[Poll] Which cards do you think should be unbanned?

Which cards do you think should be unbanned?

Ancestral Recall
5
3%
Balance
6
3%
Biorhythm
5
3%
Black Lotus
2
1%
Braids, Cabal Minion
6
3%
Coalition Victory
7
4%
Channel
1
1%
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
2
1%
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
2
1%
Fastbond
3
2%
Gifts Ungiven
18
10%
Griselbrand
2
1%
Iona, Shield of Emeria
3
2%
Karakas
3
2%
Leovold, Emissary of Trest
4
2%
Library of Alexandria
10
5%
Limited Resources
3
2%
Moxen
4
2%
Paradox Engine
5
3%
Panoptic Mirror
11
6%
Primeval Titan
6
3%
Prophet of Kruphix
4
2%
Recurring Nightmare
14
7%
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
10
5%
Sway of the Stars
3
2%
Sundering Titan
5
3%
Sylvan Primordial
5
3%
Time Vault
2
1%
Time Walk
3
2%
Tinker
4
2%
Tolarian Academy
7
4%
Trade Secrets
5
3%
Upheaval
2
1%
Wishes
8
4%
Worldfire
3
2%
Yawgmoth's Bargain
5
3%
 
Total votes: 188

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

Doubling Chant can still be used in Relentless Rats, Rat Colony, Shadowborn Apostle, and Persistent Petitioners decks.

While it's not good, Squadron Hawk still functions as just a 1/1 flying creature that lets you shuffle your deck.

Wish cards, on the other hand, do actual literal nothing.
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

ZenN wrote:
3 years ago
Doubling Chant can still be used in Relentless Rats, Rat Colony, Shadowborn Apostle, and Persistent Petitioners decks.

While it's not good, Squadron Hawk still functions as just a 1/1 flying creature that lets you shuffle your deck.

Wish cards, on the other hand, do actual literal nothing.

Ok, then the Odyssey shrines.ost of those do literally nothing, or battle if wits.

And then what about wish effects on other cards that DO function, moreso that the cards I mentioned, like new Karn or masterminds acquisition. Changing the rules to make wishes function would obviously effect those, and potentially lead to a Karn ban or at least serious discussion of it.

I get that both being banned and being non-functional means the cards are unuseable, but there are more issues with making wishes work than unbanning a card.

Like what if wizards decided that the wishes should function as originally intended and allow them to grab cards from exile again? They would be functional in commander, but not fully functional as they could only grab exiled things. Like Masterminds Acquisition currently is plenty functional but can't use it's wish half. Would people consider that wishes being unbanned, or is the issue still the outside the game functionality? If the latter, then a vote for wishes to be "unbanned" is also a vote for currently playable cards like Karn and Masterminds to be "unbanned." I mean that as in I don't think that a very narrow "unban" that allows cards with wish in the name to be used as intended would cover what a vote to unban wishes really means.

Rather than the merits of the individual cards being the focus of discussion, the merits of the 100 card limit and not allowing sideboards, and the philosophy underpinning them, as well as the impact the rules changes would have on other cards (if wishboards are added what use is the 100 card limit anymore, free Battle of Wits! But no, I'm not serious about that) becomes the focus. That's how wishes differ pretty importantly from actually banned cards, except for the ante cards, which are legit banned but also have rules issues to sort out.

You know what, throw ante on there, I want to win my buddy's underground sea.
Last edited by onering 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

Nope, those all work just fine, because they check all graveyards and each player could be playing the same card.

Assuming I understood you correctly, and you were talking about:
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

ZenN wrote:
3 years ago
Nope, those all work just fine, because they check all graveyards and each player could be playing the same card.

