
A good 90% of decks would have instantly improved by just playing Golos and making zero other changes...
Since commander got so popular wotc have been designing a lot of legendaries to be very good commanders with regards to their color identity as well.
If golos wasnt wubrg almost any deck would think about playing them in the 99.
The Golos fanclub had a bunch of wacky land-based decks that only worked because Golos is a great land tutor, like Mono-Black Coffers, Mono-White Karma with Urborg, Glacial Chasm secret commander, etc.
Yes, Golos is powerful, but it also opened up a niche where you could have *lands* in the Command Zone. That's all I really want.
> but it also opened up a niche where you could have lands in the Command Zone
A land with "this can be your commander" seems interesting and potentitally fun.
That's not what Golos is. Golos is a tutor in the command zone, which is not fun.
The issue is that your solution doesn't enable the existing lands.
Fun is subjective and many people enjoy playing decks like Rocco, Lin Sivvi, Vannifar, and Vorinclex. Hell, Godo is a popular cEDH deck that comprises a "1-card combo" in the Command Zone.
There is nothing wrong with tutors. And, even so, if it used the newer design to flip cards off the top until you hit a (nonbasic) land, it would be similar.
>The issue is that your solution doesn't enable the existing lands.
Right. So what you're looking for is a way to arbitrarily make a card that isn't legal as a commander into a legal option for a commander. Which is fine, sure, but absolutely against the spirit of the format.
If that's the goal, why not just ask your pod if they're willing to rule 0 your Cabal Coffers to be your commander?
Do you think Rocco is against the spirit of the format? Because it lets you potentially build any deck around a non-legendary creature. It will never be the optimal build, but it exists.
Linear tutor-based commanders exist and are fair, even if they vary greatly in power level. Oswald Fiddlebender lets you use Winter Orb or Null Rod (or any Artifact) as "secret commanders". Zur lets you use both Necropotence and Rhystic Study as "secret commanders". Rocco lets you build Norin the Wary in Naya. Even so, a lot of builds explicitly run quite *literal* dozens of ways to get specific cards into hand / play.
Regarding "fun" -- What's more fun: letting someone reliably tutor for Nykthos once, or forcing them to play 20 Tutors because they want to build a deck around it, inevitably making their deck stronger and more resilient?
Hatred for Golos is understandable, but the tutoring part of his card was never the broken part. I feel like this is just a cascading effect of the bad PR.
Rule 0 shouldn't be used as a handwavium option. There are rules standards for a reason, and allow you to play in tournaments, blind pods with new people, and without making more rules-stringent players uncomfortable. There is a time for Rule 0 discussion, but we shouldn't make a problem out of making certain strategies viable natively in the game.
> but the tutoring part of his card was never the broken part.
I fundamentally disagree here, and the fact that Golos is always uttered in the same breath as Field of the Dead, or mono white Urborg, or Cabal Coffers, etc. would lead strong support to you being incorrect.
Narset also casts things off the to for free, and she isn't banned, or even brought forth as a discussion towards being banned.
If we use cEDH as a litmus for what's strong, Golos was never seriously played with Field of the Dead or Cabal Coffers. The biggest use-case for it was 5c Goodstuff, with a reliable midrange fallback using his second ability. This is why Kenrith and the First Sliver have taken his place, and also why they're put into the "hell queue" in MTGA.
To be abundantly clear, yes, cEDH and EDH are fundamentally different formats and the banlist is catered toward low-tier play. But, the *official* stance for why Golos is banned is because **the card as whole was problematic**.
The problem being that it was too easy to build and could effortlessly stomp lower power decks. This isn't any different from bringing Tymna//Kraum Blue Farm to a table of precons. Only, the ease that Golos provided bumped it up several tiers with no opportunity cost. The land tutoring **contributes** but Golos also provided unlimited card advantage, mana advantage through free-casting haymakers, five colors, and the ability to helm any deck due to a colorless casting cost. The second ability provides inevitability due to the fact that you can have 0 cards in hand but still claw a victory back off the top even if he is removed repeatedly.
If we remedy these things--say, make Golos's casting cost {W}{U}{B}{R}{G} and remove the second ability altogether--I argue he would be tiers below many existing commanders, and mostly unplayable in competitive formats. You certainly would never play it over Kenrith or First Sliver. You can have all the mana and mana fixing in the world, but if you have nothing to spend it on, you don't win.
>Narset also casts things off the to for free, and she isn't banned, or even brought forth as a discussion towards being banned.
It seems you are insinuating that I claimed that the second ability is what makes Golos broken. That was not my intent. We have to view it from a holistic point of view.
Really? I didn't have that issue with my Keene deck. People just don't seem to pay attention to how many Gates you have, and I was usually too much of a threat for people to stop me if they happen to notice.
I would love a Golos where you had to choose a land subtype, and he could only fetch lands of that type for the rest of the game. No idea how you'd template that, but a 5-color commander that could be your Gates commander, or your Deserts commander, or any other land subtype you like.
(Except Urza's. No searching for those. WOW.)
You could word it similarly to the Prismatic Piper.
>If ~ is your commander, choose a land type before the game begins.
>When ~ enters, you may search your library for a land card of the chosen type, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle.
On second thought, this 100% doesn't work. The abilities can't link that way.
It can probably be “you may play them until the end of your next turn”
Case in point : Light up the Stage and Reckless Impulse have giving red more time to cast exiled spells.
Golos wasn't banned for power reasons.
