[MCD] Wishes

[tarotplz]

[mention]papa_funk[/mention]

I'm terribly sorry for the mention, but as [mention]Legend[/mention] has let me know via PM, I really shouldn't have tried to answer his questions directed at you. Of course I have a tremendous amount of influence over your views of the format aswell as the opinion of the RC and responding in a fair and unbiased manner must now be incredibly difficult for you. To avoid any undue influence, please respond to his questions without taking my previous post into account.

I want to honestly apologize to all the readers and contributors of this thread for making a mistake of this gravitude. Of course special apologies go out to Legend for undermining his case for wishes in such an unthinkable act of sabotage.

For reference, here's the PM that was sent to me:

Warning for trolling - cryo

[Legend]

@papa_funk

I'm terribly sorry for the mention, but as @Legend has let me know via PM, I really shouldn't have tried to answer his questions directed at you. Of course I have a tremendous amount of influence over your views of the format aswell as the opinion of the RC and responding in a fair and unbiased manner must now be incredibly difficult for you. To avoid any undue influence, please respond to his questions without taking my previous post into account.

I want to honestly apologize to all the readers and contributors of this thread for making a mistake of this gravitude. Of course special apologies go out to Legend for undermining his case for wishes in such an unthinkable act of sabotage.

For reference, here's the PM that was sent to me:

Let this serve as a warning to anyone that may ever consider sending a private message to tarotplz.

[Hermes_]

Guys...you failed so hard

Well I'm packing up to drive to Gencon. Please don't burn the place down in my absence, you'll make @Airi i and @benjameenbear cry.

[tarotplz]

Let this serve as a warning to anyone that may ever consider sending a private message to tarotplz.

Yes let it. Gotta be honest here, I'm not entirely sure what you expected to happen when you sent me a condescending PM with no purpose other than to talk down to me. What were you trying to accomplish with that?

Guys...you failed so hard

Well I'm packing up to drive to Gencon. Please don't burn the place down in my absence, you'll make @Airi i and @benjameenbear cry.

Oh no, Cry I'll be good, I promise :laugh:

[MRHblue]

If only people could send questions directly to someone without it being in the public for anyone to see and respond to.

Ah we can hope for such technology some day!

[cryogen]

Can everyone please take a breather for a minute here? [Mention]Legend[/mention], you are obviously rather steadfast in your opinion and I can tell you are trying to make that position understood. However, you should also be open to what other people are saying to you as well, especially a member of the Rules Committee. Everyone else, please refrain from instigating or ad hominem attacks against other users.

[papa_funk]

Thanks for the reply.

This both stipulates that the format needs stabilizing, and that Wishes might do it; neither of which has any backing.

Perhaps "stabilize" wasn't exactly the right word. What I meant by it is that Wishes could provide answers to problematic decks and cards (in the future, if not now), thereby quelling dissent and reducing the overall need to ban this or that card. What backing was there to verify that Painter's Servant wouldn't be problematic?

So your argument is that Wishes might magically make something better in the future? I think you're straying a long way into opinion here. I can see no particular scenario where Wishes might be the correct answer; if it does arise, we'll figure out if it's the correct answer then.

I have read the philosophy document; heck, I wrote large chunks of it. I don't see this purported contradiction.

The contradiction lies between the bullet points which explain what leads to cards getting banned and Rule 13 which spits on the rest of the philosophy document by ignoring it and instead de facto banning an entire effect without reason or explanation.

Setting aside that Rule 13 isn't a ban, did you intentionally ignore "The following list isn't exhaustive, nor is it a checklist".

When putting that together, I argued that we shouldn't include the list. I said there'd be people who would miss the forest for the trees, and overfocus on some of the things that cause us to look at cards. I was reassured that people would read the full context and understand. Alas, I have been right multiple times here.

...we decided that defining outside the game as containing nothing was the cleanest solution, and playgroups could set parameters from there.

I still have some questions, if you don't mind.

1. What were the "lots of issues around Spawnsire of Ulamog"?

Can I drop 250 Eldrazi into play? How long do I have to gather them all? Can I trade for them? At least back then they were all colorless.

2. Why not just allow Wishing to function in Commander as intended?

What does "as intended" mean? The CR is very vague on this.

Note that we do have a partial answer in the form of the MTR. Since you claim to like logic, let's consider the following tenets:

* It's a good thing to have the base rules of Commander be consistent across all play.
* The MTR defines "outside the game" in sanctioned play as being the contents of a player's sideboard.
* Commander does not have a sideboard.