Assuming I understood you correctly, and you were talking about:
Ok, they barely, barely do something if multiple people play the same card. It's not exactly doing what it's intended to do, and almost non-functional. I updated it to include battle of wits, which really does nothing, but you were probably already typing when I did. Regardless, the point stands, the rules of commander take away functionality from many cards, and some are rendered non-functional or so close to it as to be functionally the same in all but, let's face it, thought experiments. If I wanted to be pedantic, I could point out that the wishes actually can be cast to trigger effects that key off of instants and sorceries, that battle of wits triggers constellation, and that the black wish can let you get rid of half your life if for some reason you want that effect. You can, actually, still play them, they just don't really do anything worthwhile except in extreme corner cases.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4540
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

The difference between wishes and the shrines (and other cards rendered weaker by singleton), though, is that nerfing the shrines is an unfortunate side-effect of a critical rule of commander. Without singleton the format would be vastly different, and probably a lot less fun. The rule wasn't created to nerf the shrines or other similar cards.

The same cannot, imo, be said for rule 11. It's only purpose is to turn off wishes. It's not an unfortunate side-effect, it's the intended goal. If you think wishes working would ruin commander, then you might consider it a good rule, but you can't claim "oh, what a shame that some cards just don't jive with the rules of commander". They don't jive because the rules specifically singled them out, not because the premise of the format prevents them from working as intended.

The 100 card maximum does kind of seem like a rule designed to also soft-ban battle of wits, since up until Yorion I don't see much practical purpose behind it. But while I could see enjoying playing wishes, I don't see much value in battle of wits, and I don't really want to play against Yorion in the partner zone, so I'm less invested in changing it. Also, at least it's not an entirely separate rule, since obviously the deck minimum is necessary to establish.

Making the shrines "work as intended" without destroying the format would be pretty much impossible. But making the wishes work as intended would be as simple as altering/removing rule 11, and wouldn't have any other side effects on the format.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
3 years ago
The 100 card maximum does kind of seem like a rule designed to also soft-ban battle of wits, since up until Yorion I don't see much practical purpose behind it. But while I could see enjoying playing wishes, I don't see much value in battle of wits, and I don't really want to play against Yorion in the partner zone, so I'm less invested in changing it. Also, at least it's not an entirely separate rule, since obviously the deck minimum is necessary to establish.
Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
3 years ago
ZenN wrote:
3 years ago
JqlGirl wrote:
3 years ago


Wishes aren't banned, they just don't do anything.
Functionally the same thing.
Is it though? There are plenty of cards that don't function as intended due to some facet of edh. Is Doubling Chant functionally banned by the Singleton rule? How about Squadron Hawk?

There's a difference between requiring a rule change to work and being banned. One major difference is that wishes used to be able to grab cards from exile (because before the exile zone those cards where removed from the game). If wizards ever decided to reinstate that original functionality (and there is precedent for that, see Winter Orb) then Wishes would be immediately available to play for that purpose without any action by the RC.
Not analogous. Doubling Chant is fine with Shadowborn Apostle. Same with Odyssey Shrines.

I mean, I guess you could make an argument that you can play Fae of Wishes // Granted as just a Faerie, but, realistically, all the other wishes are functionally banned because there's no universe in which they provide more utility than a similar cost non-blank spell. I won't use the language of 'strictly better', because I'm sure some corner case exists where you would want to play a blank spell that exiles itself on resolution.

But, you'd never include them in your deck. They're basically banned, whereas the other cards you mentioned still see play.

I don't see there being much of a point in saying "Well, since it's disallowed under a different rule, it's not worthy of discussion in this thread." Enlighten me about why that difference matters?

UnNamed1
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by UnNamed1 » 3 years ago

cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
DirkGently wrote:
3 years ago
The 100 card maximum does kind of seem like a rule designed to also soft-ban battle of wits, since up until Yorion I don't see much practical purpose behind it. But while I could see enjoying playing wishes, I don't see much value in battle of wits, and I don't really want to play against Yorion in the partner zone, so I'm less invested in changing it. Also, at least it's not an entirely separate rule, since obviously the deck minimum is necessary to establish.
Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
It's also painful watching some people shuffle 100 cards. I can't even imagine double that.