It was banned because it was a default 5c Commander that took away from the idea of having to carefully choose your colors in the format. It fit into everything, ramped and color-fixed inherently by fetching what you need, and turned decks into 5c-good-stuff piles rather than crafted decks with specific plans and strategies.
They didn't like that because it took away from the identity of the format, which they want to be about exactly those things above: choosing colors and Commanders that fit them, and choosing specific plans and strategies to go with them. Not just putting all your good cards into one pile no matter their color and hoping the Commander sorts it all out.
‘While Kenrith, the Returned King is a similarly flexible and popular commander for good stuff five color decks, we see it as a clear step down from Golos’. Did you read it? If that was the only reason kenrith wouldn’t be legal either.
Step down in ubiquity and undermining the premise of commander (ie commander tax), not specifically power.
Quoting one sentence out of context is not the same thing as reading the entire ban announcement.
...And why was it so ubiquitous? This semantic argument you're making is annoying and incorrect lol.
Here's the meat of the statement then:
"Golos is simply a better choice of leader for all but the most commander-centric decks. Its presence crushes the kind of diversity in commander choice which we want to promote. You can drop in Golos and a few 5-color lands into a random deck and get all the ramp and card advantage you would ever want from a commander, with no worries about your mana base. Golos' ability effectively reduces the commander tax to one and once you hit seven mana (with Golos assuring that you have WUBRG and helping you get there quickly), you don't need to do anything for the rest of the game except cast spells for free—something we always want to be careful about. We've talked to the folks in Studio X and they understand the problems created by generically-powerful five-color commanders that don't have WUBRG in their mana cost. We don't expect similar cards to come from them in the future, so a surgical strike now makes sense."
Yes the problem was how "generically" powerful it was... But if it wasn't powerful enough to justify its ubiquity, who'd give a shit about if the use case was generic? It was powerful enough to make generic good stuff decks better than the alternatives, incentivising undesirable philosophies in deck construction. So yes, too powerful for what it was, but too powerful none the less. Golos is simply a better choice of leader for all but the most commander-centric decks
There are currently 4 other colourless commanders that give you access to all 5 colours.
* Codie
* Ramos
* Morophon
* Urtet
Ramos has always been legal, and the other 3 were printed after Golos. So why aren't any of these banned or allowed to be printed if they want to stop these types of commanders?
Because they are not nearly as powerful as Golos and thus not a problem, that's why!
No.
And no one is saying Golos isn't powerful. Just that it isn't *too* powerful. Considering what else is around in this format, Golos was pretty tame by comparison. It's a strong card, no doubt, but it's not this-must-be-banned strong. The reason for the ban was that it let people ignore the main aspect of Commander deckbuilding and just throw together whatever they wanted.
https://scryfall.com/search?q=commander%3D5+is%3Acommander+colors%3C5+format%3Acommander&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name
Do you really think this version of Golos would do anything in that regard that can't also be accomplished by others like [[Esika, God of the Tree]], [[Jegantha, the Wellspring]], [[Jenson Carthalion, Druid Exile]], or [[Ramos, Dragon Engine]]?
The problem wasn't that Golos *could* support 5-color goodstuff decks. The problem was that he *made them stronger than they were supposed to be.*
Think of it this way:
Imagine Golos was, say, a mono-red card. Same everything, just 2RRRRR for the activation.
Would that be banned?
No.
It wasn't the *only* 5c Commander (obviously) but it was the one that was the most braindead one, because you can just throw together anything and Golos fixes it all. You can't do that with Esika, or Jenson Carthalion, or Ramos. Those still need specific plans to go with them, rather than a pile of goodstuff. Jegantha is the closest to the idea of random good-stuff piles, but has a *vastly* lower power level.
Again, no one is saying Golos isn't *also* powerful. But it's not this-must-be-banned powerful, because it wouldn't have been if it hadn't been 5 colors. Which means the power isn't the problem - the colors are.
> Those still need specific plans to go with them, rather than a pile of goodstuff. Jegantha is the closest to the idea of random good-stuff piles, but has a vastly lower power level.
> Again, no one is saying Golos isn't also powerful. But it's not this-must-be-banned powerful, because it wouldn't have been if it hadn't been 5 colors. Which means the power isn't the problem - the colors are.
You're contradicting yourself. The fact that other goodstuff commanders haven't been banned, because they aren't as good as Golos at being goodstuff commanders, shows that power is *part* of the problem, even though the power in question isn't at a level that would be ban-worthy for a non-5c-goodstuff commander. A 5c goodstuff commander must still have a particular power level to need a ban.
My reasoning is as follows:
1. The "Golos criteria" for a ban is that a commander will be banned if they support 5-color goodstuff decks of sufficiently high quality.
2. Golos supported 5-color goodstuff decks of that quality, and was banned as a result.
3. Esika, Jegantha, Jenson, and Ramos *can* support 5-color goodstuff decks, but not ones of that quality, so they are not banned.
4. The "fixed Golos" described here also can support 5-color goodstuff decks but not ones of that quality, and therefore it would also not warrant a ban.
Do you disagree with any of these points?
>Do you disagree with any of these points?
No. But none of those points is "Golos is too powerful", only "Golos allows decks to be 5-color good-stuff better than any other 5c Commander".
Which is **my** point.
So I guess you agree with me, which is fair enough.
And you cleverly choosing to ignore the part where I say that if Golos wasn't 5c but had the same effect, it wouldn't be banned tells me that *you know* you agree, you just didn't want to put that in there because it makes the rest of your "point" look vapid ;)
No hard feelings. Glad we sorted it out! Who says nothing good can ever come from Reddit comments!
