If they are going to keep Companions around, here is what I would like to see corrected.
If you reveal a Companion then:
Draw your 7 cards, one card is revealed at random and put on the bottom of your deck after you take your last Mulligan. (It could also be shuffled into the deck as a possibility.)
The companion takes away variance, the random card put on the bottom adds variance right back in. No one starts with an 8 card hand then.
OR
If you reveal a Companion then:
Draw your 7 cards, After all mulligans, pick a card at random from your starting hand and exchange it for your Companion, that card goes to the sideboard.
Again, companion is taking away variance, but the random card placed into the sideboard increases variance AND the opponent now has a means to interact with that Companion card, being in hand instead of out there is exile somewhere.
A couple of thoughts, nothing more.
I would argue that the "pros" of having access to a guaranteed companion in a zone that's not your actual hand is part of the allure of the mechanic. Putting the card in hand and making it susceptible to hand disruption in addition to the measures you mentioned, would not be worth the risk. Additionally, it would all but force decks to run black for things like Thoughtseise as one of the few ways to answer the card before it hits the battlefield.
If anything, I imagine the solution will be somewhere in the middle, where constructed formats will have the companion player mulligan to what amounts to a keep-able hand, and either skips their first draw or puts an additional card of their choice on the bottom of the deck. There's 0 chance it'll be a random card or have the companion put into hand. Both results would amount to a ban "in effect", as the high risk nature of building a deck around the mechanic AND having to increase the amount of hoops for the guaranteed card, would be unpalatable. People might sooner include multiples of the card in deck vs relying on the companion mechanic, which flies in the face of why the card has the mechanic in the first place.
It really does seem like the wording for this card is incomplete. By comparison, the Mythos of Snapdax card specifies that you get to choose what each player gets to keep if the RB is part of the total cost paid for it. This card should have been worded differently. Something like "Destroy target nonland creature. If GW was spent to cast this spell, destroy target nonland permanent instead."
Shouldn't have to infer what the card is trying to convey. As is, the whole "reading the card, explains the card." isn't clear with the current wording...
The rules committee pre-banned the Elemental Otter.
PLEASE TAKE OVER THE BANLIST WOTC! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!
...You're joking right? This is really a surprise to you?
Let's go over the reasons why this card, if it would work as they're suggesting in commander, would be problematic:
1. The "Companion" clause is literally a restriction already imposed by the Commander format - so there's absolutely zero downside to running this.
2. It's the 8th card "in hand" without it effecting your deck size, because it's "not a sideboard card", but it's in exile and you can cast it with normal timing restrictions.
3. Functions as card 101 in literally every Red/Blue and Red/Blue/+ deck ever. It's the definition of an "auto-include." It's solid enough as a 3/2 with flash that doesn't impact your hand size.
4. Your opponent's can't make you discard it.
5. It's never a dead card in hand.
6. It's ripe for abuse excluding the above.
Novemember/December Secret Lairs: (5) at $29.99, (2) at $39.99. $200 for a bundle. January Secret Lairs: (1) at $39.99. (no $29.99 products) February Secret Lairs: (5) at $39.99. $150 for a bundle. (no $29.99 products)
really... and there are people still defending this product
Have you checked the prices of the original art Gods in foil? If you bought each one in foil, as of TCG prices today, it would be ~$465 for 15 cards... or you can get cards that haven't been available or reprinted, as a newer player or a fan of the new art style for a fraction of the cost...
Your high horse sir/madam, please dismount it. These products aren't for everyone, and that's ok. You have plenty of other things to look forward to this year as far as other products go.
I like nothing about this card. Estrid players are getting their deck spoon fed to them.
As opposed to zombie/vampire/angel/graveyard decks getting spoonfed by the Innistrad block? Planeswalker/superfriend decks with War of the Spark? Artifact decks with Kaladesh? Merfolk/vampires/dinosaurs with Ixalan?
It's just how it goes, and there's nothing abnormal about it.
I just wanted to point out a few things about this sword that might not be obvious to everyone here to clarify why this sword is not only ridiculous, but more powerful than the other sword in the set, Sword of Truth and Justice.
For Modern:
Most swords haven't seen any play since Stoneforge Mystic was banned. So whether it's playable there isn't so much of an arguement. Modern set yes, but it's obvious by now that WotC caters to multiple formats with sets like these.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being black. Black is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can target "up to one" of both a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact. Unlike most swords (Sword of Feast and Famine, Sword of Body and Mind, Sword of War and Peace), you can target different permanents than have them directed at/limited by the person you've just attacked.