3. If Wishing in general is truly so problematic, why create a special rule for it instead of just banning cards with the effect?

Who said truly problematic? We put in the cleanest rule when the first attempt wasn't great, and it's worked out fine. Not banning them also has the advantage that we don't have to preemptively announce bans whenever a new variant comes out, and people in general are more comfortable messing with the rule around wishes than the banlist. We're happy for groups who have set appropriate parameters to use them.

4. Why expect players to figure out that Wishing doesn't work in Commander, despite not a single card with the effect appearing on the ban list, which is the thing that people look at when brewing? (Talk about feel bad moments, I have seen new players try to Wish, not realizing that it didn't function. Even though we've always let the new player have their Wish, they've declined every time, surely because it just isn't the same as playing by the official rules.)

4. Why put the burden of responsibility on players to decide whether or not Wishing works in a given game? It's a feel bad situation for everyone involved.

People get things wrong all the time, and would continue to do so no matter what the rules were. It's not generally a problem unless a group decides to make a big deal out of it, which they shouldn't.

The point of the current rule is that it doesn't put the burden of responsibility on players to decide. There's a simple default that works nicely until they choose to take on that burden. Any alternative likely requires either a bunch of rules, or puts the burden back on the players.

5. Why not do away with the ban list and rule that everyone is to defer to Rule 0 to preemptively manage effects they don't like? If it's able to manage Wishing, shouldn't it be able to manage every other effect, too?

The fact that this argument also applies to the singleton rule, color identity and the existence of a Commander should suggest that it's not very strong.

6. Why assume the worst about Magic players when it comes to how they would Wish? Sure, it's the easy thing to do, but consider the possibility that pessimism isn't the same as realism.

I haven't made any assumptions here.

7. Why not Rule 14 for "extra turns"? Rule 15 for "gain control of"? Rule 16 for "search your library"? Rule 17 for "counter target spell"? Rule 18 for "destroy all lands"? Rule 19 for "you control target player"? And so-on. Some of these effects actually exhibit the pesky attributes projected onto Wishes and all of them are obnoxious to a vast portion of the Commander community, yet they work just fine. What's so different about "from outside the game" that it alone gets singled out?

Um, the fact that all those other mechanics function clearly and cleanly within the rules of a game of Commander and Wishes do not? Are you really trying to hang your argument on "why don't you have a rule for how flying works?"

Why does the MTR feel the need to define extra rules for Wishes? Surely we could just use the ones in the CR.

8. There is no universally fun effect in Magic. How is that an argument against Wishing and/or in favor of Rule 13?

I'm not sure this is an argument at all. Pointing out that when wishes were in the format it led to a lot of disagreeing is simply an observation.

9. How hard would it be, really, to rewrite Rule 13 to eliminate arguments over what is acceptable to Wish for? This seems like a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.

RULE THIRTEEN 2.0
An effect that would bring a card from outside the game into the game may do so only if the card meets the requirements of the effect, is legal in Commander, doesn't break the color identity rule, doesn't break the singleton rule (unless the card itself can do so), and the card back is indistinguishable from other card backs in the deck.

You've just picked a bunch of arbitrary criteria, which isn't exactly where you started. Plus, you've failed to describe what ownership means (can I take back a card I loaned a friend if he tries to wish for it?), failed to set any time or geographic limit, and provided a pretty substantial advantage to whoever is hosting this week. The current version is shorter, more elegant, and doesn't leave room for arguments.

At this point, most of your viable points are opinions, which are great, but not universally shared. Thanks for the discussion, though! I think the others can take over again.

[Hermes_]

I'm just wondering why you're [mention]Legend[/mention] willing to say

Monarch: No because it would warp Commander into an entirely different format. Let Rule 0 handle Commander variants.
but you are dead set on
Just revise Rule 13 to make them work according to the rules of Magic and the spirit of Commander.

Do you not have a regular group that you play with in which to invoke rule 0 of discussing wishes and setting ground rules for them? Or unless you travel often and part take in side events at GPs and such,I fail to see why you can't just talk it out. If you do take part in side events,then why not just slot the cards instead of the wishes? Unless you're just using them to get niche,sliver bullet hate like boil et al....otherwise it seems to me a lazy way around tight deck building.

[RxPhantom]

Let's all just end this thread by taking a page from Legend's playbook:

[mention]Legend[/mention], all of your points have been soundly negated and there is no need to pursue this any further. Wishes are rightfully never coming to Commander unless a group invokes Rule 0 amongst themselves. They won't solve any problems unless "players don't have answers to every single possible threat or win condition" is a problem, and let's be clear, it's not.