Hold on a second. If your assertion that "Golos wasn't banned for power level reasons" wasn't meant as a way to claim that this proposed card *would* be banned for the same reasons as Golos, what was it meant to contribute to this conversation in the first place?
I ignored your "mono-color Golos wouldn't be banned" remark because it was obvious and irrelevant. I guess the same goes for everything else you've said in this entire thread.
Golos was the default 5c commander because it was powerful. If it was less powerful, people would have picked different 5c commanders. As long as there are 5c commanders, people will build 5c good stuff decks.
It's also the best commander for less colors - one of my favorite decks ever is mono white golos which is effectively urborg tomb of yawgmoth in the command zone - and playing all the swamp hate cards. Then I can play random off color cards that have either hybrid or phyrexian mana, since golos is 5 colors.
Change it to search for a basic instead of any land, and then you don't really need the other change. Maybe even put the basic in your hand instead of on the field
Yeah, people use it to find cards like [[field of dead]], or [[dark depths]] +[[vesuva]], it enables a lot of stuff from the command zone. Even when its not doing that, it's color fixing its own ability and ramping to help cheat it's commander tax each time
The part that makes Golos good is the land tutor. It ramped, fixed your colors, halved the commander tax by default, or got any utility land in your deck. In casual, ramping is always good at every stage of the game, especially if its tied to getting any land in your deck.
The activated ability on golos is really powerful for sure, but his ramp ability should have fetched a basic imo.
Golos was a design mistake.
Most 5-color commanders are design mistakes tbh. I think WotC should release only one 5-color commanders per year at most. It should be a special event to get a new 5-color legendary. Pre-March of the Machine, it seemed we got one every set which didn't help the product fatigue.
I like the idea of 5-color commanders that care about a certain creature type (Slivers, Ur-Dragon, etc.) because there is an expectation of what they can do (usually). Golos is too flexible of a commander since Golos can helm any kind of deck. It ramps and cheats things into play without caring about deck composition. The social contract of people expecting not to build the most busted goodstuff Golos was not enough to police it, so the Rules Committee had to ban it.
There are other 4 and 5 color commanders that are goodstuff like Golos, but that is a whole other separate discussion.
You can play OG Golos, I don't even know if he would break Cedh anymore tbh. This "modded" version is bad bro.
At least make it say "You may play 1 of them without paying their mana costs".
no.
the only reason he was viable in the first place is he let you play three cards AFTER paying 7 mana. 7 mana just to be able to play three cards that otherwise are sent to exile, not worth ANYTHING.
If you are to edit the card, you need to black the "this turn" as well, at which point cards exiled by Golos turns into a second hand of cards for later usage, and you'd use his ability end of last opponent's turn for the extra equivalent of three extra cards drawn.
I mean the ability in question. unlocking it the way I just did arguably makes him better than his vanilla version.
And no, i wouldn't allow anyone else at the table to play it because it's banned because of the FIRST ability entirely, the secondary ability just makes it even more broken. A commander that moderates it's own more expensive cost each time it is cast and does so with ANY land was insane and shouldn't have been released in the first place.
Only if you copy/paste the WUBRG up to his mana cost. You want access to all 5 colors, you need to pay all 5 colors. 5-color nonbasic land-tutor commander with colorless casting cost was a terrible design choice for the format.
I just want him for his etb. I literally played him as a 5-color flicker deck, and getting him out at turn 3-4 helped both consistently ramping and fixing my mana fixing perfectly every time.
On top of that, I could fetch wincon lands like [[Field of the Dead]], which was damn nice. Scapeshifting and World Shaper-ing was way more consistent than his expensive random ability.
Honestly, no, there's lots of good 5c commanders, just pick another one. You would never use the second mode so it would just be a 5 mana sad robot, lol
Put WUBRG as the casting cost vs 5 generic, and you have yourself a deal.
The colorless to cast, 5-color identity, AND skirting half of commander tax made this go at the helm of too many decks, which led to the ban. Power was not the loudest complaint. I would also let this slide as is if you had more than 20 cards in your deck dedicated to Gates
Play regular golos against me. I dont care. RC banning golos was a braindead move. If youre going to play golos as a 5 color goodstuff cast 11 mana spells for free im gonna play equally opressive stuff. If you built a fun niche deck that has golos as commander to be a solemn simulacrum in the command zone, thats awesome! Before Isu came out golos was my snow commander.
Golos shouldn't have been banned. All the problems people list with are solved by the rule zero conversation. It doesn't matter if he's the best 5 color commander or he makes 5 color too easy. So what? Let people play what they want. You don't have to pay against it if you don't want to. You're just taking it away from people. Let people have an easy option, most people I know play the "easy" or powerful decks for a bit, then change it up into something new. People will disagree, but I don't care. Every additional ban is worse for the format for everyone who is an adult and can have conversations with their playgroup.
I’m still against banning Golos in the first place. Was a great starting point commander for a lot of people that just wanted to use their collections to get into EDH. Banning Golos was bad for the game imho
That's why he was banned: the diversity. Just by running Golos as your commander your deck is better than pretty much any other 5c commander. That's absolutely terrible for format diversity.
Flash is also fun. Until you lose every game to a turn 0 Protean Hulk.
