Fandom Legends: Magic Arena
 
Treasure Cruisin' Amulet's End
 
Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    Quote from schweinefett »
    Not sure if this would help, but along the lines of what cryogen is talking about, maybe some sort of EDH-specific language is needed to allow players who've never met previously determine what their 'try-hardedness' or 'floor' for what their deck is. Something to codify for example, that i'm whipping out a low-tiered deck with things like terror as the premier hate-card, as opposed to hermit druiding the table by turn 2.

    This is one of the reasons why i don't like playing with the general public. Some while back, I figured i could take my super janky blind seer deck and my (slightly) more serious teshar deck to a local. One of the players at the table says 'oh mine ain't oppressive at all' - and then smokestack-lock the rest of the table out by turns 4-5 or so, having a measly 2/2 beater to 'win the game' with. I don't care that he was playing stax; i was just a bit annoyed that his view of non-oppressive was pretty oppressive to the rest of the table.
    not having a frame of reference of what 'oppressive' or 'competitive' is is a major problem, i think, amongst players who don't have a steady group. And introducing a format-specific lingo on approximate-strength will be helpful in dispelling that, i think.
    It would be good, but I don't think we could easily come up with a rating system and also expect people to know it.
    Wasn't this the exact reasoning behind the 0-100% rankings people give their decks? And I believe the people at the Command Zone also tried to come up with a system like "tuned" and "optimized" but I couldn't for the life of me tell you how those rankings worked.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Wishes
    Platinum Angel doesn't break the rules, it sets a static effect on the board.
    ...which overwrites a rule. Instead of losing for having 0 or less life as a state-based action, you simply don't. So I don't really see the difference between that and a Wish, which lets you access cards you normally couldn't. Maybe Future Sight would have been a better example? There are a ton of cards that allow you to do things you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to. I don't really see why Wishes get singled out for 'breaking the rules'.
    While sideboards can exist in the scenario that you mentioned, cards you mentioned could, and likely should see mainboard play (ex. Fade into Antiquity) as removal is almost always relevant when it has more than one mode.
    Fade into Antiquity is a pretty mediocre card. It's good in niche situations, such as killing a God or a Darksteel Forge or something similar, but for the most part I would never maindeck it. I'd rather maindeck something like Nature's Claim because it is both cheaper and instant speed, and it also has the important upside of being able to destroy a T1 Sol Ring.
    The potential for dick-ish things already exists in running cards like Choke, Tsunami, etc., but the potential to run them in a side/wishboard is literally inviting feel-bads. All it will likely take is a handful of people in a play group or LGS to do it, before it becomes commonplace to do the same thing. After all, if you're at a disadvantage to not, then you're likely to adopt what puts you on an even playing field. Some people also don't have the luxury of an LGS, or multiple potential groups to play at so switching in the event of "adapt or leave" isn't always available.
    Again this just kind of feels like fear mongering. It's like saying "one person played a Tazri-Chain deck so then everyone had to build one". At what point do we start expecting the social contract to do something? If one or two players are playing decks above the curve or are otherwise playing in an antisocial way, the default response shouldn't be to match them in their antisocial-ness. It should be to say something like "hey we're not really having fun could you maybe play a weaker/more fun deck?" This idea that EDH is an arms-race is sadly one I've seen espoused before, and I simply refuse to believe it. The logical outcome it leads to is literally everyone playing cEDH decks, and I've never seen that happen.
    Especially at an LGS for events - if there's a buy in and a prize is to be won, people play to win.
    EDH with buy-ins and prizes is hardly EDH at all. "Commander is a Magic:The Gathering format which emphasises multiplayer play, social interactions, interesting games, and creative deckbuilding." It's literally the first line on the official site. You may notice 'winning' isn't on that list. So it would be a bit foolish to use cEDH players as a reason to not do something when they're not really the target audience to begin with.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Wishes
    I DO feel like cards like Shadowborn Apostle and Relentless Rats are against the flavor of the format. The fact that it's been legal for as long as it has and that some have embraced it, means that those cards have value as multiples are needed. If they were banned this far into the format's life, people would lose entire decks on the decision to ban them. It's not something that the RC would ever do.