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

UnNamed1 wrote:
3 years ago
cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
DirkGently wrote:
3 years ago
The 100 card maximum does kind of seem like a rule designed to also soft-ban battle of wits, since up until Yorion I don't see much practical purpose behind it. But while I could see enjoying playing wishes, I don't see much value in battle of wits, and I don't really want to play against Yorion in the partner zone, so I'm less invested in changing it. Also, at least it's not an entirely separate rule, since obviously the deck minimum is necessary to establish.
Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
It's also painful watching some people shuffle 100 cards. I can't even imagine double that.
Ugh, you're lucky if you weren't around playing Standard when they reprinted Battle of Wits years ago, in 9th and then again in M13... There would always be someone trying to play it at FNMs and the like.
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4540
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
Was EDH a format pre-odyssey? I was under the impression it wasn't a thing at all until ~2006. So it could have been the motivation in theory.

Anyway, I won't speculate too much on the original motivations for the rule, but imo its continued existence should justify itself. It's not like removing it would disrupt the format, a few more options would open up but everyone who optimized their decks pre-change would still have an optimized deck, unless they wanted to build it for Yorion.

But yeah, screw Yorion, so I'm kind of ok with it even if I think the original reasons for the rule were likely not very well thought out and it probably should have been removed at some point. It somehow managed to live long enough that now it's arguably useful, even if it's basically doing the same thing rule 11 is and soft banning a few cards.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
3 years ago
cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
Was EDH a format pre-odyssey? I was under the impression it wasn't a thing at all until ~2006. So it could have been the motivation in theory.

Anyway, I won't speculate too much on the original motivations for the rule, but imo its continued existence should justify itself. It's not like removing it would disrupt the format, a few more options would open up but everyone who optimized their decks pre-change would still have an optimized deck, unless they wanted to build it for Yorion.

But yeah, screw Yorion, so I'm kind of ok with it even if I think the original reasons for the rule were likely not very well thought out and it probably should have been removed at some point. It somehow managed to live long enough that now it's arguably useful, even if it's basically doing the same thing rule 11 is and soft banning a few cards.
Huh, yep you're right. Odyssey came out in 2001, and I think 2004 is considered the beginning of the format? The 1996 Duelist article "Elder Legend Dragon Wars" which served as an inspiration was played with 60 card (minimum) decks, so BoW must have been a thing already. Either way, I doubt they went into it thinking BoW was OP since they probably would have just banned it rather than worry that people would want to play huge decks without a specific reason.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

UnNamed1
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by UnNamed1 » 3 years ago

ZenN wrote:
3 years ago
UnNamed1 wrote:
3 years ago
cryogen wrote:
3 years ago


Battle of Wits being "soft-banned" is a casualty, not an intention, since the 100 card rule has been a fixture from Day One.
It's also painful watching some people shuffle 100 cards. I can't even imagine double that.
Ugh, you're lucky if you weren't around playing Standard when they reprinted Battle of Wits years ago, in 9th and then again in M13... There would always be someone trying to play it at FNMs and the like.
Huh, I guess my reply didn't post. I only recently got back into Magic with the WotS release, and since then went from standard to Commander. I really don't want to think of the money I have spent building my collection as I have a fair amount of commander staples.

Being someone who leans more towards the competitive side of EDH, soft bans I don't think are a bad thing. If a single card or such doesn't work, thats unfortunate but its also the rules of the format. If I could have something unbanned- i would vote Tinker. But that should never be coming off the banlist, Bolas's Citadel is a thing.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Sinis wrote:
3 years ago
onering wrote:
3 years ago
ZenN wrote:
3 years ago


Functionally the same thing.
Is it though? There are plenty of cards that don't function as intended due to some facet of edh. Is Doubling Chant functionally banned by the Singleton rule? How about Squadron Hawk?

