[MCD] Wishes

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 67
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
But then you are creating rules specifically for the format and for a set of cards. Which is more disruptive than saying simply, that wishes work like they always do in sanctioned matches.

Powerlevel and crappy game play (Color/other hosers) aside, I think it is absolutely the logistics issue that defines the wishes current functionality. I've seen players stop midgame to buy a single to wish for. It's awful. So is being incentivized to bring a surplus of "extra" cards with you in case you want to wish for them. Or trying to deal with a person who can't find the card that they know they have somewhere. Or hearing, "if we were at my house, I would be able to get..."

Logistical issues are why people and previous versions of the rules talk about a "wishboard", And aside from being overly complex and mostly unnecessary, wishboards also eliminate the whimsical spirit that you would try to recapture with having wishes work.

It's unfortunate that the simplest and best rules implementation makes a casualty of the functionality of wishes. But the alternatives are overly complex and unpleasant.
Why do you think having a sideboard is "disruptive" or "overly complex"? All the major formats use one, so the majority of players probably know what they are and how they work. Even best-of-one games on Arena have a sideboard. So I'm not really seeing this argument that having a sideboard is super confusing.
Image

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

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Also, where is the data supporting the "moments"? I believe papa_funk and am not even suggesting that he's bearing false witness. But I'm not asking about statements and stories, I'm asking about "data" because after reading every article and bit of discussion about Wishing in Commander that I could find online, I've never read ANYTHING concerning this time period when Wishing worked from ANYONE until papa_funk just mentioned it in this thread. Also, the very word "moments" suggests that they're anecdotal - i.e., a very small, personal, subjective sample insufficient to represent or predict the actions and experiences of the global Commander community. It's clear that Wishing understandably got a handwave from the RC during a time when they were overwhelmed with Commander's barely manageable surge in popularity, but that time has passed and Wishing should get the chance that every effect deserves.
This is so utterly dismissive of the RC it is laughable. You didn't see their 'InBox', so its a small number of one-offs that never amounted to much 'data'? Get over yourself.

Even if they changed Rule 13, AND created a whole set of 'what can you wish for?', AND made it the baseline rule, you still would not have that data. These games don't have tracked data, so it would still be anecdotes, which you would handwave because you already have your mind made up. No amount of people complaining would change your mind. Its a fruitless venture.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Reply to Sharpened
Show
Hide
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
There are sanctioned commander matches.
I know, having officiated a few myself. But it's irrelevant. Commander doesn't revolve around sanctioned/tournament play. Unsanctioned/casual is the default state of Commander, not sanctioned/tournament.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Rule 13 states that Wishes in Commander work the way that wishes work in sanctioned matches (ie. they can only get cards from your sideboard).
You may want to brush up on the rules of Commander. Rule 13 does not state what you just stated, it states: "Abilities which bring card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Wishes; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander."
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
A game of commander is a game of commander.
As in unsanctioned=sanctioned in the sense that Wishing should work the same in both. Of course. Let's take a look at the WotC rule for Wishing.
"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."
The fact is that Wishing should/would work according to this rule. Which means, in casual you get a card from your collection and in tournament you get nothing because there is no sideboard in Commander from which to retrieve a card. Man, that's simple! So Wishing in tournament play would be like putting Burning Wish in a Legacy tournament deck but then opting out of a sideboard. (Sideboards are not required in case you didn't know.) Pro tip: Don't run Wishes in sanctioned Commander tournaments.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
I would argue that if Rule 13 did not exist, nothing would be functionally different (although there would be more confusion about the situation).
There would certainly be less confusion about the situation because the rule would actually sync with the existing official WotC rule stated above. It can't get any clearer than that.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
If I sit down to play a casual game with someone and specify a format, the expectation is that everything functions the same as if we were playing a sanctioned game of that format. Now, it's a casual game, so we can discuss and modify things (Rule 0), but otherwise things would function the same as in a tournament setting (Rule 13). If someone sat down to play legacy, and they cast Living Wish and got something other than a card in their sideboard, there would be surprise and confusion. The default expectation is that the format functions as the tournament rules dictate, even in casual settings, unless otherwise specified. Why would Commander games be any different?
You're kind of repeating yourself, so I kind of will too. If you sit down to a game of Commander expecting tournament play, then you're approaching the format completely backwards. Again, unsanctioned/casual play is the default state of Commander, not sanctioned/tournament play. After Rule 13 is revised, the presumed game state will still be casual, albeit abiding by the official format rules of course, which means Wishing will work as it should in both unsanctioned/casual play and sanctioned/tournament play. That is, in default/casual play, players may Wish for a card from their collection while in sanctioned play, they'd Wish for nothing due to WotC's stated universal rule of Wishing across all formats, and not because they're subject to a special rule.
Reply to MRHblue
Show
Hide
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Also, where is the data supporting the "moments"? I believe papa_funk and am not even suggesting that he's bearing false witness. But I'm not asking about statements and stories, I'm asking about "data" because after reading every article and bit of discussion about Wishing in Commander that I could find online, I've never read ANYTHING concerning this time period when Wishing worked from ANYONE until papa_funk just mentioned it in this thread. Also, the very word "moments" suggests that they're anecdotal - i.e., a very small, personal, subjective sample insufficient to represent or predict the actions and experiences of the global Commander community. It's clear that Wishing understandably got a handwave from the RC during a time when they were overwhelmed with Commander's barely manageable surge in popularity, but that time has passed and Wishing should get the chance that every effect deserves.
This is so utterly dismissive of the RC it is laughable. You didn't see their 'InBox', so its a small number of one-offs that never amounted to much 'data'? Get over yourself.