    I don't get this. Cards break the rules all the time. It's like saying Platinum Angel shouldn't prevent one from losing because it's against the rules. I understand if you thought that Wishes are ban worthy for some other reason (too powerful or too obnoxious, for example). But "against the flavor of the format" just doesn't seem like a real reason to me.
    My intention isn't to be a fearmonger, but to stress that the potential for abuse is present. The potential for game length to be increased is very much present for sideboarding. Again, I will reference my previous points that cards like Sylvan Primordial and Prophet of Kruphix were banned; not for the fair play that they saw, but because of how they were abused.
    But that was kind of the problem with Prime Time and Profit in that even trying to play them fairly often resulted in problematic situations. I'm not sure the same is true for Wishes. It might be, but I also think most players could use a Wishboard as a Swiss-army-knife of answers to call upon when the board gets out of control. Someone's got a Purphoros, God of the Forge that's about to kill everyone? Wish for an answer. Doubling Season make a literal bajillion dudes? Wish for an answer. A Boseiju'd Genesis Wave for 50 on the stack? Wish for a nope. If these are the kind of things people choose to do with Wishes, I'd say let them be free.
    Sideboards, in general, have the potential to drag out games more than anything else, which is effectively a requirement to allow wishes to work. Deciding which card(s) out of 99 can be swapped out post game 1 or beyond depending on which decks switch and who is playing what... the odds that sideboards aren't used how they are for constructed formats is unlikely. Dragging out games at an LGS, let alone at a kitchen table, doesn't seem worth them being official.
    I'll be honest, I've never actually seen anyone sideboard, even when the optional sideboard rule was around. I seriously doubt people would start boarding against specific generals pre-game (unless said general is extremely problematic in it's own right) if Wishes could be used.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Wishes
    I see having more than 100 cards as being a problem because the deck construction limits a deck to 100 cards, including the commander. To have wishes function serves only to circumvent that rule, after games are started.
    Then do you also have a problem with Shadowborn Apostle for circumventing the singleton rule?
    The choices at that point seem clear... Enable wishes and see games devolve into longer games with wish/sideboards like it is in constructed formats with silver bullets and see a newly printed, fair card be banned. (one that plenty of people will have with the new set) OR leave wishes where they are and allow individual play groups to determine what wishes mean or don't for them.
    Frankly the majority of your post sounds like fearmongering to me. Someone ruining the game by Wishing for an Armageddon versus someone ruining the game by just playing Armageddon seems like a distinction without a difference. Is it possible people will only include a bunch of awful cards in their Wishboards, like Acid Rain? Sure, I guess. But making it sound like literally everyone will do that all the time seems a bit disingenuous. It would be like me warning you off of playing EDH at all because the only things that get played are hardcore combo decks that win on T4. Do some people play those decks? Yes. But it's certainly not indicative of the entire experience. We should be trying to figure out how the average player would use Wishes if they were legal worked at all.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Wishes
    People get access to more than 100 cards in a given game. Players are then incentivized to play wishes and to copy them to have/pull more resources than your opponents. This also means that it is possible, through multiple means, that more than 100 cards can be in the game between library, hand, board, graveyard and exile.
    Two things. Why do you think having more than 100 cards is a problem? And why do you think copying Wishes is going to be incentivized? You even said yourself that "If it's not worth running the majority of the time, you shouldn't be running it." Do you honestly think copying Cunning Wish once or twice is a better use of resources than, say, simply spending all that mana drawing cards that actually made the cut in your deck? Seems pretty loose to me.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from MRHblue »
    It is still a reason.
    No, it's not. In the same way "hmm I might be randomly struck by a falling meteor" is not a reason to avoid taking a walk outside. It is so small and inconsequential that it is beyond notice. It is literally a waste of time to even bother considering the merits.

    Ergo, if saving 2 bad cards from being banned is the only "reason," I continue to stand by my statement: there is no reason.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from MRHblue »
    Your refusal to acknowledge some cards do things besides get cards from outside the game does not stop that from being an actual reason.

