[MCD] Wishes

[onering]

1. I agree, I understand their logic, that they're trying to say that it's not the cards that are the problem but how to set the parameters of the effect, but it doesn't translate well in practice.

2. I believe that's why they they removed the sideboard reference, because even though it was just an example of a rule that playgroups could rule 0 in, it caused confusion. I don't how common this actually was, but I personally suspect that a lot of the issues surrounding wishes and outside the game effects are the result of people trying to be rules lawyers, which brings me back to the idea that the judging experience some of the RC members have is a big influence on their decisions in general, and their stance against wishes in particular. I'd even say that's one of the reasons they made the exceptions for companions, because unlike other outside the game effects the companion has to be associated with the deck at the start of the game, which enables all the commander rules to apply to it, and they bring themselves into the game rather than being brought in. There's no question as to how they work. Dungeons also avoid any rules lawyering. They're colorless, you can't have them in your deck, and you can't have multiples, so they sidestep most of the questions associated with making outside the game cards fit deck building requirements. Further, I'm not sure you actually have to own a dungeon to use it. In magic online anyway, nobody owns dungeons, they're just available, and it seems like that's how they are intended to work.

[Legend]

*snip*

I appreciate and agree with the overall message of your post.

Nobody here has enough experience to speak beyond their own playgroups.

This goes without saying since you can only "experience" groups that you play in. Everything else is secondhand information.

EVERYONE is speaking from conjecture or an extremely limited sample size.

Including the RC. (See above.)

The only people on here who probably do have a decent grasp on what it would look like are the RC, and that's because . . . they actually field A LOT of email, DMs, etc from the public, and can thus get a bigger, more representative view of the format than any of us ever could.

If the speakers in this thread aren't emailing them about WISHING, nobody is. What I mean is, even if the RC does have a larger sample of opinions concerning WISHING than we do, it's undoubtedly still a number so miniscule compared to the Commander population as to be irrelevant.

To suggest that the entire reason wishes work (or rather don't work) the way they do now is because of what Sheldon felt 20 years ago is either insipid or disingenuous.

Or it's in light of the fact that the RC hasn't presented a new argument against WISHES in well over a decade. If the RC has a modern day reason for Rule 11, then let's hear it. And no, papafunk's replies in this thread don't suffice. Is it really so unreasonable to require a clear, thorough, meaningful, respectful, contemporary explanation of such a draconic rule or, better yet, a revision or revocation of it?

I've said before that there's a pattern with that particular poster of flippantly dismissing arguments he disagrees with out of hand without actually countering them, and this is an example of him setting up a strawman to joust against because its easier than admitting that people who disagree with him have equally valid opinions.

You shouldn't talk about papafunk like that.

But that being said, what do you feel is a weak argument from page 2? That at one time they allowed wishes to work unrestricted and changed it because it played out poorly? You mean, they actually had access to a lot more information than any of us, a lot more recently than Legend's repeated 2002 fallacy, and they decided based on that information to further restrict Wishes? That they don't outright ban them because they believe that individual playgroups that can agree on how to use them should be able to? That the CR leaves the outside the game zone nebulous and undefined except in sanctioned rules, in which its defined as a sideboard, which commander lacks? That they don't want to leave it undefined because it led to arguments over what people can grab? Do people really believe this all didn't happen?

Of course, it happened! It all started about 20 years ago and ended about 15 years ago. The history of it all can be pieced together from online articles, interviews, forums, and such. If it wasn't true, then everyone would be proving it by shoving quotes and links and screenshots in my face.

I agree that they tend to defer to status quo, but that's a feature not a bug. It means that there needs to be a good reason to make a change, and this promotes stability.

The good reason to make a change is that there are no more good reasons to not make a change.