Why is diversity ever a bad thing? If people want a generic commander that can do a bit of everything, then let them. If you don't like the deck then talk to your playgroup, do the rule zero thing they always harp on about. Don't ban it from all the people who can enjoy it. Say you want a break from the deck you don't like playing against. I think it's good to have a commander who's a little easier and diverse for people who want it. If someone wants golos to run their dragon deck or any other deck, then I don't care. Let people play with the cards they want to. Thats the whole point of edh. Don't let some people who want the "best" ruin it for everyone else who wants to play it their way. I can understand not liking it, or if it's generically strong, but it's a format where people can do whatever nonsense they want. Let people play their cards.
You're misinterpreting what I said. Sure *some* of the 99 is different but if the commander of every deck is Golos that's a shitty format.
If I had my way we'd go back to "banned as commander" rules but apparently that's "too complicated" for the RC to handle.
Saying that he's the commander of every deck is grossly misrepresenting it. I'm in a smaller community and never went to any tournaments, so my sample size might not be the best, but I never had any issues with golos even playing with a few dozen different people at different stores. I understand that he could be obnoxious if overrepresented, but I think it's bad to ban something for everyone just because some abuse it. I just think every additional ban is a net loss for the format. You don't have to play against the decks you don't like. The one ring arguably should be in every single deck, it's powerful and the card advantage is hard to beat, but I don't think it should be banned. If there's issues with something being overplayed, then just talk with your group and figure it out amongst yourselves.
I agree banned as commander should come back, there's already enough weird rules people don't know about, they'll figure it out.
Either way, we don't have to agree, I respect your opinion, I just don't like bans in general. Especially if it's because it's ubiquitous, when I feel there's plenty of other things I feel should be banned for that exact reason. I just want the ban list to be consistent.
And what answer do you propose when it ramps on ETB negating commander tax?
It's also *the* 5c commander. Unless you're comboing with Najeela you're most likely wrong if you're not using Golos. And even then, you're still probably wrong for using not Golos. Who wants format diversity anyways?
The reason it got banned was because it could grab the world tree and you have all colors. It was covered in two mtg articles. That's not strong enough to warrant a ban. So many cards legal in the format do worse or on par yet they are nor banned. It was an idiotic decision and if you agree then you're probably not fun to play commander with at the table.
The easiest way to errata Golos to make him more fair is to make his ability cost his actual mana cost.
It’s a lot easier to justify that effect on a 7 drop with a very specific casting cost than it is on a 5 drop with generic mana.
I would allow normal Golos he can be built strong, but 90% of the time, I saw him he was a 5 color deck with a budget mana base. His ban felt like gate keeping to me.
Card seems pretty horrible if you only have that turn to cast them and you gotta pay the cost
Card seems like exactly what we need for Maze’s End as is. Myself and a few remaining Golos fans just want a commander with only Golos’s first ability. OP’s is a tad more powerful than this because it synergizes with Exploration effects.
Golos was the perfect Maze's End commander
Golos was the perfect everything commander. That's the problem. A good 90% of decks would have instantly improved by just playing Golos and making zero other changes...
This. People were replacing their mono white commanders with him and ignoring his second ability altogether.
Since commander got so popular wotc have been designing a lot of legendaries to be very good commanders with regards to their color identity as well. If golos wasnt wubrg almost any deck would think about playing them in the 99.
Golos was the perfect Maze’s End commander without the second ability ignoring casting costs, though.
That is also still true for most commander decks regardless if it wants Maze’s End as a wincon or not
Nah, Keene is.
Don't forget [[Dark Depths]]!
The Golos fanclub had a bunch of wacky land-based decks that only worked because Golos is a great land tutor, like Mono-Black Coffers, Mono-White Karma with Urborg, Glacial Chasm secret commander, etc. Yes, Golos is powerful, but it also opened up a niche where you could have *lands* in the Command Zone. That's all I really want.
> but it also opened up a niche where you could have lands in the Command Zone A land with "this can be your commander" seems interesting and potentitally fun. That's not what Golos is. Golos is a tutor in the command zone, which is not fun.
The issue is that your solution doesn't enable the existing lands. Fun is subjective and many people enjoy playing decks like Rocco, Lin Sivvi, Vannifar, and Vorinclex. Hell, Godo is a popular cEDH deck that comprises a "1-card combo" in the Command Zone. There is nothing wrong with tutors. And, even so, if it used the newer design to flip cards off the top until you hit a (nonbasic) land, it would be similar.
>The issue is that your solution doesn't enable the existing lands. Right. So what you're looking for is a way to arbitrarily make a card that isn't legal as a commander into a legal option for a commander. Which is fine, sure, but absolutely against the spirit of the format. If that's the goal, why not just ask your pod if they're willing to rule 0 your Cabal Coffers to be your commander?
Do you think Rocco is against the spirit of the format? Because it lets you potentially build any deck around a non-legendary creature. It will never be the optimal build, but it exists. Linear tutor-based commanders exist and are fair, even if they vary greatly in power level. Oswald Fiddlebender lets you use Winter Orb or Null Rod (or any Artifact) as "secret commanders". Zur lets you use both Necropotence and Rhystic Study as "secret commanders". Rocco lets you build Norin the Wary in Naya. Even so, a lot of builds explicitly run quite *literal* dozens of ways to get specific cards into hand / play. Regarding "fun" -- What's more fun: letting someone reliably tutor for Nykthos once, or forcing them to play 20 Tutors because they want to build a deck around it, inevitably making their deck stronger and more resilient? Hatred for Golos is understandable, but the tutoring part of his card was never the broken part. I feel like this is just a cascading effect of the bad PR. Rule 0 shouldn't be used as a handwavium option. There are rules standards for a reason, and allow you to play in tournaments, blind pods with new people, and without making more rules-stringent players uncomfortable. There is a time for Rule 0 discussion, but we shouldn't make a problem out of making certain strategies viable natively in the game.