    The rule has been around for a while, but so have cards that do something else. (EDIT : 2006)

    You are using circular logic, and Wishes won't be banned or allowed to work as written.
    A bad reason, in the same way having a rule that says "Effects can't prevent players from drawing cards" because the other half of Leovold, Emissary of Trest is fun is a bad rule.

    As for the cards that predate the rule... oh wow a terrible punisher version of Jace's Ingenuity and probably the worst of the large Eldrazi. Cool. I can continue never seeing either of those cards ever played. Good thing the RC carved out a space to protect these two random cards, or else we might have had to make due with real, less awful cards.

    What will happen and what should happen are often different. That doesn't change anything.
    Also, banning them outright disallows people who do currently enjoy them and blanket legalization foists them upon people who don't wanna worry about super tutors with their own sideboards. Saying they formally do nothing is actually a kind of brilliant; it's hardline enough to keep wishes out of most games, but built on stuff flimsy enough for the people who do really want them to generate conversations and arguments with their lgs or playgroups about letting wishes fly.

    Black and white is very clear, but gray stuff can be fine too.
    This is literally why they just added Rule 0. If you want to play them you have to houserule them. Them being fake banned or actually banned doesn't change that.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Thats the problem with wishes They are not working how they are supposed to in sanctioned events (Wotc uses a format specific errata as in only sideboard cards) and the RC want to use the same errata whilst having no sideboard.

    Why do you want it on the banlist if they don't allow for search all though? You said Fractured Powerstone works as intended but it does not its a special errata for the card that says "In non-Planechase games, Fractured Powerstone’s second ability will have no effect. " because if it works as intended you should be able to roll the planar die anyways since that is exactly what the card says.
    The thing that restricts Wishes to only getting cards from your sideboard isn't errata, it's the Tournament Rules. That's it. In any other setting Wishes are, by the rules of the game, allowed to get any card you own from outside the game. Except in EDH, where they have format-specific errata that says they do nothing.

    Fractured Powerstone works in the sense that the card does what it's supposed to. It's just that most EDH games don't use Planechase planes, so the second ability is almost always entirely irrelevant. Burning Wish, when cast in any non-tournament setting (i.e. most games of EDH), however, is supposed to allow me to get any sorcery I own from outside the game and put it into my hand. But it doesn't. Because of a format-specific rule that serves no purpose except to prevent Wishes from working. At which point the question becomes "why aren't they just banned?" The RC obviously doesn't want Wishes allowed by default (hence the heavy-handed format errata) but if that's the case shouldn't they just be outright banned? Because the rule certainly wasn't put in place to make sure Karn, the Great Creator is still playable seeing as how he was released... what like a week ago, while the Wish rule was put into place at least a decade ago, if not longer.

    Which circles us back around to the original point. If the goal is to make the default option for EDH games "no Wishes allowed" just ban them. It is both simpler and more intuitive to see these cards expressly forbidden than this sort of faux banned state they're in now, in which players are legally allowed to play cards that do nothing despite what the textboxes say.
    Quote from cryogen »
    The simple fact is that the no sideboard rule is a defining format rule, just as other formats have defined sideboards.
    You'd think if it was such a defining rule of the format, the word "sideboard" would appear at least once on the Offical Commander Rules website. I certainly couldn't find it. Eh, I'm sure it's not important.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    The Problem with that approach is the cards that do more than just wish and that part is fine. You wouldn't wanna ban Fractured Powerstone just because the second ability has no effect , same with Mastermind's Acquisition or Research // Development. So a blanket ban is undesirable. And a specific ban on those who only wish is the single card errata on those that don't. Banning all is only a "clean" solution if you do the same for Fractured Powerstone, draft matters cards.
    The only 'real' card that would be hit as collateral is Karn, the Great Creator. The rest are either Wishes, underpowered jank nobody is playing anyways, or have functionally identical counterparts. But all of that is beside the point because this obviously wasn't even a concern for the RC seeing as how most of these cards didn't even exist when they created this rule. Rule 13 is, for all intents and purposes, a ban on Wishes without actually being a ban because that's what it was designed to be.