Besides, as [mention]papa_funk[/mention] and others have mentioned, there are no sideboards in Commander, and thus, no pool of cards from which wishes can pull.

[Legend]

Reply to Hermes

Show

Hide

I'm just wondering why you're @Legend willing to say

Monarch: No because it would warp Commander into an entirely different format. Let Rule 0 handle Commander variants.
but you are dead set on
Just revise Rule 13 to make them work according to the rules of Magic and the spirit of Commander.

Commander falls under the Singleton umbrella of Magic. From there, the core, defining, gestalt rules of Commander are: 40 Starting Life | 100 Card Limit | Commander | Color Identity. Add to, subtract from, or revise that set of rules and the result is a variant or a different format altogether. Variants can be managed with the social contract. Wishing is in a different category altogether. It should not be subject to Rule 0 any more than any other card effect is.

Do you not have a regular group that you play with in which to invoke rule 0 of discussing wishes and setting ground rules for them?

Due to the nature of where I live, I play with a regular group, but I also play with a huge variety of other groups and individuals, both natives and many sojourners.

Reply to tarotplz

Show

Hide

Regardless, I think your case that wishes were unjustly exiled from the format from the very beginning without any justification whatsoever has been debunked by the fact that wishes were legal at one point and then intentionally removed for causing bad gameplay.

I've been looking forward to mentioning the fallacy fallacy.

The rest of your points are answered in papa_funk's spoiler.

Reply to papa_funk

Show

Hide

So your argument is that Wishing might magically make something better in the future?

No. It's just worth mentioning a possible benefit of Wishing in Commander. It isn't intended to be an argument for Wishing. Nor is it a validation of the notion that Wishing even needs a special reason to function in Commander. Why would it when no other effect does? An exhaustive list from a member of the RC would be appreciated instead of the typical evasion tactics like "Here's three things that can easily be answered. Carry on, minions!"

I have read the philosophy document; heck, I wrote large chunks of it. I don't see this purported contradiction.

The contradiction lies between the bullet points and Rule 13, which spits on the rest of the philosophy document by de facto banning an entire effect with a dismissive handwave.

Setting aside that Rule 13 isn't a ban, did you intentionally ignore "The following list isn't exhaustive, nor is it a checklist"[?]

Yes. And proceeded to load my proverbial gun with your bullet list.

Can I drop 250 Eldrazi into play? How long do I have to gather them all? Can I trade for them?

Do you own 250 Eldrazi? How long do you have to execute Doomsday, Praetor's Grasp, or Insidious Dreams on X=11? Is "trade for cards" part of the rules text and therefore part of the execution of the effect upon resolution? It sounds as though your playgroup, though intelligent, was immature and inconsiderate if not disrespectful.

2. Why not just allow Wishing to function in Commander as intended?

What does "as intended" mean? The CR is very vague on this.

It sure doesn't mean *nothing*. You're the one who's on the RULES Committee for goodness sake. How about you guys define it for us? I mean, since when does the RC not flex the CR? Commander wouldn't exist if they did.

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

Rule 13 is not consistent with anything in the whole of Magic.

* The MTR defines "outside the game" in sanctioned play as being the contents of a player's sideboard.
* Commander does not have a sideboard.

Which is one reason why Wishboards are a bad idea and Wishing should just function as worded (within the confines of Commander's inalienable rules).

3. If Wishing in general is truly so problematic, why create a special rule for it instead of just banning cards with the effect?

Who said truly problematic? We put in the cleanest rule when the first attempt wasn't great, and it's worked out fine. Not banning them also has the advantage that we don't have to preemptively announce bans whenever a new variant comes out, and people in general are more comfortable messing with the rule around wishes than the banlist. We're happy for groups who have set appropriate parameters to use them.

Ok. If they aren't truly problematic, then why not just let them function in Commander?

4. Why expect players to figure out that Wishing doesn't work in Commander, despite not a single card with the effect appearing on the ban list, which is the thing that people look at when brewing?

4. Why put the burden of responsibility on players to decide whether or not Wishing works in a given game? It's a feel bad situation for everyone involved.

People get things wrong all the time, and would continue to do so no matter what the rules were. It's not generally a problem unless a group decides to make a big deal out of it, which they shouldn't.