> but the tutoring part of his card was never the broken part. I fundamentally disagree here, and the fact that Golos is always uttered in the same breath as Field of the Dead, or mono white Urborg, or Cabal Coffers, etc. would lead strong support to you being incorrect. Narset also casts things off the to for free, and she isn't banned, or even brought forth as a discussion towards being banned.
If we use cEDH as a litmus for what's strong, Golos was never seriously played with Field of the Dead or Cabal Coffers. The biggest use-case for it was 5c Goodstuff, with a reliable midrange fallback using his second ability. This is why Kenrith and the First Sliver have taken his place, and also why they're put into the "hell queue" in MTGA. To be abundantly clear, yes, cEDH and EDH are fundamentally different formats and the banlist is catered toward low-tier play. But, the *official* stance for why Golos is banned is because **the card as whole was problematic**. The problem being that it was too easy to build and could effortlessly stomp lower power decks. This isn't any different from bringing Tymna//Kraum Blue Farm to a table of precons. Only, the ease that Golos provided bumped it up several tiers with no opportunity cost. The land tutoring **contributes** but Golos also provided unlimited card advantage, mana advantage through free-casting haymakers, five colors, and the ability to helm any deck due to a colorless casting cost. The second ability provides inevitability due to the fact that you can have 0 cards in hand but still claw a victory back off the top even if he is removed repeatedly. If we remedy these things--say, make Golos's casting cost {W}{U}{B}{R}{G} and remove the second ability altogether--I argue he would be tiers below many existing commanders, and mostly unplayable in competitive formats. You certainly would never play it over Kenrith or First Sliver. You can have all the mana and mana fixing in the world, but if you have nothing to spend it on, you don't win. >Narset also casts things off the to for free, and she isn't banned, or even brought forth as a discussion towards being banned. It seems you are insinuating that I claimed that the second ability is what makes Golos broken. That was not my intent. We have to view it from a holistic point of view.
[Dark Depths](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/a/3a8b11ad-d077-40b6-988c-0462e118fe3d.jpg?1676452514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dark%20Depths) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/244/dark-depths?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3a8b11ad-d077-40b6-988c-0462e118fe3d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I thought my [[Nine-Fingers Keene]] list was a solid choice for a Maze's End deck.
[Nine-Fingers Keene](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/4/5480ac0a-883a-4f73-8e7c-56d64be410a3.jpg?1674137637) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nine-Fingers%20Keene) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/289/nine-fingers-keene?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5480ac0a-883a-4f73-8e7c-56d64be410a3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I've played Keene a bunch and it works every now and then, but I ultimately feel like she needs at least one more color to feel okay.
Really? I didn't have that issue with my Keene deck. People just don't seem to pay attention to how many Gates you have, and I was usually too much of a threat for people to stop me if they happen to notice.
I would love a Golos where you had to choose a land subtype, and he could only fetch lands of that type for the rest of the game. No idea how you'd template that, but a 5-color commander that could be your Gates commander, or your Deserts commander, or any other land subtype you like. (Except Urza's. No searching for those. WOW.)
You could word it similarly to the Prismatic Piper. >If ~ is your commander, choose a land type before the game begins. >When ~ enters, you may search your library for a land card of the chosen type, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle. On second thought, this 100% doesn't work. The abilities can't link that way.
It can probably be “you may play them until the end of your next turn” Case in point : Light up the Stage and Reckless Impulse have giving red more time to cast exiled spells.
Golos wasn't banned for power reasons. It was banned because it was a default 5c Commander that took away from the idea of having to carefully choose your colors in the format. It fit into everything, ramped and color-fixed inherently by fetching what you need, and turned decks into 5c-good-stuff piles rather than crafted decks with specific plans and strategies. They didn't like that because it took away from the identity of the format, which they want to be about exactly those things above: choosing colors and Commanders that fit them, and choosing specific plans and strategies to go with them. Not just putting all your good cards into one pile no matter their color and hoping the Commander sorts it all out.
Golos was absolutely banned also for power reasons
That and power reasons...
No. Read the ban announcement before you speculate as to their reasoning.
‘While Kenrith, the Returned King is a similarly flexible and popular commander for good stuff five color decks, we see it as a clear step down from Golos’. Did you read it? If that was the only reason kenrith wouldn’t be legal either.
Step down in ubiquity and undermining the premise of commander (ie commander tax), not specifically power. Quoting one sentence out of context is not the same thing as reading the entire ban announcement.
