I already know how wishes could be given added functionality: Restoring what was taken.
Golden Wish used to function like Karn's -2 ability but also for enchantments. In the coreset Magic 2010, they added the exiled zone, this zone didn't exist previously. Now that is years ago, 2009 to be specific. The idea was to clean up the rules, but in the process, they also took away functionality from cards but left them as-is. They also declined on fixing what they broke. If a card had been exiled before, it was just removed from the game instead, and wishes could grab those cards.
Now this isn't technically something for the CAG or RC, its for Wizards themselves. Just saying that this Karn's new ability isn't something new. All that has to be done for a wish is a functional errata to added the words "or is exiled" in order to fix what they broke. But they opened up a can of worms with the London Mulligan rule which caused the unholy trinity of Pull From Eternity, Gemstone Caverns, and Serum Powder to take over modern so this may not happen at all.
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.
So you want the default to be wishes allowed
1. no problem
2. ehhh so I can't get grab uncards then what's the point?
3. define outside the game (side/wishboard or in my binder?)
4. Why? A wish effect should be allowed to grab any magic card from outside the game
5. not really any issue i would think
6. Fine I guess
But then I'm at 101 instead of the cap of 100 after the wish effect....Honestly, it just sounds like you want to put your "wish" on the community as a whole as opposed to just your local group if it's even friendly to using wish cards as intended.
Of the 12 cards that can get cards from outside of the game, eight serve no other function than doing so, but the other four have uses beyond that effect: Spawnsire is still an annihilator eldrazi that can make tokens, Development can be used normally, Karn's static and + abilities still work, and Mastermind's Acquisition is another copy of Diabolic Tutor. To me, that doesn't sound like a useless set of cards or cards that should be banned for being useless.
The other 11 cards that reference people or cards "outside the game" are either silver-bordered like Spike, Tournament Grinder or Subcontract, or else is a Conspiracy card (Sovereign's Realm), none of which are legal in EDH.
Tell us, why is it that you take issue with the current ruling, knowing full well that a play group can opt to allow wish cards and/or sideboards?
Both he and I already explained our individual reasoning in previous posts. Should I quote them for you to emphasize that those reasons were really the reasons?
It seems like those in the court of "I want to play wishes" want the floodgates open. I can tell you with certainty that, at the very least, people will not want to wait for a wish user to pull out a binder to search for a card that fits the unique situation they're in.
I specifically addressed this in my post, but to recap: searching for cards is not the only thing a player can do that is dickish and time intensive. The format is littered with cards like Warp World and Eye of the Storm that have the potential to grind the game to a halt. In my view, wishboards are nothing more than someone respecting the fun of other players by preassembling a list of likely options to save everyone’s time.
Also, how will you rectify the singleton rule? Are you and your compatriots also suggesting that this "any card outside the game" also allow for a duplicate of a card in your deck? And if that's not what your're suggesting, how can anyone verify this without going through your deck to confirm it's not a duplicate?
How can anyone ever verify my base deck is legally built without checking it ahead of time? Nothing changes here. Casual play tends to run on the honor system.
The benefits of interactions with wishes would be outweighed by the rulings that would need to be added: they would only complicate the format further.
This will change a lot based on group. For my part, I wouldn’t include wishes in every deck. But I have a silly monored deck that is perfect for Burning Wish, grabbing situational cards that increase the nonsense factor. More competitive decks don’t need Wishes to be effective and adding them is unlikely to change the power level radically. It’s not as though Legacy or Vintage are ruined by these cards.
From my perspective, the spirit of EDH is to play your fun stuff. Banning should be very, very infrequent and these cards don’t reach that bar for me.
Yet you're quoting a ruling for general unsanctioned play, as defined by WotC. Commander/EDH is still solely in the control of the RC/CAG. WotC just saw a market for it and now makes products for it as another revenue stream.
This is almost the exact opposite of true. Wizards is solely in control of all MtG formats it chooses to be. In the case of EDH, it rebranded it Commander and allowed the RC to continue to maintain the rules because it serves their purpose. If the RC ever made a decision that WotC perceived to be against their own interests, they’d yank that authority in no time.
Lots of people don't think Wishes are fun.
Lots of people don't agree on how best to implement them.
Lots of people don't want to be forced to play against them.
Lots of people think Wishes are fun.
Lots of people play them as written without worrying about it.
Lots of people don’t care if they get played.
Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
If someone had accurate numbers that would become a lot easier. But as someone already said since we dont have the numbers its all speculation of what the majority wants. I Personally wouldn't mind wishboards but I do see the multiple points brought up against it, and since I think the gains are minimal and not clear. I'd rather have them not work universally.
Wizards is solely in control of all MtG formats it chooses to be. In the case of EDH, it rebranded it Commander and allowed the RC to continue to maintain the rules because it serves their purpose. If the RC ever made a decision that WotC perceived to be against their own interests, they’d yank that authority in no time.
