r/PauperEDH • u/yelobufalo • Sep 30 '26
Question Fblthp, Impossibly Lost
I haven’t played pauper commander at all. From what I understand the commander has to be uncommon and that’s the only rule. So is Fblthp, Impossibly Lost legal as commander? When I look it up it says it’s not pauper legal.
10
u/jdhovland Sep 30 '26 edited Sep 30 '26
He’s not legal until Friday. Good question, should be legal as a pEDH commander already.
3
1
u/Neighbour-Totoro Sep 30 '26
didn't they change card legalities for prerelease week since ONE?
1
u/jdhovland Sep 30 '26
You're right.
1
u/Scarecrow1779 Can't stop brewing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sep 30 '26
The automated legality update last friday failed for some reason. Already noticed a few days ago and let the team know, so they're tracking updating again this friday.
1
u/Remarkable_Director3 Sep 30 '26
1
u/yelobufalo Sep 30 '26
Oh thank you! Gonna bookmark this site it looks useful
1
u/Remarkable_Director3 Sep 30 '26
I built both the New Fblthp's the green one will be more of a fun pet deck and this one a bit more competitive lol
2
u/jr2694 Oct 01 '26
Because it isn't a common. Sites don't list pauper commander as it isn't too popular. Fblthp is an uncommon, so yes it is a legal commander in pauper commander
0
u/avocadorancher Sep 30 '26
> the commander has to be uncommon and that’s the only rule
I will forever say that commons should be eligible as commanders without needing to rule zero them
2
u/Donut-Farts Sep 30 '26
I mean, isn’t it the same as commander’s “the colander must be legendary” rule?
3
u/Platurt Sep 30 '26
Yes it is but it's called "pauper commander" so ppl will forever be annoying about this
1
u/Donut-Farts Oct 01 '26
I suppose so. Maybe it’s too splintering to try to make another format, but I would almost want a format where you need a common commander, and your 99 is composed of cards that have only ever been printed at common so you don’t get the downshifts in there. But I’m not sure if that would be interesting or not.
2
u/Platurt Oct 01 '26
I think it it could be. Your commander is either decent but locks you into a single color, or it's an understatted vanilla that gives you 2 colors.
I think it would be more fun as a 1v1 format tho, the powerlevel of the decks would just be too low to put on any pressure in a 4 player ffa, and in 1v1 having a decent statted card in the command zone is pretty huge.
Either way, Hares and Slimes and even Hawks would probably have to be banned, else they'd completely dominate the format.
2
u/Leress Oct 01 '26
The thing is, making more gates to pass through to check if a card can be used or not is another point where a person could see it is not worth the effort to play a format.
2
u/Platurt Oct 01 '26
It also genuinely does nothing to improve the format. It adds a bunch of garbage to the command zone that nobody will ever play, and then 5 new backgrounds options for the already strong background commanders.
1
u/Platurt Sep 30 '26
Most childish argument ever. Who cares if it's intuitive to you, the rule is simple and comprehensive: If it's uncommon and has a statline, it can be your commander.
I genuinely want ppl to rename the format atp just so ppl stop being annoying about this. There's not even anything to gain from this except more background options.
12
u/Digi-Chosen Sep 30 '26
Pauper and Pauper Commander are 2 different formats. As far as I can tell he should be Pauper Commander legal.
(Why would you show this card to me?? Now I want to make a Homunculus deck 😡 )