[MCD] Wishes

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
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.
Than you can take that argument and bury it because it has absolutely no merit. The official Magic rules on wishing have not changed since 2002 (let's ignore the dark ages when Ring of Ma'Ruf was the only existing wish), with the exception of that you can no longer wish for cards that were removed from the game (changed with Magic 2010 and the renaming of the removed from the game zone to the exile zone). The Judgement release FAQ has the same sanctioned play/casual play distinction that the official rules have now.

So prior to 2010, the commander rules on wishes were the casual play rules of you can get any card you own, which is what you want it to be. Things functioned for the most part, with minor disagreements, but it was the printing of Spawnsire of Ulamog that really shined a light on the gray areas and unanswered questions of the rule. That's what really pushed the discussion of "wishboards" into the format.

Look, if wishes can get any card you own, then there is no inherent requirement that the card you get has to follow the deck construction rules of the format. It may seem logically that you should still have to, but technically, you don't. You'd have to create a rule specifying that. Spawnsire put the spotlight on that, as having an army of free Ulamog's Crusher to swing with on your extra turn from the Emrakul, the Aeons Torn was all you needed no matter the situation. And again, if cards like Relentless Rats can explicitly break the singleton rule of the format, Spawnsire can do so implicitly, as there is no rule stating that your deck must remain singleton through the course of the game.

There hadn't been widespread use of wishes to flout the singleton/color-identity restrictions prior to Spawnsire, but that card opened Pandora's Box.

If you are going to make rules about wishing, for example, to preserve the color identity and singleton aspects, that's fine. But you cannot do that AND claim that you are just making wishing function like it does in casual play, where you can get anything. You are then constructing Commander specific rules for wishing, which is not making them function as designed.

The Sanctioned vs Unsanctioned, Tournament vs Casual semantic arguments can go in circles. But with regards to wishing, there are two reasons that the rules make a distinction.
1. Logistics - If you are limited to a card in your sideboard, you are limited to a card that is present and accessible, so all the logistical headaches with wishes disappear.
2. Legality - If the format has deck construction rules, by being limited to your sideboard, you cannot break them.

The legality argument is important. Commander decks are "casual" in the sense that they are not competitive, but they are not "casual" in the sense that anything goes. There are strict deck construction rules for commander decks. The simplest and best way to preserve those rules is to use the official rules sanctioned functionality, not the casual one.

When you sit down to play a game of commander with anyone, you are sitting down with both explicit and implicit expectations. The explicit expectations are things like:
Their decks has 100 cards
It follows the color identity rule
It contains no banned cards

Implicit expectations are more about the level of competitiveness and subjective expectations of fun.

Social contract is fine for managing implicit expectations, and thats something people can expect to deal with. But the explicit expectations are defined, and if they are to be modified, thats what Rule 0 is for. If people are sitting down to a game with real deck construction rules, the sideboard vs anything functionality of wishes should default to sideboard. Rule 13 codifies that, and clarifies the result of it in a format for decks that have no sideboards. Rule 13 is entirely compatible with the official rules for wishing.

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

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
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.
Yes, but don't you think that wishing for the same 2-3 silver bullet hate pieces every time would feel exactly the same way? Lots of playgroups have very established metas that would lead to the same answers being wished for again and again.
Whenever you'll play vs a graveyard deck you'll get RiP, whenever you'll play against an artifact deck you'll get Null Rod etc. To me that sounds very very similar.

I also think that wishboards would make this repetitiveness more notable, since you don't have infinite slots available and would likely include one silver bullet for as many strategies as possible, which would then be wished up whenever you face such a deck.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
...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.
I don't think less strategy diversity should ever be considered a good thing.

I also very much feel the need to emphasize once again, that not all decks weak to specific silver bullet hate cards are deserving of suffering under them. You make it sound like the only things affected by narrow answers are super linear glass cannon combo decks that threaten to ruin your casual edh experience, but that just simply isn't true.

There are two reasons, why I think that "just build better decks" is not sufficient here:

1. Even very powerful and tuned deck built with many answers to their respective hate cards struggle to fight through the right hate piece. Take my own Tymna/Sidar Kondo Hulkweaver list for example. I just counted, it includes 8 pieces of removal that could hit a RiP. In addition it includes an extensive tutor package that makes it even more likely for me to have acess to one of my answers when the time comes.
A well timed RiP is still a massive problem for the deck. Not only do I not have counterspells to protect my existing graveyard (which could already contain important combo pieces), my opponents will also try to stop me form removing the RiP, since they know it stops me from winning with Hulk, which is my main wincon in the deck.