Outside the game being so ill defined means that there is a lot of room for disagreement, and thus a lot of instances where people will be unable to resolve the disagreement and call in a 3rd party opinion . . . Sheldon in particular was a high level judge for a long time, and values being able to give definitive answers. This format has a lot of that baked into it. I suspect the "real" answer for why the RC prefers the status quo is similar to their given answers, but a bit more to the point: with unlimited wishing, if a player were to ask them to resolve a disagreement, they wouldn't be able to. Questions like "If I'm at a store, can I cast a wish then quickly buy a card, or trade for it?" are real concerns, and apparently things the RC actually encountered (unless we're to believe that papa_funk was talking out of his ass). I value this certainty less than the RC does, but I don't discount it entirely.

I didn't either, a decade ago. But I do now. It's pure hypocritical hogwash. The suggestion that 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. It's like "Hello fellow WISHERS. Here's Rule 0 because you're mature enough to work things out. Also, here's Rule 11 because you aren't mature enough to work things out. You can use Rule 0 to work around Rule 11, but no one could ever use Rule 0 to do what Rule 11 does so don't ask.

The effect of WISHING is not the problem, despite the likelihood that some WISHERS and certain WISHES may be. Of course, some WISHERS will be problematic. But aren't those players already problematic? Do problematic players really need WISHING to cause problems? No, they don't. They will cause problems with or without WISHING. Certain WISHES could also be problematic as per the Official Philosophy Document, even in the hands of the most virtuous players. Those cards could just be banned.

. . . from them (ironically) overvaluing rules consistency with other formats. By basing their outside the game definition on sanctioned rules, they keep some consistency with the overall rules.

Still wrong. Commander is not a sanctioned format. If it were, the Oracle Rule would be in effect and Rule 11 wouldn't be needed.

The short answer, not elaborated on, is that optional 10 card sideboards were a thing for several years before being eliminated in 2016 (so, 3 years before Legend made this thread, not exactly ancient history at the time or even now). That's what I'd like to hear more about. What were the issues with this?

It's that consistency you were talking about. Unsanctioned formats don't have sideboards, so it was contradictory for Commander to have them, optional or otherwise. And sideboards smack of competitive play, which Commander is not about.

The bottom line is that they would either have to define what wishes could grab or allow unlimited wishing and deal with people having disagreements that the RC can't resolve.

I wonder, if the four-member RC sat down to a weekend of Commander games without Rule 11 in effect, and with the means and intent to WISH, how many of the supposed complications with WISHING would actually manifest? And were any to manifest and lead to the problems proclaimed, would those be the kind of people that should be heading up the format? (To be clear, I don't think they would manifest, and I do think they're the people who should be heading the format.) Nor do I think they'd arise between contributors to this thread were we to play in said fashion. The problems with WISHING are imaginary.

[Hermes_]

The only people on here who probably do have a decent grasp on what it would look like are the RC, and that's because . . . they actually field A LOT of email, DMs, etc from the public, and can thus get a bigger, more representative view of the format than any of us ever could.

If the speakers in this thread aren't emailing them about WISHING, nobody is. What I mean is, even if the RC does have a larger sample of opinions concerning WISHING than we do, it's undoubtedly still a number so miniscule compared to the Commander population as to be irrelevant.

I said before and I'll say it again..you're more than welcomed to join the discord and ask them yourself, including members of the CAG.

[onering]

Except, Legend, unlike you or me the RC isn't only looking at information from their own playgroups. Do they have statistically significant amounts of data? That I cannot answer, but it's unlikely. What they DO have is a hell of a lot more data, from a hell of a lot more playgroups and a hell of a lot more perspectives than you or I. So, logically, if you say that you haven't encountered a problem, and a group of people who have access to a much larger, broader, and more diverse cross section of the format and playerbase than you ever will say they have, I'm going to conclude that it's much more likely that what they are saying is accurate. I mean, I can just weigh Pokken's experience against yours and call it a wash, or discount everyone's on here except my own, but a member of the RC speaking on behalf of the RC carries more weight because they have simply seen a lot more than anyone else here has. They have their own personal experiences from multiple play groups, as well as the secondhand experiences of hundreds, if not thousands, of players, including yours and mine. It's frankly arrogant to suggest that your experience should carry the same amount of weight.

