You try and say those examples work because the rules say so, I agree. We also agree Wishes will not without format specific errata.
The questions is whether or not that is worth the effort and effects to gameplay.
Well, Wishes technically could work without format specific errata, but I would highly suggest we don't do that. If this thread has taught me anything, its that people will go out of their way to give themselves a favorable ruling on how a card works based completely on flimsy semantic arguments (which reminds me of the story about a casual game playing against a guy with Ball Lightning in his deck who tried to say that he didn't have to sacrifice it at end of turn because it said "sacrifice at end of any turn" so he got to choose what turn he wanted to sacrifice it ). I think that providing clarification on how Wishes work (which many, if not most, people assume how they would work anyway) is still a much better format-level rule than just saying they don't work.
With all that said, maybe the RC isn't the people we need to be talking to. Perhaps a better way to solve this is to petition WotC to provide a "real" Oracle card ruling for non-sanctioned play. I doubt that the powers-that-be at WotC would directly override to RC, but perhaps there is a way for the Oracle card rulings to be written to solve the problem in a way that doesn't require Rule 13.
I don't see that happening, but knock yourself out I suppose. What would be the upside for WotC to do so?
WotC is always trying to improve their card rulings and they listen to input from players. A specific example of this is that I sent in a suggestion on how they could reword the Oracle ruling on Chains of Mephistopheles by adding two instances of "this way" to help clear up one of the most frustrating mis-interpretations of the card. I actually got a very specific response back asking questions about my suggestion and about a year later the card's Oracle text was changed. Now I'm not saying that I was directly responsible for this, but the fact that I actually got a response back surprised the hell out of me, and the fact that it ended up happening makes me think that someone is out there listening.
Quote from Schweinfett »
Nothing. It's not going to benefit WotC in any way. Alienating the RC by going over their heads isn't something that is positive, and it's not like EDH is a tournament-style format that needs such detailed-rules-lawyering.
I seriously doubt WotC will actually do anything drastic like this with the intent of 'fixing' EDH without first talking to the RC.
I'm not suggesting that they go over the RC's head and make Commander decisions without consulting them. What I'm suggesting is that the Oracle card rulings be better defined to make the RC's job easier. If the definition of "outside the game" was at a minimum changed to "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 as long as the card is legal in the format you are playing (such as Two-Headed Giant, Commander, Brawl, etc.) and conforms to any rules or restrictions for that format (such as Singleton, Color Identity, Unified Construction, Block Constructed, etc.)", then 90% of the issues with how wishes worked in casual play would go away. It would be even better if they set a limit for how many cards a player could set aside for this as well. However, I think that they could do even better than that by having a specific Oracle ruling for official formats that don't use a sideboard.
Unfortunately, Panharmonicon doesn’t copy the trigger from God-Eternal Oketra as it is a ‘cast’ trigger and not an ‘enters the battlefield’ trigger, but you still might make it worthwhile depending on what other creatures you run.
I think that something like Skullclamp would be really good here.
So I took a look at a few other decks to see where I might include Wishes. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking that Burning Wish, Living Wish, Cunning Wish, Glittering Wish, and maybe Mastermind's Acquisition would be the ones that I would be serious about including. I don't think that I would include Research // Development in my Riku deck, and the others are too expensive for me to really seriously consider.
So I've already shown what [b]Burning Wish[/c] targets I would include for Bosh, so this is what I would do for Cunning Wish in Riku of Two Reflections (with obvious stipulations that I haven't though this out 100% so I might be missing something, but this is the general gist that would cover what I would want to cover).
2) Games of Commander are unsanctioned, so I don't know why the RC has to have any rulings on what a sideboard is. The concept of a sideboard is unnecessary for Commander play. The idea of people revealing their commanders and people siding in cards before a game starts seems awfully unnecessary and kinda lame, so I understand why people wouldn't want sideboards. But you don't need a sideboard for a wish to work; you just need to define the parameters that a player must follow to get a cards from "outside the game". I will repeat this again; if calling it a Wishboard is somehow problematic because of a Wishboard's association with a sideboard for sanctioned, competitive play, then call it something different.
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the name. And without a set number of cards, you slide right back into 'how do wishes work outside known groups?'
Except when people are purposefully misleading others into thinking that a Wishboard is anything other than something to make a Wish work as intended without holding up the game. It has been suggested that allowing sideboards for a Wish somehow implies that people will then be allowed to sideboard before and/or between games, and even though that was the intent of the old "House Rule" or "optional" sideboard rule (that has since been eliminated), that is just not the case here. Either people act confused to intentionally derail the conversation or they really are confused that the two are different. I'm just trying to reiterate that they are two different things.
3) The biggest reason that I am opposed to the concept of "If you don't like Rule 13, then see Rule 0 and ask your playgroup" is that for every other class of cards that might come up under Rule 0, the default is that they are legal and allowed. We don't have a rule that says "Cards that destroy more than two lands do nothing in a game of Commander.", we ask before we start whether people are playing Mass-LD or not and go from there. We could do the same thing with Stax cards, infinite combos, extra turn cards, or whatever players might find objectionable, but the default is that these cards are legal and do exactly what they say they do. For some reason, Wishes are treated differently.