Even if they changed Rule 13, AND created a whole set of 'what can you wish for?', AND made it the baseline rule, you still would not have that data. These games don't have tracked data, so it would still be anecdotes, which you would handwave because you already have your mind made up. No amount of people complaining would change your mind. Its a fruitless venture.
Please only contribute to the discussion. This thread has enough tension without ad hominem attacks and trolling. I didn't say anything derogatory about the RC anyways. When I said "data", I just meant things like articles and discussions available online. I mean, there's TONS of discussion online about every card that has ever been contentious in the format. And TONS of discussion about Wishing as well. But NOTHING about the early days of how everyone was supposedly Wishing and causing all these problems. What other logical conclusion is there other than it's anecdotal? Especially when pappa_funk didn't reply.
“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
Please only contribute to the discussion. This thread has enough tension without ad hominem attacks and trolling. I didn't say anything derogatory about the RC anyways.
This is contribution. You want to back seat mod? Go right ahead, means nothing to me. Most of what you have said about the RC is derogatory in one way or another, even if you think you are above such. And you have been trolling plenty of folks : See Spoiler X
When I said "data", I just meant things like articles and discussions available online. I mean, there's TONS of discussion online about every card that has ever been contentious in the format. And TONS of discussion about Wishing as well. But NOTHING about the early days of how everyone was supposedly Wishing and causing all these problems. What other logical conclusion is there other than it's anecdotal? Especially when pappa_funk didn't reply.
That still won't matter to you, and everyone participating in this thread knows it. PF left because its a foolish discussion at this point to keep saying the same thing. They made a decision, you don't like it, what more can he say?

There are boat-loads of discussion on wishes, as you want. They don't tally up how people broke the game with them well enough for you, because no information will. Yes this was done early in the EDH timeline, so there were not nearly as many people discussing specific interactions. But I read plenty of stuff about people getting color hosers with no downside, or stuff outside the ban list, or 100 Eldrazi. It literally will not matter to you what anyone posts about wishes, as evident by this very thread.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Most of what you have said about the RC is derogatory in one way or another...
No it isn't.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
And you have been trolling plenty of folks : See Spoiler X
No I haven't. I just don't have time to restate everything. Some people keep pushing the same tired excuses for Rule 13 without presenting facts. My spoilers crush anecdotes and assumptions with logic. If they don't like it, then they can prove them wrong. Don't attack people. Attack their arguments. You can do it if you try.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
When I said "data", I just meant things like articles and discussions available online. I mean, there's TONS of discussion online about every card that has ever been contentious in the format. And TONS of discussion about Wishing as well. But NOTHING about the early days of how everyone was supposedly Wishing and causing all these problems. What other logical conclusion is there other than it's anecdotal? Especially when pappa_funk didn't reply.
That still won't matter to you, and everyone participating in this thread knows it.
You speak for everyone in this thread now? Check your privilege. It will matter to me when they say something logical. So far that hasn't happened. It's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
PF left because its a foolish discussion at this point to keep saying the same thing. They made a decision, you don't like it, what more can he say?
Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. But you're right, he does keep saying foolish things, and I don't like it. The time for one-liners, hand-waving, and appealing to their own authority has passed. Thought out rebuttals that actually engage real time with real arguments against Rule 13 are in order. "Trust us, we're the RC" and "15 years ago Wishing was hard" doesn't cut it anymore. All I'm saying is "With great power comes great responsibility." It's time to act accordingly in the area of Wishing.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Yes this was done early in the EDH timeline, so there were not nearly as many people discussing specific interactions.
That's my point. The RC understandably nipped the issues of Wishing in the bud despite having insufficient feedback because not even WotC had figured them out yet. I get that. But that was then, this is now, and things are different now. WotC has streamlined the rules of the game, including Wishing. It's time for Commander to catch up.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
But I read plenty of stuff about people getting color hosers with no downside, or stuff outside the ban list, or 100 Eldrazi.
Interesting. You read these when and where exactly? Links would be appreciated.
“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

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Rule 13 states that Wishes in Commander work the way that wishes work in sanctioned matches (ie. they can only get cards from your sideboard).
You may want to brush up on the rules of Commander. Rule 13 does not state what you just stated, it states: "Abilities which bring card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Wishes; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander."
So I don't think you're stupid, but comments like this make me wonder. At the least, it's like you read solely to refute rather than understand.

Wishes work the way the do in sanctioned matches.
Wishes in sanctioned matches can only get cards from your sideboard.
Commander decks have no sideboards.
Wishes resolve and do nothing.

It's the same as the rule saying that do not function.

Yet you're response is basically "Clearly, you don't know the rule because it works exactly the way you said it works." So the established rule works functionally in accordance with what I said, and yet not only did you tell me I was wrong but you were condescending about it.

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

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Adding a sideboard to basically every deck is definitely disruptive to the format. It adds a virtual 10 or 15 cards you also have to have, plus then wishes are de facto autoincludes. Every red deck should play burning wish, every blue cunning wish and every gw glittering wish, every green living wish.

So you add basically 4 brand new autoincludes, and you add 10 cards. That's hideously disruptive to the format.

I can't think of a lot of changes that would make me sell out but this is one of them.

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

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
But then you are creating rules specifically for the format and for a set of cards. Which is more disruptive than saying simply, that wishes work like they always do in sanctioned matches.
.
Why do you think having a sideboard is "disruptive" or "overly complex"? All the major formats use one, so the majority of players probably know what they are and how they work. Even best-of-one games on Arena have a sideboard. So I'm not really seeing this argument that having a sideboard is super confusing.
Best of one games are not a format. Best of one games piggyback on an existing format, mostly Standard. The rules of Standard deck construction have rules for a sideboard. The rules of Commander deck construction don't.