-- You can attack the vulnerable opponent to hit 2 targets that are controlled by 1-2 other opponents.
* You can blow up your own artifacts if needed. (ex. Spine of Ish Sah)
* You don't have to decide whether to swing at a Planeswalker or at your opponent, you can have your cake and eat it too.
* Gives conditional removal to decks that might not have access to straight up Planeswalker or artifact removal.
* If there are no planeswalkers or artifacts out, opponents are unlikely to play them if they can't protect them or outright blow up your sword with them. This means that your opponents aren't progressing in the game as fast as you might be.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You might not have a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact to blow up (Though this is super unlikely in multiplayer since just about everyone is playing one or the other, or both in their deck).
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being blue. Blue is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters.
* You can proliferate, so there's a high upside for Planeswalkers and other permanents that have counters.
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters... (Obviously this has a more exponential curve of utility. While the ceiling is quite high, the floor is in the basement.)
* Gives conditional proliferate to decks that might not have as much access to the effect.
I for one hope that popular opinion on this one tanks, because it just means that I'll be able to scoop up copies for cheaper than I should be able to.
This seems like less of a point against what I said and more of a grasp at...something... Act of Treason effects are plentiful. Taking or exchanging control effects as well. Copy spells, etc. Resources can be shared, stolen or copied; control of them can change whether it be permanent or temporary.
What doesn't change is ownership. You can never shuffle a card you don't own into your library. Things that are inherently yours, does not change when a game starts or ends. You still only ever had access to the 100 cards in your library, that you built and shuffled up before hand. That a card outside of your decklist could be shuffled into your deck is problematic.
To reduce slow play, why not just make it so you can't dig through a non-wishboard source? That way if you only have, say 10, cards and you have packed say 3 sorceries and are looking for a sorcery with a Burning Wish, you only have 3 choices. Plus you can't shuffle anyway which is another time consumer.
Sure, but we are still at the original problem of saying the RC needs to create a concrete definition, either through working with WotC to make the comp rules and Oracle allow wishes to be defined in Commander, or by creating functional errata. If you're on the latter side, then you just dont like the errata they came up with.
I'll go on the record and say that while all of this seems plausible, and is likely the best case scenario in favor of wishes, it's a significant amount of effort to make ~10 cards work.
Things that would need to happen to allow for wishes in Commander:
WotC needs to define/errata how the wishes work in Commander
The RC needs to define a side/wishboard rule
The RC needs to clarify, within the rules of Commander, what can/can't be in the sideboard
The issues this causes are as follows:
Sideboards become a thing... This is an issue because the whole slow play thing is now magnified. If people start running hoser/color hate cards to side in between games, they then may choose to side in some of those cards versus the current landscape of the table... now they're mulling over what they can afford to take out for the hoser cards...
In addition to the above point, cards that people can't justify running in their mainboard (silver bullet answers), suddenly see an increase in play via wishes or sideboarding between games. If it's not worth running the majority of the time, you shouldn't be running it.
Deck building can very likely go from "Commander + 99 cards" to "Commander + 99 cards(+ defined sideboard amount) - # of wish effects you can run in your colors". This results in people being less selective in what they choose to run because wishes can be multiple things.
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.
It may just be my opinion, but the issues brought about by enabling wishes outweigh the potential benefits. The concessions that would have to be made to allow for them to function isn't worth the effort and long term damage on the games yet to be played and the deck construction process over all.
This is effectively a summary of the points I've gathered so far, with an attempt to be as unbiased as possible (I'm in the anti-wish camp):
Pro-Wish Camp:
1) We have cards that we want to use on a regular basis, with any group we might come across, without having to ask permission before doing so.
2) We don't like that the rules are in the grey area of legal but non-functional in the Commander/EDH format and we want the RC/CAG to either ban them or make them legal.
3) We don't feel that comparing other format cards to wishes (ex. planechase and draft) are valid arguments against why wishes can't be functional in Commander. Cards that have alternate conditions like Battle of Wits also don't count in the argument against playability because while legal, they inherently break the limit on deck construction of 100 cards or require multiples prohibited by singleton.