There is also no confusion about how those cards work. Wishes work differently depending on what kind of game it is. Banned cards also do not fall under a separate class.
So once the confusion is cleared up, then we should be all good, right? So let's clear up the confusion. It's not that hard.
4) The biggest reasons why Wishes are treated differently has nothing to do with most of the reasons people bring up in this thread. The biggest reason is that the Oracle Card Rulings for Wishes are totally wishy-washy on what "outside the game" should mean for non-sanctioned play. The more I think about it, the more it makes a certain degree of sense for the RC to be equally vague on the subject. I just think that we have enough smart people in the room to figure this out so that we can fix this issue. And if it comes down to all the smart people coming together and saying that this issue is either not worth solving, unsolvable, or the issue are insurmountable, then so be it. I just haven't heard anything that is a true deal-breaker yet.
That discussion has clearly been had by the RC, and a decision was made. A certain faction will never like that idea. Much like Hybrid, or Extort.
There at least are very good reasons for why Hybrid and Extort behave the way they do in Commander; it is based firmly on the rules of the game. The rules state that a Hybrid card is both colors, not one color or the other. The rules state that reminder text has no function. For a format that was created by and is currently run by former judges, I would expect nothing less. People who don't like Hybrid or Extort rulings in Commander are basically asking for format-level errata to allow the cards to work differently than they do (not functionally, but within the rules of Commander which I concede is slightly different). What we are asking for with Wishes is that if they need format-level errata, then let's do it such that they act like their current printed intent.
With all that said, maybe the RC isn't the people we need to be talking to. Perhaps a better way to solve this is to petition WotC to provide a "real" Oracle card ruling for non-sanctioned play. I doubt that the powers-that-be at WotC would directly override to RC, but perhaps there is a way for the Oracle card rulings to be written to solve the problem in a way that doesn't require Rule 13.
I step away from this thread for a couple days and all heck breaks loose....
1) I would not be in favor of having Wishes get cards from Exile as some sort of compromise. The whole point of this exercise is to allow Wishes to function as close as possible within the rules of the game and cards in Exile are clearly not the same as cards "outside the game". I understand the idea of wanting to re-establish lost functionality, but that is a slippery slope.
2) Games of Commander are unsanctioned, so I don't know why the RC has to have any rulings on what a sideboard is. The concept of a sideboard is unnecessary for Commander play. The idea of people revealing their commanders and people siding in cards before a game starts seems awfully unnecessary and kinda lame, so I understand why people wouldn't want sideboards. But you don't need a sideboard for a wish to work; you just need to define the parameters that a player must follow to get a cards from "outside the game". I will repeat this again; if calling it a Wishboard is somehow problematic because of a Wishboard's association with a sideboard for sanctioned, competitive play, then call it something different.
3) The biggest reason that I am opposed to the concept of "If you don't like Rule 13, then see Rule 0 and ask your playgroup" is that for every other class of cards that might come up under Rule 0, the default is that they are legal and allowed. We don't have a rule that says "Cards that destroy more than two lands do nothing in a game of Commander.", we ask before we start whether people are playing Mass-LD or not and go from there. We could do the same thing with Stax cards, infinite combos, extra turn cards, or whatever players might find objectionable, but the default is that these cards are legal and do exactly what they say they do. For some reason, Wishes are treated differently.
4) The biggest reasons why Wishes are treated differently has nothing to do with most of the reasons people bring up in this thread. The biggest reason is that the Oracle Card Rulings for Wishes are totally wishy-washy on what "outside the game" should mean for non-sanctioned play. The more I think about it, the more it makes a certain degree of sense for the RC to be equally vague on the subject. I just think that we have enough smart people in the room to figure this out so that we can fix this issue. And if it comes down to all the smart people coming together and saying that this issue is either not worth solving, unsolvable, or the issue are insurmountable, then so be it. I just haven't heard anything that is a true deal-breaker yet.
5) Someone had the great idea of posting actual potential wishboards for people to look at so that we can talk about the practical impact of what we are talking about here. I had a similar idea to post a few 10-card piles so that we could have the discussion; If a player came into a game asking to use a Wish and offered to show you their stack of cards that they have set aside for that wish, would you allow it? In another thread, I proposed the following as a wishboard for my Bosh, Iron Golem deck.
I'll post a few more wishboards later this week when I have some time to actually think about what I would want to play (I'm all about the hypothetical exercise). This will at least get some conversation going.
I’m particular to Bosh, Iron Golem being the best mono-red Commander, but I think that I’m fairly biased in this regard. I think that the new Neheb, Dreadhorde General or Neheb, the Eternal are both fantastic cards to potentially build around without having an obvious theme. You mention playing with your opponents cards, so I would also check out Etali, Primal Storm. The other mono-red general that I thought would be really interesting to build was Varchild, Betrayer of Kjledor.