So you'd be creating something new, rather than using something existing. That matters. You'd have to define the rules of the sideboard (easy, but not nothing). On top of that sideboards come with expectations, and there is a fundamental disconnect/tension between a best of 1 format, and a construct for modifying your deck based on your opponent. It can work, but it does create messy expectations for some people (as I have seen players casual ask what their opponent was playing and modify their deck before the game as a result). There's also the disconnect between sideboards being a competitive construct, which @sheldon has stated is an association he'd prefer not to have in Commander.

"Disruptive" and "Overly Complex" may not be the best way of saying it. But if you are creating rules solely for the purpose of wishing, it is more complex than the default of saying that wishes function the way that they do in every sanctioned match, which in this format, means that they can get nothing.

As an aside, seeing decks in a best of one tournament that had a sideboard solely because they played Dire Fleet Daredevil and knew other players were running Mastermind's Acquisition was a neat curiosity, but beyond the initial reaction would make for annoying deckbuilding and very random wishboards. just in case of complete craziness.

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 67
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Best of one games are not a format. Best of one games piggyback on an existing format, mostly Standard. The rules of Standard deck construction have rules for a sideboard. The rules of Commander deck construction don't.
Regardless of what you might think about it, BO1 is clearly a format separate from traditional Standard. That's something we're all going to have to square with because it is pretty clear that WotC intends to continue supporting BO1 by including "outside the game" cards to act as a safety valve against degenerate strategies. This isn't something that's going away. And the more they print, the more it becomes glaringly obvious that EDH doesn't have a sideboard and there's no real reason why.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
So you'd be creating something new, rather than using something existing. That matters. You'd have to define the rules of the sideboard (easy, but not nothing). On top of that sideboards come with expectations, and there is a fundamental disconnect/tension between a best of 1 format, and a construct for modifying your deck based on your opponent. It can work, but it does create messy expectations for some people (as I have seen players casual ask what their opponent was playing and modify their deck before the game as a result). There's also the disconnect between sideboards being a competitive construct, which @sheldon has stated is an association he'd prefer not to have in Commander.
Oh please. It's not "creating something new". EDH had a rule regarding sideboards for a long time. It's not like we're reinventing the wheel. Sideboards exist in basically every other format, including other BO1 formats, but not EDH. It's crazy.

If the concern is "expectations" (which is frankly kind of ridiculous to me but whatever) call it a Wishboard instead of a Sideboard.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
"Disruptive" and "Overly Complex" may not be the best way of saying it. But if you are creating rules solely for the purpose of wishing, it is more complex than the default of saying that wishes function the way that they do in every sanctioned match, which in this format, means that they can get nothing.
To be fair "sanctioned" doesn't really mean much anymore, as these days almost any event with 8+ people can be sanctioned even if it's not actually a tournament. Even the Gatherer rulings for Karn don't use the word "sanctioned", instead differentiating between "casual" and "tournament". And I don't know about you, but "tournament EDH" is kind of a nonbo in that EDH is not exactly designed to be a tournament format. So making (or not making) sideboard rules on the basis of that seems pretty flimsy. We all know EDH is a casual format first and foremost.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
As an aside, seeing decks in a best of one tournament that had a sideboard solely because they played Dire Fleet Daredevil and knew other players were running Mastermind's Acquisition was a neat curiosity, but beyond the initial reaction would make for annoying deckbuilding and very random wishboards. just in case of complete craziness.
Again, EDH doesn't make sense as a tournament so comparing it to one isn't very useful. The players at the... Mythic Championship (is that what it was called?)... had a vested, monetary interest in doing literally everything they could to win. That is a far cry from the "lets all observe the social contract and have a fun game, win or lose" philosophy of EDH. If you don't want to use Wishes simply don't, and don't worry that it might infinitesimally lower your win percentage in the case you somehow steal a Wish from someone else.
Image

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

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
To be fair "sanctioned" doesn't really mean much anymore, as these days almost any event with 8+ people can be sanctioned even if it's not actually a tournament. Even the Gatherer rulings for Karn don't use the word "sanctioned", instead differentiating between "casual" and "tournament". And I don't know about you, but "tournament EDH" is kind of a nonbo in that EDH is not exactly designed to be a tournament format. So making (or not making) sideboard rules on the basis of that seems pretty flimsy. We all know EDH is a casual format first and foremost.
That would mean a lot more if in a casual game on Arena I could look through my collection with Karn, The Great Creator. I can't. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the digital versions of the game (both Arena and MODO), cards with the wish functionality never let you access your collection even in the most casual of games. They always point you to your sideboard. If I play at any event at my store, wishes always have to go to my sideboard.

I see the disconnect with the gatherer ruling calling it "tournament" and it being a casual game. But I suspect that's an anachronism carried over from before Wizards decided they were going to sanction Commander events. And Sanctioned commander is certainly not necessarily cEDH.

In any game that WotC sanctions, wishes get cards from sideboards. I'm fine with the rules committee saying all games of Commander work that way, unless the players agree otherwise, which they are free to do so.

As for sideboards/wishboards in commander - that's a separate thing. The Rules committee clearly doesn't like it, the OP isn't arguing for them, and while I absolutely agree as it being a doable thing, I don't think it's a clear thing as to one way being superior.