The driving home to grab a card was obviously absurd, but that such absurdity is technically allowed by the base rule on wishing that you're so enamored with, it does illustrate that it's a really %$#% rule. You'll notice that trading for a card or buying a card during a game were actually mentioned by papa_funk as things that were brought up. I think both of those things are pretty absurd as well, just not to the degree of driving home for a card. What about a game being played at a neighbor's house, and you can real quick run home to grab a card because it's next door? Or your apartment is down the hall? Or your dorm? Common sense dictates that these things shouldn't be allowed, but the crappy rule allows them. Be honest with me, did you really not get this? Did you not realize the point I was making?

What do I think would happen if the RC sat down and had a game with wishes? I think they'd agree to parameters ahead of time, as they understand each other, and have a good time with no problems. Which they can do under the current rules, and which papa_funk has suggested playgroups can do while explaining why they aren't banned outright. This hypothetical of yours misses the point, because the RC isn't against playgroups rule 0ing in wishes and believe that established playgroups can hash out parameters under which to allow them. You've basically just asked if the RC would have problems using wishes in the environment they have suggested is healthy for using wishes as if it were a gotcha question. Not only would the be unlikely to have any of the potential problems show up, they'd expect them not to. They'd also probably not have issues running a number of the currently banned cards. I'm sure they could easily include Flash and Paradox Engine in their decks without trouble, which is incidentally part of why they took so long to ban those cards. Doesn't mean they should be unbanned. Your hypothetical leaves out the relevant part, that in pick up games or unestablished playgroups, or even groups where one guy is THAT guy, wishes cause headaches, based on their experience fielding questions and complaints about wishes (and other outside the game effects).

Finally, while you may not like that they haven't given any new answers, having the answers not change doesn't in itself mean the answers are wrong, as the answers in 2010 might still be relevant. Given that it wasn't until 2016 that they got rid of the optional sideboard (which could be used to allow wishes to function) and continue to give the same answers, it's logical to conclude that those answers are still relevant. You don't like them, you disagree, whatever, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean that they, or anyone else, owes you new answers. Again, this is where you come off as enormously self centered.

As for the respectful part, I can obviously see where papa_funk got flippant with you, after you not only came out of the gate with an often disrespectful screed but then responded to his answers as you did. You expect respect, you need to give it, and I have to tell you that every time I or anyone else in this thread has disrespected you it was in response to you being disrespectful. You've repeatedly called the RC liars, impugned their judgement, characterized them as stuck in the past and narrow minded, and all but called them morons. It's amazing that you expect any of them to put on a customer service smile for you, or to take your more illogical feels based arguments seriously. You seem to take pride in having a coarse personality, getting treated coarsely in turn is what you reap. You want better? Be better.

[RxPhantom]

It's not worth your time, @onering. He doesn't want to exchange ideas or debate civilly. He wants you to listen to him, and the unearned condescension and poorly constructed arguments never stop. The effort you put into thoughtful engagement won't be reciprocated.

[onering]

It's not worth your time, @onering. He doesn't want to exchange ideas or debate civilly. He wants you to listen to him, and the unearned condescension and poorly constructed arguments never stop. The effort you put into thoughtful engagement won't be reciprocated.

Unfortunately that's true. Also unfortunate, you're more likely to get a warning for pointing it out than he is for wishing he could perform Lingchi on half the forum.

It's incredibly frustrating, and I don't actually expect him to get better. But he's not the only person in the conversation, and I can still add to it by responding to his arguments, even the poor ones, whether or not he's arguing in good faith.

[RxPhantom]

It's not worth your time, @onering. He doesn't want to exchange ideas or debate civilly. He wants you to listen to him, and the unearned condescension and poorly constructed arguments never stop. The effort you put into thoughtful engagement won't be reciprocated.

Unfortunately that's true. Also unfortunate, you're more likely to get a warning for pointing it out than he is for wishing he could perform Lingchi on half the forum.