Mono-green has plenty of ways to go for Elf tribal, but I think that Druid tribal with Seton, Krosan Protector can be equally good yet much less expected. Other good options would be Titania, Protector of Argoth or Yisan, the Wanderer Bard as both have some cool things going on without having a theme set in stone.
I remember when Mishra's Workshop got unrestricted in Vintage and the first big deck to come out of that was TnT or "Tools and Tubbies" . Su-Chi was one of the go-to "Tubbies" along with Juggernaut. In Commander, I used it in my Bosh deck for a while as it let me throw it with Bosh and give me mana back to throw something else. It's a good card that can net you mana in sacrifice decks.
I'm still reeling a bit from the last two sets. There are just so many good cards to try out. Now that I have my hands on a few, I'm actually trying to figure out what might go where. Here are my thoughts on what I think is the best of the crop in War of the Spark:
White Finale of Glory - I don't run as much ramp in my Rhys Tokens deck, but it still supports a few good X-spell token makers. On the "FO Token Scale" (assume one token doubler and one Anthem, add the total power, and divide by mana cost) this rates a meh 3.0 at X=2, a solid 3.6 at X=3, and a fantastic 4.0 at X=4. It just keeps getting better after that. God-Eternal Oketra - At a minimum, this is going into Varina Zombies and Captain Sisay Legends decks. Prison Realm - Will likely make it in my Uril Enchantress deck
I also like Gideon Blackblade and Ravnica at War, but I have no place for them yet.
Blue Commence the Endgame - This is going into Varina Zombies, Jalira Polymorph, and possibly Ni-Mizzet and/or Damia. I'm really digging this card. Flux Channeler - This is going into Atraxa Superfriends for sure and possibly Vorel. God-Eternal Kefnet - I really want to try this in Niz-Mzzet.
I'm a fan of Spark Double but I don't know what to do with it. I'm also wondering whether Aven Eternal and Eternal Skylord will be good enough for Varina Zombies
Black Bolas's Citadel - This card is nuts. It will slot in nicely in my Endrek Sahr deck once I figure out what to cut. Davriel, Rogue Shadowmage - This card is going into Nicol Bolas Discard Dreadhorde Invasion - Going into Varina Zombies Finale of Eternity - This is going to go into a few decks that want some mass removal without wanting to really Wrath the board like Obzedat, Varina, Prossh, and Ghave God-Eternal Bontu - This is going into Varina Zombies, Endrek Sahr, Prossh, and Ghave to replace Skullmulcher. Lazotep Reaver - This is going into Varina Zombies where I think it will play a nice role as two bodies for only two mana. Liliana, Dreadhorde General - This is also going into Varina Zombies, Endrek Sahr, and probably Prossh
I'm also looking for a place to play a copy of Massacre Girl.
Colorless Ugin, the Ineffable - Karn, Bosh, and probably Atraxa Firemind Vessel - Niv-Mizzet and Bosh Interplanar Beacon - Atraxa Karn's Bastion - I can probably swing this in 2-color Vorel, but I don't think it will work in 3-color Ghave or 4-color Atraxa. I also might run it in my Colorless Karn Eldrazi deck just for aesthetic purposes even though the Proliferate ability would only interact with 7 cards in the deck. Mobilized District - Maybe in Sisay Legends
Soooo... yeah. Holy *****. I've got a lot of work to do, especially given that I never really finished updating decks from Ravnica Allegiance or Guilds of Ravnica. Good times....
both options can be made to work within the rules of Commander
so special ruling is needed, esp. in the case of a wishboard because.
as someone stated before in unsanctioned games you can get the card from anywhere not just your sideboard. Also being able to grab anything not just cards that fit your normal commander deckbuilding rules.
The concept of a Wishboard is strictly for time savings. You make the restriction solely for the purpose of not holding up the game. We don't even have to have a Wishboard for all I care, but even if a Wishboard wasn't codified in the rules I would still have a set of cards set aside specifically for each deck that had a wish in it. And yes, you provide a special ruling specifically so people won't argue about how they work and won't try to pull some of the shenanigans that some people are suggesting. In this case, the words "a card you own outside the game" needs some clarification, so let's clarify it.
Wishboards do have something to do with the 100 card rule just as a regular sideboard has to do something with the deckbuilding rule. A deck must have a minimum of 60 Cards adn may have a sideboard of 0 to 15 cards. Your normal deck isnt just your deck its your deck + SB. So the same appklies to commander if you do a wishboard the new deck construction rule is 100 + 0- max wishboard size. So if you are advocationg for a wishboard you are breaking the 100 card deckbuilding rule and making it a 100 + WB rule.
No. You wouldn't go to a sanctioned match with a 45 card maindeck and a 15 card sideboard and try and tell a judge "hey, my 'deck' is 60 cards. What's the problem?" Sideboard cards are clearly outside the game and accounted for differently than maindeck cards. Also, a wishboard for Commander and a sideboard for constructed are two totally different things. Where a sideboard has a very specific definition for constructed events, a Wishboard for Commander is just "a subset of cards outside the game specifically set aside to make searching for a card I wish for take less time". We can call it something else if it makes people feel better, but don't get hung up on the semantics. Cards outside the game don't count towards your 100-card deck, whether they are in a Wishboard or not.
exactly how they are supposed to
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.