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
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Rule 13 states that Wishes in Commander work the way that wishes work in sanctioned matches (ie. they can only get cards from your sideboard).
You may want to brush up on the rules of Commander. Rule 13 does not state what you just stated, it states: "Abilities which bring card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Wishes; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander."
So I don't think you're stupid, but comments like this make me wonder. At the least, it's like you read solely to refute rather than understand.
I do understand. You seem to be approaching this from the competitive viewpoint. Most Wishing opponents do. (They just can't seem to imagine that other people have different motivations for playing and will therefore play differently then they would.) Everybody already knows that (without sideboards) Wishing will effectively remain the same in sanctioned events, but with all due respect, it doesn't matter because Commander is a casual format. The format philosophy does not bow to competitive/sanctioned/tournament agendas. What matters is how Wishing functions in casual play. That's all that matters. Currently, Wishing functions in casual play as it would in sanctioned play, which is unacceptable. Wishing in Commander should jive with Wizard's official rule for Wishing in the whole of Magic.
“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

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Well just because I don't use tutors doesn't mean I want them all to suddenly stop working. But beside that, with the exception of Karn, I can't really imagine a scenario where Wishing for a proactive card is better than just including that card in your deck. To put it another way: Demonic Tutor acts as a second copy of whatever your best card is, thereby increasing deck consistency. On the other hand, Mastermind's Acquisition to Wish for your best card just means you took your best card out of your deck.

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.
Why exactly are we wishing for proactive cards now? I never said that.

What I was trying to get at is the added consistency of decks you were complaining about with tutors, which also exists with wishes Yes, one advances your own gameplan more consistently, while the other stops your opponents gameplan more consistently, but ultimately both will cause more games to end up very similar. In very specific metas it even might be correct to wish for the same hate piece every single time. I think that would qualify as the repetitive gameplay you were trying to avoid.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
That means that I have to start every game I play by asking three other people if that's okay, and if even one of them says no I either can't play or have to fumble to change cards or decks. It's an enormous hassle.
Except if wishes were legal, the exact same thing is true for those who don't want them in the format. I don't just have to not play them, I also have to convince three other people that they shouldn't include them at all. That's effectively me having to implement a custom ban-list and going against the rules of the RC. Not many players are going to like that, my experience wil suffer. It's the same enourmous hassle for both sides.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Spoiler 3 covers this.
Spoiler 3 rephrases Impossibles initial argument on the matter, that doesn't mean that my points about the reverse situation being equally bad don't stand.

Nobody wants to hear "you only won because you didn't allow us to wish" after all.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Disrupting your opponent isn't really a strategy. Playing Rest in Peace probably isn't advancing my game plan. So I'm not really sure what the concern is. Other than graveyard decks should probably be built with the idea that they're almost certainly going to have to recover from having their graveyard eaten at some point, so maybe build in some redundancy and don't go all-in on the reanimation strategy.
I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't build your deck with its answers in mind. That doesn't change the fact however, that even decks that include answers to their hosers will often still struggle vs them. Generally that's fine, you usually won't draw your Rest in Peace every single game. However, if you include multiple wishes in your deck, the odds of you putting that RiP into play drastically increase.
Over some time I believe this would lead to a significant decrease in overall strategy diversity in the format, as many players wouldn't want to play any decks that are especially susceptible to narrow hate pieces (graveyard, artifacts, enchantress, etc.) to not put themselves at a disadvantage.

There's also an additional downside to getting your hatepieces via wishes. The person for whom you get the hate-piece will feel particularly singled out. You didn't just happen to draw the silver bullet cards vs their deck, you specifically chose to get it and shut them down. There would be a lot of "You only wished for that to spite me"s said if wishes were legal.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Forgive me, but I tend to take the things papa_funk says worth a grain of salt. Especially when the events he is referring to took place 10+ years ago.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
papa_funk's answer is misleading. If you look into the history of Wishing, you'll find that it was messy, thanks to WotC. If you look into Wishes in Commander, you'll find that they were no less messy, and as a result and may have been among the first cards banned in Commander (all according to an article from Sheldon) but they were certainly banned prior to 2004 (according to Sheldon), and hence not given a proper chance.
This seems like typical goal post moving to me. Looks to me like you two just can't accept the fact that wishes were bad for the format. Since they were banned this early, there must have been a very good reason.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
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.
This is a rock solid summary argument in favor of Wishing in Commander (for those who feel the need for one, and especially for those who compare Wishing to tutoring). Wishing would serve a different role than tutoring, almost that of the exact opposite, in fact.

No, it's not. It's a value neutral description of what wishes would do in the format. Diffferent people will take this as a positive or a negative. Some will think it a great way to combat the "degenerate" combo decks in the format, while others will fear that the same answers will also affect many more common casual strategies much less deserving and decrease format diversity.

I also feel the need to point out again, that the only thing wishes and tutors have in common is that they both create the same repetitive kind of gameplay, which is something that poeple generally complain about a lot.

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

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago

You may want to brush up on the rules of Commander. Rule 13 does not state what you just stated, it states: "Abilities which bring card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Wishes; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander."
So I don't think you're stupid, but comments like this make me wonder. At the least, it's like you read solely to refute rather than understand.
I do understand. You seem to be approaching this from the competitive viewpoint. Most Wishing opponents do. (They just can't seem to imagine that other people have different motivations for playing and will therefore play differently then they would.) Everybody already knows that (without sideboards) Wishing will effectively remain the same in sanctioned events, but with all due respect, it doesn't matter because Commander is a casual format. The format philosophy does not bow to competitive/sanctioned/tournament agendas. What matters is how Wishing functions in casual play. That's all that matters. Currently, Wishing functions in casual play as it would in sanctioned play, which is unacceptable. Wishing in Commander should jive with Wizard's official rule for Wishing in the whole of Magic.
You don't understand. It's not a competitive issue. It's a logistical one.

It's not about the problems of people getting cut-throat or creating unpleasant gamestates with wishes. It's that wishes are messy logistical cards.

