[quote from="Tibalt's Advocate »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/809264-april-2019-banlist-rules-updates?comment=72"]The pro-wish group just doesn't want to be told no whenever they show up to a random group or LGS with wish cards and a sideboard for them; they want their view to be the norm and the current anti-wish ruling to be the unusual occurrence.
I don’t even own a with card to play nor do I want one to play. What I want is for the rules of EDH to be as concise, coherent, and consistent as possible yet as unrestrictive as possible as well, whcih rule 13 does not achieve.
The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins.
Eh, not really. Dichotomancy or Battle of Wits are 100% unplayable and worthless as intended in EDH, exactly like a Burning Wish, and yet they are legal cards (simply because the ban list belong to cards that actively hurt the gameplay and are not simply "do-nothing" cards).
101.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
I'm sure everyone already knew that, but I quoted in anyways as a reminder.
Unlike cards like Dichotomancy and Battle of Wits, wishes can work well in Commander whereas former cannot. The original spirit of the game was to breathe new life into cards that were effectively dead in binders and boxes, so that as many of them could be played as possible, not to ensure that every single card ever printed could be played.
A question for everyone complaining about Rule 13 re: Wishes, etc.:
Nothing functionally changed in the rule with this update, so why is everyone getting all argumentative about it now?
Probably because they want wishes to work and this update showed that you guys discussed them and didnt reach a conclusion they liked.
Correct. Personally, I've spoken up not so much to "argue" in the inflammatory sense, but to understand why the decision was made and to help the CAG understand that there's many of us who don't agree with the decision, who would also like to be heard and understood. The the CAG, being comprised of humans, isn't immune to error. I simply view their conclusion and resulting ruling as erroneous and will continue to do so until convinced otherwise or until they change the ruling to meet the spirit of EDH.
[quote from="Hermes_ »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/809264-april-2019-banlist-rules-updates?comment=39"]
Your more than welcomed to do it in your local play group.
People: “Refer to Rule 0 if you want to use wishes.”
Me: “Refer to Rule 0 if you don’t want to use wishes.”
So far not a convincing argument against wish effects actually working in Commander. Words like “floodgate” are just pessimistic conjecture, not reflective of any reality. Conjecture is all any of us, even the committee, have in this matter because wish effects haven’t even been given an official chance in Commander. I hope the committee will revisit the wishes sooner than later and work them meaningfully into the Commander paradigm.
In the meantime, I’ve modified my original list of imaginary rules concerning wish effects.
A player may wish for a card if:
1. The card is owned by the controller of the wish effect.
2. The card is legal in Commander. (Sorry Pikachu.)
3. The card is outside of the game.
4. The card is of the color identity of the deck.
5. The card is sleeved to match those of the deck of the controller of the wish effect, if necessary.
6. The card is not a duplicate of any card already in the deck of the controller of the wish effect, unless the deck can have any number of copies of that card.
* Still doesn't address you having more cards "in game" after the resolution of the wish than is legally allowed.
I can see how people could see this as going against the spirit of EDH. I hope those same people can see how making a particularly special group of cards ineffectual goes against the spirit of EDH, which was in large part created for the purpose of playing cards that were wasting away in boxes and binders.
* Still doesn't address the potentially significant increase in time it will take to choose a card that meets your criteria (pulling out and searching a binder, etc)
It’s true that this could be an issue, but we won’t know until we try. My personal prediction is that it would be identical to or even faster than searching a library.
Quote from from=“CrimsonWings3689 »” url=“/forums/the-game/commander-edh/809264-april-2019-banlist-rules-updates?comment=50" »
* It encourages people to run specific hate cards or answers they otherwise couldn't justify mainboard. This is a negative effect on deck construction. The last 1-15 cards are among the hardest to cut, and a necessary part of the deck building process.
That’s a valid opinion. My opinion is that the ability to “wish” would have a positive effect on EDH as a whole as well as deck building because it allows players to play more of the cards they own. It may also provide “fair” decks some flexibility by providing answers the 100 can’t accommodate and/or even create a new archetype.