While technically correct in a legal sense, If wizards change the Commander rules to differ from the RC ones and people like the RC ones better they would still be playing the RC rules anyway, as for stuff like unsanctioned/kitchentable play neither has the authority people play what they like.
The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
I too used to be in a group with wishboards, and I actually wouldnt mind if this became the standard but that argument alone doesn't say much. Lots of people still play with cards that are on the banlist and have no problem with it should we now all do that? I don't think so. It is always easier to do stuff in Individual groups than make it a reality for everyone.
How can anyone ever verify my base deck is legally built without checking it ahead of time? Nothing changes here. Casual play tends to run on the honor system.
While you're right, in that the honor system tends to be in place, you didn't answer the question. If someone was found to have pulled a duplicate of a card in their deck list, should that not be a game loss/DQ? Regardless of whether the wishes state "from outside the game" it shouldn't then also give a person free reign to try and circumvent the core deck construction that defines the format. 100 card singleton.
Also, whether a card is "exiled" or not, it's still a part of the game. Something could bring that original wish back, make you reshuffle it into the deck, etc. Access to over 100 cards is still against the rules of the format, regardless of when it happens in a game.
This will change a lot based on group. For my part, I wouldn’t include wishes in every deck. But I have a silly monored deck that is perfect for Burning Wish, grabbing situational cards that increase the nonsense factor. More competitive decks don’t need Wishes to be effective and adding them is unlikely to change the power level radically. It’s not as though Legacy or Vintage are ruined by these cards.
Yet it's what? 7 cards that are rendered useless? You keep mentioning that it's not likely to change power levels radically and that it's fine in your play group(s), yet there are those in the community that are looking for any edge they can get, any way to skirt the line just a little bit closer. Look at the recently banned cards over the past 5-6 years. Sylvan Primordial is pretty busted, but it's not the craziest thing in the world. It was it's ability to easily be abused with blink/copy effects that made it too strong. Those in the community that were using/abusing it to the extent that they were gave it it's death sentence. Sure, you'll have the cheeky people that are going to want to pull a Pikachu into the game with no way to play it, but you'll also have people effectively running cards 101-110. I'm sorry, but if you can't justify running something like Choke to fight blue mainboard, but want the option to pull it mid game once you get the lay of the land? That's too bad, but those are the rules.
You want what is effectively an official side/wish board, seemingly justified on the idea of saving time and giving people more options. That has never been a thing for the format. Resolving Warp World or any other similarly game resetting card is a time suck/nightmare, sure... but that doesn't justify having an official side/wishboard added when the format will gain little for doing so. The RC might revisit this in the future if WotC prints more cards with effects like the wishes, but so few cards, in my opinion, is not enough to justify changing the rules to make them playable.
This sort of "fun" should stay where it's currently relegated to - play groups that have agreed to allow it. The format is complicated enough with interactions, and it's part of the reason why "Banned as a Commander" and "tucking" aren't a thing anymore. Having to explain why you're effectively circumventing the rules of the format to a new person or play group, isn't an ideal scenario. Going to any LGS/group and having the same expectations of deck construction limits IS the ideal scenario.
Quote from Dormammu » »
Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
And wishes have functioned in the same way that they are ruled now, right along with sideboards - play group specific, not official. It was a matter of seeing the rules of the format as they are and understanding that optional sideboards were realistically the only place a wish card could pull from, because the term "wishboard" is not a new term for the format or in the forums.
Quote from Kamino_Taka » »
While technically correct in a legal sense, If wizards change the Commander rules to differ from the RC ones and people like the RC ones better they would still be playing the RC rules anyway, as for stuff like unsanctioned/kitchentable play neither has the authority people play what they like.
Kamino hit this on the head. WotC can't prevent anyone from coming up with a varient of their game. They can't enforce anything due to fair use rights. As far as we know, the RC isn't making money off commander directly, they aren't making counterfeit cards, and they're not infringing on any copyrights. What grounds does WotC have to steal the format? Even if they tried and deviated from the RC list of rules, if people like EDH/Commander better under the RC, they're going to play by those rules.
[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.
A wish is more like a charm that replaces itself in your hand. What the charm does depends on how you built the wishboard and the speed is determined by the wish itself, Build-a-Charm if you will.
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?
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.
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.
^This.
The dialogue has been mostly civil, if a little argumentative. It hasn't reached the point of cursing, name calling or demeaning (I don't think it would anyway).
My guess is that for some, there was a different interpretation of the rules for those cards and their functionality in the format. My understanding has always been that they never worked, but perhaps this was the "nail in the coffin" for them? Outright stating that they don't work outside of play groups allowing them, but not being banned, is bothering some people. (They want an all or nothing approach)
Agreed, it is rather normal for people who find something should be done differently to speak up.
And since this was mostly done civilied and with reasoned arguments this can give great feedback even though we are not "everyone".
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.
From Personal Expierience from playing with wishes casually (no wishboard) It takes a long time for someone to fetch stuff up.