4) The "spirit of the format" is to allow all cards that could see play in other formats, but don't, due to mana cost, effect, efficiency, etc. Wishes are a part of that list of cards, in our opinion, and want them to see play as well.
5) Don't judge the cards and their 'worst-case scenario' in the hands of competitive players, they don't represent the majority - some of us just want to try to pull off these cool plays.
6) The 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' isn't an issue because the majority of the cards are well within reasonable limits and are even lower than most of the most commonly played cards.
Anti-Wish Camp:
1) Any functionality granted to wishes violates one or more rules, would circumvent the rules, or would require too many additional concessions to limit their scope. The changes that would need to be made would change the wish card's functionality to be something else entirely (or at least heavily errata'd).
2) Wishes are currently cards that have the potential to spike in popularity/demand, and the single time printings of them could cause a 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' for players.
3) The social contract is determined/interpreted to be something different for each play group, and the current state of wishes being non-functional maintains reasonable expectations going into anywhere, be it a new group of friends, an LGS or anywhere else.
4) The 'worst-case scenario' has to be taken into account when banning/unbanning anything. While this case is unique, it is not immune to the same consideration.
5) The current system isn't broken when it comes to dictating what sort of things are suitable for casual, group accepted play. Everything from running currently banned cards, making your own banned lists, running wishes, or even special mulligan rules is all within reach, if your play group agrees to it.
Rule 0: These are the official rules of Commander. Local groups are welcome to modify them as they see fit. If you’d like an exception to these rules, especially in an unfamiliar environment, please get the approval of the other players before the game begins
Rule 0 has been part of Commander philosophy for more than a decade. Urged by the CAG, we simply decided to formalize it. Making it the first rule does two things. First, it lays out the baseline rules for the format. If you want to play official Commander, the rules that follow are set in stone.
This becomes important in unfamiliar environments. When you go to a large event or play with people you don’t know, we want everyone to have the same basic expectations and understanding of what they’re getting into.Second, it underscores that quality communication is one of the best ways to ensure the best possible experience.
I've seen plenty of comments on the subject, as new action or continued inaction often bring these things back up to the surface. This is especially true for those that hold a topic close to heart. In addition to what I feel are logical points against wishes and the often mentioned 'wishboards/sideboards', These next points might tip the scales in favor of things remaining as they currently are.
1) There is a distinct lack of consistency in what people want when it comes to wishes. Some favor the most literal reading of the card... duplicate of a card in your 99, card in a binder, off color card, etc. Some of those same people later make concession after concession, from trying to make it adhere to the rules of singleton to bartering for the size of the side/wishboard. Some are suggesting that the RC adopt an official sideboard from which wishes can be pulled, despite a sideboard never having been legal by official rules.
This all points to what the social contract is for. While the RC/CAG could technically implement the changes that are requested, and the Pro-wish camp would sing it's praises, there are still likely those among that same camp that would complain that their vision for how wishes would function isn't what's official. ex. "We shouldn't be limited to 5/10 cards. Magic's sideboard is 15!" or "The card says I can pull any card that matches the criteria, why am I limited to anything at all?"
2) Setting aside potential demand and cost increases for these underutilized cards, the ease with which a card can be abused and how good a card is at what it does are some of the things that eventually gets it banned (see: Primeval Titan, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial, Prophet of Kruphix).
When there's a will, there's a way. People will find the most degenerate uses for them, and with enough attention and prevalence, the outcome will be the same. Even if you're not on "team hyper-competitive", a subsequent banning or rule change would effect you as well if you play by the official rules. If you choose not to play by the official rules at that point, then you're already in unofficial territory, so why persist in getting wishes into official gameplay?
TL;DR
Convincing individuals you know and play with regularly to try out wishes and their wishboards seems like the path of least resistance here. If you can't manage to do that, try to find another group of people at an LGS or come to terms with people not liking/wanting wishes in Commander/EDH. Trying to force the issue and your desire to use cards that don't currently function in the format isn't in line with the social contract as it is. When people come together and agree on the kind of games they want to play, they stay and do so. When no agreement is met, people don't play. Find people who agree to play the way you want to and play games with them.
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?
1
I would argue that the "pros" of having access to a guaranteed companion in a zone that's not your actual hand is part of the allure of the mechanic. Putting the card in hand and making it susceptible to hand disruption in addition to the measures you mentioned, would not be worth the risk. Additionally, it would all but force decks to run black for things like Thoughtseise as one of the few ways to answer the card before it hits the battlefield.