* Adding these numerous rules for what amounts to 12 of 16k+ cards is excessive.
These dozen cards with a sui generis effect have every right reason to be part of the game and are hence deserving of a short list of brief clarifications.
I think it makes far more sense to simply outright ban any card that references "outside the game" (even if that means a little bit of collateral damage in the form of "oh no, now I can't play half of Karn, the Great Creator") than to relegate it to the last rule listed which some people may not even see because the only thing they check is if their cards are legal or not. Wishes are, for all intents and purposes, banned. Might as well list them as such.
Agreed 100% though as a distant second to them just functioning as intended.
Your more than welcomed to do it in your local play group.
People: “Refer to Rule 0 if you want to use wishes.”
Me: “Refer to Rule 0 if you don’t want to use wishes.”
So far not a convincing argument against wish effects actually working in Commander. Words like “floodgate” are just pessimistic conjecture, not reflective of any reality. Conjecture is all any of us, even the committee, have in this matter because wish effects haven’t even been given an official chance in Commander. I hope the committee will revisit the wishes sooner than later and work them meaningfully into the Commander paradigm.
In the meantime, I’ve modified my original list of imaginary rules concerning wish effects.
A player may wish for a card if:
1. The card is owned by the controller of the wish effect.
2. The card is legal in Commander. (Sorry Pikachu.)
3. The card is outside of the game.
4. The card is of the color identity of the deck.
5. The card is sleeved to match those of the deck of the controller of the wish effect, if necessary.
6. The card is not a duplicate of any card already in the deck of the controller of the wish effect, unless the deck can have any number of copies of that card.
Tutors are already like the 3rd more reviled thing in the format.
...and I think wishes are worse that tutors.
...and people running wishes would be near the top of the most common complaints in the format very quickly.
I hear what you’re saying but don’t agree with this sentiment. There’s already well over 600 cards (and counting) that “search your library”. A dozen more shouldn’t hurt. Maybe they would. We can’t know without trying. Rules can be reversed.
I’m in the camp that feels wishes should work in Commander, but not for the reasons I’ve seen stated thus far.
Commander is a casual format. It is not played by official tournament rules (regular or higher rules enforcement level). In casual formats, wishes are not restricted to sideboards proper but work with a player’s entire collection. Rule 13 referencing “no sideboards” seems confusing and tangential to the relevant fact that, in a casual game, you don’t need a sideboard for wishes!
Many things in Commander can be unfun to play against; how is searching your binder for a card any more disruptive than a turn 10 Warp World in a 4P game? This is what the social contract is for. Commander is about playing all the weird crazy cards that don’t make it in other formats. Hating out the wishes is very counter to that notion, imo.
If someone wants to host a Commander tournament (e.g. a Grand Prix side event), they can specify no wish effects are allowed in the tournament if they like.
But it shouldn’t be “banned by default” in my view, because that empowers people to say no in their local groups to something that fits just fine in the format.
I agree entirely but with one small quibble: As can be seen in my (oft half-quoted) post, what you have said is what I had originally said. Primarily, I’m not in favor of sideboards, maybeboards, wishboards, ect.
A counterpoint (from others) is for people who want the wishes to work in Commander can appeal to the social contract / Rule 0. But like Dormammu has said here, it would be better* to allow the wishes to work as originally intended** and instead have players appeal to Rule 0 to limit time spent looking for a wished card.
*I’m on a phone so please don’t ask me to explain “better”.
**To search one’s collection.
I feel I should mention that I respect the members of the committee and their decisions. And that my replies in this thread are meant to be conversational, and maybe even contemplative, but not argumentative. For now, I stand by my opinions. And would encourage the committee to find fun whereever it can be found. In this case, I think they’ve made a decision out of fear of backlash (and surely convinced themselves it was the smart choice) rather than living up to the spirit of EDH.
EDH has plenty of its own rules that make it unique among formats. Why not one more? .