(This anectdote was before commander and was when I Kitchen tabled judgment with a friend when we were younger (around 10 or 11) this might have affected the speed)
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.
Had to look up sui generis
But these arend the only ones who are a group in and of itself but if you add them they would be the only ones with their own ruling.
The other ones (draft matters,unlimited numbers,ante, un-sets) are either banned or no special ruling is given to them. They either just don't fully work or work as intended.
That could be an argument for both making them work as intended (Get anything of the thing you could wish for irregardles of color restrictions etc)
or putting them on the banlist. But both of those have drawbacks that the RC seem to not like.
The other two options (wishboard and "do nothing") have less drawbacks in my opinion.
The biggest downside to wishboards IMO is that the format becomes a 115 Card format as there is hardly a reason to not play wishes. (At least thats how it turned out in my old playgroup) I personally do not mind that but for some people thats a turnoff.
The biggest downside to "do nothing" is that 7 more cards do nothing, and with the amount of available cards i think that is hardly a downside.
Across my five years of EDH, I came across one guy who was keen on wishes. He came from a rather brutal meta of origin, he'd tutor a Jokulhaups to flip off his Maelstrom Wanderer, he was absolutely unconcerned by what is taboo in casual circles. His MLD++ at least tended to have the decency of ending the game in short order, so I wouldn't make a fuss out of Bearer of the Heavens sealing a Marchesa, the Black Rose insta-gg. And then one day he set his eyes on the wishes. Somehow he interpreted the official rules that he could tutor for banned cards, and brewed a deck with the solitary purpose of setting up a Time Vault lock. At that point I opposed.
I'm not at all unhappy to see an official clarification of wishes not working.
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?
Exactly because the same people that hopes all the time that that rules finally changes, gets pretty argumentative when RC do an announcement just to enforce the idea that that rules won't change.
I mean, for example it's since 2012 that I am complaining about Prime Time ban, but that's doesn't mean I have to talk about it for straight 8 years consecutively on forums on the Internet. But if RC, after all these years make an announcement just to enforce that the Prime Time is banned, that's pretty much a pertinent chance to complain about that ban again.
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?
This is not new. This "argument" has been going on for years. But since you brought it up...
Rule 13 is the last piece of format-level errata left in Commander. Rules affecting specific cards have all been removed from the format (Karakas didn't affect generals, Rune-Tail, Kitsune Ascendant flipped at 60 life, Riftsweeper didn't affect generals pre-Command zone, etc.). What happened is that the cards were either banned (in the case of Karakas and Riftsweeper) or deemed a non-issue (as was the case with Rune-Tail). For Wishes, they at least used to get you cards that had been "removed from the game" in a game of EDH, but with the advent of the Exile zone they can't even do that anymore. So now we have a whole class of cards that are effectively blanked by Rule 13 without actually being banned. Many people have an issue with that.
It would not be that hard to rewrite Rule 13 and establish reasonable guidelines for how Wishes work in a game of Commander, but I also understand that in itself would lead to format-level errata. I am of the mind that errata that enabled a card to work as close to its initial functionality as possible is preferable to errata that effectively blanks the text box (or a portion depending on the card). With that in mind, I have advocated that Rule 13 be changed to this:
13. Since games of Commander are played without sideboards, abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the games (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf, etc.) function in Commander with the following rules:
The player must have a "wishboard" of no more than 10 cards prepared before the start of the match so as to not delay the game.
The cards in your "wishboard" must conform to the color identity of your commander (see Rule 3)
The cards in your "wishboard" do not count as part of your 100-card deck (see Rule 4)
The cards in your "wishboard" may not be in your 100-card deck and vice versa (see Rule 5)
The cards in your "wishboard" must be legal in Commander.
If we don't like the term "wishboard" (as Sheldon has stated his dislike for the idea of sideboards and wishboards due to their connection to competitive Magic), then we can call it something different. The semantics shouldn't matter. The idea is just that we don't want people to be binder flipping or shoebox rummaging and wasting people's time.
I get it that some people don't like wishes because they fear the kinds of cards that people will Wish for. My only response to that is that if the Social Contract is good enough to discourage "anti-social" play, then why wouldn't it be good enough to discourage people from using a Wish in an "anti-social" way? Just like the RC doesn't ban cards based on the worst possible ways that cards can be used, there is no reason to think that Wishes wouldn't fall under the same stigma. If there is a "fair use", then that is what we should be evaluating the card on. If that "fair use" goes too far, then just ban the card.
I also get it that there is a minority that don't like the idea that a Wish somehow breaks the 100-card deck limit, and that after Wishing for a card your deck is now greater than 100 cards and is no longer legal at that point. This is total rubbish. The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins. Relentless Rats violates Rule 5 (the Highlander rule), Partner commanders violate Rule 2, Planeswalkers that can be used as your commander a la Teferi, Temporal Archmage violate Rule 2, Transguild Courier violates Rule 3 (the Color Identity rule), but we allow these cards to all function as-printed and we acknowledge (and celebrate) how they bend/break the rules. I don't understand how Wishes get singled out, but if this is indeed the actual issue here (which I highly doubt) then just ban the card.