The non-Commander rules and Oracle card rulings don't support this at all. Specifically, the Wishes all have the same Oracle ruling "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." If I knew nothing about Rule 13, there would be no reason to think that I couldn't use a Wish to get the appropriate card from my trade binder since a game of Commander is clearly an Unsanctioned event. What we are asking for is to make that happen, but clarify exactly how it will work to avoid confusion.
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 Oracle card rulings take care of this issue just as they do with Wishes. We are asking that Wishes to be treated the same. You are basically proving my point. And even without the Oracle ruling on Fractured Powerstone, rolling a planar die in a game of Commander would have no effect. It would be like playing a Wrath of God when there are no creatures in play...
Since you like playing dudes, you might consider the new Oketra God-Eternal Oketra. Solid body, and will help you spew out dudes while doing what your deck already wants to do: cast creatures!
This is the first thing that came to my mind. I think that new Oketra is going to end up being one of the best multiplayer mono-white commanders in the format.
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).
There is a difference between a card being blanked (as Burning Wish is by Rule 13) versus a card being allowed to do exactly what it says with what the card says being virtually useless. In the case of Battle of Wits, there is no Rule 14 that states "Cards that would win you the game for having more than 200 cards in your deck do nothing in Commander." The card is allowed to function exactly as it reads, you just have no way of achieving that win condition in a normal game of Commander. These are completely different issues.
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.
My point is that the card wins versus the rules. A wish shouldn't need extra text that says "In a game of Commander, do X instead".
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.
Pickup and "public" games are where the Social Contract is needed the most. If I am playing with strangers, I would be going the extra mile to make sure we are all on the same page regarding what is cool and what is not and choosing a deck accordingly.
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.
1) The comment about the "minority" wasn't about people wanting/not wanting wishes, it was specific to people not wanting wishes because of the idea that it somehow violates the 100 card rule. In my experience, this is not the biggest reason that people give for not wanting Wishes.
2) The 100 card rule isn't rubbish. Stating that a Wish violates that rule somehow is rubbish in my opinion. The 100 card rule clearly governs how your deck can be constructed while a Wish clearly talks about cards outside the game. Cards outside the game are clearly not in your 100 card deck. The two have nothing to do with one another.
3) You say that the other cards don't break the rules because of their card text, but neither does a Wish. Additional rules had to be written to override what the card says. That is the problem.
4) My point is that if Rule 13 were eliminated, then a Wish would occupy the same ground as the other cards; they would function as printed.
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?
[/quote]
1) The point of proposing a new Rule 13 to govern how Wishes would work would be to eliminate any questions as to how they would function in a format like Commander that has specific deck construction rules. I would prefer this to just eliminating Rule 13 specifically to prevent someone from trying to pull shenanigans. Having Wishes work within the flavor of Commander makes sense, hence why I suggest Rule 13 be changed to what I proposed (or at least, something close to that). This is no different than how a Wish would work like in other formats where it still needs to be a legal card; you can't Cunning Wish for an Ancestral Recall in a game of Legacy and try and argue with a judge that "hey, it says outside the game so why not?"
2) Dichotomancy still does exactly what it says it does; there is no rule that blanks its text box. If the opponent Clones a creature, then the original gets Spin Into Myth'd back into that players library, then Dichotomancy works perfectly fine...
3) Hedron Alignment still does exactly what it says it does; there is not rule that blanks its text box. The chances of you meeting the victory condition are 0% given the current card pool, but it still works as printed. If WotC printed a card that said "Until end of turn, all non-land cards in Exile, your Graveyard, and your hand are copies of target permanent.", you could combo the two to win the game.
4) Battle of Wits still does exactly what it says it does; there is no rule that blanks its text box. Again, the chances of meeting the victory condition are currently 0%, but if they printed enough Eldrazi you could Spawnsire of Ulamaog them into your hand and shuffle them into your library and win...
5) There is a difference between functionally useless and being artificially made useless.
[quote]"Because asking if you can use a wish [Battle of wits] for its actual intended purpose"
.
If you are on the wishboard team then this is not it's actual intended purpose. If you are on the Any card team you are "indirectly" saying you are against the intended purpose of some commander rules. (Singleton , Exactly 100 cards (that is also broken with wishboards) , color Identity, Banned cards)
So arguing from that point of intended purpose seems irrelevant to me because by going for one intended purpose you will break the other and vice versa.
And while I personally wouldn't mind a 115 card format I do belive breaking rules that are for an intended purpose is seen worse than breaking a cards intended purpose, as that happens all the time in commander and regular magic anyways. The whole in this case is more important than the part.
