[MCD] Wishes

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Preamble
Show
Hide
The spirit of the format is playing together, not against each other. – Sheldon Menery, Commanderin' Podcast 32
I believe that Rule 10 is an artifact of a bygone era. The purpose of this post is to shine a progressive light on age-old talking points about WISHING that span the last 20 years and to perhaps even offer a new argument or two, with the ultimate goal of inspiring the RC to reconsider Rule 10 and to rewrite it to reflect the comprehensive and Oracle rules, bringing the effect into the modern age and into sync with the rest of Magic. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a crucible for talking points both for and against WISHING in Commander, in the form of respectful, if not sometimes heated, discourse. After all, what good is a crucible if it isn't heated?
0. Wishing and TLDR
Show
Hide
You can't ban a mechanic. That makes no sense at all. — Sheldon Menery, The Spike Feeders, Episode 14, 28:05
All major concerns about WISHING in Commander can be traced back to either rules or etiquette. The first of which is solved by comprehensive rules 101.1, 103.2, 108.3b, and 903.10 and the Oracle rule. The second of which is solved by the Commander Philosophy Document, the social contract, and the criteria for banning – namely, color-hosers and select WISHES as needed.

PRACTICE: Rule 10 is the only reason WISHING doesn't function in Commander. There is no longer a need for a WISH rule because WISHING in Commander is now thoroughly supported by existing comprehensive and Oracle rules.

PHILOSOPHY: WISHING aligns with the Commander Philosophy Document and with philosophical statements made elsewhere by RC members.

PROTOCOL: As with all etiquette in Commander, WISHING should be settled by the social contract both before and during games.

PROBLEMS: Each WISH should be subject to the same criteria for banning as all other cards. Whatever issues Karn, the Great Creator might pose is no reason for Research // Development or Study Break to not function.
1. Wishing and Rhetoric
Show
Hide
I'd like to extend my genuine appreciation to everyone who contributed to this post, especially benjaminbeer and Jemolk most notably for cultivating my tone, which trends towards snarky when left unchecked. (Even then, it's questionable. Thanks for your understanding.) I'd also like to thank the RC for creating and maintaining Commander, of which I've quoted Sheldon the most because he is its most public and vocal member. And I'd even like to thank all of the thoughtful players in this thread. I could have constructed this post almost entirely of their quotes, which I'm sure some of you would prefer. lol

If anyone remembers anything from this post, I hope it's this. The points against WISHING presented in this post are not strawmen that have been set up to burn down in order to make people look stupid. They are paraphrased points drawn from all over the web, from all throughout the years, made by people in favor of Rule 10. If you believe you have a stronger case, by all means, please make it.

A line-item format has been used for this post because it's easier to reference and parse. There's also a degree of forced brevity. For an extended discourse, this thread in its entirety and others like it await.* This thread is by far the best of them though, despite occasional discord.

This post is a "living document" and therefore subject to modifications. If you want to preserve the language of its content at any given time, be sure to record it. In fact, the very words you're reading are part of a total overhaul. Please PM the author of this post to request a copy of the original version, and one will be PM'd in return, though it isn't recommended.

In this thread, the term "WISH" and its derivatives refers to this rapidly growing list of cards, each with an ability that allows players to bring a card from outside of the game into the game. Though the term itself has no technical rules application, it's the vernacular that the makers of the game use when referring to the effect, cards with the effect, and the act of executing the effect. So naturally, it's used here as well. It also represents Learning and Companion.

*Note that "Rule 10" was formerly "Rule 13" and later "Rule 11". They are synonymous.
2. Wishing and Rules
Show
Hide
The rules of Commander can be found here. The Comprehensive Rules of Magic, which include rules for Commander, can be found here.

Rule 10 (and the nearly identical Comprehensive Rule 108.5) is what this thread is all about:
Rule 10 Parts of abilities which bring other traditional card(s) you own from outside the game into the game [. . .] do not function in Commander.
Rule 0 is the one rule to rule them all. It's helpful to have a basic understanding of it in general regarding Commander and critical to understand it regarding Rule 10 since it's frequently presented as a reason why Rule 10 doesn't need to be changed.
Rule 0 "Local groups are welcome to modify [rules 1-10] 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."
Not to be confused with Rule 0 is the "Social Contract". While Rule 0 and the Social Contract are closely related, they aren't the same thing. Rule 0 is a mechanism of the much greater Social Contract.
That vision [for Commander] is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to include a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game. – Sheldon Menery, SCG
There's nothing preventing players from WISHING before games except for the social contract, which can just as effectively administrate WISHING during games.
"It is far easier to Rule 0 legal-but-unwanted behavior out of a group than it is to Rule 0 an illegal-but-harmless behavior into a group. So, when Rule 10 sets the default that WISHING doesn't function, that is more often than not seen as a definitive ruling that WISHING is banned and it becomes essentially impossible to house-rule it in the other direction. Thus, regardless of the RC's intention to just leave it up to the playgroups, in practice, it's never actually up for debate. Compare that to WISHING functioning. Everyone that can use them responsibly is freely able to do so, and if they do end up causing problems by people WISHING for Mindslaver, it is significantly easier to ask them to tone it down because it is having clear negative effects on games, the same way you'd ask someone to please stop tutoring for an infinite combo every game. The question stops being just a hypothetical ("Please let me play with these banned cards I promise I'll use them fairly") and instead becomes easily demonstrable ("WISHING for color-hosers/MLD isn't fun would you please stop doing that?"), in line with every other Rule 0 conversation." – Jemolk
The social contract would be strengthened by WISHING.
"It's fairly easy to convince a group to allow an individual card, but an entire mechanic? Not so much. Nobody objects to someone running Old Fogey in Dinosaur tribal, especially after they learn Vorinclex is being swapped out for it. But it's a much bigger ask, at least psychologically for a lot of people, even if the WISH targets are casual jank. On the other hand, "That deck is too powerful for this group, could you use a different one?" generally works quite well, and similar objections could be raised to a deck with WISHES or at least to the targets of them." – Jemolk
Rule 10 contradicts the Golden Rule of Magic. It's that fundamental, foundational concept that Richard Garfield called a "eureka moment" almost 30 years ago. The truth on which all of Magic (if not the entire genre) relies, enshrined as Oracle Rule 101.1.
101.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation.
Rule 10 exists for the sole purpose of overruling the otherwise universal Oracle Rule for WISHING.
Oracle Rule "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."
Some people ask, in the absence of Rule 10, just exactly how WISHING would work within the other rules of Commander. Oddly enough, despite Rule 10, there is a comprehensive rule about WISHING in Commander.
903.10. If a player is allowed to bring a card from outside the game into a Commander game, that player can't bring a card into the game this way if it has the same name as a card that player had in their starting deck, if it has the same name as a card that the player owns in the current game, or if any color in its color identity isn't in the color identity of the player's commander.
Toby Elliot brought up card ownership in this thread.
papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
108.3 is pretty much all you get, and that's just there to set in-game ownership rules.
But if we look ahead a little to 108.3b, we see that it clearly defines who owns a card that is outside the game.
108.3b …the owner of a card outside the game is its legal owner.
Bringing a card into the game from outside the game does not break Rule 3 because Rule 3 deals with deck construction, not library composition. Once a game begins, a "deck" becomes a "library" for the duration of the game.
103.2. After the starting player has been determined . . . The players' decks become their libraries.
We see this reflected in a rule regarding companions in Commander.
"Your companion is not one of your one hundred cards."
With any luck, this information may clear up any general rules misunderstandings and misinformation that may be floating around. If you have any observations, please share them.
3. Wishing and History
Show
Hide
A brief history of WISHING for the curious impaired.