The point of the current rule is that it doesn't put the burden of responsibility on players to decide. There's a simple default that works nicely until they choose to take on that burden. Any alternative likely requires either a bunch of rules, or puts the burden back on the players.

But the burden was inadvertently created by the "simple default". Why not eliminate the simple default by replacing it with a simple rule to alleviate the burden altogether?

5. Why not do away with the ban list and rule that everyone is to defer to Rule 0 to preemptively manage effects they don't like? If it's able to manage Wishing, shouldn't it be able to manage every other effect, too?

The fact that this argument also applies to the singleton rule, color identity and the existence of a Commander should suggest that it's not very strong.

A false equivalency. The subject was managing "effects", not gestalt rules.

6. Why assume the worst about Magic players when it comes to how they would Wish? Sure, it's the easy thing to do, but consider the possibility that pessimism isn't the same as realism.

I haven't made any assumptions here.

Granted. I would just like to encourage you and the RC to continue to assume the best about Magic players, even when it comes to Wishing.

7. Why not Rule 14 for "extra turns"? Rule 15 for "gain control of"? Rule 16 for "search your library"? Rule 17 for "counter target spell"? Rule 18 for "destroy all lands"? Rule 19 for "you control target player"? And so-on. Some of these effects actually exhibit the pesky attributes projected onto Wishing and all of them are obnoxious to a vast portion of the Commander community, yet they work just fine. What's so different about "from outside the game" that it alone gets singled out?

Um, the fact that all those other mechanics function clearly and cleanly within the rules of a game of Commander and Wishing do not?

Does this mean that you're finally yielding the red herring arguments of wasting time and feelbad moments and just using the argument of ambiguity of the rules?

9. How hard would it be, really, to rewrite Rule 13 to eliminate arguments over what is acceptable to Wish for? This seems like a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.

RULE THIRTEEN 2.0
An effect that would bring a card from outside the game into the game may do so only if the card meets the requirements of the effect, is legal in Commander, doesn't break the color identity rule, doesn't break the singleton rule (unless the card itself can do so), and the card back is indistinguishable from other card backs in the deck.

You've just picked a bunch of arbitrary criteria, which isn't exactly where you started.

The stipulations I most recently stated are intrinsic to the rules that define the Commander format. So, I'm confident that they aren't arbitrary in this context. And though they may not be exhaustive, they are an essential minimum. It's true that my original list of stipulations was more detailed, but it was also superfluous as some of them are already spelled out in the Oracle text and/or the comprehensives.

Plus, you've failed to describe what ownership means (can I take back a card I loaned a friend if he tries to wish for it?)

The rules text of the effect answers questions like these before they're even asked with the words "you own". If a friend loans you their truck, do "you own" it?

failed to set any time or geographic limit

What's the time limit for tutoring? What's stopping players from putting their battlefield on the game table where the other players are sitting and playing, putting their deck on a table in another room, their graveyard on a table in a third room, and their exile and command zones in yet another room?

The current version … doesn't leave room for arguments.

Then what's been happening on forums all over the internet for the last decade? Why does the RC act like the social contract magically answers any – nevermind every – question about Wishing, when the social contract is only as helpful as its practitioners are competent?

At this point, most of your viable points are opinions, which are great, but not universally shared.

The same is true of your viable points.

Reply to everyone

Show

Hide

Despite everything I've ever said about Wishing in Commander, my career as a Wish activist is coming to an end. The reason I'm retiring so young might surprise you though. In my opinion, even if an official rule that permitted and directed Wishing in Commander were to go so far as preclude wishboards, many Wishers – or maybe even most, being the wonderful people they are – would probably use wishboards anyways as an unofficial courtesy of the social contract and out of appreciation for being able to finally Wish in Commander. Which would be great, BUT… there is a graphene thin line between "wishboard" and "sideboard". So much so that the terms are quite often confused and/or used interchangeably. There is even the occasional comment like, "If wishboards, then why not sideboards?". A perceived officiality of wishboards along with a ubiquity of wishboards, being a similitude of sideboards, could inadvertently motivate the case of actual sideboards in Commander, which at this point in time remain antithetical to the format (and probably always will). For me, that is reason enough to accept Rule 13, even though banning Wishes would be less confusing by being consistent with the rest of the Magic.

P.S. – I'm aware that this is a slippery slope fallacy.

That being said, would the RC consider publishing a document titled something like "How to Wish in Commander: A Guide for Wishful Thinkers" that suggests answers to common questions about Wishing in Commander that Rule 0 and Rule 13 really don't cover?