The Oracle card rulings contradict your assumptions on "intended purpose" here, but even then I don't think its as black and white as you make it out to be. Both a Wishboard and "Any card" options can be made to work within the rules of Commander. Furthermore, Wishboards do not have anything to do with the 100 card deck construction rules; these cards are outside the game and not in your deck.
So changing that for everyone is a bit steep. It's also unfair to do that just for wishes if you are allowed to get anything you essentially are breaking the 100 card rule of the format just for wishes, but I can't do the same If I want to play battle of wits even though it works as intended and by doing that it has no functionality.
The examples of Battle of Wits and a Wish are totally different. First, stating that people are breaking the 100-card rule, breaking the CI rules, or breaking the Highlander rule with a Wish is attacking a strawman. Most people who support wishes want them to have the same restrictions as everything else in Commander. On the other hand, playing a 200+ maindeck just because you want to play Battle of Wits is obviously a violation of the rules.
The difference here is in the case of a Wish, its the card that is breaking any rules involved whereas in the case of playing a 200-card deck its the player who is breaking the rules. Two different things.
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.
I'm starting to think that this was an April Fool's joke.... the cake is a lie.
In all seriousness, I had just opened up a TO account with the intention of putting all my decks there when this announcement came out. I held off doing anything with the hopes of just keeping everything here on MTGS. 4-1/2 months since the announcement, we don't even have any information about what is going on. Even bad news would be better than no news at this point.
My favorite Magic card is probably Oversold Cemetery. Reusing and abusing the graveyard for fun and profit has always been one of my favorite things to do.
The sig editor is telling me there is a 512 character limit, so it won't let me "fix" the mana tags in my signature. Furthermore, it must also be counting the url in each link as part of the character limit.
Well, Wishes technically could work without format specific errata, but I would highly suggest we don't do that. If this thread has taught me anything, its that people will go out of their way to give themselves a favorable ruling on how a card works based completely on flimsy semantic arguments (which reminds me of the story about a casual game playing against a guy with Ball Lightning in his deck who tried to say that he didn't have to sacrifice it at end of turn because it said "sacrifice at end of any turn" so he got to choose what turn he wanted to sacrifice it
WotC is always trying to improve their card rulings and they listen to input from players. A specific example of this is that I sent in a suggestion on how they could reword the Oracle ruling on Chains of Mephistopheles by adding two instances of "this way" to help clear up one of the most frustrating mis-interpretations of the card. I actually got a very specific response back asking questions about my suggestion and about a year later the card's Oracle text was changed. Now I'm not saying that I was directly responsible for this, but the fact that I actually got a response back surprised the hell out of me, and the fact that it ended up happening makes me think that someone is out there listening.
I'm not suggesting that they go over the RC's head and make Commander decisions without consulting them. What I'm suggesting is that the Oracle card rulings be better defined to make the RC's job easier. If the definition of "outside the game" was at a minimum changed to "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 as long as the card is legal in the format you are playing (such as Two-Headed Giant, Commander, Brawl, etc.) and conforms to any rules or restrictions for that format (such as Singleton, Color Identity, Unified Construction, Block Constructed, etc.)", then 90% of the issues with how wishes worked in casual play would go away. It would be even better if they set a limit for how many cards a player could set aside for this as well. However, I think that they could do even better than that by having a specific Oracle ruling for official formats that don't use a sideboard.
I think that something like Skullclamp would be really good here.
I think that if you keep going down the route of using Restoration Angel type creatures, cards like Thraben Inspector also make sense.
So I've already shown what [b]Burning Wish[/c] targets I would include for Bosh, so this is what I would do for Cunning Wish in Riku of Two Reflections (with obvious stipulations that I haven't though this out 100% so I might be missing something, but this is the general gist that would cover what I would want to cover).
1 Counterspell
1 Artifact Mutation
1 Echoing Truth
1 Voidslime
1 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Arachnogenesis
1 Evacuation
1 Opportunity
1 Comet Storm
Except when people are purposefully misleading others into thinking that a Wishboard is anything other than something to make a Wish work as intended without holding up the game. It has been suggested that allowing sideboards for a Wish somehow implies that people will then be allowed to sideboard before and/or between games, and even though that was the intent of the old "House Rule" or "optional" sideboard rule (that has since been eliminated), that is just not the case here. Either people act confused to intentionally derail the conversation or they really are confused that the two are different. I'm just trying to reiterate that they are two different things.
So once the confusion is cleared up, then we should be all good, right? So let's clear up the confusion. It's not that hard.
There at least are very good reasons for why Hybrid and Extort behave the way they do in Commander; it is based firmly on the rules of the game. The rules state that a Hybrid card is both colors, not one color or the other. The rules state that reminder text has no function. For a format that was created by and is currently run by former judges, I would expect nothing less. People who don't like Hybrid or Extort rulings in Commander are basically asking for format-level errata to allow the cards to work differently than they do (not functionally, but within the rules of Commander which I concede is slightly different). What we are asking for with Wishes is that if they need format-level errata, then let's do it such that they act like their current printed intent.