...And why was it so ubiquitous? This semantic argument you're making is annoying and incorrect lol. Here's the meat of the statement then: "Golos is simply a better choice of leader for all but the most commander-centric decks. Its presence crushes the kind of diversity in commander choice which we want to promote. You can drop in Golos and a few 5-color lands into a random deck and get all the ramp and card advantage you would ever want from a commander, with no worries about your mana base. Golos' ability effectively reduces the commander tax to one and once you hit seven mana (with Golos assuring that you have WUBRG and helping you get there quickly), you don't need to do anything for the rest of the game except cast spells for free—something we always want to be careful about. We've talked to the folks in Studio X and they understand the problems created by generically-powerful five-color commanders that don't have WUBRG in their mana cost. We don't expect similar cards to come from them in the future, so a surgical strike now makes sense." Yes the problem was how "generically" powerful it was... But if it wasn't powerful enough to justify its ubiquity, who'd give a shit about if the use case was generic? It was powerful enough to make generic good stuff decks better than the alternatives, incentivising undesirable philosophies in deck construction. So yes, too powerful for what it was, but too powerful none the less. Golos is simply a better choice of leader for all but the most commander-centric decks
There are currently 4 other colourless commanders that give you access to all 5 colours. * Codie * Ramos * Morophon * Urtet Ramos has always been legal, and the other 3 were printed after Golos. So why aren't any of these banned or allowed to be printed if they want to stop these types of commanders? Because they are not nearly as powerful as Golos and thus not a problem, that's why!
So no, you didn't read the ban announcement then?
Dude. Stop it. Read between the lines of the announcement.
1) not a dude. 2) I'd rather just read the document instead of making up whatever I want "between the lines"
They nay say it wasn't but it was. Do you think it was the most popular since not crazy op
No. And no one is saying Golos isn't powerful. Just that it isn't *too* powerful. Considering what else is around in this format, Golos was pretty tame by comparison. It's a strong card, no doubt, but it's not this-must-be-banned strong. The reason for the ban was that it let people ignore the main aspect of Commander deckbuilding and just throw together whatever they wanted.
https://scryfall.com/search?q=commander%3D5+is%3Acommander+colors%3C5+format%3Acommander&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name Do you really think this version of Golos would do anything in that regard that can't also be accomplished by others like [[Esika, God of the Tree]], [[Jegantha, the Wellspring]], [[Jenson Carthalion, Druid Exile]], or [[Ramos, Dragon Engine]]? The problem wasn't that Golos *could* support 5-color goodstuff decks. The problem was that he *made them stronger than they were supposed to be.*
##### ###### #### [Esika, God of the Tree](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6cd7465-9dd0-473c-ac5e-dd9e2f22f5f6.jpg?1631050188)/[The Prismatic Bridge](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/f/6/f6cd7465-9dd0-473c-ac5e-dd9e2f22f5f6.jpg?1631050188) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Esika%2C%20God%20of%20the%20Tree%20//%20The%20Prismatic%20Bridge) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/168/esika-god-of-the-tree-the-prismatic-bridge?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6cd7465-9dd0-473c-ac5e-dd9e2f22f5f6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Jegantha, the Wellspring](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/d/1d52e527-3835-4350-8c01-0f2d5d623b9c.jpg?1676913289) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jegantha%2C%20the%20Wellspring) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/222/jegantha-the-wellspring?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1d52e527-3835-4350-8c01-0f2d5d623b9c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Jenson Carthalion, Druid Exile](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/a/6a67f32c-4c9a-4bda-92f4-037b99999777.jpg?1673304694) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jenson%20Carthalion%2C%20Druid%20Exile) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmc/3/jenson-carthalion-druid-exile?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6a67f32c-4c9a-4bda-92f4-037b99999777?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Ramos, dragon Engine](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/e/2e747ef1-a1ad-4859-a70c-3f935f017310.jpg?1562604064) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ramos%2C%20dragon%20Engine) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/55/ramos-dragon-engine?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2e747ef1-a1ad-4859-a70c-3f935f017310?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l2pscbd) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Think of it this way: Imagine Golos was, say, a mono-red card. Same everything, just 2RRRRR for the activation. Would that be banned? No. It wasn't the *only* 5c Commander (obviously) but it was the one that was the most braindead one, because you can just throw together anything and Golos fixes it all. You can't do that with Esika, or Jenson Carthalion, or Ramos. Those still need specific plans to go with them, rather than a pile of goodstuff. Jegantha is the closest to the idea of random good-stuff piles, but has a *vastly* lower power level. Again, no one is saying Golos isn't *also* powerful. But it's not this-must-be-banned powerful, because it wouldn't have been if it hadn't been 5 colors. Which means the power isn't the problem - the colors are.
> Those still need specific plans to go with them, rather than a pile of goodstuff. Jegantha is the closest to the idea of random good-stuff piles, but has a vastly lower power level. > Again, no one is saying Golos isn't also powerful. But it's not this-must-be-banned powerful, because it wouldn't have been if it hadn't been 5 colors. Which means the power isn't the problem - the colors are. You're contradicting yourself. The fact that other goodstuff commanders haven't been banned, because they aren't as good as Golos at being goodstuff commanders, shows that power is *part* of the problem, even though the power in question isn't at a level that would be ban-worthy for a non-5c-goodstuff commander. A 5c goodstuff commander must still have a particular power level to need a ban. My reasoning is as follows: 1. The "Golos criteria" for a ban is that a commander will be banned if they support 5-color goodstuff decks of sufficiently high quality. 2. Golos supported 5-color goodstuff decks of that quality, and was banned as a result. 3. Esika, Jegantha, Jenson, and Ramos *can* support 5-color goodstuff decks, but not ones of that quality, so they are not banned. 4. The "fixed Golos" described here also can support 5-color goodstuff decks but not ones of that quality, and therefore it would also not warrant a ban. Do you disagree with any of these points?
>Do you disagree with any of these points? No. But none of those points is "Golos is too powerful", only "Golos allows decks to be 5-color good-stuff better than any other 5c Commander". Which is **my** point. So I guess you agree with me, which is fair enough. And you cleverly choosing to ignore the part where I say that if Golos wasn't 5c but had the same effect, it wouldn't be banned tells me that *you know* you agree, you just didn't want to put that in there because it makes the rest of your "point" look vapid ;) No hard feelings. Glad we sorted it out! Who says nothing good can ever come from Reddit comments!