Policing powerlevel and unfun play is part of the social aspect of the format. Logistical issues are less so.

I'm tired of seeing sanctioned play treated as some sort of competitive thing. It's not. I've played at all Rules Enforcement Levels, and find the most fun to be the free-wheeling prerelease environment. The sort of thing where the judges exist primarily to keep things running smoothly, where takebacks for misunderstandings are common, and the goal is more about having fun rather than proving yourself to be a superior player.

Wishes are logistically a nightmare, and the sanctioned play rules of "They can only fetch a sideboard card" solve those issues. Without them, things get more and more complicated. I don't want there to be a homecourt advantage. I don't want to have discuss whether or not a person can purchase a single to wish for, or even worse, if the line at the register is too long to allow someone to do so. I don't want to have to have a rule created about what you can wish for, which as we saw with your initial attempts to create it, required multiple revisions. I don't want to have to figure out what happens when a person is taking too long and can't find the card they wished for. If you can only wish for a card in your sideboard, we know the card you are wishing for is legal (defined) and present, whereas if you play wishes the way that they are written, we don't.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the high level judges who are in charge of the format basically took a look at that logistical nightmare and slammed the door shut on it. If you want to deal with it, you can. But changing the rules to inflict it on everyone by default?

Do I think wishes lead to unfun play patterns? Sure. But that's not why I want the rule to remain as it is.
Do I think wishes circumvent an important aspect of the format? Sure. But so do other cards and that's not why I want the rule to remain as is.
Do I think wishes are too powerful? Not really, although Karn being effectively a 1 card combo lockout seems awful, and that's not why I want the rules to remain as is,

Wishes are the logistical equivalent of adding the worst (rules functionality-wise) UN-cards to the format, only without the whimsy. Give me Zzzyxas's Abyss all day over that garbage.

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

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Most of what you have said about the RC is derogatory in one way or another...
No it isn't. /
Also Legend : "But you're right, he does keep saying foolish things, and I don't like it. " "Trust us, we're the RC" and "15 years ago Wishing was hard"
You speak for everyone in this thread now? Check your privilege. It will matter to me when they say something logical. So far that hasn't happened. It's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
No, you don't like it. Plenty of logical arguments have been made, you handwave them away while accusing others of doing so.
I have no privilege, we all are on the same level here. Plenty of people have noted you listen to no one else unless they agree.
Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. But you're right, he does keep saying foolish things, and I don't like it. The time for one-liners, hand-waving, and appealing to their own authority has passed. Thought out rebuttals that actually engage real time with real arguments against Rule 13 are in order. "Trust us, we're the RC" and "15 years ago Wishing was hard" doesn't cut it anymore. All I'm saying is "With great power comes great responsibility." It's time to act accordingly in the area of Wishing.
They are the authority, so there is no appeal. Many decisions get made without some treasure trove of data you clamor for. No data that could be reasonably collected would be able to address this issue, pro or con, because thats not how the format works.
That's my point. The RC understandably nipped the issues of Wishing in the bud despite having insufficient feedback because not even WotC had figured them out yet. I get that. But that was then, this is now, and things are different now. WotC has streamlined the rules of the game, including Wishing. It's time for Commander to catch up.
You absolutely refuse to understand the streamlines do not address the reasons, as fully laid out here time and again, wishes don't line up with EDH play. Yes WotC made changes to smooth tournament play, thats not the issue here but you use it as a false shield against the known reasons wished would be an issue in EDH.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Reply to Sharpened
Show
Hide
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
I do understand. You seem to be approaching this from the competitive viewpoint. Most Wishing opponents do. (They just can't seem to imagine that other people have different motivations for playing and will therefore play differently then they would.) Everybody already knows that (without sideboards) Wishing will effectively remain the same in sanctioned events, but with all due respect, it doesn't matter because Commander is a casual format. The format philosophy does not bow to competitive/sanctioned/tournament agendas. What matters is how Wishing functions in casual play. That's all that matters. Currently, Wishing functions in casual play as it would in sanctioned play, which is unacceptable. Wishing in Commander should jive with Wizard's official rule for Wishing in the whole of Magic.
You don't understand. It's not a competitive issue. It's a logistical one.

It's not about the problems of people getting cut-throat or creating unpleasant gamestates with wishes. It's that wishes are messy logistical cards.

Policing powerlevel and unfun play is part of the social aspect of the format. Logistical issues are less so.

I'm tired of seeing sanctioned play treated as some sort of competitive thing. It's not. I've played at all Rules Enforcement Levels, and find the most fun to be the free-wheeling prerelease environment. The sort of thing where the judges exist primarily to keep things running smoothly, where takebacks for misunderstandings are common, and the goal is more about having fun rather than proving yourself to be a superior player.