It's incredibly frustrating, and I don't actually expect him to get better. But he's not the only person in the conversation, and I can still add to it by responding to his arguments, even the poor ones, whether or not he's arguing in good faith.

I think I prefer to stop acknowledging him altogether. I don't want to reward bad behavior. Plenty of people have made thoughtful, if not painfully lengthy, arguments supporting their position in this thread, and while I'm still fundamentally opposed to wishes functioning in the format, I enjoyed much of the discussion. I think it's run its course.

[Hermes_]

I enjoyed much of the discussion. I think it's run its course.

Indeed, as Sheldon said, "Until there's a new argument"....

[benjameenbear]

I'm sorry to say that I'm locking this Thread until further notice. It is clear that opinions are strongly divided and that personal attacks against users and their personal character have increased. If you have comments about a specific user, contain them to PM's between each other or notify a moderator.

[benjameenbear]

At the request of @Legend, I am unlocking this thread for further discussion on this topic. Please be aware that the Original Post has been updated VERY heavily to include new information and perspectives, so I strongly encourage you to review the new and updated material before posting and engaging with this thread again.

Hopefully, I do not need to reiterate the qualifications for posting on this thread. Please be aware that I will be watching this thread daily and if I get even the hint of Flaming, Trolling, or other undesirable behavior/posting I will permanently and proactively lock this thread.

That being said, please feel free to discuss this topic to your heart's content! I must say that the new material and perspectives are quite refreshing and thought-through, so I encourage a lively and civil discussion! - benjameenbear

[Sharpened]

I want to respectfully comment about how terrible the format is for discussion.

Please go reread these 2 year old post that has been changed (with no documentation of how it's been changed) and respond to the new information, but not the old information that has been discussed for several hundred posts, but you have to identify the new information, and also, all the information is segmented and hidden behind frames for some reason.

If I was trying to say something and make it as difficult to respond as possible while claiming that I want responses, I couldn't do it better.

[tstorm823]

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.

You state this like it's a solution when it's actually a problem. Lots of cards operate differently in different formats due to circumstance, but wishes (effects that refer to cards outside the game) are (as far as I know) the singular unique subset of cards that have different rules within a single format depending on the setting. This isn't the rule committee's doing, Wizards did that. Wizards made a subset of cards that have actual different rules depending not on format, but on play setting. Every variation of wish rules that has been used in commander, be it banning all the wishes, using a sideboard, or making a rule to make wishes not function, has at minimum been to undo Wizards mess.

I've played a lot of casual Magic in my life outside of commander. I have never seen a wish effect used with the casual "any card you own" rule, other than Spawnsire of Ulamog. People like deckbuilding, wishes without restriction undermine that pleasure, so people just don't play them that way. "Outside the game" effects have morphed into these modal-but-limited toolbox cards (like the learn mechanic), because that's what people enjoy. Wizards should embrace that, eliminate the idea of grabbing any card ever printed because it was never good game design, and as a consequence unify the rules for how you play wishes. And then I'd bet the RC would go along with that.

There is also a point I think you miss about the philosophy of commander and wishes. While it isn't stated in the philosophy document, it has been said often that the commander environment they want to foster is where people "build casually, play competitively". The idea is that you restrict your power in the deckbuilding part of the game and then try your best to win, rather than play over-powered decks and then make sub-optimal plays on purpose. Playing wishes without restriction means you haven't built a fixed deck, all the cutthroat options are available, and in the middle of the game you can either use those cards or handicap yourself mid game. As an opponent, I'm even more unhappy with the latter option, as if I win, it will because my opponent decided mid-game not to try. That's why limitations need to be determined before play, so that people can be free to try their best during play, which is nearly invariably the path to satisfying games.

[Legend]

I want to respectfully comment about how terrible the format is for discussion.

Please go reread these 2 year old post that has been changed (with no documentation of how it's been changed) and respond to the new information, but not the old information that has been discussed for several hundred posts, but you have to identify the new information, and also, all the information is segmented and hidden behind frames for some reason.