Dec 1993
Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic and lone designer of Arabian Nights, introduced WISHING to Magic on the card Ring of Ma'ruf. Yup, the inventor of the TCG also invented WISHING. That's quite a credential! (And quite an appeal to authority!)

1993-2001
Players could and would WISH for cards from outside the game, from exile, sideboards, phased out, subgames, or anywhere else a playgroup considered "outside the game". This would continue for another ten years, however to a lesser and lesser degree as time went on.

May 2002
Sheldon Menery published that Burning Wish, Cunning Wish, Death Wish, Golden Wish, Living Wish, and Ring of Ma'ruf were banned in Commander.

2002
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for cards in Parent Games of Sub Games in Magic (not just Commander).

2003
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for phased out cards in Magic (not just Commander).

March 2004
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for anteed cards in Magic (not just Commander).

Oct 2004
Wizards of the Coast ruled that players can't WISH for anteed cards. In Commander, a rule was published stating that players may choose cards from exile but not from outside the game, and the WISH cycle and Ring of Ma'ruf were removed from the ban list.

2006
The Commander optional sideboard rule was published.
Optional Sideboard Rule
Show
Hide
Rather than filling every deck with banal responses, it is preferable to allow some flexibility in the composition of a deck.

• Players may bring a 10-card sideboard in addition to their 99 cards and 1 Commander.
• After Commanders are announced, players have 3 minutes to make 1-for-1 substitutions to their deck.
• Any cards not played as part of the deck may be retrieved by "WISHES".

Reasoning:

Highly tuned threats piloted by skilled opponents mandate efficient answers. The minimum number of response cards required to ensure they are available in the early turns can easily overwhelm the majority of [a Commander] deck's building space.

Sideboards allow players to respond to the "best" strategies in a timely fashion. They should be strongly considered as a necessary defense against brokenness and degeneracy [in respect to cards] in an environment where no gentleman's agreement on style of play exists.
Sep 2007
Wizards of the Coast ruled that players can't WISH for phased out cards.

Oct 2009
Wizards of the Coast published the current Oracle rule for WISHING.

May 2010
The Commander WISH rule was rewritten so that if the optional sideboard rule was in use, players could choose a card from their sideboard but not from anywhere else.

Sep 2013
The Commander optional sideboard rule was no longer endorsed by the CRC.

Sep 2016
The Commander optional sideboard rule was removed and the WISH rule was rewritten so that WISHING would no longer function in Commander whatsoever.

April 2019
The Commander WISH rule was reworded for clarity.

April 2020
The Commander WISH rule was reworded to permit cards with Companion to enter the game via the Companion mechanic.

July 2021
The Commander WISH rule was slightly reworded to permit nontraditional cards to enter the game, currently just Dungeons via the Venture into the Dungeon mechanic.
4. Wishing and Exile
Show
Hide
Sometimes someone proposes that WISHES should be able to get cards from exile instead of outside the game. But WISHING only ever refers to cards that are "outside the game". It has nothing to do with cards that are in exile. The idea of WISHING for cards in exile can be traced back to the printed rules text of Ring of Ma'ruf. Back in the 1990's, players could indeed WISH for cards that were in what we now call "exile". There was also a time where the RC made custom errata to WISHING to the effect that players could WISH for cards in exile but not from outside the game. But WISHING for cards in exile hasn't been supported by WotC for over two decades or by the RC for over half a decade. Karn, the Great Creator has both "outside the game" and "in exile" in its rules text as part of the same ability, solidifying that the two are neither synonymous nor interchangeable and that Wizard's has no intention of returning to that old dynamic.

It might also be worth noting that the ability to WISH for cards in exile would enable infinite loops of WISHING for WISHES. And renew confusion for countless players who would not be aware of such extreme errata and who upon learning it would then conflate "exile" with "outside of game", and nobody wants that, do they?
5. Wishing and Efficacy
Show
Hide
Every format has cards that are useless within the context of that format, but all of those cards still function as designed. They are simply casualties of the format defining rules. For example, Commander Rules 2-4 exist to give Commander a distinct identity as a format, not to abrogate hybrid cards, Devoid, Battle of Wits, or Locket of Yesterdays. The collateral effect on these other cards is a byproduct of the way the format is designed, whereby contrast, Rule 10 explicitly blocks WISHING and does absolutely nothing else, and so the comparison is not analogous. Rule 10 is vestigial, and Commander would stand as firm as ever without it.
6. Wishing and Sanctions
Show
Hide
TLDR: In sanctioned games, WISHING wouldn't work. In all other games, WISHING would work. The functionality of WISHING in Commander is not related to sanctioning and sideboards. It's due to Rule 10 and solely to Rule 10, made apparent by the functionality of Companion and Venture. Yes, Commander is a sanctioned format. However, no game of Magic, including those of Commander, is sanctioned by virtue of its format. Games are only sanctioned when someone with access to a Wizards Play Network (WPN) account sanctions those games by the authority of the WPN through Wizards EventLink (not to be confused with Magic Companion). Now, the Oracle Rule for WISHING doesn't care if a format is sanctioned (including sanctioned casual and sanctioned rated). It only cares about whether or not an event (of which the smallest unit is a game) is sanctioned. That means without Rule 10, in sanctioned games of Commander, players would choose nothing because there are no sideboards in Commander, and in all other games of Commander, they would choose a card from their collection.
The Details
Show
Hide
MAGIC: THE GATHERING® TOURNAMENT RULES

Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level (REL)

Rules Enforcement Levels

If a lack of sideboards is the top-secret reason that WISHING doesn't function in Commander, then that means Rule 10 exists purely to permit Companion to function in Commander despite the Oracle Rule, which doesn't explain why a WISH rule was published years before Companion debuted, indicating that there's another reason. And there is, but it's necessary to decipher some Magic legalese to make sense of it.

This may come as a surprise to many (it did to me), but Commander is a sanctioned format, despite not having been so for many years and despite also being a casual format to this very day. However . . . the term "sanction" (and its derivatives) confusingly has three applications in Magic, one of which always applies to Commander, one of which may be applied to Commander, and one of which never applies and may not be applied to Commander. Unfortunately, there aren't any alternative descriptors to differentiate these disparate designations. All we have is the one root word, "sanction", which has led to more than one death spiral debate. So, it behooves us to identify the nuances thereof in order to grasp the relevancies of sanctioning as they relate to WISHING in Commander. Particularly to suss out whether or not a lack of sideboards plus the Oracle Rule has anything to do with why WISHING doesn't function in Commander.

Sanctioned A: A format can only be officially sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast. A format that is not sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast is by default unsanctioned. Once Wizards of the Coast sanctions a format, that format remains sanctioned until Wizards of the Coast declares that that format is no longer sanctioned. It's in this sense that Commander is sanctioned.

Sanctioned B: A format can also be officially sanctioned by the Wizards Play Network (a division of Wizards of the Coast, formerly known as the Duelists' Convocation International, and still confusingly referred to as the DCI in the Magic Tournament Rules and common parlance). Thereby classifying that format as a "DCI-Sanctioned format" (even though it's actually the WPN that sanctions it). This classification in turn enables that format to be run as a "sanctioned, rated tournament". In this sense, Commander is not sanctioned.