With all that said, maybe the RC isn't the people we need to be talking to. Perhaps a better way to solve this is to petition WotC to provide a "real" Oracle card ruling for non-sanctioned play. I doubt that the powers-that-be at WotC would directly override to RC, but perhaps there is a way for the Oracle card rulings to be written to solve the problem in a way that doesn't require Rule 13.
1) I would not be in favor of having Wishes get cards from Exile as some sort of compromise. The whole point of this exercise is to allow Wishes to function as close as possible within the rules of the game and cards in Exile are clearly not the same as cards "outside the game". I understand the idea of wanting to re-establish lost functionality, but that is a slippery slope.
2) Games of Commander are unsanctioned, so I don't know why the RC has to have any rulings on what a sideboard is. The concept of a sideboard is unnecessary for Commander play. The idea of people revealing their commanders and people siding in cards before a game starts seems awfully unnecessary and kinda lame, so I understand why people wouldn't want sideboards. But you don't need a sideboard for a wish to work; you just need to define the parameters that a player must follow to get a cards from "outside the game". I will repeat this again; if calling it a Wishboard is somehow problematic because of a Wishboard's association with a sideboard for sanctioned, competitive play, then call it something different.
3) The biggest reason that I am opposed to the concept of "If you don't like Rule 13, then see Rule 0 and ask your playgroup" is that for every other class of cards that might come up under Rule 0, the default is that they are legal and allowed. We don't have a rule that says "Cards that destroy more than two lands do nothing in a game of Commander.", we ask before we start whether people are playing Mass-LD or not and go from there. We could do the same thing with Stax cards, infinite combos, extra turn cards, or whatever players might find objectionable, but the default is that these cards are legal and do exactly what they say they do. For some reason, Wishes are treated differently.
4) The biggest reasons why Wishes are treated differently has nothing to do with most of the reasons people bring up in this thread. The biggest reason is that the Oracle Card Rulings for Wishes are totally wishy-washy on what "outside the game" should mean for non-sanctioned play. The more I think about it, the more it makes a certain degree of sense for the RC to be equally vague on the subject. I just think that we have enough smart people in the room to figure this out so that we can fix this issue. And if it comes down to all the smart people coming together and saying that this issue is either not worth solving, unsolvable, or the issue are insurmountable, then so be it. I just haven't heard anything that is a true deal-breaker yet.
5) Someone had the great idea of posting actual potential wishboards for people to look at so that we can talk about the practical impact of what we are talking about here. I had a similar idea to post a few 10-card piles so that we could have the discussion; If a player came into a game asking to use a Wish and offered to show you their stack of cards that they have set aside for that wish, would you allow it? In another thread, I proposed the following as a wishboard for my Bosh, Iron Golem deck.
1 Molten Disaster
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Warp World
1 Aftershock
1 Insurrection
1 Vandalblast
1 Molten Psyche
1 Brass's Bounty
1 Faithless Looting
I'll post a few more wishboards later this week when I have some time to actually think about what I would want to play (I'm all about the hypothetical exercise). This will at least get some conversation going.
Mono-green has plenty of ways to go for Elf tribal, but I think that Druid tribal with Seton, Krosan Protector can be equally good yet much less expected. Other good options would be Titania, Protector of Argoth or Yisan, the Wanderer Bard as both have some cool things going on without having a theme set in stone.
White
Finale of Glory - I don't run as much ramp in my Rhys Tokens deck, but it still supports a few good X-spell token makers. On the "FO Token Scale" (assume one token doubler and one Anthem, add the total power, and divide by mana cost) this rates a meh 3.0 at X=2, a solid 3.6 at X=3, and a fantastic 4.0 at X=4. It just keeps getting better after that.
God-Eternal Oketra - At a minimum, this is going into Varina Zombies and Captain Sisay Legends decks.
Prison Realm - Will likely make it in my Uril Enchantress deck
I also like Gideon Blackblade and Ravnica at War, but I have no place for them yet.
Blue
Commence the Endgame - This is going into Varina Zombies, Jalira Polymorph, and possibly Ni-Mizzet and/or Damia. I'm really digging this card.
Flux Channeler - This is going into Atraxa Superfriends for sure and possibly Vorel.
God-Eternal Kefnet - I really want to try this in Niz-Mzzet.
I'm a fan of Spark Double but I don't know what to do with it. I'm also wondering whether Aven Eternal and Eternal Skylord will be good enough for Varina Zombies
Black
Bolas's Citadel - This card is nuts. It will slot in nicely in my Endrek Sahr deck once I figure out what to cut.
Davriel, Rogue Shadowmage - This card is going into Nicol Bolas Discard
Dreadhorde Invasion - Going into Varina Zombies
Finale of Eternity - This is going to go into a few decks that want some mass removal without wanting to really Wrath the board like Obzedat, Varina, Prossh, and Ghave
God-Eternal Bontu - This is going into Varina Zombies, Endrek Sahr, Prossh, and Ghave to replace Skullmulcher.