That's fair. It's a new day. Commander has changed alot in the last two years, new rules have been written or come to light, and and I've had some free time recently to reflect on the topic. I chose a line-item format in the form of spoilers because it's easier to parse if not reference.

If I was trying to say something and make it as difficult to respond as possible while claiming that I want responses, I couldn't do it better.

The assertions against WISHING in the old OP are still intact in the revised OP. I overwrote the OP because some of its content was dated, flawed, or rude; and I think it could have lead to confusion and/or served as someone's straw man. Nonetheless, as stated in the new OP, I'm happy to PM the its previous iteration to anyone who wants it. Would you like me to PM a copy to you? Do you have any thoughts on the content or just the formatting?

[Legend]

You state this like it's a solution when it's actually a problem. Lots of cards operate differently in different formats due to circumstance, but wishes (effects that refer to cards outside the game) are (as far as I know) the singular unique subset of cards that have different rules within a single format depending on the setting. This isn't the rule committee's doing, Wizards did that. Wizards made a subset of cards that have actual different rules depending not on format, but on play setting. Every variation of wish rules that has been used in commander, be it banning all the wishes, using a sideboard, or making a rule to make wishes not function, has at minimum been to undo Wizards mess.

Unsanctioned event: WISHING on.
Sanctioned event: WISHING off.
I will give you my entire Magic collection if the RC considers that messy. (Don't get too excited, my collection is worth less than $1000.)

People like deckbuilding, wishes without restriction undermine that pleasure, so people just don't play them that way. "Outside the game" effects have morphed into these modal-but-limited toolbox cards (like the learn mechanic), because that's what people enjoy. Wizards should embrace that, eliminate the idea of grabbing any card ever printed because it was never good game design, and as a consequence unify the rules for how you play wishes. And then I'd bet the RC would go along with that.

Players like modal-but-limited effects, I know I do, but that doesn't mean they don't like WISHING, too.

As far as bad game design, fetches are bad game design, controlling other players is bad game design. There are several major effects and many more individual cards in Magic that could be considered bad game design, but they all have a role to play. I believe WISHING plays a unique, relevant role in Magic and apparently so does Wizards or they wouldn't keep printing them, as explained in the OP.

There is also a point I think you miss about the philosophy of commander and wishes. While it isn't stated in the philosophy document, it has been said often that the commander environment they want to foster is where people "build casually, play competitively". The idea is that you restrict your power in the deckbuilding part of the game and then try your best to win, rather than play over-powered decks and then make sub-optimal plays on purpose. Playing wishes without restriction means you haven't built a fixed deck, all the cutthroat options are available, and in the middle of the game you can either use those cards or handicap yourself mid game. As an opponent, I'm even more unhappy with the latter option, as if I win, it will because my opponent decided mid-game not to try. That's why limitations need to be determined before play, so that people can be free to try their best during play, which is nearly invariably the path to satisfying games.

I think Sheldon answered this perfectly when he said, "In the core demographic, people are playing the card for value, not for brokenness." Commander is the only format where people can make suboptimal plays and feel good about it. Why we make such plays doesn't have to make sense to anyone else - especially cEDH players (no offense) - and may be due to any number of reasons like "I always wanted to play that card" or to rib a buddy or for laughs or for flavor or to help an opponent or whatever flies their fancy. To literally 99.5% of the player base, "play competitively" doesn't mean "cast Tsunami". The most acute play isn't everyone's ideal play.

The modality of WISHING is a nonissue in my eyes. It's restricted/fixed by the social contract, player discretion and preference, as well as by knowledge of, access to, and ownership of a card, and could be further restricted by the banning of certain color-hosers (mentioned in the OP). If modality itself is contradictory to the spirit of the format, which I don't think you're saying but I'll address it for someone who might be, then so are fetches and duals. Just put a basic land in its place and call it a day. No charms or commands. Disenchant? No. "Target player"? Nope. "Any target"? Definitely not. "Search"? Haha, no. And especially no split cards or modal DFCs. I mean, they're literally two cards on one card.

