Summary
- Bans and unbans:
- No changes.
- Council meeting: The meeting focused on reviewing the quarterly questionnaire results. While potential ban, unban, and trial candidates were discussed, the council agreed there was no compelling reason to pursue any bans, unbans, or trials at this time.
- Community questionnaire: Results covering overall format health, the banlist, archetype representation, and the council’s work over the past year.
- Next update: May 1st, 2026.
Bans, unbans, and trials
No changes.
Cards discussed
No cards were put forward for a vote, as the current state of the format does not warrant any intervention at this time. While several cards were discussed (as detailed in the Council meeting section), the council concluded that no bans, unbans, or trials are necessary given the overall health and stability of the format.
Council meeting
We reviewed the quarterly questionnaire results point by point (format, banlist, archetypes, council feedback, and standout open comments). Overall, the responses suggest the format is in a healthy state, and feedback on the council’s work remained clearly positive. Archetype satisfaction showed the greatest variance (while still being positive overall), likely driven by local metagames, pet decks, strong performance by a small number of skilled pilots, and/or matchup polarization. Most negative comments centered on frustrations with control strategies, which we discussed as being largely shaped by broader design trends (power creep and current WotC printing philosophy) rather than something the banlist can easily or cleanly address.
We also briefly discussed potential unban candidates (Treasure Cruise, Underworld Breach, Sensei’s Divining Top), but concluded that the potential upside is limited given how well the format is currently performing. Reanimator was flagged as an archetype to monitor due to its solid performance over the past year. At this time, we see no clear evidence that action is needed, and any future change would need to be carefully targeted without eliminating the archetype. In summary, no near-term actions were identified; the consensus is to take no action for now and continue monitoring.
Community questionnaire
As usual, we ran a community questionnaire ahead of this quarterly announcement. Since there were no active unban trials this time, the questionnaire focused on general temperature checks: four 1–5 ratings on (1) the format overall right now, (2) the current banlist, (3) the representation of different archetypes, and (4) how the council has handled the format within the past year. As always, we also included an open-text ‘Comment’ field for any additional feedback.
Overall summary
Overall, respondents describe the format as healthy and enjoyable. The general sentiment is that the general metagame supports meaningful archetype variety in practice, and that the format’s day-to-day play experience is in a good place. Feedback on the council’s work is similarly positive, with many responses indicating confidence in the overall direction and appreciation for the process being understandable and consistent.
Where opinions vary more is around how actively the format should be tuned. A clear theme in open-text feedback is a split between players who want a slightly more proactive approach (more experimentation via frequent trials) and players who prefer keeping changes minimal because the current environment feels stable.
Format overall
The community view of the format is great as usual. The overall rating landed at a 4,28 mean with a median of 4, and 86,25 % of respondents rated the format 4–5 (including 42,50 % perfect 5s). Written feedback largely matches this: most comments describe the format as healthy and fun, with suggestions framed as fine-tuning (personal preferences, local meta texture) rather than any sense that the format is in trouble.
Banlist
The banlist also scores very strongly, though with a slightly wider spread of opinions than the overall format score. The community rating came in at a 3,91 mean with a median of 4, and 77,50 % of respondents rated the banlist 4–5 (with 22,50 % giving a perfect 5). Importantly, the open feedback does not show a single, widely shared demand to move the banlist in a specific direction; instead, comments tend to reflect philosophy. Some players would like a bit more experimentation over time, while others prefer minimal change because the current environment feels stable.
Archetypes
This is the most mixed of the four ratings, but still clearly positive overall. On the same 1–5 scale, archetype representation came in at a 3,86 mean with a median of 4. 67,50 % of respondents rated it 4–5, including 25,00 % perfect 5s, while low scores (1–2) were uncommon (6,25 %) with a complete lack of 1s. The written feedback aligns with the spread: most people see the metagame as open and varied, while a smaller subset experience archetype pressure. A recurring sentiment is that these perceptions can differ strongly by region.
Council work
Community confidence in the council’s work is strong. This question scored a 4,27 mean with a median of 5, and 84,62 % of respondents rated the council 4–5, including a majority of 53,85 % perfect 5s. Even where people disagree with specific decisions or would prefer a different tuning philosophy, the dominant tone in comments is appreciation for the overall direction and for clear communication.
Next regular update
The next regular update will be May 1st, 2026.
Leave a Reply