Sanctioned C: Anyone with access to a WPN account may run any format – including an unsanctioned format – as a "sanctioned, casual event" by using Wizards EventLink. In these cases, it is the event that is sanctioned, not the format. Even when an unsanctioned format is run as a sanctioned event, that format remains unsanctioned despite being the substance of a sanctioned event. But whenever a sanctioned format is run as a sanctioned event, it is both a sanctioned format and a sanctioned event for the duration of the event. Its sanctioned status is reliant on Wizards of the Coast, not an event.
"Commander exists as the anti-tournament format." – Sheldon Menery, Kitchen Table Magic, 24:30
So . . .

1. Commander is a sanctioned format. It is sanctioned at all times, not just during sanctioned events.

2. Even though Commander is a sanctioned format, Commander games and events are unsanctioned unless someone with access to a WPN account sanctions those games or events via Wizards EventLink. Only people with access to a WPN account can sanction games and events.

3. Sanctioned Commander games and events can only be casual. Even if a game or event is sanctioned and organized, run, judged, and played in close approximation to the Professional Rules Enforcement Level, it's still technically a casual game or event. Sanctioned, casual games and events boost the WPN metrics of the WPN accountholder.

4. Commander games and events can't be DCI-sanctioned. This is in part because a format in which the players can alter the rules can't be sanctioned. And in part because no set of uncompromising rules could manage the infinite variations of social behaviors inherent to Commander – i.e., politics. And to even do so, were it possible, would violate the very essence of Commander.

5. Because Commander games and events can't be DCI-sanctioned, they can't be rated. Not ethically anyways, because not only do sanctioned, rated games and events boost the WPN metrics of the WPN accountholder, but they also effect the metrics of each player registered for that game or event.

I hope this helps clear up the three meanings of "sanctioned" in Magic and how they would and wouldn't effect WISHING in Commander. In the absence of Rule 10, WISHING would default to the Oracle Rule and function accordingly based on whether or not it's being played in a sanctioned event, not based on the fact that it's being played in a sanctioned format. So, in sanctioned Commander events, players would choose any card from their sideboard, which doesn't exist and so therefore choose nothing. And in all other Commander events, players could choose any card from their collections. And to say that would include most Commander players would be an understatement.

The vast majority of Magic/Commander players aren't even registered for a Wizards Account, which is required to participate in sanctioned events. And it isn't even close. Out of about 35 million Magic players, about 500 thousand are registered at least in part for Commander. Of course, that doesn't mean players can't opt to play as though they're playing a sanctioned game, but that's another subject.
Rule 10 is making a confusing situation even more confusing. Some very important aspects of Magic would become clear in the absence of Rule 10.
7. Wishing and Time
Show
Hide
The notion that WISHES are time-consuming like cards with effects that are known to require extended periods of time to resolve are founded in urban legend. Suggestions like someone's going to drive home to retrieve a card for which they've WISHED is about as likely as someone taking a nap while their Trickbind resolves. Certainly anyone who tried it could expect to be very firmly disinvited from the next Commander game, if not given the boot from the current game. Claims that Shahrazad takes a long time to resolve, therefore Golden Wish will also take a long time to resolve, are hyperbolic at best, disingenuous at worst. This is all catastrophizing that could be rightly applied to synergies, combos, and other effects that all function in Commander right now. It's most likely that WISHING will require even less time than searching a library since there's no shuffling involved.
8. Wishing and Philosophy
Show
Hide
There's never been anything in any iteration of The Official Format Philosophy Document to suggest that WISHING should be banned.

Mere ubiquity is not and has never been sufficient for banning.

Certain colors may have stronger WISHES than others, but if that's true, it's certainly true of many if not all effects in Magic. It's an inherent part of Magic. Power level or uneven distribution of power among colors is not and has never been sufficient for banning.

Anecdotal experiences are not entirely without merit, particularly en masse, but they too are not and have never been sufficient for banning. Testimonies like "someone played a card that made me feel bad" are just far too isolated and subjective to have any bearing on their own and carry no more weight than testimonies to the opposite effect. What's more is these kinds of experiences are not unique to any one effect in Magic.

Even though the Perceived High Barrier to Entry is no longer a reason for banning, and actually never resulted in the banning of a single card, it's still occasionally brought up as a reason why WISHES shouldn't function in Commander. But the concept of a "high barrier" – being undefined yet based on "perception" (according to defunct iterations of the Commander Philosophy Document) – was from the beginning limited in usefulness, not to mention contrary to the nature of CCGs. Price fluctuations of Magic cards are inherent to the hobby. This isn't a quirk or a bug. It's a feature that was deliberately mixed into the cement of its foundation by its creator. The value of cards is one of Magic's many attractive qualities. Thankfully, Wizards of the Coast can reprint every WISH other than Ring of Ma'rûf anyways. They could even release products featuring WISHES. I can see it now, From the Vault: WISHES; Secret Lair: WISHES; Commander 2024: WISHES Do Come True. Besides . . .
Sheldon wrote:
4 years ago
We are sensitive to the secondary market while making sure that we're not held hostage by it.
9. Wishing and Impact
Show
Hide
With the help of a revised Rule 10 that reflects the comprehensive and Oracle rules, the initial impact of WISHING would be like that of a new Magic product, thanks to the diversity of effects and their dispersion amongst the colors.
"In the core demographic, people are playing the card for value, not for brokenness." – Sheldon Menery, The Command Chair, Episode 7, 27:15
Player discretion and the social contract are why cards like Protean Hulk and Flashfires aren't on the ban list. The reason players don't always use cards like Tooth and Nail to find Mike & Trike every time is because it's like jumping over a toddler to dunk on a seven-foot hoop. (Dana Roach) Sure it's fun at first, but anyone can do it and it gets old quick. The reason players don't put color-hosers into their decks between games isn't because they aren't effective, it's because people know they aren't fun. They aren't even fun to play. Just because the option exists to WISH for Flashfires doesn't mean it's inevitable or even a temptation. (Impossible) It isn't, except perhaps in sanctioned Commander events, where WISHING won't function anyways due to the Oracle rule.
"Sure, it's possible to do awful things with WISHES. But it's also possible to do awesome things." – Impossible
The idea that players would always WISH for color-hosers is no more demonstrably true as the equal and opposite idea that players would never WISH for color-hosers.
"The people that are going to WISH for Acid Rain are the people that I'm not going to want to be playing with more than once." – Impossible
Sometimes, it's the player that's the problem not the card.
We don't compare a card to other cards to decide if we're going to ban it. We compare a card to itself. – Sheldon Menery
Not every WISH even has the potential to get a color-hoser. Issues that Burning Wish might pose are no reason for Coax from the Blind Eternities or Hunt for Specimens to not function, especially while Venture and Companion do function. Just as it would make no sense to ban Magistrate's Scepter because of Time Vault, especially while Mindslaver isn't banned.
Putting too many answers in a deck is usually a bad thing, from both strategic and entertainment perspectives. – Gavin Duggan
WISHING for silver bullets won't necessarily have a negative impact on the format. It could actually be highly beneficial as a means for players to answer format or meta warping strategies. It's even possible that WISHES could prevent other cards from being banned by keeping them in check. Compared to even a couple of years ago, this is a more relevant and realistic premise in light of an alarming rate of power creep. WISHES could wind up being to Commander what Force of Will is to Legacy. And as we all know . . .
"Keeping things in check is a good idea." – Sheldon Menery, The Mind Sculptors
Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers, and color-hosers go against the spirit of Commander. It would be perfectly feasible to ban a finite number of egregious color-hosers rather than keeping an ever-growing list of WISHES behind the dam of a rule.
"The criteria should be "legal until proven problematic" not "illegal until proven fun"." – Impossible
The question "How will WISHING improve Commander?" is a Socratic trap. It can't be taken seriously beyond being a theoretical, if not fanciful, exercise in thought. Sure, it's fun to ask and answer questions like, "Do extra turn effects make Commander better? Does the inclusion of wheel effects solve anything? Are control another player effects fun for everyone?" Questions, curiously enough, all asked of WISH effects. But the answers should not determine if those effects function in Commander. There really doesn't have to be a reason for WISHING to work in Commander any more than there does for any other card or effect in Magic. The status quo requires as much justification as anything else. Rule 10 is not automatically justified just because it exists. The question itself implicitly assumes that the status quo is justified without doing any of the work to actually justify it. The burden of proof for the status quo is on those who support Rule 10.