I also somewhat get the concern of how one can verify that the player isn't violating the Highlander rule, but honestly how do you verify that now? Nobody is registering decks and doing deck checks, so why is it a non-issue now but a deal breaker when the topic of Wishes come up?
I think that in the end, all of this is a moot point. If the ruling of the RC is that "we don't want them because of the competitive stigma associated with them" (or something along those lines), then talking about how they could work within the rules and worrying about what people might Wish for is a conversation that has zero value. These things don't matter if the RC doesn't want them to be part of the default Commander game. At that point, is banning really any better than the current rule? I don't know. You could easily say that they fall under the "interacts poorly with the structure of the format" and call it a day. My preference however would be to just let the card do what it is supposed to do as close to its printed intent but within the confines of what is reasonable with the format.
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.
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).
Also, referring to stuff like Teferi, Temporal Archmage is not a good example since it explicitly states in the card text that it does something special in the commander format....while a Wish not.
But I agree that Relentless Rats & co. are in a very weird place. They should be in the same area of a Battle of Wits or Dichotomancy (thereferore with no working ability because of the format rules and restriction) and yet, for some reason you can run multiple copies or it, but not more than 99 of your entire deck (why the Rat text about "any number of cards" can break the singleton rule but not the deck size limit, it's a mistery for me)
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.
I get it that some people don't like wishes because they fear the kinds of cards that people will Wish for. My only response to that is that if the Social Contract is good enough to discourage "anti-social" play, then why wouldn't it be good enough to discourage people from using a Wish in an "anti-social" way? Just like the RC doesn't ban cards based on the worst possible ways that cards can be used, there is no reason to think that Wishes wouldn't fall under the same stigma. If there is a "fair use", then that is what we should be evaluating the card on. If that "fair use" goes too far, then just ban the card.
Because you're suggesting the rule be amended to play cards that have a high potential for anti-social play via hate cards that wouldn't otherwise be in a deck (because they might not make the cut). The social contract is all well and good when you have a regular group, but to make it legal at large subjects people to it with pickup games where a contract might not be in place, because the players are unknown.
Quote from Forgotten One » »
I also get it that there is a minority that don't like the idea that a Wish somehow breaks the 100-card deck limit, and that after Wishing for a card your deck is now greater than 100 cards and is no longer legal at that point. This is total rubbish. The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins. Relentless Rats violates Rule 5 (the Highlander rule), Partner commanders violate Rule 2, Planeswalkers that can be used as your commander a la Teferi, Temporal Archmage violate Rule 2, Transguild Courier violates Rule 3 (the Color Identity rule), but we allow these cards to all function as-printed and we acknowledge (and celebrate) how they bend/break the rules. I don't understand how Wishes get singled out, but if this is indeed the actual issue here (which I highly doubt) then just ban the card.
First, it is highly presumptuous to state that those that don't want wishes to be legal are in the minority. If anything, it's a 50/50 split at the least - likely more in favor of anti-wishes considering that it's the current status-quo. The 100 card deck limit isn't rubbish, it's a defining characteristic of the format. You can't play [[Battle of Wits]] just because it's legal and you really like the card... The other concessions you mentioned don't directly violate any rules because they have text that states such, and they also maintain the 100 card singleton rule... the very basis of the format. You stance of the card wins versus the rules is clearly not the case here.
Quote from Forgotten One » »
I also somewhat get the concern of how one can verify that the player isn't violating the Highlander rule, but honestly how do you verify that now? Nobody is registering decks and doing deck checks, so why is it a non-issue now but a deal breaker when the topic of Wishes come up?
If a player plays or reveals that they have multiple copies of a card, it's a DQ. You're suggesting all of these additional conditions to allow for wishes, yet you just stated "The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins." Not that it's true here, but that statement alone is enough of a point to argue for pulling a copy of a card that's already in the 99. After all, the card doesn't specify, does it? You want concessions to play your wishes, want to force these rulings on the player base at large, and you want and extra subset of rules added for less than 10 cards for this sort of effect. Meanwhile, there are cards like Dichotomancy, Hedron Alignment, Battle of Wits and more, that don't have this concession to allow for their usability. They're all perfectly good examples of functionally useless cards in commander, yet are still legal. Why should wishes be any different?
After all, the card doesn't specify, does it? You want concessions to play your wishes, want to force these rulings on the player base at large, and you want and extra subset of rules added for less than 10 cards for this sort of effect.
I'm pretty sure that if the Wishes worked in EDH as intended, even if it just a bunch, would have an ubiquitous play in the level of the already legal most efficent tutors in the format, so that would sure make the difference and benefits for lots of decks.