(and before you say it: No, I wouldn't be mad to have RiP played against me with that deck, but that's also not the point I'm trying to make here)

2. Often times it's not the most degenerate glass cannon linear decks that struggle the most vs specific hate (they expect it, they've prepared in some way), but rather the most casual players in the most casual metas. The ones that just want to play a cool deck that they like. There's nothing wrong with that deck being Chainer for example. Maybe he doesn't even play any tutors, He'll definitly be out of the game (or close to it) after a RiP resolves. Even if you don't agree, it'll be hard to argue that he doesn't take more damage from it than I do with my T&SK Hulk deck.

I don't think it's that players fault that his color doesn't allow him to play efficient enchantment removal. He's also not playig a particularly glass-cannony or linear deck. A lot of Chainer decks are actually very reactive. They can play out of the grave at instant speed after all. That allows for some great mono-black control lists.

Yes, you can build your deck to be more resilient to hate, but you can't make it immune to it. A lot of players wouldn't like to be forced to play in a certain way. Casual EDH is supposed to be the you can play whatever you want format to them. Those players would greatly suffer under wishes.

Ultimately I think this is the point where the argument turns into opinions. The two of us simply have different expectations of what the format should look like. We also expect different outcomes from wishes being introduced into the format.

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

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, but don't you think that wishing for the same 2-3 silver bullet hate pieces every time would feel exactly the same way? Lots of playgroups have very established metas that would lead to the same answers being wished for again and again.
Whenever you'll play vs a graveyard deck you'll get RiP, whenever you'll play against an artifact deck you'll get Null Rod etc. To me that sounds very very similar.
What do I do if I sit down against a graveyard deck, an artifact deck and a token deck at the same time? What do I Wish for? The answer is obviously "it depends on who is the bigger threat right now" but that's the point. Wishes will do something different each game because they're use is heavily dependent on the game state. If I'm Wishing for the actual same card (for the sake of an example lets say Rest in Peace) every game, that tells me that either:
1) The meta has an extreme diversity problem because everyone is playing graveyard decks, or
2) one player's graveyard deck is oppressive enough that I end up having to specifically target it every game meaning the table's power level is probably mismatched and we're essentially playing Archenemy
It feels like if someone is Wishing for the same card over and over again, either that player should obviously just start maindecking said card as a meta call, or its indicative of some deeper problems concerning the power disparity of the table. And all this is beside the fact that a not-insignificant amount of the time you'll probably end up Wishing for a Planar Cleansing variant instead of a silver-bullet because everyone is out of control you just need a reset button. Or you'll Wish for a Counterspell because there's a Genesis Wave for x=20 on the stack and that's probably bad. So on and so forth. It is hard for me to imagine these scenarios you speak of when all I see are the endless possibilities of having flexible answers.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I don't think less strategy diversity should ever be considered a good thing.
Okay, but as I pointed out, how is that different than an artifact deck running into a deck main decked Vandalblast, a card which should by all rights be in every R deck ever? People do it now because they just hope to dodge artifact sweepers, and then get absolutely rekt when it happens anyways. It's already stupid to run an artifact deck without a plan to recover from a sweeper. Wishes don't change that, they just make it more obvious.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I also very much feel the need to emphasize once again, that not all decks weak to specific silver bullet hate cards are deserving of suffering under them. You make it sound like the only things affected by narrow answers are super linear glass cannon combo decks that threaten to ruin your casual edh experience, but that just simply isn't true.
And you make it sound like a single card is completely stopping your entire deck. My Rith token deck might be set back by a Virulent Plague but it is decidedly not stopping me from playing the game.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
1. Even very powerful and tuned deck built with many answers to their respective hate cards struggle to fight through the right hate piece. Take my own Tymna/Sidar Kondo Hulkweaver list for example. I just counted, it includes 8 pieces of removal that could hit a RiP. In addition it includes an extensive tutor package that makes it even more likely for me to have acess to one of my answers when the time comes.
A well timed RiP is still a massive problem for the deck. Not only do I not have counterspells to protect my existing graveyard (which could already contain important combo pieces), my opponents will also try to stop me form removing the RiP, since they know it stops me from winning with Hulk, which is my main wincon in the deck.