[Hermes_]

Reply to Hermes

Show

Hide

I'm just wondering why you're @Legend willing to say

Monarch: No because it would warp Commander into an entirely different format. Let Rule 0 handle Commander variants.
but you are dead set on
Just revise Rule 13 to make them work according to the rules of Magic and the spirit of Commander.

Commander falls under the Singleton umbrella of Magic. From there, the core, defining, gestalt rules of Commander are: 40 Starting Life | 100 Card Limit | Commander | Color Identity. Add to, subtract from, or revise that set of rules and the result is a variant or a different format altogether. Variants can be managed with the social contract. Wishing is in a different category altogether. It should not be subject to Rule 0 any more than any other card effect is.

Do you not have a regular group that you play with in which to invoke rule 0 of discussing wishes and setting ground rules for them?

Due to the nature of where I live, I play with a regular group, but I also play with a huge variety of other groups and individuals, both natives and many sojourners.

you seemed to have ignored my other questions/comments.

[WizardMN]

The rules text of the effect answers questions like these before they're even asked with the words "you own". If a friend loans you their truck, do "you own" it?

While I acknowledge your retirement, I do want to call this out. I am not intending this as a "gotcha" but if I understand you correctly, this would mean I *couldn't* Wish for a card my friend lent me because I don't own it?

If so, the problem that stems from this is kind of the problem with using a literal definition of "own" in this context. If I lend my friend a card, and they put it into their sideboard and play a Legacy tournament, from within the context of the game, they are now the owner. Legal ownership is irrelevant and the rules don't actually care. Which would mean Commander would define "owner" differently than all other formats (again, if I understand your response correctly).

I personally am against Wishes for a number of reasons while you are for them for a number of reasons. I don't think either of us will come over the other's side, but I just found this particular answer somewhat lacking since your definition above is contradictory to the CR definition of "owns". And blurring the lines between game and real life when talking about "owns" can cause at least a little turmoil. Especially when the real owner wants their card back.

If nothing else, this thread has been an interesting read from both sides. Though, unfortunately, it seems you are the only one on your side. It is usually more engaging to have a better split than "one vs everyone" (at least, in terms of the actual comments and responses).

[pokken]

I just want to correct the whole slippery slope stuff since it like many other popular fallacy accusations is, er, slipping into common usage.

For an argument to be truly falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy it needs to be an argument. You need to be saying if then.
If you're saying if, could, it's not an being used as a proof anymore and it's a statement of risk or probability which is not fallacious.

Many times, in fact, things do slide down a slope. that is a common pattern in human behavior as anyone who has raised children can likely attest to. Kids often believe that once something has happened (e.g. ice cream for dinner) it will or could happen again.

We need to stop shouting slippery slope when someone is presenting a probabilistic statement and evaluate the likelihood instead. It's often rather likely.

A good quick read is oddly the wikipedia entry lol:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipper ... ious_usage

[tarotplz]

Regardless, I think your case that wishes were unjustly exiled from the format from the very beginning without any justification whatsoever has been debunked by the fact that wishes were legal at one point and then intentionally removed for causing bad gameplay.

I've been looking forward to mentioning the fallacy fallacy.

Thanks for mentioning it. It's not actually a fallicy fallicy though.

I'm not saying "your argument was faulty, therefore wishes can't be allowed in the format" (This would be a fallicy fallicy.)

I'm saying "your argument was faulty, therefore your case for wishes has been debunked" (This is not a fallicy fallicy)

Just thought I'd point this out, since most people probably won't click on your links to read up on the stuff.

[pokken]

There should be some kinda check in service before you can accuse someone of a logical fallacy you have to have your case reviewed by the philosophy department.

I'd guess the word fallacy is used accurately no more than 20% of the time, forum-wide.

[MRHblue]

That being said, would the RC consider publishing a document titled something like "How to Wish in Commander: A Guide for Wishful Thinkers" that suggests answers to common questions about Wishing in Commander that Rule 0 and Rule 13 really don't cover?

They shouldn't, because that undercuts Rule 13. Someone with solid ideas and reasoning, completely separate from the CAG and RC could, and cultivate ideas from others to setup an easy to reference idea, short-cutting the Rule 0 discussion.

That person should not be you.

[Legend]

Reply to RxPhantom

Show

Hide

Legend, all of your points have been soundly negated and there is no need to pursue this any further. Wishes are rightfully never coming to Commander unless a group invokes Rule 0 amongst themselves. They won't solve any problems unless "players don't have answers to every single possible threat or win condition" is a problem, and let's be clear, it's not.