With that being said, one answer could be "modality", of flavor . . .
"WISHES would enable people to play more weird cards that are too narrow to be used generally and too weak to be worth playing for the times when they apply, but which are awesome flavor for a deck. As the space for on-flavor cards gets more cramped, some of the fun options get pushed out in favor of efficiency, but I'd rather see more weird pet cards than have the same nonsense happen every game." – Jemolk
of strategy . . .
Threat diversity has been increasing over time to the point that even decks built specifically to feature hate cards cannot possibly include enough niche answers in enough quantity to ensure they are able to deal with problematic cards. – Impossible
and of resources . . .
WISHING can be the best option for players with limited resources including money, cards, and even decisiveness. – Legend
10. Wishing and cEDH
Show
Hide
WISHING is highly unlikely to be a problem in cEDH. Between the mana premium and the extra spell, WISHING is dangerously inefficient for a meta that thrives on efficiency. WISHING requires players to either spend extra turns and mana setting up or that they let their guard down for a turn cycle. In most cases in cEDH, that's asking for trouble. WISHING may have occasional uses in cEDH, but that's far from the worst-case scenario that some assume would be the default. And on those occasions where WISHING was viable, it would likely even be a benefit to the meta and the format as a whole. What's more is cEDH players would probably be happy to play sanctioned games or as though they're playing sanctioned games, meaning WISHES would automatically fail to find anyways.
"It would probably be better for the format if more people had access to solid hate cards. It'll help prevent individual players from dominating games because opponents weren't prepared with/didn't draw their one copy of relevant disruption. If more decks had access to Relic of Progenitus and Torpor Orb and Grafdigger's Cage we'd probably see generally better deck building, in the sense that people would hopefully become less reliant on powerful linear strategies and would instead have to diversify. Players would have to ensure that their deck doesn't just fold up and die to a single piece of moderate hate." – Impossible
11. Wishing and Tutoring
Show
Hide
WISHES are good for getting reactive cards to deal with whatever the current problem of the table is. They're significantly less good at actually advancing your strategy every game in the exact same manner. – Impossible
Despite superficial similarities to tutoring, in practice WISHING is fundamentally divergent from tutoring. Unlike tutoring, in instances where WISHING was used, it would lead to more diverse gameplay than ever due to its modal nature. And it would take less time to WISH than it does to tutor because there's no shuffling involved.
WISHES can't get copies of cards that are in your deck. The point stands with tutors. If I want to play two copies of my combo piece, I run Demonic Tutor to grab it. Tutors actually give you multiple chances to draw into a particular card, as drawing into the tutor gets you the card you want. WISHES can't do that, they can only grab similar, but different, cards from outside the game. That's essentially the same as just running that card in your deck. You're also paying a premium in the form of the WISH'S mana cost, AND you're most likely putting the best version of the card in your main deck and saving the weaker version [outside the game]. In practice, the WISH becomes a worse version of the card already in your library, and you'd have rather drawn either the card that's actually in your deck or a tutor to grab it with.

More simply, WISHES becoming tutors, but not as good, is a pretty fair use and I'd be happy if that's how they played out. As Dirk pointed out, there's already a critical mass of tutors and so WISHES are wholly unnecessary to anyone who wants to build tutors.dek, so if someone is using WISHES that way they're either using them in place of tutors (which I see as an absolute win), or they're going full {deleted} and just cramming in card search effects well beyond the point of diminishing returns. – onering
Due to its reactive nature, WISHING could even serve as a foil for tutoring at times.
12. Wishing and Consistency
Show
Hide
It's rather curious that players can bring a creature card into a game from outside the game via the companion mechanic but can't bring a creature card with companion from outside a game into the game with Living Wish. Just as curious is why Rule 10 employs word gymnastics to enable some WISH-like effects, like Venture and Companion, and to disable others, like Learn and WISHING. All seemingly just because.
papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
we decided that defining outside the game as containing nothing was the cleanest solution
This reasoning no longer holds water since outside the game contains dungeons, companions, and copies. It actually never really did because of copies always existed outside the game until cast.
"If the logic functions at all, it functions everywhere." – Jemolk
13. Wishing and Miscellaneous
Show
Hide
Sleeves aren't necessary to play Magic.

Players have the right to tote as much of their collection along with them as they like.

Cheating and pubstomping are problems unrelated to WISHING.

If ever there was an effect in Commander that should be banned, it's controlling another player. Controlling another player is an offense to personal sovereignty.
14. Wishing and Progress
Show
Hide
Magic is in a brave new era in which there are several different WISH cards in Standard at any given time. It's clearly design space that WotC intends to thoroughly explore. It's time for us as a community to take a long hard look at why this effect was banned and whether those reasons for the decision to ban it still hold true today. – Impossible
It's fair to say that WISHING was messy business back in the day. Players had all kinds of colloquial ideas about how to WISH even well after 2002 and tended to interpret cards by their rules text, not errata or other special rules. "Outside of game" and "phased out" were widely considered synonymous with the "removed from game" zone. Questions abounded, but answers were not immediately available like they are now, so players just filled in the blanks. The homogenized game Magic is today simply wasn't a reality prior to smart phones going mainstream in 2010 and the ensuing rise of social media. And despite the rules having been freshly streamlined late 2009, the logistics of WISHING were only becoming clear by 2012. But now questions about WISHING are all easily and correctly answered thanks to clear rules and social media. We take this for granted now, and there's nothing wrong with that, but we can arrive at misconceptions if we project today's understanding of WISHING on yesteryear's understanding of it. We just didn't have it back then.

There's developed a two-pronged mindfork against the functionality of WISHING in Commander. One prong is veteran players living in the past, assuming that if WISHING were to function in Commander, it would just be a mess just it was 10-25 years ago. The other prong is new players living in the present (naturally), assuming that players of the olden days somehow had a contemporary view of WISHING but still couldn't get it right. And so ironically, despite looking at it from opposite viewpoints, both come to the same erroneous conclusion.

But there's a third, uh, prong.
Whatever evidence may have existed from 2002 is 100% utterly meaningless in 202[2]. – DirkGently
The RC's response to WISHING during the formative and early years of Commander was entirely justified because WISHING was indeed a debacle by no fault of their own. Perhaps it was even justified up to 5 years ago, but with all due respect, it just isn't justified today. The view that WISHING is problematic has become petrified, frozen in time, dated, pertinent only in a bygone era, and a little insensitive to what's happening in Magic now despite the streamlining of the rules, despite instant global access to those rules, despite Wizard's obvious intent to make WISHING a normal part of the game, and despite the maturation of the Magic community as a whole regarding both acumen and peer consideration.