Wishes are logistically a nightmare, and the sanctioned play rules of "They can only fetch a sideboard card" solve those issues. Without them, things get more and more complicated. I don't want there to be a homecourt advantage. I don't want to have discuss whether or not a person can purchase a single to wish for, or even worse, if the line at the register is too long to allow someone to do so. I don't want to have to have a rule created about what you can wish for, which as we saw with your initial attempts to create it, required multiple revisions. I don't want to have to figure out what happens when a person is taking too long and can't find the card they wished for. If you can only wish for a card in your sideboard, we know the card you are wishing for is legal (defined) and present, whereas if you play wishes the way that they are written, we don't.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the high level judges who are in charge of the format basically took a look at that logistical nightmare and slammed the door shut on it. If you want to deal with it, you can. But changing the rules to inflict it on everyone by default?
You're still rambling on about sanctioned play (where the logistical issues would supposedly exist), which is both irrelevant to the format philosophy and conveniently solved by WotC's rule on Wishing. You may not like it, but sanctioned play is synonymous with tournament play and competitive play. Yes, like I've already said, Wishing WAS a logistical problem back in the stone age of Commander, when even WotC hadn't yet really figured out exactly what to do about it. So of course high level judges were bothered by it. But those days are long gone. Wishes could and should function in Commander according to WotC's rule on Wishing, which works for every other format. It would solve every problem.
Reply to tarotplz
Show
Hide
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
That means that I have to start every game I play by asking three other people if that's okay, and if even one of them says no I either can't play or have to fumble to change cards or decks. It's an enormous hassle.
Except if wishes were legal, the exact same thing is true for those who don't want them in the format. I don't just have to not play them, I also have to convince three other people that they shouldn't include them at all.
I don't want exile effects in the format because they're so damn inconvenient to my glass cannon reanimator deck. Does that mean I "have" to convince three other people that they shouldn't include them at all? Maybe it does. But that doesn't mean everyone else in the word should be subject to my truth. Cards and effects should be policed either by the ban list or by Rule 0, not by special rules.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Spoiler 3 covers this.
Spoiler 3 rephrases Impossibles initial argument on the matter, that doesn't mean that my points about the reverse situation being equally bad don't stand.
But they don't stand. There's a decade demonstrating that using Rule 0 to Wish doesn't work.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Nobody wants to hear "you only won because you didn't allow us to wish" after all.
In that case, players should be allowed to Wish by default.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Forgive me, but I tend to take the things papa_funk says worth a grain of salt. Especially when the events he is referring to took place 10+ years ago.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
papa_funk's answer is misleading. If you look into the history of Wishing, you'll find that it was messy, thanks to WotC. If you look into Wishes in Commander, you'll find that they were no less messy, and as a result and may have been among the first cards banned in Commander (all according to an article from Sheldon) but they were certainly banned prior to 2004 (according to Sheldon), and hence not given a proper chance.
This seems like typical goal post moving to me. Looks to me like you two just can't accept the fact that wishes were bad for the format. Since they were banned this early, there must have been a very good reason.
Refining an argument isn't moving the goal post. But if anyone has moved the goal post, it's the RC. And yes, there was a "very good reason" to eschew Wishing back in the day, which I've already acknowledged. The key is that it "WAS" a good reason. But it isn't anymore because it's been dealt with by WotC.
Reply to MRHblue
Show
Hide
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Plenty of logical arguments have been made...
Yes, by Legend and Impossible. I don't handwave everyone esle's arguments away, I disprove them away.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Plenty of people have noted you listen to no one else unless they agree.
So if someone doesn't agree, it means that they aren't listening? Think about the hypocrisy of this sentiment.
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
You absolutely refuse to understand the streamlines do not address the reasons, as fully laid out here time and again, wishes don't line up with EDH play. Yes WotC made changes to smooth tournament play, thats not the issue here but you use it as a false shield against the known reasons wished would be an issue in EDH.
Correction. I refuse to accept "the reasons" because they aren't reasons, they're excuses to stay stuck in the past.
“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

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
You're still rambling on about sanctioned play (where the logistical issues would supposedly exist), which is both irrelevant to the format philosophy and conveniently solved by WotC's rule on Wishing. You may not like it, but sanctioned play is synonymous with tournament play and competitive play. Yes, like I've already said, Wishing WAS a logistical problem back in the stone age of Commander, when even WotC hadn't yet really figured out exactly what to do about it. So of course high level judges were bothered by it. But those days are long gone. Wishes could and should function in Commander according to WotC's rule on Wishing, which works for every other format. It would solve every problem.[/spoiler]
How is wishing fundamentally different now than it was in 2002? You keep saying that it is, but I don't see where you've said how it is. It's possible that you have said how it is, but as you are constantly hiding your words behind unnecessary spoiler tags, I have no clue where that is. They used to be able to fetch cards in the exile zone, (or the RFG zone as it was referred to), but that's hardly the functionality change you are seeking.

I keep ranting on sanctioned play, because the rules for sanctioned play are how Wizards have solved the issue of wishing.

You keep saying that Commander is casual, and sanctioned play is not, and that's just not true. Prereleases are casual and sanctioned. This upcoming weekends C19 release events are casual and sanctioned. Being casual has nothing to do with sanctioning. Being organized has to do with sanctioning.

Wishes work in other formats because those formats have sideboards. Wishes cannot work the same way as they do in those formats in a format that has no sideboard.

There are sanctioned commander events. There are going to be widespread sanctioned commander events this weekend, celebrating the commander product. In those events, wishes would not work because in sanctioned events, wishes can only get cards in sideboards and commander decks have no sideboards. Why would the Rules Committee want to change the rules so that those events function differently than the typical game of commander as described by their official rules?

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

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

Ok, I'm going to butt in for a minute here....

Papa Funk is one of THE MOST knowledgeable people involved in the format. He is a level 5 judge and is the go-to guy on rules and rules logistics. If he says that the logistics of wishes in Commander has been discussed and mulled over, then you can rest assured that it was given due attention and thought. And I'm fairly certain that next to nothing has changed from a logistics standpoint since then. So it's not like a fresh perspective is needed, any more than we need to revisit Balance to see if it is less busted now.