Let's be clear, I never said "don't pursue this". In fact, I said the opposite. Pay attention. Besides, my points have not been soundly negated.

Reply to WizardMN

Show

Hide

Legal ownership is irrelevant and the rules don't actually care.

You're thinking of the last sentence of Comprehensive Rule 108.3:

Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante. (See rule 407.)

But as you can see, it deals with cards that are "in the game". The relevant ruling here is actually found in the last sentence of Comprehensive Rule 108.3b, which deals with cards that are "outside the game":

In all other cases, the owner of a card outside the game is its legal owner.

So, the rules do indeed care about legal ownership, but granted, only when that card is truly outside the game.
By the way, thank you for being nice.

tarotplz

Show

Hide

I'm saying "your argument was faulty, therefore your case for wishes has been debunked" (This is not a fallicy fallicy)

But my whole argument was not based solely on the singular point of prebanned Wishing and therefore has not been debunked and therefore your statement remains fallacious.

Also, it's worthy to note that the Wishes were de facto banned while the format was still in its infancy, prior to going public, so-to-speak. In fact, in Sheldon's own words, upon seeing EDH, his first contribution to the format was to ban Wishes (among other things).

MRHblue

Show

Hide

They shouldn't, because that undercuts Rule 13.

You're right. It was a silly suggestion.

[Hermes_]

you still haven't addressed the following: why not just slot the cards instead of the wishes? Unless you're just using them to get niche,sliver bullet hate like boil et al....otherwise it seems to me a lazy way around tight deck building.

[Legend]

you still haven't addressed the following: why not just slot the cards instead of the wishes? Unless you're just using them to get niche,sliver bullet hate like boil et al....otherwise it seems to me a lazy way around tight deck building.

Sorry I missed that part.

Answer: For value.

Just like Sheldon uses Protean Hulk for "value". That value may come in the form of a silver bullet, a combo piece, a leg up, jank, a laugh, emotional gratification, and so-on. It may not make sense to you or meto Wish for anything other than silver bullets and other optimal options, but that doesn't mean other players won't. And what people would do with Wishing doesn't have to make any more sense than what they do with other effects that are legal in the format. Wishing for silver bullets isn't an argument against Wishing anyways. It's an argument for Wishing because the ability to Wish might provide a check to problematic cards and decks. "You're playing that obnoxious deck? Fine, I know exactly what I'm wishing for this game."

Anecdotally, over the decades, I've seen players tutor for the "wrong" card countless times. And I've seen them make many, many more suboptimal play decisions, often based on emotion or a lack of discernment, but it was what they wanted. Casual players would Wish in the same suboptimal fashion.

Also, it's more likely that a player would Wish for Boiling Seas since the card that can Wish for it requires red mana to cast, while the card that can with for Boil requires blue mana to cast.

[Impossible]

I agree that Wishes should be both legal and actually do something resembling what they say they do.

The idea that Wishes will invariably lead to nothing but degenerate color-hosers and the like is kind of self-defeating, in that it assumes players' only intentions are to win at any cost instead of, I dunno, follow the format philosophy. One of my most hated phrases ever rears it's ugly head here, but this time I get to invoke it's nonsense in defense of my point instead of the other way around: "fair use". There are numerous cards that should almost certainly be banned but they skirt the list because of their so-called fair use value. The idea being that because these cards have the potential to be used in a fair and fun manner, any concerns that said cards are also combo machines and can end games the moment they're resolved tend to be glossed over. So sure, it's possible to do awful things with Wishes. But it's also possible to do awesome things. The question becomes why don't WIshes get the same benefit of the doubt that other cards seem to get?

There is also the argument that [mention]papa_funk[/mention] mentioned that he believes the current rule is the easiest and cleanest version they could make and thus far has proven fine, but I fairly strongly disagree. I cannot accept that a rule that allows cards to be legally played but have no actual rules text on them is anything but a disaster of common sense. I firmly believe that at a fundamental level cards should do what they say they do. Rule 13 is essentially format-specific errata that doesn't need to exist. Are Wishes simply too powerful of a mechanic that they need to be banned? I don't think so, but if the RC does then Wishes should be explicitly banned by name, like any other card. If Wishes don't actually need to be banned and the only problems with them are logistical, blanket banning them anyway via errata seems completely unnecessary. The point is that right now, at least to me, it feels very much like the RC simply couldn't be bothered to make Wishes work and just soft-banned them instead of dealing with it. I would very much prefer either an explicit ban on each "outside the game" card with a reason why -- not a reason why for each card, but a general reason why they're unsuitable for EDH -- or for them to be set free and actually do what the cards say they do. This middle ground of legal-but-do-nothing is the worst possible option in my opinion.