Lazotep Reaver - This is going into Varina Zombies where I think it will play a nice role as two bodies for only two mana.
Liliana, Dreadhorde General - This is also going into Varina Zombies, Endrek Sahr, and probably Prossh
I'm also looking for a place to play a copy of Massacre Girl.
Red
Chandra, Fire Artisan - This looks like it could be a good addition to Gisela Burn
Ilharg, the Raze-Boar - I was wracking my brain trying to find a place for him when it hit me that Riku is perfect
Jaya, Venerated Fire Mage - Straight into Gisela Burn
Krenko, Tin Street Kingpin - Straight into RB Wort Goblins
Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion - Gisela Burn and Niv-Mizzet both want a crack at the new Neheb
Green
Bloom Hulk - Will find a spot in either Ghave or Vorel. I'm currently trying to split all the various cards between the two decks so that they have minimal overlap.
Evolution Sage - Atraxa, Vorel, and Ghave all want this.
Finale of Devastation - This is going to get a tryout in RG Wort, although this is one of those cards that can go into like 10 different decks.
God-Eternal Rhonas - Will find a home in Captain Sisay Legends
Jiang Yanggu, Wildcrafter - I'm a fan of this in either Ghave or Vorel plus it might get a spot in Atraxa
Paradise Druid - Ezuri Elves likes Elf Druids that produce mana
Pollenbright Druid - Ezuri Elves like Elf Druids that also synergize with cards like Metallic Mimic, Rishkar, Peema Renegade, and Marwyn, the Nurturer
I'm also looking for a place to play Planewide Celebration, Vivien's Arkbow, and Vivien, Champion of the Wilds
Colorless
Ugin, the Ineffable - Karn, Bosh, and probably Atraxa
Firemind Vessel - Niv-Mizzet and Bosh
Interplanar Beacon - Atraxa
Karn's Bastion - I can probably swing this in 2-color Vorel, but I don't think it will work in 3-color Ghave or 4-color Atraxa. I also might run it in my Colorless Karn Eldrazi deck just for aesthetic purposes even though the Proliferate ability would only interact with 7 cards in the deck.
Mobilized District - Maybe in Sisay Legends
Multi-Colored
Tezzeret, Master of the Bridge - Atraxa
Bioessence Hydra - I'll give this a try in Atraxa since I opened one, but this seems unlikely to make the cut
Casualties of War - This looks like a good addition to Jarad
Deathsprout - I really want this to be good enough to play, so I'm going to give it a whirl in Jarad as well
Despark - Will go into Obzedat
Elite Guardmage - Something to consider for Brago Blink
Enter the God Eternals - I think this is good enough for Oona Mill
Merfolk Skydiver - Probably Vorel
Neoform - Riku is the right spot for this
Nicol Bolas, Dragon-God - Into Nicol Bolas Discard
Pledge of Unity - This could be good enough to run in Ghave
Ral, Storm Conduit - This card seems awesome for Niv-Mizzet
Roalesk, Apex Hybrid - Atraxa or Vorel, but both decks are going to be tough to fit stuff into without some deep cuts
Role Reversal - Even Zedruu got another toy to play with
Tolsimir, Friend to Wolves - This might have a spot in Sisay Legends
Ashiok, Dream Render - This seems great for Oona Mill
Kiora, Behemoth Reckoner - The untap ability is very welcome in Vorel and possibly in my Derevi Pingers deck
Saheeli, Sublime Artificer - Niv-Mizzet is going to love this
I also like Domri, Anarch of Bolas, but I'm unsure that I have a place to even give it a tryout.
Soooo... yeah. Holy *****. I've got a lot of work to do, especially given that I never really finished updating decks from Ravnica Allegiance or Guilds of Ravnica. Good times....
Burning Wish - $1
Cunning Wish - $7
Living Wish - $1
Golden Wish - $0.50
Death Wish - $0.50
Glittering Wish - $6
Ring of Ma'rûf - $100-$150 Starcitygames.com (Note this is an Arabian Nights card; price range is for NM to SP)
Coax From the Blind Eternities - $0.35
Research // Development - $0.70
Mastermind's Acquisition - $2
Spawnsire of Ulamog - $4
Karn, the Great Creator - $10
Are we really talking 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' based on that?!?!?
The concept of a Wishboard is strictly for time savings. You make the restriction solely for the purpose of not holding up the game. We don't even have to have a Wishboard for all I care, but even if a Wishboard wasn't codified in the rules I would still have a set of cards set aside specifically for each deck that had a wish in it. And yes, you provide a special ruling specifically so people won't argue about how they work and won't try to pull some of the shenanigans that some people are suggesting. In this case, the words "a card you own outside the game" needs some clarification, so let's clarify it.
No. You wouldn't go to a sanctioned match with a 45 card maindeck and a 15 card sideboard and try and tell a judge "hey, my 'deck' is 60 cards. What's the problem?" Sideboard cards are clearly outside the game and accounted for differently than maindeck cards. Also, a wishboard for Commander and a sideboard for constructed are two totally different things. Where a sideboard has a very specific definition for constructed events, a Wishboard for Commander is just "a subset of cards outside the game specifically set aside to make searching for a card I wish for take less time". We can call it something else if it makes people feel better, but don't get hung up on the semantics. Cards outside the game don't count towards your 100-card deck, whether they are in a Wishboard or not.