If anything, I imagine the solution will be somewhere in the middle, where constructed formats will have the companion player mulligan to what amounts to a keep-able hand, and either skips their first draw or puts an additional card of their choice on the bottom of the deck. There's 0 chance it'll be a random card or have the companion put into hand. Both results would amount to a ban "in effect", as the high risk nature of building a deck around the mechanic AND having to increase the amount of hoops for the guaranteed card, would be unpalatable. People might sooner include multiples of the card in deck vs relying on the companion mechanic, which flies in the face of why the card has the mechanic in the first place.
1
Shouldn't have to infer what the card is trying to convey. As is, the whole "reading the card, explains the card." isn't clear with the current wording...
3
...You're joking right? This is really a surprise to you?
Let's go over the reasons why this card, if it would work as they're suggesting in commander, would be problematic:
1. The "Companion" clause is literally a restriction already imposed by the Commander format - so there's absolutely zero downside to running this.
2. It's the 8th card "in hand" without it effecting your deck size, because it's "not a sideboard card", but it's in exile and you can cast it with normal timing restrictions.
3. Functions as card 101 in literally every Red/Blue and Red/Blue/+ deck ever. It's the definition of an "auto-include." It's solid enough as a 3/2 with flash that doesn't impact your hand size.
4. Your opponent's can't make you discard it.
5. It's never a dead card in hand.
6. It's ripe for abuse excluding the above.
How is all of that not enough to ban it?
2
Have you checked the prices of the original art Gods in foil? If you bought each one in foil, as of TCG prices today, it would be ~$465 for 15 cards... or you can get cards that haven't been available or reprinted, as a newer player or a fan of the new art style for a fraction of the cost...
Your high horse sir/madam, please dismount it. These products aren't for everyone, and that's ok. You have plenty of other things to look forward to this year as far as other products go.
4
As opposed to zombie/vampire/angel/graveyard decks getting spoonfed by the Innistrad block? Planeswalker/superfriend decks with War of the Spark? Artifact decks with Kaladesh? Merfolk/vampires/dinosaurs with Ixalan?
It's just how it goes, and there's nothing abnormal about it.
1
For Modern:
Most swords haven't seen any play since Stoneforge Mystic was banned. So whether it's playable there isn't so much of an arguement. Modern set yes, but it's obvious by now that WotC caters to multiple formats with sets like these.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being black. Black is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can target "up to one" of both a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact. Unlike most swords (Sword of Feast and Famine, Sword of Body and Mind, Sword of War and Peace), you can target different permanents than have them directed at/limited by the person you've just attacked.
-- You can attack the vulnerable opponent to hit 2 targets that are controlled by 1-2 other opponents.
* You can blow up your own artifacts if needed. (ex. Spine of Ish Sah)
* You don't have to decide whether to swing at a Planeswalker or at your opponent, you can have your cake and eat it too.
* Gives conditional removal to decks that might not have access to straight up Planeswalker or artifact removal.
* If there are no planeswalkers or artifacts out, opponents are unlikely to play them if they can't protect them or outright blow up your sword with them. This means that your opponents aren't progressing in the game as fast as you might be.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You might not have a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact to blow up (Though this is super unlikely in multiplayer since just about everyone is playing one or the other, or both in their deck).
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being blue. Blue is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters.
* You can proliferate, so there's a high upside for Planeswalkers and other permanents that have counters.
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters... (Obviously this has a more exponential curve of utility. While the ceiling is quite high, the floor is in the basement.)
* Gives conditional proliferate to decks that might not have as much access to the effect.
I for one hope that popular opinion on this one tanks, because it just means that I'll be able to scoop up copies for cheaper than I should be able to.
1
Act of Treason effects are plentiful. Taking or exchanging control effects as well. Copy spells, etc. Resources can be shared, stolen or copied; control of them can change whether it be permanent or temporary.
What doesn't change is ownership. You can never shuffle a card you don't own into your library. Things that are inherently yours, does not change when a game starts or ends. You still only ever had access to the 100 cards in your library, that you built and shuffled up before hand. That a card outside of your decklist could be shuffled into your deck is problematic.
1
I'll go on the record and say that while all of this seems plausible, and is likely the best case scenario in favor of wishes, it's a significant amount of effort to make ~10 cards work.