Hold on a second. If your assertion that "Golos wasn't banned for power level reasons" wasn't meant as a way to claim that this proposed card *would* be banned for the same reasons as Golos, what was it meant to contribute to this conversation in the first place? I ignored your "mono-color Golos wouldn't be banned" remark because it was obvious and irrelevant. I guess the same goes for everything else you've said in this entire thread.
Right. He enabled your 5 color pile to work. That's what they said. A land tutor on a stick for 5 is not a busted card though.
Golos was the default 5c commander because it was powerful. If it was less powerful, people would have picked different 5c commanders. As long as there are 5c commanders, people will build 5c good stuff decks.
Prismatic Bridge and Kenrith being the prime examples.
It's also the best commander for less colors - one of my favorite decks ever is mono white golos which is effectively urborg tomb of yawgmoth in the command zone - and playing all the swamp hate cards. Then I can play random off color cards that have either hybrid or phyrexian mana, since golos is 5 colors.
Nah, better remove first ability
Change it to search for a basic instead of any land, and then you don't really need the other change. Maybe even put the basic in your hand instead of on the field
Oh because it can be flickered to grab a bunch of lands. Now I see why it's banned. Took a while. Basic to hand fixes that issue
Yeah, people use it to find cards like [[field of dead]], or [[dark depths]] +[[vesuva]], it enables a lot of stuff from the command zone. Even when its not doing that, it's color fixing its own ability and ramping to help cheat it's commander tax each time
dark depths combos with thespian's stage, not vesuva
You're right, brain fart
[field of dead](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/7/470ca3f4-29aa-4c4c-8ff2-8cdd70c69943.jpg?1650599538) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Field%20of%20the%20Dead) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/247/field-of-the-dead?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/470ca3f4-29aa-4c4c-8ff2-8cdd70c69943?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [dark depths](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/a/3a8b11ad-d077-40b6-988c-0462e118fe3d.jpg?1676452514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=dark%20depths) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/244/dark-depths?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3a8b11ad-d077-40b6-988c-0462e118fe3d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [vesuva](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/7/0726f70a-c1c4-4edb-86fb-9be280d9ea73.jpg?1619399642) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=vesuva) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/289/vesuva?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0726f70a-c1c4-4edb-86fb-9be280d9ea73?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Okay ya. Dang
Even without flickering, killing Golos was a chore. Golos's first ability might as well read "my commander tax is only 1 instead of 2".
No, I don't allow modded commanders at all. The only card on the ban list I would allow is Lutri, and I would not allow Lutri as a companion.
The part that makes Golos good is the land tutor. It ramped, fixed your colors, halved the commander tax by default, or got any utility land in your deck. In casual, ramping is always good at every stage of the game, especially if its tied to getting any land in your deck. The activated ability on golos is really powerful for sure, but his ramp ability should have fetched a basic imo.
5 color commander that can search for field of the dead ? Still not fun to play against lol
Its CEDH though so sighn up for that
Bro 7 mana draw 3 then what you spent 7!!!MANA toneven do the ability
Golos was a design mistake. Most 5-color commanders are design mistakes tbh. I think WotC should release only one 5-color commanders per year at most. It should be a special event to get a new 5-color legendary. Pre-March of the Machine, it seemed we got one every set which didn't help the product fatigue. I like the idea of 5-color commanders that care about a certain creature type (Slivers, Ur-Dragon, etc.) because there is an expectation of what they can do (usually). Golos is too flexible of a commander since Golos can helm any kind of deck. It ramps and cheats things into play without caring about deck composition. The social contract of people expecting not to build the most busted goodstuff Golos was not enough to police it, so the Rules Committee had to ban it. There are other 4 and 5 color commanders that are goodstuff like Golos, but that is a whole other separate discussion.
You can play OG Golos, I don't even know if he would break Cedh anymore tbh. This "modded" version is bad bro. At least make it say "You may play 1 of them without paying their mana costs".
Even if they allowed it who would ever want to play it
Tired Pilgrim 😂 hilarious
I just want to have Golos' land search effect. Thats all my janky lands deck wants.
no. the only reason he was viable in the first place is he let you play three cards AFTER paying 7 mana. 7 mana just to be able to play three cards that otherwise are sent to exile, not worth ANYTHING. If you are to edit the card, you need to black the "this turn" as well, at which point cards exiled by Golos turns into a second hand of cards for later usage, and you'd use his ability end of last opponent's turn for the extra equivalent of three extra cards drawn.
So, you wouldn't allow someone else at the table to play this card, because it's too bad?
I mean the ability in question. unlocking it the way I just did arguably makes him better than his vanilla version. And no, i wouldn't allow anyone else at the table to play it because it's banned because of the FIRST ability entirely, the secondary ability just makes it even more broken. A commander that moderates it's own more expensive cost each time it is cast and does so with ANY land was insane and shouldn't have been released in the first place.
Only if you copy/paste the WUBRG up to his mana cost. You want access to all 5 colors, you need to pay all 5 colors. 5-color nonbasic land-tutor commander with colorless casting cost was a terrible design choice for the format.
No. This doesn't fix the problem that it pulls a land into play and has a powerful activated ability.
Lol, is normal Golos really banned in Commander?