There's a difference between requiring a rule change to work and being banned. One major difference is that wishes used to be able to grab cards from exile (because before the exile zone those cards where removed from the game). If wizards ever decided to reinstate that original functionality (and there is precedent for that, see Winter Orb) then Wishes would be immediately available to play for that purpose without any action by the RC.
Not analogous. Doubling Chant is fine with Shadowborn Apostle. Same with Odyssey Shrines.

I mean, I guess you could make an argument that you can play Fae of Wishes // Granted as just a Faerie, but, realistically, all the other wishes are functionally banned because there's no universe in which they provide more utility than a similar cost non-blank spell. I won't use the language of 'strictly better', because I'm sure some corner case exists where you would want to play a blank spell that exiles itself on resolution.

But, you'd never include them in your deck. They're basically banned, whereas the other cards you mentioned still see play.

I don't see there being much of a point in saying "Well, since it's disallowed under a different rule, it's not worthy of discussion in this thread." Enlighten me about why that difference matters?
I already did in a later post, but I'll repeat myself. Discussion of unbanning individual cards tends to focus on the merits of the cards themselves and whether or not they are fine to unban. Discussion of making wishes work tends to focus on how to change rule 11 and the side effects of changing that rule, including how it changes how certain cards that are playable function, like Karn and Acquisition and Spawnsire, but also how adding sideboards would work and the potentially negative impacts. Having a sideboard creates the expectation that you can sub in cards from your sideboard to deal with certain matchups, which sets the stage for players wanting to swap in a bunch of artifact or gy hate from their sideboard once they see what their opponents are playing, which is generally not something that jives well with a casual format and adds a competitive edge to what's supposed to be a friendly game. It is, in fact, one of the reasons the RC doesn't allow sideboards, they are against the spirit of the format and promote bad experiences (it's going to feel %$#% when everyone swaps in 3 gy hate cards each because you showed your playing meren, because you feel targeted before the game even starts and you know it's much more likely that you won't be able to do anything and have a %$#% game, simply because people were able to add extra hate that would not normally be in their decks just to screw you). You aren't allowed to search your entire collection because it takes forever and makes it much easier to cover all your bases with brutal hate cards. Avoiding those issues while making wishes work would require creating a new rule, the wishboard, and defining its size and any restrictions that go with it. It's not the biggest hurdle, but it's fundamentally different than just unbanning a card. It also immediately begs the Karn question, that once his ult works is the combo of play Karn, grab and play lattice, all your opponents have their lands shut down ok to have in the format. Theoretically any unbanning runs the risk of precipitating the banning of another card, and it was a concern when Hulk was unbanned that flash would one day need to be banned (I wrongly though it would be ok). In this case, like with flash hulk or painter/Iona, there's an obvious potential problem, but instead of the problem being caused by the availability of new cards it's caused by a currently legal card having it's functionality changed.

I also think it's funny that people are splitting hairs over cards that the rules render almost entirely unplayable and cards that the rules render entirely unplayable, but trying to argue that unbanning a card and changing a rule that makes a slew of cards work differently are fundamentally the same. Especially since the make wishes work argument has never been just about the cards actually named as wishes, but all cards with the effect. Masterminds Acquisition is currently Diabolic Tutor number 2, which is quite a bit more playable than the Oddessy shrines, but making wishes work would fundamentally change what Acquisition does in the format, and that is part of the point of making wishes work.

Changing the rules to make wishes work is the one change on this poll that changes how other, currently legal and playable cards work. It is also the one change that opens up a separate discussion on sideboards or the creation of wishboards, a side topic that would need to be addressed. It's not that it's "unworthy" of discussion in this thread, it's that its a larger topic that leads to a broader discussion than the other cards.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6283
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Karn lattice one card combo has to be like, the last thing this format could possibly want :P

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
3 years ago
I also think it's funny that people are splitting hairs over cards that the rules render almost entirely unplayable and cards that the rules render entirely unplayable, but trying to argue that unbanning a card and changing a rule that makes a slew of cards work differently are fundamentally the same. Especially since the make wishes work argument has never been just about the cards actually named as wishes, but all cards with the effect.
I guess, let me clarify my position.