The number is really irrelevant. You can have 10.000 cards that all do the same function, but if that function is near to useless (ex: changing the color word of a card, like many blue spells do), they are like to count like zero for the gameplay and metagame experience.
On the other hand, if a card is powerful, flexible and generic enough to be considered for any deck compatible for that color, even if it's they are only a bunch of, they would give a huge shake in the format, so it would make worth to change the rules in favor of those cards.
It's similar when Sheldon & co. decided to change the rules of the Color Identity : there was a time where Memnarch or Bosh weren't playable as commanders because they were colorless cards that could'nt run any basic in the deck they would leads....at the time of the change of the Color Identity rule conforming to the one we have now, for that change would benefit only a very few bunch of cards like Memnarch and still the change was made it....so, quantity it's not everything in order to make the overall gameplay experience better.
If the worry is anti-social use of a wish, then you use the gentleman's agreement in a non-CEDH non-Competitive environment. Simple as that. If it can be done with combo, stax, land destruction, and anything else in the format, a wish following this agreement won't break the metaphorical camel's back.
If the worry is anti-social use of a wish, then you use the gentleman's agreement in a non-CEDH non-Competitive environment. Simple as that. If it can be done with combo, stax, land destruction, and anything else in the format, a wish following this agreement won't break the metaphorical camel's back.
Call me crazy, but your suggestion could easily be used in a non-competitive, friendly game of magic with the agreement to allow wish cards/boards. Every point arguing for the use of wishes can be alleviated with play groups agreeing to allow them. Almost like the RC/CAG didn't ban them to make it easier to facilitate that. 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. Flipping the coin as it were.
[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.
If the worry is anti-social use of a wish, then you use the gentleman's agreement in a non-CEDH non-Competitive environment. Simple as that. If it can be done with combo, stax, land destruction, and anything else in the format, a wish following this agreement won't break the metaphorical camel's back.
Call me crazy, but your suggestion could easily be used in a non-competitive, friendly game of magic with the agreement to allow wish cards/boards. Every point arguing for the use of wishes can be alleviated with play groups agreeing to allow them. Almost like the RC/CAG didn't ban them to make it easier to facilitate that. 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. Flipping the coin as it were.
Because asking if you can use a wish for its actual intended purpose, instead of rule 13, puts it in a similar territory to asking if you can play with a planeswalker as your commander that isn't normally one.
Yet like you quoted me but also skirted around what I said, you should still just use the Gentleman's Agreement, simple as that. If a person is being obnoxious with a particular type of deck or card, you ask them to swap the deck or card out. If they can't, someone at the table offers them a deck, if they won't take it then ask them to kindly sit out of the game. Like a reasonable human being. Now apply this to wishboards and wishes and its not hard to understand, downright simple in fact.
In fact humor for me a bit.
Hypothetical: I create a new rule, #111. "If you would search your libary for a land card and that card would be put it into any other zone, you fail to find the card in your search instead."
There I just blanked every mana ramp card. If you want to play mana ramp spells, you got to ask the permission of the table first. After all, The pro-rampers just want to play their ramp spells without being told no; they want their view to be the norm and the current anti-ramp ruling to be the unusual occurrence. Flipping the coin as it were.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Golden Wish used to function like Karn's -2 ability but also for enchantments. In the coreset Magic 2010, they added the exiled zone, this zone didn't exist previously. Now that is years ago, 2009 to be specific. The idea was to clean up the rules, but in the process, they also took away functionality from cards but left them as-is. They also declined on fixing what they broke. If a card had been exiled before, it was just removed from the game instead, and wishes could grab those cards.
Now this isn't technically something for the CAG or RC, its for Wizards themselves. Just saying that this Karn's new ability isn't something new. All that has to be done for a wish is a functional errata to added the words "or is exiled" in order to fix what they broke. But they opened up a can of worms with the London Mulligan rule which caused the unholy trinity of Pull From Eternity, Gemstone Caverns, and Serum Powder to take over modern so this may not happen at all.
So you want the default to be wishes allowed
1. no problem
2. ehhh so I can't get grab uncards then what's the point?
3. define outside the game (side/wishboard or in my binder?)
4. Why? A wish effect should be allowed to grab any magic card from outside the game
5. not really any issue i would think
6. Fine I guess
But then I'm at 101 instead of the cap of 100 after the wish effect....Honestly, it just sounds like you want to put your "wish" on the community as a whole as opposed to just your local group if it's even friendly to using wish cards as intended.
- Burning Wish (1)
- Coax from the Blind Eternities (can pull from exile)
- Cunning Wish (2)
- Death Wish (3)
- Glittering Wish (4)
- Golden Wish (5)
- Karn, the Great Creator (can pull from exile, has two other abilities)
- Living Wish (6)
- Mastermind's Acquisition (can be Diabolic Tutor #2)
- Research // Development (can cast Development)
- Ring of Ma'rûf (7)
- Spawnsire of Ulamog (can attack, annihilate, and make Eldrazi Spawn)
The other 11 cards that reference people or cards "outside the game" are either silver-bordered like Spike, Tournament Grinder or Subcontract, or else is a Conspiracy card (Sovereign's Realm), none of which are legal in EDH.Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Both he and I already explained our individual reasoning in previous posts. Should I quote them for you to emphasize that those reasons were really the reasons?