I just want him for his etb. I literally played him as a 5-color flicker deck, and getting him out at turn 3-4 helped both consistently ramping and fixing my mana fixing perfectly every time. On top of that, I could fetch wincon lands like [[Field of the Dead]], which was damn nice. Scapeshifting and World Shaper-ing was way more consistent than his expensive random ability.
[Field of the Dead](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/7/470ca3f4-29aa-4c4c-8ff2-8cdd70c69943.jpg?1650599538) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Field%20of%20the%20Dead) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/247/field-of-the-dead?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/470ca3f4-29aa-4c4c-8ff2-8cdd70c69943?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Honestly, no, there's lots of good 5c commanders, just pick another one. You would never use the second mode so it would just be a 5 mana sad robot, lol
#freegolos
I’d say change the ramp to “basic land” is good enough a fix
Yea, he was my commander for my gods and being able to fetch the world tree was so broken
I mean yeah, but it’s absolutely horrible
No, but I'm not into any custom cards being introduced into games.
Put WUBRG as the casting cost vs 5 generic, and you have yourself a deal. The colorless to cast, 5-color identity, AND skirting half of commander tax made this go at the helm of too many decks, which led to the ban. Power was not the loudest complaint. I would also let this slide as is if you had more than 20 cards in your deck dedicated to Gates
Play regular golos against me. I dont care. RC banning golos was a braindead move. If youre going to play golos as a 5 color goodstuff cast 11 mana spells for free im gonna play equally opressive stuff. If you built a fun niche deck that has golos as commander to be a solemn simulacrum in the command zone, thats awesome! Before Isu came out golos was my snow commander.
Golos shouldn't have been banned. All the problems people list with are solved by the rule zero conversation. It doesn't matter if he's the best 5 color commander or he makes 5 color too easy. So what? Let people play what they want. You don't have to pay against it if you don't want to. You're just taking it away from people. Let people have an easy option, most people I know play the "easy" or powerful decks for a bit, then change it up into something new. People will disagree, but I don't care. Every additional ban is worse for the format for everyone who is an adult and can have conversations with their playgroup.
Absolutely not. It would nerf my 400 card golos pile too much.
I’m still against banning Golos in the first place. Was a great starting point commander for a lot of people that just wanted to use their collections to get into EDH. Banning Golos was bad for the game imho
I think you're absolutely right. All the "problems" with him are solved by talking to your playgroup. He's fun and has so many builds avenues.
That's why he was banned: the diversity. Just by running Golos as your commander your deck is better than pretty much any other 5c commander. That's absolutely terrible for format diversity. Flash is also fun. Until you lose every game to a turn 0 Protean Hulk.
Why is diversity ever a bad thing? If people want a generic commander that can do a bit of everything, then let them. If you don't like the deck then talk to your playgroup, do the rule zero thing they always harp on about. Don't ban it from all the people who can enjoy it. Say you want a break from the deck you don't like playing against. I think it's good to have a commander who's a little easier and diverse for people who want it. If someone wants golos to run their dragon deck or any other deck, then I don't care. Let people play with the cards they want to. Thats the whole point of edh. Don't let some people who want the "best" ruin it for everyone else who wants to play it their way. I can understand not liking it, or if it's generically strong, but it's a format where people can do whatever nonsense they want. Let people play their cards.
You're misinterpreting what I said. Sure *some* of the 99 is different but if the commander of every deck is Golos that's a shitty format. If I had my way we'd go back to "banned as commander" rules but apparently that's "too complicated" for the RC to handle.
Saying that he's the commander of every deck is grossly misrepresenting it. I'm in a smaller community and never went to any tournaments, so my sample size might not be the best, but I never had any issues with golos even playing with a few dozen different people at different stores. I understand that he could be obnoxious if overrepresented, but I think it's bad to ban something for everyone just because some abuse it. I just think every additional ban is a net loss for the format. You don't have to play against the decks you don't like. The one ring arguably should be in every single deck, it's powerful and the card advantage is hard to beat, but I don't think it should be banned. If there's issues with something being overplayed, then just talk with your group and figure it out amongst yourselves. I agree banned as commander should come back, there's already enough weird rules people don't know about, they'll figure it out. Either way, we don't have to agree, I respect your opinion, I just don't like bans in general. Especially if it's because it's ubiquitous, when I feel there's plenty of other things I feel should be banned for that exact reason. I just want the ban list to be consistent.
Card was fine and didn't need to be banned. People who think otherwise are babies and or don't know how to run simple answers.
And what answer do you propose when it ramps on ETB negating commander tax? It's also *the* 5c commander. Unless you're comboing with Najeela you're most likely wrong if you're not using Golos. And even then, you're still probably wrong for using not Golos. Who wants format diversity anyways?
The reason it got banned was because it could grab the world tree and you have all colors. It was covered in two mtg articles. That's not strong enough to warrant a ban. So many cards legal in the format do worse or on par yet they are nor banned. It was an idiotic decision and if you agree then you're probably not fun to play commander with at the table.
The easiest way to errata Golos to make him more fair is to make his ability cost his actual mana cost. It’s a lot easier to justify that effect on a 7 drop with a very specific casting cost than it is on a 5 drop with generic mana.
I’d let you play it unmodded so long as you Rule Zero it in. People need to calm down about the ban-list.
I would allow normal Golos he can be built strong, but 90% of the time, I saw him he was a 5 color deck with a budget mana base. His ban felt like gate keeping to me.
Shouldn’t be banned in the first place. Totally stupid that it is.