Five years ago, even the RC believed that the stuff people would do with Painter's Servant would "far outweigh the cool stuff they'd do with it" until they realized that cards like Iona are the real problem. (Sheldon Menery – Commanderin' MTG Podcast E013, 34:00) But now look where we are. The same thing can – and should – happen with WISHING.
15. Wishing and Hosing
Show
Hide
The idea that a new player might put a color-hoser into their deck and then feel bad when they find out it's banned is shall we say, nugatory (thanks thesaurus.com!), but actually gains meaning when applied to the player who puts a WISH into their deck – or worse who constructs a Learning/Lesson theme deck – only to find out that it doesn't function due to a rule that has nothing to do with deck construction. Besides, new players tend to have new cards, so which one is more likely, a 15-year-old player putting a 25-year-old Tsunami into their deck or that same player putting a 15-week-old Wish into it?

The very term "WISH' is a bit of a misleading misnomer, isnt' it? It fills our heads with fears of unlimited power, when in reality that isn't the case at all. You can't actually have anything your heart desires, especially in Commander where a given WISH isn't just limited to what type of card it can WISH for, but is also limited to what color and name of card it can WISH for because of comprehensive rule 903.10. For convenience, here's a readout of how every color-hoser corresponds with a WISH.

Coax from the Blind Eternities, Research // Development, Ring of Ma'rûf, The Raven's Warning, and Spawnsire of Ulamog aren't listed because none of them pose a threat by extension of color-hosers and never will because Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers.

Wish, Death Wish, Mastermind's Acquisition, The Raven's Warning, Research // Development, and Ring of Ma'rûf aren't listed because obviously they can WISH for any card within the limits of comprehensive rule 903.10.

Fae of Wishes // Granted can WISH for any noncreature card, however also within the limits of comprehensive rule 903.10.

Burning Wish can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:


Golden Wish can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:

Cunning Wish can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:

Living Wish and Vivien, Arkbow Ranger can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:

Glittering Wish can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:

Karn, the Great Creator can WISH for:
Decklist
Approximate Total Cost:

PROBABLE BANS focusing on color-hosers ALTERNATIVE BANS focusing on WISHES Nobody wants to hate monocolered decks out of the format, with or without WISHING, but as long as color-hosers remain legal in the format, the possibility looms, again with or without WISHING. The cards that come into question are those with the likelihood of making a deck irrelevant simply because that deck is only one color. The problem with these cards isn't actually their (narrow) effectiveness. It's that they cross a line from interacting with a strategy to invalidating a person by attacking the most emotionally resonant aspect of Magic – mana color.

Fortunately, Wizards of the Cost doesn't print color-hosers anymore. The vast majority of color-hosers were printed by 1997, at which point Wizards of the Coast greatly slowed down printing them until they stopped in 2002 and then stopped reprinting the remaining two of them altogether in 2005. A year after they stopped reprinting color-hosers, they started printing WISHES again and are now up to 53 black-bordered cards that utilize outside the game compared to the 25 egregious color-hosers. And Wizards of the Coast shows no signs of slowing down. Meanwhile, not a single color-hoser has been printed or reprinted in 17 years (other than masterpiece Boil). So, ask yourself, who's the real culprit here?

So, even though the alternative bans list is shorter, the probable bans list is the better option in the long run because:
A. It's full of cards that go against the spirit of the format.
B. Color-hosers don't get played in the format now and therefore won't be missed.
C. The probable bans list is finite and fixed because Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers whereas the alternative bans list would grow indefinitely.
D. WISHING is fun, color-hosing is not.
Last edited by Legend 1 year ago, edited 17 times in total.
“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
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

I think wish cards are pretty dangerous to allow in Commander.

First of all there is the problem of Karn, the Great Creator, which instantly becomes the single best card in the format (or something very close to it) once it is allow to have access to a whishboard.

This happens because it's so easy to just fill your wishboard with a bunch of answers (which will take the form of stax pieces most likely) and a single wincon in Mycosynth Lattice.

The wishboard would be filled with stuff that hoses very specific strategies like Grafdigger's Cage, Trinisphere, Ensnaring Bridge, Winter Orb and other things that stop players from playing the game with their very specific gameplan.

I suspect that this would even happen in casual playgroups, as it's easy to say "Hey don't worry Meren of Clan Nel Toth player, I'm sure I won't wish for grave-hate every game".

Overall I don't think this is an acceptable powerlevel for a single card, as it would singlehandedly decide games on it's own, could be played in every deck without any downside and lead to unfun game situations.

Karn would have to be banned for sure.

Without Karn you still have the problem, that certain colors have access to significantly stronger wish effects than others and that every player would have to actually build a wishboard. Even if you don't play wish cards, maybe you're on a deck that might steal spells etc.

Overall I think allowing wishes causes more trouble than it's worth. If I had to vote on it, I would vote against them.

User avatar
xeroxedfool
Posts: 124
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by xeroxedfool » 4 years ago

The biggest case AGAINST wishes for me is that it breaks the deck building restriction of 100 cards. You mention that it doesn't go against the spirit of the format, which I actually totally agree with.

I do think that wishes make the puzzle of deckbuiliding much easier though. I think that adding a few really efficient tutors to the game would be bad as well.

Those negatives outweigh the positives, I would vote no as well.

As an aside, this argument is way too long and I had to unspoil it all and control F for the arguments I wanted to read. I think a short and concise argument could sway more people to your side.
They're both Griffith, get it?

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
The wishboard would be filled with stuff that hoses very specific strategies...
Thank you for replying. Please see Spoilers 12 & 13 in the OP.
xeroxedfool wrote:
4 years ago
As an aside, this argument is way too long and I had to unspoil it all and control F for the arguments I wanted to read. I think a short and concise argument could sway more people to your side.
I'll try to shorten it, but can't exclude any of the points because each and every one of them have been brought up ad nauseam over the course of years. If they aren't addressed in the op, then history will simply repeat itself in the replies and we will once again wind up in a philosophical ant mill.
“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

TearsOfTomorrow
Posts: 107
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by TearsOfTomorrow » 4 years ago

This forum: we need to ban Sol Ring, because it encourages unfun and degenerate plays that go against the philosophy of the format.

Also this forum: let's allow wishes!

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

I think everything revolves around this:
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.
In a literal reading of this statement you are correct. Commander games are unsanctioned, so the "any card in your collection" would apply. But when you delve into the motivation for two separate functionalities, I think logic dictates things the other way.

Wishes aren't limited to sideboards because Planeswalker points (or formerly ELO rating) are at stake. Wishes are limited because in a structured, organized event, they need to be. Wishes are limited because it answers, simply and succinctly, all the stupid corner cases that come up with them.

Commander games are organized and structured events. Now, that organization and structure can be modified (Rule 0), but when you agree to a Commander game, you are agreeing to a structured set of rules. That set of rules can either adopt the 'sanctioned event' functionality of wishes, or it can grapple with the following questions:

Can I wish for a card outside my commander's color identity?
Can I wish for a card on the banlist? (The banlist says those cards cannot be played, but what if I wish for a Sundering Titan, discard it, then use Goblin Welder to get it into play.?)
Can I wish for a copy of a card that's already in my deck?
Can I wish for a silver-bordered card?

So Commander can either make a bunch of rules for wishes, or adopt the sanctioned play functionality. Now, the sanctioned play functionality renders them functionless, but so be it.

Really, for structured events, a wish should be limited to getting cards from your sideboard.

Also, it looks like C19 release weekend is going to have structured (and possibly sanctioned) Commander events, which is all the more reason to stick to the sideboard only functionality.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
I think everything revolves around this:
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.
In a literal reading of this statement you are correct. Commander games are unsanctioned, so the "any card in your collection" would apply. But when you delve into the motivation for two separate functionalities, I think logic dictates things the other way.