The non-Commander rules and Oracle card rulings don't support this at all. Specifically, the Wishes all have the same Oracle ruling "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." If I knew nothing about Rule 13, there would be no reason to think that I couldn't use a Wish to get the appropriate card from my trade binder since a game of Commander is clearly an Unsanctioned event. What we are asking for is to make that happen, but clarify exactly how it will work to avoid confusion.
The Oracle card rulings take care of this issue just as they do with Wishes. We are asking that Wishes to be treated the same. You are basically proving my point. And even without the Oracle ruling on Fractured Powerstone, rolling a planar die in a game of Commander would have no effect. It would be like playing a Wrath of God when there are no creatures in play...
This is the first thing that came to my mind. I think that new Oketra is going to end up being one of the best multiplayer mono-white commanders in the format.
I otherwise recommend Linvala, Keeper of Silence and maybe an Honor-Worn Shaku.
There is a difference between a card being blanked (as Burning Wish is by Rule 13) versus a card being allowed to do exactly what it says with what the card says being virtually useless. In the case of Battle of Wits, there is no Rule 14 that states "Cards that would win you the game for having more than 200 cards in your deck do nothing in Commander." The card is allowed to function exactly as it reads, you just have no way of achieving that win condition in a normal game of Commander. These are completely different issues.
My point is that the card wins versus the rules. A wish shouldn't need extra text that says "In a game of Commander, do X instead".
Pickup and "public" games are where the Social Contract is needed the most. If I am playing with strangers, I would be going the extra mile to make sure we are all on the same page regarding what is cool and what is not and choosing a deck accordingly.
1) The comment about the "minority" wasn't about people wanting/not wanting wishes, it was specific to people not wanting wishes because of the idea that it somehow violates the 100 card rule. In my experience, this is not the biggest reason that people give for not wanting Wishes.
2) The 100 card rule isn't rubbish. Stating that a Wish violates that rule somehow is rubbish in my opinion. The 100 card rule clearly governs how your deck can be constructed while a Wish clearly talks about cards outside the game. Cards outside the game are clearly not in your 100 card deck. The two have nothing to do with one another.
3) You say that the other cards don't break the rules because of their card text, but neither does a Wish. Additional rules had to be written to override what the card says. That is the problem.
4) My point is that if Rule 13 were eliminated, then a Wish would occupy the same ground as the other cards; they would function as printed.
[/quote]
1) The point of proposing a new Rule 13 to govern how Wishes would work would be to eliminate any questions as to how they would function in a format like Commander that has specific deck construction rules. I would prefer this to just eliminating Rule 13 specifically to prevent someone from trying to pull shenanigans. Having Wishes work within the flavor of Commander makes sense, hence why I suggest Rule 13 be changed to what I proposed (or at least, something close to that). This is no different than how a Wish would work like in other formats where it still needs to be a legal card; you can't Cunning Wish for an Ancestral Recall in a game of Legacy and try and argue with a judge that "hey, it says outside the game so why not?"
2) Dichotomancy still does exactly what it says it does; there is no rule that blanks its text box. If the opponent Clones a creature, then the original gets Spin Into Myth'd back into that players library, then Dichotomancy works perfectly fine...
3) Hedron Alignment still does exactly what it says it does; there is not rule that blanks its text box. The chances of you meeting the victory condition are 0% given the current card pool, but it still works as printed. If WotC printed a card that said "Until end of turn, all non-land cards in Exile, your Graveyard, and your hand are copies of target permanent.", you could combo the two to win the game.
4) Battle of Wits still does exactly what it says it does; there is no rule that blanks its text box. Again, the chances of meeting the victory condition are currently 0%, but if they printed enough Eldrazi you could Spawnsire of Ulamaog them into your hand and shuffle them into your library and win...
5) There is a difference between functionally useless and being artificially made useless.
The Oracle card rulings contradict your assumptions on "intended purpose" here, but even then I don't think its as black and white as you make it out to be. Both a Wishboard and "Any card" options can be made to work within the rules of Commander. Furthermore, Wishboards do not have anything to do with the 100 card deck construction rules; these cards are outside the game and not in your deck.
The examples of Battle of Wits and a Wish are totally different. First, stating that people are breaking the 100-card rule, breaking the CI rules, or breaking the Highlander rule with a Wish is attacking a strawman. Most people who support wishes want them to have the same restrictions as everything else in Commander. On the other hand, playing a 200+ maindeck just because you want to play Battle of Wits is obviously a violation of the rules.
The difference here is in the case of a Wish, its the card that is breaking any rules involved whereas in the case of playing a 200-card deck its the player who is breaking the rules. Two different things.
Add Enchanted Evening for a night of fun....
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.