Something that has also been floated (and in my personal opinion appears to be the sole reason Wishes are 'banned') is the notion that making WIshes legal would require a significant overhaul of the rules, as things would need to be explicitly spelled out to prevent confusion, and that ultimately making a small handful of cards work isn't worth the effort. I touched on this topic a little bit already, as it is pretty inextricably linked to the idea of having the simplest rules be the best a la papa_funk, but I think this is worth diving into as a full topic. Mainly because I think the idea is being wrongly applied in this instance. While I agree that when it comes to rules, simple generally means best. But this idea that rewriting Rule 13 to explain how Wishes work is bad seems to be based on an idea that adding rules is a negative no matter the context, because more rules is bad. And that's what I would like to push back against.

I assume most of us are familiar with the word grok, as MaRo likes to use it frequently? For the quick and dirty version I'm going to just steal cite his definition of the word from his article Between a Grok and a Hard Place:

The usage that I'm most interested in is the idea that people understand something so intimately that they are not even conscious why they understand it. To grok something by this definition means that you understand it in a way that is more intuitive than intellectual. You get the essence of what it means, but mostly because it just feels right – not because you've been formally taught anything about it.

I bring this up because I think we should examine the prospect of adding more rules in the context of, not how long they are or how many sentences they add, but instead how grokkable they are. So a hypothetical version of Rule 13 that spells out exactly what players can or cannot get with Wishes should be judged on how easy it is for an average player to grok. And, in my opinion, I think it will be pretty easy for most players to grok because it is most likely just restating the deck construction rules that everyone is already familiar with. Do we really think it's so difficult for players to grok something like "Cards that search 'outside the game' instead search a 15-card pre-constructed Wishboard. The WIshboard must conform to all Commander deck-building restrictions: [list of color identity/singleton/legality rules here]". Because I personally don't think so.

[tarotplz]

But my whole argument was not based solely on the singular point of prebanned Wishing and therefore has not been debunked and therefore your statement remains fallacious.

No, it's still not a fallicy fallicy I'm afraid. That would require me overreaching in my conclusion that wishes can not possibly be allowed in the format, because you used a faulty argument. I did not do that.

I said your case for them had been debunked, as one of (and in my opinion your strongest) argument was faulty. Not every single argument you put forward has to be wrong in order for your case to fall apart.

Perhaps better phrasing on my part would've been something akin to "Your strongest argument was faulty, therefore irreperaple damage has been caused to your case for wishes." Nobody actually talks like that, but this does not leave the same wiggle-room I suppose.

Note that your case being debunked is in fact an opinion, as we don't have a judge to make a ruling on this matter, If you want to, you can bring up the other arguments that you brought up and we can continue discussion to see how well your case holds up without the "wishes were never given a chance" point.

[Hermes_]

you still haven't addressed the following: why not just slot the cards instead of the wishes? Unless you're just using them to get niche,sliver bullet hate like boil et al....otherwise it seems to me a lazy way around tight deck building.

Sorry I missed that part.

Answer: For value.

Just like Sheldon uses Protean Hulk for "value". That value may come in the form of a silver bullet, a combo piece, a leg up, jank, a laugh, emotional gratification, and so-on.

the problem with that example is that he main decks it. Why not just main deck whatever card you're going to wish for?

[Legend]

the problem with that example is that he main decks it. Why not just main deck whatever card you're going to wish for?

The point of bringing up Sheldon's use of Protean Hulk was to show that people (even a member of the RC) play cards for a variety of suboptimal but personally gratifying reasons that don't have to suit anyone else - A.K.A., "value". It wasn't a proposal of a perfect parallel between Wishing and tutoring.

The question itself and its typical answer ("silver bullets or bust"), posed as a rhetorical argument against Wishing in Commander, is rife with fallacies as seen in Spoiler 12. It's a personal question that the individual makes while constructing a deck, not while constructing a format.

Also, everything @Impossible said.

[Hermes_]

the problem with that example is that he main decks it. Why not just main deck whatever card you're going to wish for?

The point of bringing up Sheldon's use of Protean Hulk was to show that people (even a member of the RC) play cards for a variety of suboptimal but personally gratifying reasons that don't have to suit anyone else - A.K.A., "value". It wasn't a proposal of a perfect parallel between Wishing and tutoring.