I guess I took the tone of this thread to be in a colloquial sense 'what do you want to play with that you cannot?'

Wishes are something that you cannot reasonably play (I guess with the exception of Mastermind's Acquisition and Fae of Wishes; though, if we're being honest, I have never played Diabolic Tutor in my decks because I consider it unplayably bad and I sure don't need a second one in the form of Mastermind's, ditto for Fae of Wishes in groups that haven't allowed wishes to be played).

You'll forgive me if I don't respond to the remainder of your points; it's definitely not my intent to turn this into a Unban-Wish thread. There are other threads for that if anyone is interested.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
Karn lattice one card combo has to be like, the last thing this format could possibly want
I mean, at least that's costed somewhat high at 10. We're entering a world where you have consistent access to Zirda and are allowed to maindeck Basalt Monolith and Grim Monolith.

Anyway, the second you include these things in your deck, you know exactly what you're doing, and realistically, there's all sorts of worse things you can do at a more aggressive cost. Didn't someone model a Sisay/Jegantha pile that just gets to win? "It's broken" on its own isn't really all that great an argument anymore, IMO.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6283
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Sinis wrote:
3 years ago
I mean, at least that's costed somewhat high at 10. We're entering a world where you have consistent access to Zirda and are allowed to maindeck Basalt Monolith and Grim Monolith.
Tooth and Nail requires you to play other bricks in your deck. Karn is just, play karn, carry a lattice around with you, and you can lock everyone out of the game for 10 mana.

Infinite colorless is far less egregious as it requires another card, and if it has one it ends the game right then.

Just...no. If Iona's not okay, karn-lattice is not okay.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

And let's keep in mind that the partners have deck building restrictions to work. Karn just needs Lattice to not be in your deck.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
3 years ago
ZenN wrote:
3 years ago
JqlGirl wrote:
3 years ago


Wishes aren't banned, they just don't do anything.
Functionally the same thing.
Is it though? There are plenty of cards that don't function as intended due to some facet of edh. Is Doubling Chant functionally banned by the Singleton rule? How about Squadron Hawk?

There's a difference between requiring a rule change to work and being banned. One major difference is that wishes used to be able to grab cards from exile (because before the exile zone those cards where removed from the game). If wizards ever decided to reinstate that original functionality (and there is precedent for that, see Winter Orb) then Wishes would be immediately available to play for that purpose without any action by the RC.
The comparison between Wishes and cards and mechanics with effects that are useless in Commander is a false equivalency.

In Commander, cards with effects that are useless in Commander still function as intended by design. It's just that their purpose or potential can't be realized in the context of Commander because the format itself doesn't recognize them. This is not unique to Commander. Every format has cards with effects that are useless within the context of that format. The notion that "Battle of Wits doesn't work in Commander, therefore Burning Wish shouldn't either." is a case of apples and oranges.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6283
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
In Commander, cards with effects that are useless in Commander still function as intended by design. It's just that their purpose or potential can't be realized in the context of Commander because the format itself doesn't recognize them. This is not unique to Commander. Every format has cards with effects that are useless within the context of that format. The notion that "Battle of Wits doesn't work in Commander, therefore Burning Wish shouldn't either." is a case of apples and oranges.
Apples and oranges are both fruit.

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
In Commander, cards with effects that are useless in Commander still function as intended by design. It's just that their purpose or potential can't be realized in the context of Commander because the format itself doesn't recognize them. This is not unique to Commander. Every format has cards with effects that are useless within the context of that format. The notion that "Battle of Wits doesn't work in Commander, therefore Burning Wish shouldn't either." is a case of apples and oranges.
Apples and oranges are both fruit.
And Battle of Wits and Burning Wish are both cards.