    As for your other suggestions, it's not the same. Fractured Powerstone and draft-matters cards behave exactly how they are supposed to in a game of EDH. Same thing goes with Battle of Wits which people keep mentioning. All of these cards work as the rules say they do. Burning Wish does not. Its rules text has been explicitly removed by the RC. It's essentially format-specific errata, just like Karakas used to have. And we all know what happened there.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from cryogen »
    Quote from JqlGirl »
    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.
    Or, because it continues to be a poor solution. It's the same as if the RC added a hypothetical "Rule 14: Relentless Rats-type effects do not work in Commander." It's an example of the RC going out of their way to remove functionality from cards without actually banning the cards in question because... reasons? It is absurdly close to card-specific errata, and there is simply no reason for it. Either Wishes are fine and should be legal to work how they work, or they're not and they should be banned. There's no middle ground here.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    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.

    Please see rules:
    4) A Commander deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including the Commander
    * to pull cards in from outside the game effectively gives you more than 100 cards, which is against rule 4. Adding a rule to say that wished cards are exiled upon resolution is a less elegant way to handle it. The potential for 101 cards or more in game would violate deck construction and possibly result in a DQ.
    13) Abilities which bring card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Wishes; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander.
    * it now says they don't work to pull cards outside the game, into the game for use.
    Seeing as how a large portion of EDH games are unsanctioned pick-up games, I felt it was appropriate to quote the segment about unsanctioned play.

    As for the rest of your post, I don't really know what you're getting at. I'm aware that Wishes don't work in EDH, that was the whole reason I spoke up in the first place. 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.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Paliano, the High City doesn't explain how it doesn't do anything either... Wishes specify outside the game, conspiracy cards specify drafting. I'm seriously not seeing any difference. You're granting that the average EDH player is smart enough to know that draft cards don't work when you don't draft but not that sideboard tutors don't work when there aren't sideboards?
    "If you control Paliano, the High City but you didn’t draft a card named Paliano, the High City, its second ability won’t add mana to your mana pool. Notably, Paliano won’t produce colorless mana."

    "In a sanctioned event, a card that’s “outside the game” is one that’s in your sideboard. In an unsanctioned event, you may choose any card from your collection."

    Yeah. Weird why I might think that.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    I am not sure why rule 13 is a huge issue.

    A lot of cards are legal in commander decks that don't have any function. Paliano, the High City is Commander legal but last time I checked I do not draft my Commander deck (even though Commander draft sounds interesting). Don'T put cards in your deck which are bad in the format. It is as simple as that.
    Mainly because the card itself should explain that it doesn't function in EDH. Palino (and other draft-matters card) specifically mention being drafted. Wishes don't. As far as I can tell, sideboards aren't mentioned at all on the official commander rules page. The only mention of Wishes not working how one would think they do is tucked away in Rule 13, the last rule, on the "Play" tab. It should be made more clear, either under "Deck Construction" (because it more affects construction than play) or, as I would clearly prefer, under the "Banlist" tab because that's where it makes the most sense.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    "Sideboards don't exist in commander, therefore the card does not function."

    End of the conversation, there isn't a "no, but" required.
    Except the card is legal to play. Why?

    It's not even mentioned on the ban list page on the "Official Commander Rules" site. Add a section for cards that reference "outside the game" and list them out real quick. That's all that needs to be done.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Between new Karn and Mastermind's Acquisition, Wizards has shown they're open to printing more effects of this type into the game, so increasing the banlist every time one of these gets printed on day 1 is a far less elegant way than simply denying the function full stop.
    It really isn't any more elegant. The fact that I am legally allowed to put a card in my deck, cast that card, and then perform exactly zero game actions is as inelegant as it gets. Wishes are effectively banned, they're just not listed on the ban list. That's inelegant. If a new player asks me "is Burning Wish banned" I shouldn't have to say "no, but..." and then a long-winded explanation. That's inelegant.

    It is extremely obvious the RC want the Wishes banned but simply don't want to make the banned list look larger. Just bite the bullet and add them to the list.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.