So while it is perfectly acceptable to say that you disagree with the conclusions he or the rest of the RC came to, calling him out of touch, calling his statements foolish, and the like are not constructive and borderline flaming. (Side note: I suspect that he is no longer participating due to nothing further needing to be said rather than the tone or accusations made.)
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 67
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

I'm cutting down the quotes to the most relevant parts I'm responding to in an effort to save space, not in an attempt to take comments out of context. If you feel I glossed over something important just point it out and I'll try to respond.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
I'm fine with the rules committee saying all games of Commander work that way, unless the players agree otherwise, which they are free to do so.
There seems to be some miscommunication, as this is basically what I'm advocating for. I don't think "Wishes get any card you own" is a feasible way to include them in the format because it is clearly a logistical nightmare. But I do think having 15-card Wishboards included in the official rules allows players to use Wishes similarly to how they would in basically any other format. And that is eminently doable without any serious problems.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, one advances your own gameplan more consistently, while the other stops your opponents gameplan more consistently, but ultimately both will cause more games to end up very similar.
The point was that tutors are a problem because they effectively double your chance to draw your best card, and generally your best card in a given deck is the same 2-3 cards regardless of game state. For example, in my Rith deck, Eladamri's Call almost always searches for Purphoros because in the vast, vast majority of games that is probably the single strongest card in the deck. Ergo, I basically have 2x Purphoros in my deck.

Wishes don't really work that way. Because, as we've already established, Wishes are pretty terrible at getting proactive cards (i.e. if I wanted to Wish for Purphoros I would have to take Purphoros out of my deck which is obviously worse than just playing Purphoros normally) the general use for Wishes is to get reactive answer cards to solve whatever the current problem of the table is. This, by definition, means that the cards Wished for are a function of the game state. For example, Wishing for Path for an opponent's Avacyn versus Wishing for Disenchant for an opponent's Doubling Season. This is significantly different from proactively tutoring for the same best card in my deck every game, regardless of what my opponents are doing.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Except if wishes were legal, the exact same thing is true for those who don't want them in the format. I don't just have to not play them, I also have to convince three other people that they shouldn't include them at all. That's effectively me having to implement a custom ban-list and going against the rules of the RC. Not many players are going to like that, my experience wil suffer. It's the same enourmous hassle for both sides.
Well technically you'd only have to convince players that would otherwise use Wishes. Even if Wishes were legal, it's still very easily possible for you to sit down at a 4 player game without a single Wish among you because you've all individually decided not to use Wishes for one reason or another. And even if someone at the table is playing a Wish, there's a pretty good chance you'll never even see it that game. And even if they do find it, they might do something very benign with it that you ultimately have no problem with.

Compare that to now if I want to play a Wish at a rando table; I cannot even start that game without first explaining that I intend to break the rules. And what happens if I forget to explain it and draw the Wish mid-game? Problems happen, that's what.

Ultimately you can't control what other players do. They might combo kill you with P Hulk, or T&N, or Kiki-Conscripts, etc. That's not a reason to ban those cards and insist that everyone pre-clear them with you every game. I firmly believe that the rules should always default toward individual player agency (i.e. you can play whatever you want and it's up to you to try and mesh that with the groups powerlevel) in all but the most extreme cases, where the card in question is essentially impossible to play fairly even if you try to (Sylvan Primordial, Prophet of Kruphix, etc.)
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Over some time I believe this would lead to a significant decrease in overall strategy diversity in the format, as many players wouldn't want to play any decks that are especially susceptible to narrow hate pieces (graveyard, artifacts, enchantress, etc.) to not put themselves at a disadvantage.
...good? Is it better now if a mono-artifact deck just rolls the dice to see if they get blown out by a naturally drawn Vandalblast? That's just poor deckbuilding. Nobody's strategy should be "play my stuff and hope nobody draws one of many cards that completely stops my deck". If players understand they're more likely to run into one of said cards that completely stops their deck, they'll build in a way such that they don't just scoop to a wipe. So encouraging better deckbuilding seems like a plus to me.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
There would be a lot of "You only wished for that to spite me"s said if wishes were legal.
How is that any different than people complaining when you target their stuff with removal but not someone else's stuff? I mean, how often do you hear something like "why are you Utter Ending my Avacyn instead of his Doubling Season?"? And regardless if the Utter End came from a Wish or not, the response should always be the same thing: "because I think you are the bigger threat right now".

Unless it is actually spiteful, in which case that seems more like a player problem than a game problem.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Wishes work in other formats because those formats have sideboards. Wishes cannot work the same way as they do in those formats in a format that has no sideboard.
Okay, but why doesn't EDH have a sideboard? The whole sideboards are a competitive construct thing is... a reason, I guess, but I don't give it much weight, especially when not having a sideboard necessitates Wishes doing nothing. Especially now because Arena, which I believe to be how many new players are going to start playing Magic these days, already demonstrates how easily best of one formats can integrate sideboards. Wishes pulling from the sideboard isn't some esoteric thing only whispered about by high level players that regularly attend GPs and such anymore. Even brand new players are being regularly exposed to it via Arena, to the point where I think most players don't even realize there's a difference between what Wishes do under the tournament rules versus what they do under the game rules; they just assume what Wishes do is pull from the sideboard. It feels like it's time for EDH to work like that too.
cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Papa Funk is one of THE MOST knowledgeable people involved in the format. He is a level 5 judge and is the go-to guy on rules and rules logistics. If he says that the logistics of wishes in Commander has been discussed and mulled over, then you can rest assured that it was given due attention and thought. And I'm fairly certain that next to nothing has changed from a logistics standpoint since then. So it's not like a fresh perspective is needed, any more than we need to revisit Balance to see if it is less busted now.
I don't want to seem rude, but often people most likely to miss systemic flaws are those who've spent significant time inside of the system and risen to the top. For example, a rich person is more likely to support unrestrained capitalism because it is a system in which they have mastered already, so changes to that system could have consequences for them. That's not to say I think Papa Funk is somehow stonewalling change because he is personally profiting from it, that's ridiculous, but I am saying that as someone who has worked deeply within the Magic rules system he can potentially be biased from seeing a flaw because that's just how it's always been for him. This is also why, let's say for example, the military tends to evolve pretty slowly in terms of worldview; the people that get promoted to the top do so because they're cut from the same cloth as those already in a position of power to promote them in the first place. To put it another, like tends to advance like, meaning that those who rise to the top do so because they appeal to the system already in place instead of pushing outsider perspectives.