I specifically addressed this in my post, but to recap: searching for cards is not the only thing a player can do that is dickish and time intensive. The format is littered with cards like Warp World and Eye of the Storm that have the potential to grind the game to a halt. In my view, wishboards are nothing more than someone respecting the fun of other players by preassembling a list of likely options to save everyone’s time.
How can anyone ever verify my base deck is legally built without checking it ahead of time? Nothing changes here. Casual play tends to run on the honor system.
This will change a lot based on group. For my part, I wouldn’t include wishes in every deck. But I have a silly monored deck that is perfect for Burning Wish, grabbing situational cards that increase the nonsense factor. More competitive decks don’t need Wishes to be effective and adding them is unlikely to change the power level radically. It’s not as though Legacy or Vintage are ruined by these cards.
From my perspective, the spirit of EDH is to play your fun stuff. Banning should be very, very infrequent and these cards don’t reach that bar for me.
This is almost the exact opposite of true. Wizards is solely in control of all MtG formats it chooses to be. In the case of EDH, it rebranded it Commander and allowed the RC to continue to maintain the rules because it serves their purpose. If the RC ever made a decision that WotC perceived to be against their own interests, they’d yank that authority in no time.
Lots of people think Wishes are fun.
Lots of people play them as written without worrying about it.
Lots of people don’t care if they get played.
Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
If someone had accurate numbers that would become a lot easier. But as someone already said since we dont have the numbers its all speculation of what the majority wants. I Personally wouldn't mind wishboards but I do see the multiple points brought up against it, and since I think the gains are minimal and not clear. I'd rather have them not work universally.
While technically correct in a legal sense, If wizards change the Commander rules to differ from the RC ones and people like the RC ones better they would still be playing the RC rules anyway, as for stuff like unsanctioned/kitchentable play neither has the authority people play what they like.
I too used to be in a group with wishboards, and I actually wouldnt mind if this became the standard but that argument alone doesn't say much. Lots of people still play with cards that are on the banlist and have no problem with it should we now all do that? I don't think so. It is always easier to do stuff in Individual groups than make it a reality for everyone.
While you're right, in that the honor system tends to be in place, you didn't answer the question. If someone was found to have pulled a duplicate of a card in their deck list, should that not be a game loss/DQ? Regardless of whether the wishes state "from outside the game" it shouldn't then also give a person free reign to try and circumvent the core deck construction that defines the format. 100 card singleton.
Also, whether a card is "exiled" or not, it's still a part of the game. Something could bring that original wish back, make you reshuffle it into the deck, etc. Access to over 100 cards is still against the rules of the format, regardless of when it happens in a game.
Yet it's what? 7 cards that are rendered useless? You keep mentioning that it's not likely to change power levels radically and that it's fine in your play group(s), yet there are those in the community that are looking for any edge they can get, any way to skirt the line just a little bit closer. Look at the recently banned cards over the past 5-6 years. Sylvan Primordial is pretty busted, but it's not the craziest thing in the world. It was it's ability to easily be abused with blink/copy effects that made it too strong. Those in the community that were using/abusing it to the extent that they were gave it it's death sentence. Sure, you'll have the cheeky people that are going to want to pull a Pikachu into the game with no way to play it, but you'll also have people effectively running cards 101-110. I'm sorry, but if you can't justify running something like Choke to fight blue mainboard, but want the option to pull it mid game once you get the lay of the land? That's too bad, but those are the rules.
You want what is effectively an official side/wish board, seemingly justified on the idea of saving time and giving people more options. That has never been a thing for the format. Resolving Warp World or any other similarly game resetting card is a time suck/nightmare, sure... but that doesn't justify having an official side/wishboard added when the format will gain little for doing so. The RC might revisit this in the future if WotC prints more cards with effects like the wishes, but so few cards, in my opinion, is not enough to justify changing the rules to make them playable.
This sort of "fun" should stay where it's currently relegated to - play groups that have agreed to allow it. The format is complicated enough with interactions, and it's part of the reason why "Banned as a Commander" and "tucking" aren't a thing anymore. Having to explain why you're effectively circumventing the rules of the format to a new person or play group, isn't an ideal scenario. Going to any LGS/group and having the same expectations of deck construction limits IS the ideal scenario.
And wishes have functioned in the same way that they are ruled now, right along with sideboards - play group specific, not official. It was a matter of seeing the rules of the format as they are and understanding that optional sideboards were realistically the only place a wish card could pull from, because the term "wishboard" is not a new term for the format or in the forums.