The question itself and its typical answer ("silver bullets or bust"), posed as a rhetorical argument against Wishing in Commander, is rife with fallacies as seen in Spoiler 12. It's a personal question that the individual makes while constructing a deck, not while constructing a format.

Also, everything @Impossible said.

Maybe my reading comp isn't that great but I'm not seeing an answer to the question of "why not main deck?"

[Cow31337Killer]

I agree that Wishes should be both legal and actually do something resembling what they say they do.

The idea that Wishes will invariably lead to nothing but degenerate color-hosers and the like is kind of self-defeating, in that it assumes players' only intentions are to win at any cost instead of, I dunno, follow the format philosophy. One of my most hated phrases ever rears it's ugly head here, but this time I get to invoke it's nonsense in defense of my point instead of the other way around: "fair use". There are numerous cards that should almost certainly be banned but they skirt the list because of their so-called fair use value. The idea being that because these cards have the potential to be used in a fair and fun manner, any concerns that said cards are also combo machines and can end games the moment they're resolved tend to be glossed over. So sure, it's possible to do awful things with Wishes. But it's also possible to do awesome things. The question becomes why don't WIshes get the same benefit of the doubt that other cards seem to get?

There is also the argument that papa_funk mentioned that he believes the current rule is the easiest and cleanest version they could make and thus far has proven fine, but I fairly strongly disagree. I cannot accept that a rule that allows cards to be legally played but have no actual rules text on them is anything but a disaster of common sense. I firmly believe that at a fundamental level cards should do what they say they do. Rule 13 is essentially format-specific errata that doesn't need to exist. Are Wishes simply too powerful of a mechanic that they need to be banned? I don't think so, but if the RC does then Wishes should be explicitly banned by name, like any other card. If Wishes don't actually need to be banned and the only problems with them are logistical, blanket banning them anyway via errata seems completely unnecessary. The point is that right now, at least to me, it feels very much like the RC simply couldn't be bothered to make Wishes work and just soft-banned them instead of dealing with it. I would very much prefer either an explicit ban on each "outside the game" card with a reason why -- not a reason why for each card, but a general reason why they're unsuitable for EDH -- or for them to be set free and actually do what the cards say they do. This middle ground of legal-but-do-nothing is the worst possible option in my opinion.

Something that has also been floated (and in my personal opinion appears to be the sole reason Wishes are 'banned') is the notion that making WIshes legal would require a significant overhaul of the rules, as things would need to be explicitly spelled out to prevent confusion, and that ultimately making a small handful of cards work isn't worth the effort. I touched on this topic a little bit already, as it is pretty inextricably linked to the idea of having the simplest rules be the best a la papa_funk, but I think this is worth diving into as a full topic. Mainly because I think the idea is being wrongly applied in this instance. While I agree that when it comes to rules, simple generally means best. But this idea that rewriting Rule 13 to explain how Wishes work is bad seems to be based on an idea that adding rules is a negative no matter the context, because more rules is bad. And that's what I would like to push back against.

I assume most of us are familiar with the word grok, as MaRo likes to use it frequently? For the quick and dirty version I'm going to just steal cite his definition of the word from his article Between a Grok and a Hard Place:

The usage that I'm most interested in is the idea that people understand something so intimately that they are not even conscious why they understand it. To grok something by this definition means that you understand it in a way that is more intuitive than intellectual. You get the essence of what it means, but mostly because it just feels right – not because you've been formally taught anything about it.

I bring this up because I think we should examine the prospect of adding more rules in the context of, not how long they are or how many sentences they add, but instead how grokkable they are. So a hypothetical version of Rule 13 that spells out exactly what players can or cannot get with Wishes should be judged on how easy it is for an average player to grok. And, in my opinion, I think it will be pretty easy for most players to grok because it is most likely just restating the deck construction rules that everyone is already familiar with. Do we really think it's so difficult for players to grok something like "Cards that search 'outside the game' instead search a 15-card pre-constructed Wishboard. The WIshboard must conform to all Commander deck-building restrictions: [list of color identity/singleton/legality rules here]". Because I personally don't think so.

Okay people seemed to ignore this in order to keep arguing with Legend but I gotta say this is an A+ post. Honestly if there's anything that could convince me that wishes would be good for the format it's this post here. Great example of a well thought out and respectfully persuasive argument concerning wishes (which is what a lot of people were asking for *cough* tarotplz *cough*)