Simple rules:
1. You own the tutored card.
2. The card is outside of the game.
3. The card is within the color identity of your deck.
4. The card is legal in Commander (or allowed by your play group).
5. The card is (or will be) sleeved to match your deck’s sleeves, if any.
Not's not ONE more that's FIVE more
And why does it have to match my commander's CI? It says any card......
EDIT II: Maybe this hsould be moved into it's own thread?
This is exactly why we left the rule as it was. Everyone has their own idea of what's a "reasonable interpretation" of the cards for Commander. People would be unhappy with any set of restrictions or allowances we gave, so it's best to let playgroups hash out these issues within themselves.
By that logic, the rule shouldn’t have been made and should be immediately removed because the committee has made their “reasonable interpretation” into a rule, and right out of the gate, there’s people that are unhappy with it.
While I am not one of them, I do like for as many cards as possible to be playable, and meaningfully so. Aren't the rules, at least in part (a great part), intended to direct players to the greatest potential for enjoyment? Of course. So then why not try something fun rather than something that literally amounts to nothing?
EDH has plenty of its own rules that make it unique among formats. Why not one more? One that would be a net positive to the format. Namely, allow the Wishes and Co. to tutor for, oh I don’t know, cards that are outside of the game, just as the OG wish was originally designed for.
Simple rules:
1. You own the tutored card.
2. The card is outside of the game.
3. The card is within the color identity of your deck.
4. The card is legal in Commander (or allowed by your play group).
5. The card is (or will be) sleeved to match your deck’s sleeves, if any.
What you did is cheating, plain and simple.
...
While you're right that no rule currently exists prohibiting this...
This doesn’t make sense. I assume you mean that I broke an unwritten rule of the game, and hence the spirit of the game? If so, I’ll give you that. But I did not cheat. And even mentioning having me banned is going way too far.
I would appeal to have you banned from the entire subforum.
grow up. i mean really, "banned"? what's wrong with you? i only posted it in the other subforum because i personally liked it and wanted to share it. it had nothing to do with trying to fix it. i mean really, do you think i was trying to be sneaky by posting it one click away from this subforum in another subforum that's frequented and moderated by the exact same people? get real. and last time i checked, this is a game with no stakes. zero. so chill. furthermore, i'm unaware of a rule that forbids posting submissions elsewhere. if i did something wrong, how about sending me a private message to correct me rather than making a public appeal to have me banned. seriously. wtf? but rejoice! thanks to you, i'll be afk for an indefinite period of time, along with hundreds of others who used to frequent these forums before MTGS was declared a safe zone for triggered acronym-that-shall-not-be-named. smh.
I don’t even own a with card to play nor do I want one to play. What I want is for the rules of EDH to be as concise, coherent, and consistent as possible yet as unrestrictive as possible as well, whcih rule 13 does not achieve.
Because they are different.
Why should they be the same?
101.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
I'm sure everyone already knew that, but I quoted in anyways as a reminder.
Unlike cards like Dichotomancy and Battle of Wits, wishes can work well in Commander whereas former cannot. The original spirit of the game was to breathe new life into cards that were effectively dead in binders and boxes, so that as many of them could be played as possible, not to ensure that every single card ever printed could be played.
Correct. Personally, I've spoken up not so much to "argue" in the inflammatory sense, but to understand why the decision was made and to help the CAG understand that there's many of us who don't agree with the decision, who would also like to be heard and understood. The the CAG, being comprised of humans, isn't immune to error. I simply view their conclusion and resulting ruling as erroneous and will continue to do so until convinced otherwise or until they change the ruling to meet the spirit of EDH.
I can see how people could see this as going against the spirit of EDH. I hope those same people can see how making a particularly special group of cards ineffectual goes against the spirit of EDH, which was in large part created for the purpose of playing cards that were wasting away in boxes and binders.
It’s true that this could be an issue, but we won’t know until we try. My personal prediction is that it would be identical to or even faster than searching a library.
That’s a valid opinion. My opinion is that the ability to “wish” would have a positive effect on EDH as a whole as well as deck building because it allows players to play more of the cards they own. It may also provide “fair” decks some flexibility by providing answers the 100 can’t accommodate and/or even create a new archetype.