Kamino hit this on the head. WotC can't prevent anyone from coming up with a varient of their game. They can't enforce anything due to fair use rights. As far as we know, the RC isn't making money off commander directly, they aren't making counterfeit cards, and they're not infringing on any copyrights. What grounds does WotC have to steal the format? Even if they tried and deviated from the RC list of rules, if people like EDH/Commander better under the RC, they're going to play by those rules.
</blockquote>
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.Nothing functionally changed in the rule with this update, so why is everyone getting all argumentative about it now?
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Probably because they want wishes to work and this update showed that you guys discussed them and didnt reach a conclusion they liked.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
^This.
The dialogue has been mostly civil, if a little argumentative. It hasn't reached the point of cursing, name calling or demeaning (I don't think it would anyway).
My guess is that for some, there was a different interpretation of the rules for those cards and their functionality in the format. My understanding has always been that they never worked, but perhaps this was the "nail in the coffin" for them? Outright stating that they don't work outside of play groups allowing them, but not being banned, is bothering some people. (They want an all or nothing approach)
And since this was mostly done civilied and with reasoned arguments this can give great feedback even though we are not "everyone".
From Personal Expierience from playing with wishes casually (no wishboard) It takes a long time for someone to fetch stuff up.
(This anectdote was before commander and was when I Kitchen tabled judgment with a friend when we were younger (around 10 or 11) this might have affected the speed)
Had to look up sui generis
But these arend the only ones who are a group in and of itself but if you add them they would be the only ones with their own ruling.
The other ones (draft matters,unlimited numbers,ante, un-sets) are either banned or no special ruling is given to them. They either just don't fully work or work as intended.
That could be an argument for both making them work as intended (Get anything of the thing you could wish for irregardles of color restrictions etc)
or putting them on the banlist. But both of those have drawbacks that the RC seem to not like.
The other two options (wishboard and "do nothing") have less drawbacks in my opinion.
The biggest downside to wishboards IMO is that the format becomes a 115 Card format as there is hardly a reason to not play wishes. (At least thats how it turned out in my old playgroup) I personally do not mind that but for some people thats a turnoff.
The biggest downside to "do nothing" is that 7 more cards do nothing, and with the amount of available cards i think that is hardly a downside.
I'm not at all unhappy to see an official clarification of wishes not working.
Exactly because the same people that hopes all the time that that rules finally changes, gets pretty argumentative when RC do an announcement just to enforce the idea that that rules won't change.
I mean, for example it's since 2012 that I am complaining about Prime Time ban, but that's doesn't mean I have to talk about it for straight 8 years consecutively on forums on the Internet. But if RC, after all these years make an announcement just to enforce that the Prime Time is banned, that's pretty much a pertinent chance to complain about that ban again.
Here's the same.
This is not new. This "argument" has been going on for years. But since you brought it up...
Rule 13 is the last piece of format-level errata left in Commander. Rules affecting specific cards have all been removed from the format (Karakas didn't affect generals, Rune-Tail, Kitsune Ascendant flipped at 60 life, Riftsweeper didn't affect generals pre-Command zone, etc.). What happened is that the cards were either banned (in the case of Karakas and Riftsweeper) or deemed a non-issue (as was the case with Rune-Tail). For Wishes, they at least used to get you cards that had been "removed from the game" in a game of EDH, but with the advent of the Exile zone they can't even do that anymore. So now we have a whole class of cards that are effectively blanked by Rule 13 without actually being banned. Many people have an issue with that.
It would not be that hard to rewrite Rule 13 and establish reasonable guidelines for how Wishes work in a game of Commander, but I also understand that in itself would lead to format-level errata. I am of the mind that errata that enabled a card to work as close to its initial functionality as possible is preferable to errata that effectively blanks the text box (or a portion depending on the card). With that in mind, I have advocated that Rule 13 be changed to this:
13. Since games of Commander are played without sideboards, abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the games (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf, etc.) function in Commander with the following rules:
I get it that some people don't like wishes because they fear the kinds of cards that people will Wish for. My only response to that is that if the Social Contract is good enough to discourage "anti-social" play, then why wouldn't it be good enough to discourage people from using a Wish in an "anti-social" way? Just like the RC doesn't ban cards based on the worst possible ways that cards can be used, there is no reason to think that Wishes wouldn't fall under the same stigma. If there is a "fair use", then that is what we should be evaluating the card on. If that "fair use" goes too far, then just ban the card.
I also get it that there is a minority that don't like the idea that a Wish somehow breaks the 100-card deck limit, and that after Wishing for a card your deck is now greater than 100 cards and is no longer legal at that point. This is total rubbish. The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins. Relentless Rats violates Rule 5 (the Highlander rule), Partner commanders violate Rule 2, Planeswalkers that can be used as your commander a la Teferi, Temporal Archmage violate Rule 2, Transguild Courier violates Rule 3 (the Color Identity rule), but we allow these cards to all function as-printed and we acknowledge (and celebrate) how they bend/break the rules. I don't understand how Wishes get singled out, but if this is indeed the actual issue here (which I highly doubt) then just ban the card.