Wishes aren't limited to sideboards because Planeswalker points (or formerly ELO rating) are at stake. Wishes are limited because in a structured, organized event, they need to be. Wishes are limited because it answers, simply and succinctly, all the stupid corner cases that come up with them.

Commander games are organized and structured events. Now, that organization and structure can be modified (Rule 0), but when you agree to a Commander game, you are agreeing to a structured set of rules. That set of rules can either adopt the 'sanctioned event' functionality of wishes, or it can grapple with the following questions:

Can I wish for a card outside my commander's color identity?
Can I wish for a card on the banlist? (The banlist says those cards cannot be played, but what if I wish for a Sundering Titan, discard it, then use Goblin Welder to get it into play.?)
Can I wish for a copy of a card that's already in my deck?
Can I wish for a silver-bordered card?

So Commander can either make a bunch of rules for wishes, or adopt the sanctioned play functionality. Now, the sanctioned play functionality renders them functionless, but so be it.

Really, for structured events, a wish should be limited to getting cards from your sideboard.

Also, it looks like C19 release weekend is going to have structured (and possibly sanctioned) Commander events, which is all the more reason to stick to the sideboard only functionality.
Yes, even in Commander Wishes should abide by the official rules of Magic, whatever they are. However, under no terms should Wishes remain de facto banned. Rule 0 is no excuse. See Spoiler 3.
“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
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
The wishboard would be filled with stuff that hoses very specific strategies...
Thank you for replying. Please see Spoilers 12 & 13 in the OP.
I think you're misunderstanding my argument here. I'm not saying 100% of the time a wish is going to be used exactly like this. I'm trying to make an argument from the hypothetical powerlevel of the wish cards.

I'm saying wishes (at least some of them) are too powerful for the format because they CAN be used that way. And in many playgroups they WOULD be used that way.

If you're trying to argue that this woudn't happen in your playgroup, that's perfectly fine. However there's also nothing stopping you from allowing wishboards in your own playgroup via houserule.

I'm taking into account the wild west of the lgs or gp, where people are playing against strangers or someone they might only know a tiny bit with various powerlevels clashing.

All it takes is for a couple of people to absue their wishboard and that'll ruin the fun for everyone.

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, even in Commander Wishes should abide by the official rules of Magic, whatever they are. However, under no terms should Wishes remain de facto banned. Rule 0 is no excuse. See Spoiler 3.
Right, but that doesn't answer the questions.
Can I wish for a card outside my commanders color identity? I can't build the deck with a card that does that, but since I'm wishing for any card from my collection, it's not in my deck, so I can, right?
Same with duplicates, right? Or no? I mean, it seems like ideologically I shouldn't be able to get a duplicate of a card already in my deck, but there's no rules preventing me from doing so.
And wishing for banned or illegal (silverbordered, chaos orb, ante cards) is the same. I mean, the official rules state:
If a card appears on the banned list for your chosen format, then you may not include that card in your deck or sideboard. Doing so makes your deck illegal to play in any sanctioned tournaments for that format.
But is there a rule stating what happens when a deck thats legal to play when the game starts becomes illegal to play midgame somehow? The sanctioned play rule for wishes addresses these corner cases, which otherwise do need to be addressed.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6235
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Because what this game needs is more time tutoring and more ways to get around the singleton nature of the format.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, even in Commander Wishes should abide by the official rules of Magic, whatever they are. However, under no terms should Wishes remain de facto banned. Rule 0 is no excuse. See Spoiler 3.
Right, but that doesn't answer the questions.
Can I wish for a card outside my commanders color identity? I can't build the deck with a card that does that, but since I'm wishing for any card from my collection, it's not in my deck, so I can, right?
Same with duplicates, right? Or no?
These questions are easily answered. See Spoiler 14 in the OP.
“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

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Editing your original post and then claiming the questions are easy and already answered "see OP" is not exactly a way to endear anyone to your point of view.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Editing your original post and then claiming the questions are easy and already answered "see OP" is not exactly a way to endear anyone to your point of view.
For the record, I only edited the original post because there was a missing word. That being said, I reserve the right to edit the original post as much as I see fit in order to refine the arguments against de facto banning of wishes in Commander. If Your goal is to catch me in an "aha gotcha" moment, just quote the original post and it won't matter what changes I make to it.

Edit: In fact, I will add this to the preamble.
“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

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
The wishboard would be filled with stuff that hoses very specific strategies...
Thank you for replying. Please see Spoilers 12 & 13 in the OP.
I think you're misunderstanding my argument here. I'm not saying 100% of the time a wish is going to be used exactly like this. I'm trying to make an argument from the hypothetical powerlevel of the wish cards.

I'm saying wishes (at least some of them) are too powerful for the format because they CAN be used that way. And in many playgroups they WOULD be used that way.

If you're trying to argue that this woudn't happen in your playgroup, that's perfectly fine. However there's also nothing stopping you from allowing wishboards in your own playgroup via houserule.

I'm taking into account the wild west of the lgs or gp, where people are playing against strangers or someone they might only know a tiny bit with various powerlevels clashing.

All it takes is for a couple of people to absue their wishboard and that'll ruin the fun for everyone.
There isn't a misunderstanding. All of the points you've made are thoroughly addressed in the OP.

In short, there are many cards in the format that CAN be, and sometimes if not often, ARE used in a powerful way. The RC has made it clear that this is not grounds for banning. What I'm arguing in this instance is that it shouldn't be grounds for de facto banning either, especially when the cards in question "have never even been able to adduce the attributes that supposedly warrant their de facto banning." I'm repeating myself. Again, please read the OP where all of this and more has been thoroughly addressed.
“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
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
12. Wishes and Choices
Show
Hide
The assumption that "the only sensible card to Wish for is a silver bullet, therefore that's the only thing that will ever be Wished for" is rife with fallacies. To paraphrase what has already been well said by others, how a player uses a card is a choice. And the choices for Wishes would be the broadest and consequently the most diverse in the format. Cards like Bridge From Below (recently banned in Modern) and Paradox Engine (recently banned in Commander), are either one extreme or the other, that is they're either extremely awful or extremely awesome. There's no middle ground for cards like them, so they wind up getting banned. But there is more middle ground for Wishing than perhaps any other novel effect in Magic.

But even if the assumption was true (which it isn't), the Wish still must be drawn as 1/98, and the Wisher must have the mana to cast the card Wished for, and the card Wished for must resolve, etc. So, despite the somewhat misleading term "Wish", the act of doing so isn't one of twitch and blink. It requires resources, thought, and luck to make these Wishes come true.
13. Wishes and Why
Show
Hide
Rule 13 should be revised simply because people like to play with their toys. Yes, technically Wishes can be played in Commander, but they're like toys without batteries. Every card that isn't banned has the potential to add to the positive experiences of Commander. The same would be true of Wishes.

Let's also consider the likelihood that it would be a net benefit to the format to have access to silver bullets against some prominent/dominant strategies in Commander. It's possible that Wishes could prevent other cards from being banned by keeping them in check. Wishes could wind up being to Commander (particularly cEDH) what Force of Will is to Legacy. This would be a great, great thing!
So we're completely dismissing that there are in fact cards on the banlist that are there for powerlevel reasons? At that point we might aswell unban Time Vault since not everyone is going to combo out with it, right? Let's unban Tinker, because most people are just going to get some cool big artifact dude, right?

What's more you seem to preted that all of us didn't read your points in the original post and are very dismissive about any counterpoints that are brought up. We obviously did read the post and the points we make are those that we feel are insufficiently adressed. That just screams confimation bias to me.