Serious questions, though, for anyone: What prevents players from inserting hate into their decks before or between games, and why wouldn't those prevention(s) apply to inserting those same cards into decks during games?

[BeneTleilax]

"They are no worse than" is a shoddy argument for introduction. "They are no worse that tutors" Ok, I have no love for tutors, but they have sufficient inertia in this format, both as a thing players have built around for years, and a thing WotC believes is acceptable to put into this format that it complicates the necessary bans. "They would be no more ubiquitous/expensive than Mana Crypt" Again, players have gotten invested in Mana Crypt's legality, adding a cost to a new ban. There is no such cost to maintaining the rule against wishes.

[Legend]

"They are no worse than" is a shoddy argument for introduction. "They are no worse that tutors" Ok, I have no love for tutors, but they have sufficient inertia in this format, both as a thing players have built around for years, and a thing WotC believes is acceptable to put into this format that it complicates the necessary bans.

I feel like you're paraquoting the OP but at the same time this wasn't stated or as far as I can tell implied there so I'm not sure. But yeah, "because tutors" would have been a shoddy argument, I agree.

"They would be no more ubiquitous/expensive than Mana Crypt" Again, players have gotten invested in Mana Crypt's legality, adding a cost to a new ban. There is no such cost to maintaining the rule against wishes.

(Again, are you para-quoting the OP or something else?)
The cost is that countless copies of thirty-something disparate cards are worthless because of Rule 10. Ubiquity and aftermarket are so irrelevant that I almost didn't include them in the OP. They're only there because people bring them up out of desperation.

[BeneTleilax]

The cost is that countless copies of thirty-something disparate cards are worthless because of Rule 10

They are worthless. Being worthless is different than becoming worthless. No-one bought a wish for $50-100 because they thought they needed it, and had seen it played for the last decade, only to see it get banned. You have people knowingly picking up ~$1 Wishes, knowing full well they are banned. Maybe you're speculating on wishes, but in that case you should be well aware of the risk of getting burned. Plenty of cards are worthless, and some would become worth a great deal more if the base rules changed (see, Myojin). Established, invested players pressure the RC not to make their cards worthless, and that factor must be considered. But the RC is not compelled to change the rules to make your worthless cards better.

[onering]

"Serious questions, though, for anyone: What prevents players from inserting hate into their decks before or between games, and why wouldn't those prevention(s) apply to inserting those same cards into decks during games?"

The most obvious answer is that you don't always know what deck you're going to face, and thus which hate you should put in, which drastically increases the opportunity cost for inserting hate since the chances its irrelevant, or only hits a deck you aren't worried about, increases dramatically. If you are in a meta where people announce what they are playing an you are familiar with their decks, you could quickly swap in some hate cards, but then people will just stop announcing their decks and move to revealing commanders after the game has began. They could also say they are running a deck, notice that you swapped in hate cards like a chode, and then simply swap in a different deck and not tell you what it is. Its just stupidly ineffective unless everyone is ok with you doing it (And a meta that's ok with you swapping flashfires in because someone is playing mono white before the game starts is probably going to let you run wishes if you ask).

More complicated answer: This is a behavior that is clearly rule 0 territory and not explicitly allowed in the rules. Swapping in cards before a match, and the context of doing so, is entirely regulated by a group's discussion, with the default being you don't do it. Wishes, on the other hand, are cards, and as such are regulated by the rules. Its easier to establish that you shouldn't do something that isn't explicitly endorsed by the rules of the game than to establish that you shouldn't do something that IS explicitly established by the rules of the game. So long as a card works in the format and isn't banned, its part of the rules, and the default is that it does what it says it does. Unless otherwise outlined in the rules, the starting point with wishes is unlimited wishing, and the onus is on the group to convince the person who wants to do that to accept the group doesn't want that. For swapping in hate cards, the onus is on the person who wants to do that to convince the group to be ok with it. The current situation with wishes simply puts the onus on the person who wants them to convince the group to allow it, aligning it with swapping in hate cards. Indeed, by explicitly stating that there are no sideboards in commander the RC also sends the message that side boarding hate between games is not endorsed by the format's rules, so this is consistent with their stance on wishes (and better for the format, as swapping hate in against specific decks is the antithesis of casual).