I also somewhat get the concern of how one can verify that the player isn't violating the Highlander rule, but honestly how do you verify that now? Nobody is registering decks and doing deck checks, so why is it a non-issue now but a deal breaker when the topic of Wishes come up?
I think that in the end, all of this is a moot point. If the ruling of the RC is that "we don't want them because of the competitive stigma associated with them" (or something along those lines), then talking about how they could work within the rules and worrying about what people might Wish for is a conversation that has zero value. These things don't matter if the RC doesn't want them to be part of the default Commander game. At that point, is banning really any better than the current rule? I don't know. You could easily say that they fall under the "interacts poorly with the structure of the format" and call it a day. My preference however would be to just let the card do what it is supposed to do as close to its printed intent but within the confines of what is reasonable with the format.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
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.
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).
Also, referring to stuff like Teferi, Temporal Archmage is not a good example since it explicitly states in the card text that it does something special in the commander format....while a Wish not.
But I agree that Relentless Rats & co. are in a very weird place. They should be in the same area of a Battle of Wits or Dichotomancy (thereferore with no working ability because of the format rules and restriction) and yet, for some reason you can run multiple copies or it, but not more than 99 of your entire deck (why the Rat text about "any number of cards" can break the singleton rule but not the deck size limit, it's a mistery for me)
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.
Because you're suggesting the rule be amended to play cards that have a high potential for anti-social play via hate cards that wouldn't otherwise be in a deck (because they might not make the cut). The social contract is all well and good when you have a regular group, but to make it legal at large subjects people to it with pickup games where a contract might not be in place, because the players are unknown.
First, it is highly presumptuous to state that those that don't want wishes to be legal are in the minority. If anything, it's a 50/50 split at the least - likely more in favor of anti-wishes considering that it's the current status-quo. The 100 card deck limit isn't rubbish, it's a defining characteristic of the format. You can't play [[Battle of Wits]] just because it's legal and you really like the card... The other concessions you mentioned don't directly violate any rules because they have text that states such, and they also maintain the 100 card singleton rule... the very basis of the format. You stance of the card wins versus the rules is clearly not the case here.
If a player plays or reveals that they have multiple copies of a card, it's a DQ. You're suggesting all of these additional conditions to allow for wishes, yet you just stated "The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins." Not that it's true here, but that statement alone is enough of a point to argue for pulling a copy of a card that's already in the 99. After all, the card doesn't specify, does it? You want concessions to play your wishes, want to force these rulings on the player base at large, and you want and extra subset of rules added for less than 10 cards for this sort of effect. Meanwhile, there are cards like Dichotomancy, Hedron Alignment, Battle of Wits and more, that don't have this concession to allow for their usability. They're all perfectly good examples of functionally useless cards in commander, yet are still legal. Why should wishes be any different?
I'm pretty sure that if the Wishes worked in EDH as intended, even if it just a bunch, would have an ubiquitous play in the level of the already legal most efficent tutors in the format, so that would sure make the difference and benefits for lots of decks.
The number is really irrelevant. You can have 10.000 cards that all do the same function, but if that function is near to useless (ex: changing the color word of a card, like many blue spells do), they are like to count like zero for the gameplay and metagame experience.
On the other hand, if a card is powerful, flexible and generic enough to be considered for any deck compatible for that color, even if it's they are only a bunch of, they would give a huge shake in the format, so it would make worth to change the rules in favor of those cards.
It's similar when Sheldon & co. decided to change the rules of the Color Identity : there was a time where Memnarch or Bosh weren't playable as commanders because they were colorless cards that could'nt run any basic in the deck they would leads....at the time of the change of the Color Identity rule conforming to the one we have now, for that change would benefit only a very few bunch of cards like Memnarch and still the change was made it....so, quantity it's not everything in order to make the overall gameplay experience better.
Call me crazy, but your suggestion could easily be used in a non-competitive, friendly game of magic with the agreement to allow wish cards/boards. Every point arguing for the use of wishes can be alleviated with play groups agreeing to allow them. Almost like the RC/CAG didn't ban them to make it easier to facilitate that. 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. Flipping the coin as it were.
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?
Yet like you quoted me but also skirted around what I said, you should still just use the Gentleman's Agreement, simple as that. If a person is being obnoxious with a particular type of deck or card, you ask them to swap the deck or card out. If they can't, someone at the table offers them a deck, if they won't take it then ask them to kindly sit out of the game. Like a reasonable human being. Now apply this to wishboards and wishes and its not hard to understand, downright simple in fact.
In fact humor for me a bit.
There I just blanked every mana ramp card. If you want to play mana ramp spells, you got to ask the permission of the table first. After all, The pro-rampers just want to play their ramp spells without being told no; they want their view to be the norm and the current anti-ramp ruling to be the unusual occurrence. Flipping the coin as it were.