For example:

My point is that certain wish cards would be to powerful for the format and would cause a lot more trouble than they're worth. You direct me to spoilers 12 & 13, which I then read again, for the third time.

In 12 you make the point that a Wish is only as powerful as the player wants to make it. However, to power down a wish, you have to use it suboptimally, which not many people are going to want to do. What's more, when in a losing position, even those players that would usually tutor up some jank might go for the broken combos that are so easily assembled via Karn, the Great Creator.

You simply say players wouldn't break the card. I think they would. In fact most cards that can be broken have been broken in the format. I believe that if you want to claim a special exception for wishes in that regard you're going to have to be more convincing.

You say you still need to draw the wish spell, but if a single card in your deck represents 14 answers and a wincon you would be stupid not to tutor it up every single game with the first tutor you have available to you.

In 13 you simply state that wishes are cool and should therefore be allowed. You claim that they would be a benefit for the format, but you offer no proof. I don't see how this has anything to do with my points about powerlevel.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

There is zero point in having a discussion when OP just points at 'Spoiler X'.

These points have existed Ad Naus too, and the rules have moved to more restrictive of wishes, not less.

Wishes absolutely should only be used by Rule 0 interaction prior to a game starting.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
12. Wishes and Choices
Show
Hide
The assumption that "the only sensible card to Wish for is a silver bullet, therefore that's the only thing that will ever be Wished for" is rife with fallacies. To paraphrase what has already been well said by others, how a player uses a card is a choice. And the choices for Wishes would be the broadest and consequently the most diverse in the format. Cards like Bridge From Below (recently banned in Modern) and Paradox Engine (recently banned in Commander), are either one extreme or the other, that is they're either extremely awful or extremely awesome. There's no middle ground for cards like them, so they wind up getting banned. But there is more middle ground for Wishing than perhaps any other novel effect in Magic.

But even if the assumption was true (which it isn't), the Wish still must be drawn as 1/98, and the Wisher must have the mana to cast the card Wished for, and the card Wished for must resolve, etc. So, despite the somewhat misleading term "Wish", the act of doing so isn't one of twitch and blink. It requires resources, thought, and luck to make these Wishes come true.
13. Wishes and Why
Show
Hide
Rule 13 should be revised simply because people like to play with their toys. Yes, technically Wishes can be played in Commander, but they're like toys without batteries. Every card that isn't banned has the potential to add to the positive experiences of Commander. The same would be true of Wishes.

Let's also consider the likelihood that it would be a net benefit to the format to have access to silver bullets against some prominent/dominant strategies in Commander. It's possible that Wishes could prevent other cards from being banned by keeping them in check. Wishes could wind up being to Commander (particularly cEDH) what Force of Will is to Legacy. This would be a great, great thing!
So we're completely dismissing that there are in fact cards on the banlist that are there for powerlevel reasons? At that point we might aswell unban Time Vault since not everyone is going to combo out with it, right? Let's unban Tinker, because most people are just going to get some cool big artifact dude, right?

What's more you seem to preted that all of us didn't read your points in the original post and are very dismissive about any counterpoints that are brought up. We obviously did read the post and the points we make are those that we feel are insufficiently adressed. That just screams confimation bias to me.

For example:

My point is that certain wish cards would be to powerful for the format and would cause a lot more trouble than they're worth. You direct me to spoilers 12 & 13, which I then read again, for the third time.

In 12 you make the point that a Wish is only as powerful as the player wants to make it. However, to power down a wish, you have to use it suboptimally, which not many people are going to want to do. What's more, when in a losing position, even those players that would usually tutor up some jank might go for the broken combos that are so easily assembled via Karn, the Great Creator.

You simply say players wouldn't break the card. I think they would. In fact most cards that can be broken have been broken in the format. I believe that if you want to claim a special exception for wishes in that regard you're going to have to be more convincing.

You say you still need to draw the wish spell, but if a single card in your deck represents 14 answers and a wincon you would be stupid not to tutor it up every single game with the first tutor you have available to you.

In 13 you simply state that wishes are cool and should therefore be allowed. You claim that they would be a benefit for the format, but you offer no proof. I don't see how this has anything to do with my points about powerlevel.
Of course I offer no "proof". Not you or I or the RC/CAD can offer proof without data, of which there is none because Wishes in Commander have been de facto banned in Commander since day 1. Note that I'm not so much saying that your prediction is will prove to be incorrect as much as I'm saying that you, and everyone else including me, are surmising. The difference is that I assume the best about players and outcomes in general, which leads me to believe that Wishes will be an overall net benefit to the format by providing fun jank options but more importantly answers to problematic cards and decks.

Since both arguments are based on predictions instead of data, they can only negate each other at this point. It may not be +1 for Team Wish, but it is -1 for Team NoWish.

Person A: Negative prediction.
Person B: Positive prediction.
Result of Argument: Negation.

Also, it doesn't matter how you word it - i.e., stating that a player is "stupid" if they don't do what you would do with a Wish - it's still "rife with fallacies." as stated in Spoiler 12.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
There is zero point in having a discussion when OP just points at 'Spoiler X'.

These points have existed Ad Naus too, and the rules have moved to more restrictive of wishes, not less.

Wishes absolutely should only be used by Rule 0 interaction prior to a game starting.
I've added Spoiler 15 to the OP.
“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
Hermes_
Posts: 1751
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 4 years ago

this read more like an article than an actual discussion.
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Hermes_ wrote:
4 years ago
this read more like an article than an actual discussion.
He does not want a discussion, he wants people to agree with him or read a spoiler they missed

User avatar
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago

Of course I offer no "proof". Not you or I or the RC/CAD can offer proof without data, of which there is none because Wishes in Commander have been de facto banned in Commander since day 1. Note that I'm not so much saying that your prediction is will prove to be incorrect as much as I'm saying that you, and everyone else including me, are surmising. The difference is that I assume the best about players and outcomes in general, which leads me to believe that Wishes will be an overall net benefit to the format by providing fun jank options but more importantly answers to problematic cards and decks.

Since both arguments are based on predictions instead of data, they can only negate each other at this point. It may not be +1 for Team Wish, but it is -1 for Team NoWish.

Person A: Negative prediction.
Person B: Positive prediction.
Result of Argument: Negation.

Also, it doesn't matter how you word it - i.e., stating that a player is "stupid" if they don't do what you would do with a Wish - it's still "rife with fallacies." as stated in Spoiler 12.
What bothers me the most about the way you try to argue is that you don't really defend your position. You only try to discredit the opinions and arguments of others by throwing around fallicies and refering to sections of your original post that may or may not be relevant to the actual things being said.

I don't need you to tell me that you think wishes are fine and that you think people woudn't break them. I could figure that out from reading your original post.

What I want you to do is properly argue why they woudn't . What incentivises them not to? Have you actually unbanned wishes as a house rule and have things worked out perfectly fine?

Many people have already pointed out that there is little reason to discuss this topic with you acting the way you are. That's not because they want to dismiss your points preemptively, but because that is what you do to theirs.

I understand that in your mind you've already reached the conclusion that wishes would be great for the format, but as you can see none of us here are even close to sharing that point of view.

Try to actually adress the points that people make and not just refer them to an paragraph in your original post that kinda relates to the same topic or partially adress their points but doesn't actually mean anything in the wider range of the discussion.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
What bothers me the most about the way you try to argue is that you don't really defend your position. You only try to discredit the opinions and arguments of others by throwing around fallicies and refering to sections of your original post that may or may not be relevant to the actual things being said.
Thank you for being a respectful if not reasonable voice of opposition in this thread. (I'm not trying to be annoying; it just comes naturally to me. It's an unfortunate quality that I can't seem to shake online no matter how hard I try.)