Edit: And seriously, if you want people to actually read your new arguments in the OP, add a change log. Its a long post that most people responding have already read, and a lot of it is the same, or just less confrontational rewordings of the same arguments. Add a bubble that lists the new arguments you made so people don't have to figure out what's new from what was there 2 years ago and what arguments you made in the middle of the thread that have already been discussed to death.

[pokken]

"They are no worse that tutors" Ok, I have no love for tutors, but they have sufficient inertia in this format

But as has been established (Ad Nauseam) they *are* worse than tutors. You're never going to Vampiric Tutor for Acid Rain or Tsunami.

[tstorm823]

Unsanctioned event: WISHING on.
Sanctioned event: WISHING off.
I will give you my entire Magic collection if the RC considers that messy. (Don't get too excited, my collection is worth less than $1000.)

That is messy. Two sets of rules for the same card is messy. Imagine if chess had a rule that in competitive play, the knights could no longer move through pieces. The idea of having one game where a single piece operates differently depending on who you play with is messy.

Here's a good example: in Monopoly, landing on free parking does nothing, but for lots of people they stack all the fines in the center of the board and whoever lands on free parking gets the current pile. Neither rule is complicated, but the inconsistency of the rules has literally broken families.

Players like modal-but-limited effects, I know I do, but that doesn't mean they don't like WISHING, too.

I have still, to date, never seen anyone use wishes the way you want allowed.

I believe WISHING plays a unique, relevant role in Magic and apparently so does Wizards or they wouldn't keep printing them, as explained in the OP.

They do play a unique, relevant role in sanctioned play, yes. You are asking for them to behave as in the other version of the rules.

Why we make such plays doesn't have to make sense to anyone else.

It does, though. It has to make sense to your opponents. This game, especially this format, is a collaborative effort in inventing your own fun. Chaos and group hug effects are resented by half the player base because they don't meet that joint agreement of rational play. Good communication between players can avoid bad moments, but only before the game starts. You can choose not to play a deck with Possibility Storm if someone doesn't like that effect, but if you play Golden Wish and want to get Possibility Storm except that your opponent hates the card, you're now in the position where you can't make the play you want to with the resources available without making the other players miserable. And the other player knows that you like Possibility Storm and would gladly wish for it, and now they feel guilty that you're not playing the way that you want to...

Rules and restrictions are a pre-game process, they should not be something you decide to apply to yourself mid-game. It's just not fun.

[BeneTleilax]

Unsanctioned event: WISHING on.
Sanctioned event: WISHING off.

EDH, as it's become popular, increasingly occupies a liminal space between sanctioned and unsanctioned. Is a store-run tournament where you get points based on things like "wackiest tribe", and the one who has the most points gets a prize sanctioned? What if WotC approves it, and foots some of the prize support, but lets the store decide the particulars of the point system? What if it's an FNM? What if some guys set up a league, and the store (which is in WPN), pays the league organizer a bit because the league brings in business? Does the presence of judges change things?

Also, the sanctioned/unsanctioned line has always been weird. You've got folks playing casually for years, who hear that their format is getting an event at the local store, and assume they can play as they have been. You've got folks playing unsanctioned games at a shop to test their decks before a sanctioned event. Should they ask people they're playing against to drop wishes, or test against playstyles they'll never face in the event? That's not getting into the culture of EDH, where "sanctioned" and "tournament" are taboo terms, even when they may be useful to distinguish events.

PS: why do you put "wishing" in smallcaps, like you're Pratchett Death?

