Its outright hypocrisy to not allow wishboards but allow companions as you can have 3 companions in your companion-board, but having 3 cards in your wishboard is breaking the bank. And if Lutri, the Spellchaser wasn't preempetively banned, you could have 4 in the companion-board if you just went odd and actually built a deck that wasn't filled with Relentless Rats.
But while I don't have a particular stance for or against SB/Wishboards, allowing Companions while disallowing SB/Wishboards just Irks me to no end.
Underlined for emphasis as we are on the same wavelength. It irks me as well.
Banning just Lutri but keeping the companion rules intact creates unnecessary confusion for players unfamiliar with the rules regarding wishes.
As the initial and primary argument against wishes is that it would mean you would have over 100 cards in your deck effectively if you had a wishboard. Yet for some reason you can do the exact same thing with companions and only Lutri gets banned.
Only Lutri though? Is it because of the "each nonland card must be a different name" requirement? So what they are saying is I can play the rest of the companion cards? Wouldn't the simpler answer just be ban "All companion cards"? As otherwise that just means for a Sultai deck for example I could just play Keruga, the Macrosage which would easily get jammed into any u/g/x deck.
And also in regards to wishes. If they allow the rest that means they allow wishes. As the companions are cast from outside the game. So for example, you could just Living Wish the Keruga, the Macrosage to your hand. Not that it would be game breaking, but that the wish can actually be used now and that there could be a situation where other cards care if the card could be cast from the hand or from elsewhere. Such as that new Drannith Magistrate which would normally prevent Keruga from being cast as a companion, but with a Living Wish you actually skirt around the rule.
And the best way to fill a deck for the odd/even requirement is just the cards like Persistent Petitioners or Relentless Rats.
Its outright hypocrisy to not allow wishboards but allow companions as you can have 3 companions in your companion-board, but having 3 cards in your wishboard is breaking the bank. And if Lutri, the Spellchaser wasn't preempetively banned, you could have 4 in the companion-board if you just went odd and actually built a deck that wasn't filled with Relentless Rats.
3-card Wishboard: 103 cards.
3-card Companionboard: 103 cards.
One of these is considered heresy to the format, the other is allowed aside from one card.
Banning just Lutri but keeping the companion rules intact creates unnecessary confusion for players unfamiliar with the rules regarding wishes.
As the initial and primary argument against wishes is that it would mean you would have over 100 cards in your deck effectively if you had a wishboard. Yet for some reason you can do the exact same thing with companions and only Lutri gets banned.
And also in regards to wishes. If they allow the rest that means they allow wishes. As the companions are cast from outside the game. So for example, you could just Living Wish the Keruga, the Macrosage to your hand. Not that it would be game breaking, but that the wish can actually be used now and that there could be a situation where other cards care if the card could be cast from the hand or from elsewhere. Such as that new Drannith Magistrate which would normally prevent Keruga from being cast as a companion, but with a Living Wish you actually skirt around the rule.
???