These dozen cards with a sui generis effect have every
rightreason to be part of the game and are hence deserving of a short list of brief clarifications.Tempest + Urza Standard = UNLIMITED POWER!
Agreed 100% though as a distant second to them just functioning as intended.
People: “Refer to Rule 0 if you want to use wishes.”
Me: “Refer to Rule 0 if you don’t want to use wishes.”
So far not a convincing argument against wish effects actually working in Commander. Words like “floodgate” are just pessimistic conjecture, not reflective of any reality. Conjecture is all any of us, even the committee, have in this matter because wish effects haven’t even been given an official chance in Commander. I hope the committee will revisit the wishes sooner than later and work them meaningfully into the Commander paradigm.
In the meantime, I’ve modified my original list of imaginary rules concerning wish effects.
A player may wish for a card if:
1. The card is owned by the controller of the wish effect.
2. The card is legal in Commander. (Sorry Pikachu.)
3. The card is outside of the game.
4. The card is of the color identity of the deck.
5. The card is sleeved to match those of the deck of the controller of the wish effect, if necessary.
6. The card is not a duplicate of any card already in the deck of the controller of the wish effect, unless the deck can have any number of copies of that card.
I hear what you’re saying but don’t agree with this sentiment. There’s already well over 600 cards (and counting) that “search your library”. A dozen more shouldn’t hurt. Maybe they would. We can’t know without trying. Rules can be reversed.
I agree entirely but with one small quibble: As can be seen in my (oft half-quoted) post, what you have said is what I had originally said. Primarily, I’m not in favor of sideboards, maybeboards, wishboards, ect.
A counterpoint (from others) is for people who want the wishes to work in Commander can appeal to the social contract / Rule 0. But like Dormammu has said here, it would be better* to allow the wishes to work as originally intended** and instead have players appeal to Rule 0 to limit time spent looking for a wished card.
*I’m on a phone so please don’t ask me to explain “better”.
**To search one’s collection.
I feel I should mention that I respect the members of the committee and their decisions. And that my replies in this thread are meant to be conversational, and maybe even contemplative, but not argumentative. For now, I stand by my opinions. And would encourage the committee to find fun whereever it can be found. In this case, I think they’ve made a decision out of fear of backlash (and surely convinced themselves it was the smart choice) rather than living up to the spirit of EDH.
By that logic, the rule shouldn’t have been made and should be immediately removed because the committee has made their “reasonable interpretation” into a rule, and right out of the gate, there’s people that are unhappy with it.
While I am not one of them, I do like for as many cards as possible to be playable, and meaningfully so. Aren't the rules, at least in part (a great part), intended to direct players to the greatest potential for enjoyment? Of course. So then why not try something fun rather than something that literally amounts to nothing?
Simple rules:
1. You own the tutored card.
2. The card is outside of the game.
3. The card is within the color identity of your deck.
4. The card is legal in Commander (or allowed by your play group).
5. The card is (or will be) sleeved to match your deck’s sleeves, if any.
This doesn’t make sense. I assume you mean that I broke an unwritten rule of the game, and hence the spirit of the game? If so, I’ll give you that. But I did not cheat. And even mentioning having me banned is going way too far.
careful! algernone25 might appeal to have you banned.
grow up. i mean really, "banned"? what's wrong with you? i only posted it in the other subforum because i personally liked it and wanted to share it. it had nothing to do with trying to fix it. i mean really, do you think i was trying to be sneaky by posting it one click away from this subforum in another subforum that's frequented and moderated by the exact same people? get real. and last time i checked, this is a game with no stakes. zero. so chill. furthermore, i'm unaware of a rule that forbids posting submissions elsewhere. if i did something wrong, how about sending me a private message to correct me rather than making a public appeal to have me banned. seriously. wtf? but rejoice! thanks to you, i'll be afk for an indefinite period of time, along with hundreds of others who used to frequent these forums before MTGS was declared a safe zone for triggered acronym-that-shall-not-be-named. smh.
It must really good by now.