Wasn't this basically the entire point of the CAG? To be outsiders with an ear to the ground that can bring in fresh perspectives? And that's a good idea. It's important to have multiple different viewpoints represented. So I don't think questioning whether the RC's reasoning from way back at the inception of the format still holds up today is in any way disrespectful.
Image

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

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Wasn't this basically the entire point of the CAG? To be outsiders with an ear to the ground that can bring in fresh perspectives? And that's a good idea. It's important to have multiple different viewpoints represented. So I don't think questioning whether the RC's reasoning from way back at the inception of the format still holds up today is in any way disrespectful.
Absolutely, and the CAG has shown the difference of opinions to move the needle. Kudos upon them and the RC for getting them in place.

I also agree about the RC, and have questioned them before and recently. Its about how, and what the topic is. papa_funk came here and showed that the reasons Wishes don't work well have not changed significantly. Of course that's still an opinion and open to interpretation, I think the major issue is the tone and word choice by some folks. Cryogen covered specifics, but also this 'hand waving' idea where they don't answer direct questions or listen to input is massively over cooked.

Cow31337Killer
Posts: 139
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Cow31337Killer » 4 years ago

Me when I open this thread and see the same three or four people getting mad at each other over cardboard

Image
Warning issued for Trolling - benjameenbear

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Cow31337Killer wrote:
4 years ago
Me when I open this thread and see the same three or four people getting mad at each other over cardboard

Image
I was just logging in to send out a private message to everyone in this thread that I've disagreed with to tell them that "it isn't personal". But I'll make it public instead. "It's nothing personal." At the end of the day, we're just people and Magic is just a game (but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy a little quibble and spar). Despite my acerbic tone, I genuinely respect all the people of MTGNexus, even the cretinous opponents of Wishing. It isn't necessary to agree about everything to do so. We probably already agree that Magic is the best game ever, and we probably agree on many other things about Commander, Magic, gaming, and even the game of life. Wishing in Commander just happens to be one that we don't. Fortunately, we don't have to agree on everything to more-or-less get along. Thanks to everyone in this thread whether they've thrown in 2 cents or thrown down a gauntlet. Okay...now that that's over with... "en garde"!
Warning issued for Flaming - benjameenbear
“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

You can apologize and say it's not personal.

Or

You can call people who disagree with you "cretinous".

You can't do both.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

Please do not insult other users. This thread has gotten completely out of hand, and there is absolutely no reason to treat posters who disagree with you (and this goes for both sides of this debate) as idiots or otherwise insult them OR the RC. I'm going to lock this thread for the time being. Please use this time to cool off so that you can come back to this without insulting others.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

The thread is now unlocked. Please keep things civil going forward.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

The "cretinous" comment was supposed to be silly not serious.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
How is wishing fundamentally different now than it was in 2002?
papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
Wishes had no Commander-specific rules up until at least 2010
That's all I got. I had an actual answer but lost it to the aether and currently don't have the energy to recreate it.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
You keep saying that it is, but I don't see where you've said how it is. It's possible that you have said how it is, but as you are constantly hiding your words behind unnecessary spoiler tags, I have no clue where that is.
When I'm replying to 2-5 people at a time, spoilers are helpful.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
I keep ranting on sanctioned play, because the rules for sanctioned play are how Wizards have solved the issue of wishing.

Being casual has nothing to do with sanctioning. Being organized has to do with sanctioning.
I stand corrected. It was my misunderstanding. Semantics and all that. Perhaps a better understanding of some terms is in order on my part, particularly the term "casual".

According to the Magic Tournament Rules (MTR), "there are two types of sanctioned Magic tournament: rated and casual." I thought the terms were "rated" and "unrated" and had no idea that the term "casual" was actually proper. The MTR mentions nothing else of casual sanctioned tournaments, but it does briefly describe a type of sanctioned tournament which is "focused on fun and social aspects" (as opposed to prizes and prioritizing victory) that are generally played "casually". It's further described on a rules enforcement level: "Players are still responsible for following the rules, but the focus is on education and sportsmanship over technically precise play." I think it's safe to assume that's what's meant by "casual". It does indeed sound like a proper environment for sanctioned Commander events if ever there was one.

With that in mind, I'll restate what I said before, but with the correct vernacular:
In unsanctioned games you'd get a card from your collection and in sanctioned games you'd get nothing because there is no sideboard in Commander from which to retrieve a card.
That should make more sense now that we're speaking the same language.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Why would the Rules Committee want to change the rules so that those events function differently than the typical game of commander as described by their official rules?
So that the Commander rule would sync with the general rule. Sure…
papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
* It's a good thing to have the base rules of Commander be consistent across all play.
…but it's the best thing to have them consistent across the whole of Magic.

Besides, Rules 0 and 13 are in reality not consistent from unsanctioned to sanctioned play because, if I understand correctly, in sanctioned games players don't have the luxury of Rule 0 to override Rule 13. Instead, Rule 13 is overwritten by Wizard's official rule on Wishing. If that's the case and Wizard's official rule on Wishing already overwrites Rule 13 for sanctioned Commander, why doesn't it overwrite it for unsanctioned Commander as well, thus doing away with the (supposed) need for Rule 13 altogether?
“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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”