Edited for a typo that was bugging me.

[Sharpened]

You state this like it's a solution when it's actually a problem. Lots of cards operate differently in different formats due to circumstance, but wishes (effects that refer to cards outside the game) are (as far as I know) the singular unique subset of cards that have different rules within a single format depending on the setting. This isn't the rule committee's doing, Wizards did that. Wizards made a subset of cards that have actual different rules depending not on format, but on play setting. Every variation of wish rules that has been used in commander, be it banning all the wishes, using a sideboard, or making a rule to make wishes not function, has at minimum been to undo Wizards mess.

Unsanctioned event: WISHING on.
Sanctioned event: WISHING off.
I will give you my entire Magic collection if the RC considers that messy. (Don't get too excited, my collection is worth less than $1000.)

If only we had a member of the rules committee make a post in this thread where they shot that idea down. Perhaps by saying something like:

* It's a good thing to have the base rules of Commander be consistent across all play.

[Jemolk]

Rules and restrictions are a pre-game process, they should not be something you decide to apply to yourself mid-game. It's just not fun.

TBH, I fail to see the problem. Maybe you want or need more restrictions, but I know I have been quite happy to make my plays based on what would be more fun for the table over and above what is most likely to win me the game, and I think this is a good attitude to cultivate in people more broadly. "Don't be a jerk" may apply most obviously to deckbuilding, but I think it should already be taken to apply mid-game as well. Just because you can Vandalblast a land-starved opponent back to the stone ages and improve your chance of winning in the process doesn't mean you should, for example. If they're threatening a win with a pile of artifacts, that's one thing, but if they're simply able to clumsily stay sort of in the game thanks to a pile of mana rocks, then it's not merely reasonable to hold back, it's unreasonable not to IMHO. In your Possibility Storm example, surely there are other fun cards that could be wished for, yes?

And if you know you would need to limit yourself, there's nothing wrong with doing so prior to the game. I would do that even if I didn't have to, myself.

Is a store-run tournament where you get points based on things like "wackiest tribe", and the one who has the most points gets a prize sanctioned? What if WotC approves it, and foots some of the prize support, but lets the store decide the particulars of the point system? What if it's an FNM? What if some guys set up a league, and the store (which is in WPN), pays the league organizer a bit because the league brings in business? Does the presence of judges change things?

For the record, what is and isn't sanctioned is actually addressed in the updated initial post. The actual effect, for the record, would probably be to force stores that wanted to run commander leagues to provide some sort of tournament rules that govern the size of potential wish pools, but ultimately I think that's not a particularly large hurdle. And if they want a pre-established number, best of one on Arena has 7-card wishboards, so that could be something to run with, at least initially.

[tstorm823]

Just because you can Vandalblast a land-starved opponent back to the stone ages and improve your chance of winning in the process doesn't mean you should, for example.

If your land starved opponent has enough artifact mana that they are effectively in the lead, you should Vandalblast them. The other players will thank you.

If your land starved opponent is behind and you're kicking them when they are down, you likely aren't improving your chance of winning by Vandalblasting, you are burning your resources to make an unnecessary enemy.

If it's one-on-one, you should Vandalblast, beat them quickly, and play another game where they might not be land starved.

[RxPhantom]

I want to respectfully comment about how terrible the format is for discussion.

Please go reread these 2 year old post that has been changed (with no documentation of how it's been changed) and respond to the new information, but not the old information that has been discussed for several hundred posts, but you have to identify the new information, and also, all the information is segmented and hidden behind frames for some reason.

If I was trying to say something and make it as difficult to respond as possible while claiming that I want responses, I couldn't do it better.

+1

I cannot understand why anyone who has ever interacted with this thread would want to do so again. Why would anyone want to read a seventeen-point manifesto on a topic we beat to death two years ago? Do you not value your time? Are you a masochist? There has been no indication from the RC that the situation is changing. The arguments for or against have not changed, regardless of how often they are rephrased or regurgitated.