Things that would need to happen to allow for wishes in Commander:
The issues this causes are as follows:
It may just be my opinion, but the issues brought about by enabling wishes outweigh the potential benefits. The concessions that would have to be made to allow for them to function isn't worth the effort and long term damage on the games yet to be played and the deck construction process over all.
2
Pro-Wish Camp:
1) We have cards that we want to use on a regular basis, with any group we might come across, without having to ask permission before doing so.
2) We don't like that the rules are in the grey area of legal but non-functional in the Commander/EDH format and we want the RC/CAG to either ban them or make them legal.
3) We don't feel that comparing other format cards to wishes (ex. planechase and draft) are valid arguments against why wishes can't be functional in Commander. Cards that have alternate conditions like Battle of Wits also don't count in the argument against playability because while legal, they inherently break the limit on deck construction of 100 cards or require multiples prohibited by singleton.
4) The "spirit of the format" is to allow all cards that could see play in other formats, but don't, due to mana cost, effect, efficiency, etc. Wishes are a part of that list of cards, in our opinion, and want them to see play as well.
5) Don't judge the cards and their 'worst-case scenario' in the hands of competitive players, they don't represent the majority - some of us just want to try to pull off these cool plays.
6) The 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' isn't an issue because the majority of the cards are well within reasonable limits and are even lower than most of the most commonly played cards.
Anti-Wish Camp:
1) Any functionality granted to wishes violates one or more rules, would circumvent the rules, or would require too many additional concessions to limit their scope. The changes that would need to be made would change the wish card's functionality to be something else entirely (or at least heavily errata'd).
2) Wishes are currently cards that have the potential to spike in popularity/demand, and the single time printings of them could cause a 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' for players.
3) The social contract is determined/interpreted to be something different for each play group, and the current state of wishes being non-functional maintains reasonable expectations going into anywhere, be it a new group of friends, an LGS or anywhere else.
4) The 'worst-case scenario' has to be taken into account when banning/unbanning anything. While this case is unique, it is not immune to the same consideration.
5) The current system isn't broken when it comes to dictating what sort of things are suitable for casual, group accepted play. Everything from running currently banned cards, making your own banned lists, running wishes, or even special mulligan rules is all within reach, if your play group agrees to it.
I've seen plenty of comments on the subject, as new action or continued inaction often bring these things back up to the surface. This is especially true for those that hold a topic close to heart. In addition to what I feel are logical points against wishes and the often mentioned 'wishboards/sideboards', These next points might tip the scales in favor of things remaining as they currently are.
1) There is a distinct lack of consistency in what people want when it comes to wishes. Some favor the most literal reading of the card... duplicate of a card in your 99, card in a binder, off color card, etc. Some of those same people later make concession after concession, from trying to make it adhere to the rules of singleton to bartering for the size of the side/wishboard. Some are suggesting that the RC adopt an official sideboard from which wishes can be pulled, despite a sideboard never having been legal by official rules.
This all points to what the social contract is for. While the RC/CAG could technically implement the changes that are requested, and the Pro-wish camp would sing it's praises, there are still likely those among that same camp that would complain that their vision for how wishes would function isn't what's official. ex. "We shouldn't be limited to 5/10 cards. Magic's sideboard is 15!" or "The card says I can pull any card that matches the criteria, why am I limited to anything at all?"
2) Setting aside potential demand and cost increases for these underutilized cards, the ease with which a card can be abused and how good a card is at what it does are some of the things that eventually gets it banned (see: Primeval Titan, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial, Prophet of Kruphix).
When there's a will, there's a way. People will find the most degenerate uses for them, and with enough attention and prevalence, the outcome will be the same. Even if you're not on "team hyper-competitive", a subsequent banning or rule change would effect you as well if you play by the official rules. If you choose not to play by the official rules at that point, then you're already in unofficial territory, so why persist in getting wishes into official gameplay?
TL;DR
Convincing individuals you know and play with regularly to try out wishes and their wishboards seems like the path of least resistance here. If you can't manage to do that, try to find another group of people at an LGS or come to terms with people not liking/wanting wishes in Commander/EDH. Trying to force the issue and your desire to use cards that don't currently function in the format isn't in line with the social contract as it is. When people come together and agree on the kind of games they want to play, they stay and do so. When no agreement is met, people don't play. Find people who agree to play the way you want to and play games with them.
1
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?