I haven't defended the position because it doesn't require a defense. The default state of the game is that cards work according to the Oracle text, regardless of the format. The people who should be defending their position on this issue are those who made Rule 13 and those who agree with and support it, because frankly Rule 13 is an abomination and a spear in the heart of Magic. Just because the rule was instituted at the foundation of the format doesn't make it correct. But because it was (instituted at that time), those of us who are in favor of wishes in Commander are forced to start off on our back foot in this debate, when the reverse should be the case. The burden of proof begins in the hands of the opponents of Wishes, not their proponents. So, having recognized the trap (by reading years of discussion on the topic), I have rebooted the debate properly (offensively rather than defensively), and have elected to be blunt, and to leverage logical fallacies, not in order to be rude or haughty, but for the sake of brevity.

Opponents of Wishes aren't used to this so they're already getting a little prickly. They are accustomed to feeling like they have the upper hand in this debate. They know that they can't prove their points and that they have indeed been disproven or negated. So, they resort to psychological Lingchi to perpetuate a philosophical ant mill until the upstart is worn out and the subject of Wishes is once again left to languish, rather than admitting that the argument against Wishes cannot be won with logic and has, in fact, already lost to it. Instead of replies like "I can't refute the logical fallacies of my own argument so maybe there's a possibility that I'm in error.", the replies are more like, "I don't like the way you argue. Therefore, you must be an insufferable know-it-all not worth the time of day. "

Moving on…
I liken Wishes to convicts that have been wrongfully convicted. If someone has been imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, all a lawyer must do in order to free them is prove that they're innocent. They don't have to prove that the convict is a nice person who will never commit a crime when released. The fact that they're innocent is reason enough to release them. Disproving misrepresentations and misinterpretations is all that's necessary to prove the innocence of the convict.

Wishes have been imprisoned in Commander for crimes they didn't commit. Strictly speaking, in order to free them from prison, it isn't required to prove that they'll never commit a crime in the future. It's enough just to prove that they are not guilty.

I hope that makes sense.
“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

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Wishes have been imprisoned in Commander for crimes they didn't commit. Strictly speaking, in order to free them from prison, it isn't required to prove that they'll never commit a crime in the future. It's enough just to prove that they are not guilty.
That is 100% not how the ban list works. After all that talk of logic and reason, you just don't get how it actually works.

Frame the conversation any way you like, you have to convince the RC they made a mistake. Some logic trap isn't going to do that.

User avatar
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
What bothers me the most about the way you try to argue is that you don't really defend your position. You only try to discredit the opinions and arguments of others by throwing around fallicies and refering to sections of your original post that may or may not be relevant to the actual things being said.
Thank you for being a respectful if not reasonable voice of opposition in this thread. (I'm not trying to be annoying; it just comes naturally to me. It's an unfortunate quality that I can't seem to shake online no matter how hard I try.)

I haven't defended the position because it doesn't require a defense. The default state of the game is that cards work according to the Oracle text, regardless of the format. The people who should be defending their position on this issue are those who made Rule 13 and those who agree with and support it, because frankly Rule 13 is an abomination and a spear in the heart of Magic. Just because the rule was instituted at the foundation of the format doesn't make it correct. But because it was (instituted at that time), those of us who are in favor of wishes in Commander are forced to start off on our back foot in this debate, when the reverse should be the case. The burden of proof begins in the hands of the opponents of Wishes, not their proponents. So, having recognized the trap (by reading years of discussion on the topic), I have rebooted the debate properly (offensively rather than defensively), and have elected to be blunt, and to leverage logical fallacies, not in order to be rude or haughty, but for the sake of brevity.

Opponents of Wishes aren't used to this so they're already getting a little prickly. They are accustomed to feeling like they have the upper hand in this debate. They know that they can't prove their points and that they have indeed been disproven or negated. So, they resort to psychological Lingchi to perpetuate a philosophical ant mill until the upstart is worn out and the subject of Wishes is once again left to languish, rather than admitting that the argument against Wishes cannot be won with logic and has, in fact, already lost to it. Instead of replies like "I can't refute the logical fallacies of my own argument so maybe there's a possibility that I'm in error.", the replies are more like, "I don't like the way you argue. Therefore, you must be an insufferable know-it-all not worth the time of day. "

Moving on…
I liken Wishes to convicts that have been wrongfully convicted. If someone has been imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, all a lawyer must do in order to free them is prove that they're innocent. They don't have to prove that the convict is a nice person who will never commit a crime when released. The fact that they're innocent is reason enough to release them. Disproving misrepresentations and misinterpretations is all that's necessary to prove the innocence of the convict.

Wishes have been imprisoned in Commander for crimes they didn't commit. Strictly speaking, in order to free them from prison, it isn't required to prove that they'll never commit a crime in the future. It's enough just to prove that they are not guilty.

I hope that makes sense.
Alright, I understand where you're coming from now. However I do not believe that this is the correct strategy to go about this. You're undoubtedly in the minority opinion here. You should be trying to convince people as to why your position holds merit instead of shaming them for not agreeing with you.

You say you don't need to defend your position. This makes it seem like your position is infallable, which it most certainly is not. If it truely was, I think most of us would've come around by now, no?

Even if you don't want to defend your own position, at least try to properly attack ours. I brought up the point that wishes are too powerful for the format, I know you disagree, but you haven't put a single argument up for why they are properly balanced aside from "I think people would not break them", which just doesn't hold up as it is entirely subjective and precident indicates that the opposite is likely. You also somewhat acknowledge the power of wishes with that same statement, as you seem to agree that they can in fact be broken quite easily.

And again, if we can simply trust peole not to break tings, then why are Time Vault and Tinker banned?

Even beyond just the powerlevel argument there are many other reasons why wishes could potentially be problematic. Here are just a few examples:
- Some colors have stronger wishes than others
- A lot of players would be confused about wishboards
- If we don't allow the singleton rule to be broken, cheating could become a problem as people might wish up a card that still remains in their deck undrawn
- Wishes can provide the most effective answers for every strategy players face, this could lead to massively unfun playpatterns
- People already complain about tutors, why should they suddenly love wishes?

All of these (and there are probably many more) are reasons why someone could oppose wishes in the format. Just claiming they're all worthless because of your interpretation of the rules makes all your points seem unreasonable and paints your position in a childish light.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6235
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Whenever you're sure your logical argument is 100% irrefutable...

It's time to learn that logic is a rhetorical tool and can only really prove a few things (when all the premises are self-evidently true, and sometimes people will argue those!). Beyond that it's about convincing people not about proof.

If your argument isn't convincing it doesn't matter how strong you think it is. if you can't change anyone's mind what good is it?

And you're not so much as tickling mine.

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1039
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

While comparing to most cards that do nothing isn't right, I believe there is a worthwhile comparison in Battle of Wits. Why does BoW work in other formats but not commander? Because commander has a format restriction that other formats dont: a fixed deck size.

Commander obviously appeals to people over other formats for a reason. It's not just a permissive banlist that attracts people or casual legacy decks would be popular. It's the structure of the format, and other than having a commander, those unique aspects are restrictive in nature. 100 cards exactly, fixed color identity, singleton deck. Commander is built on restrictions other formats don't have. Eliminating cards outside the game is just one more restriction on top.

Of course that doesn't mean wishes logically have to not work, but this format built on strict restrictions can certainly add one more if its deemed to better the format.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”