Look at that! The analogy works!
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4540
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
Just...no. If Iona's not okay, karn-lattice is not okay.
The reason Iona isn't ok is because, as a big splashy angel, she has a veneer of fun. Karn lattice doesn't have a veneer of fun. It has no reason to be excluded from the format any more than winter orb does. People that are playing in competitive environments with low reliance on the social contract can play karn in those metas and they'll be fine - as a 10-mana combo, there are far scarier things that can be done. People playing in casual metas with a high reliance on the social contract won't put them in their decks because they aren't fun.

Plus it's not THAT easy to set up. You need to have 10 mana and use it contributing nothing to board presence while still being able to defend a 3-loyalty planeswalker. Not that any of that is particularly relevant because of the above, though.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 3 years ago

I voted for the low hanging fruit of Mirror, Insight, Gifts and Secrets.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
onering wrote:
3 years ago
ZenN wrote:
3 years ago


Functionally the same thing.
Is it though? There are plenty of cards that don't function as intended due to some facet of edh. Is Doubling Chant functionally banned by the Singleton rule? How about Squadron Hawk?

There's a difference between requiring a rule change to work and being banned. One major difference is that wishes used to be able to grab cards from exile (because before the exile zone those cards where removed from the game). If wizards ever decided to reinstate that original functionality (and there is precedent for that, see Winter Orb) then Wishes would be immediately available to play for that purpose without any action by the RC.
The comparison between Wishes and cards and mechanics with effects that are useless in Commander is a false equivalency.

In Commander, cards with effects that are useless in Commander still function as intended by design. It's just that their purpose or potential can't be realized in the context of Commander because the format itself doesn't recognize them. This is not unique to Commander. Every format has cards with effects that are useless within the context of that format. The notion that "Battle of Wits doesn't work in Commander, therefore Burning Wish shouldn't either." is a case of apples and oranges.
It's obviously not a false equivalency. Battle of Wits is a card, that can legally be played and cast in commander, that does nothing because a rule specific to commander makes it not work. Burning Wish is a card, that can legally be played and cast in commander, that does nothing because a rule specific to commander makes it not work. Fae of Wishes is a card that technically does something in commander (as a crappy creature) but has most of its functionality turned off by a rule specific to commander. Squadron Hawk, and similar cards, technically do something in commander (they are crappy creatures) but have most of their functionality turned off by a rule specific to commander (or any singleton format). Those are completely valid comparisons. I'm saying, quite clearly, that Wishes aren't special, other cards get shafted by commander specific rules.

I also didn't argue that Battle of Wits not working means that Wishes shouldn't work. I did not even argue that Rule 11 should remain. I argued simply that there is a lot more that goes into making Wishes work than simply unbanning a card, and that thus Wishes are not "functionally" banned. The rule that makes them not work actually, at this point, effects as many other cards as cards actually named wish, and those cards are already playable in commander (some suck, some actually have uses). That's a different ballgame than unbanning a card, or even multiple cards. Its more akin to making Battle of Wits work by changing the 100 card rule to a 100 card minimum, or relaxing the singleton rule for cards designed to fetch copies of themselves, or when they changed to color identity rule to allow cards like Bosh to work as commanders. I actually like the argument Dirk made in the Wish thread for 3 card wishboards, and have come to support that idea.

As an aside, comments from the RC regarding Wishes indicate that their opposition to sideboards, outside the game cards, and wishboards as a concept, stems at least in part from members of the RC seeing those things as fundamentally getting around the 100 card restriction. I'm not going to say its the only reason, as I think they also dislike the idea of subbing in cards against particular decks and possibly also using wishes as toolboxes for hate, but its something they have talked about. For them to make wishes work, they'd have to separate the concept of getting cards from outside the game and the concept of running more that 100 cards in your deck, or else they'd have to do away with the 100 card limit and let people run more, enabling Battle of Wits.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
3 years ago
I voted for the low hanging fruit of Mirror, Insight, Gifts and Secrets.
What's Insight?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”