(and before you say it: No, I wouldn't be mad to have RiP played against me with that deck, but that's also not the point I'm trying to make here)
(emphasis mine) So what point are you making here? Because this looks like you built a tuned combo deck and your opponents responded correctly by targeting your combo to prevent you from going off. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
2. Often times it's not the most degenerate glass cannon linear decks that struggle the most vs specific hate (they expect it, they've prepared in some way), but rather the most casual players in the most casual metas. The ones that just want to play a cool deck that they like. There's nothing wrong with that deck being Chainer for example. Maybe he doesn't even play any tutors, He'll definitly be out of the game (or close to it) after a RiP resolves. Even if you don't agree, it'll be hard to argue that he doesn't take more damage from it than I do with my T&SK Hulk deck.

I don't think it's that players fault that his color doesn't allow him to play efficient enchantment removal. He's also not playig a particularly glass-cannony or linear deck. A lot of Chainer decks are actually very reactive. They can play out of the grave at instant speed after all. That allows for some great mono-black control lists.
Yeah, mono-colored decks are tough because they often lack ways to cover their own weaknesses. That seems like something one should be prepared for if they decide to build a mono-color deck, in the same way an artifact deck should be prepared for Vandalblast, or a mono-green Elf-ball deck should be prepared to have their dudes Wrathed away.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, you can build your deck to be more resilient to hate, but you can't make it immune to it. A lot of players wouldn't like to be forced to play in a certain way. Casual EDH is supposed to be the you can play whatever you want format to them. Those players would greatly suffer under wishes.
Well if we could all make decks immune to hate, there wouldn't be any reason to play hate cards to begin with. Which seems to be something you're not acknowledging, that hate isn't played just to annoy people, it's played because it's necessary. Did Chainer get RiP'd? Was it because he was about to reanimate 20-mana worth of creatures on his next turn and probably win the game? It never feels good to have your stuff removed or countered or whatever, but from the opponent's perspective it was required to stop you from winning, which is sort of the general point of the game.
Ultimately I think this is the point where the argument turns into opinions. The two of us simply have different expectations of what the format should look like. We also expect different outcomes from wishes being introduced into the format.
Want to just leave it here with "agree to disagree"?
Image

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

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Want to just leave it here with "agree to disagree"?
No, not yet. I'm enjoying our discussion quite a bit tbh.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
What do I do if I sit down against a graveyard deck, an artifact deck and a token deck at the same time? What do I Wish for? The answer is obviously "it depends on who is the bigger threat right now" but that's the point. Wishes will do something different each game because they're use is heavily dependent on the game state.
You're not wrong here, technicallly wishes are a bit less repetitive than tutors in theory. I wonder if that'S enough to make them less boring to those people that dislike tutors for repetitiveness reasons.

Still, even in a scenario where you play against a different decks that would be susceptible to wished for silver bullets, ultimately you're going to wish for the same 2-3 cards to deal with them every game. Sure, maybe the order will be a bit different, but that's not even guaranteed. All it takes is one of the decks being a little faster than the rest and suddenly you'll find yourself wishing for their respective hatecard first every time. This doesn't mean that their deck is a lot more powerful than the rest, some decks simply present threats a bit faster than others and will therefore be percieved as "the biggest threat" first.

I'm not sure about the mainboarding part. If the answer is narrow enough, it might still be correct to have it in the wishboard to reduce the chance of it being dead vs other opponents.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
And all this is beside the fact that a not-insignificant amount of the time you'll probably end up Wishing for a Planar Cleansing variant instead of a silver-bullet because everyone is out of control you just need a reset button. Or you'll Wish for a Counterspell because there's a Genesis Wave for x=20 on the stack and that's probably bad. So on and so forth. It is hard for me to imagine these scenarios you speak of when all I see are the endless possibilities of having flexible answers.
A boardclear could be a thing in wishboards, I'm not contesting that. However you might also find certain silver bullets dooing that job very well or better. For example if creatures are out of control consider something like Ensnaring Bridge. This way not only will you be safe from them, but your opponents still have to find a way to protect themselves of lose to eachother. Normaly you probably wouldn't want to run that, because it's not always a desirable effect, but with wishes that's no longer a downside.

I doubt Counterspell would ever make it into a wishboard. That's easily flexible enough to always be in the main.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
And you make it sound like a single card is completely stopping your entire deck. My Rith token deck might be set back by a Virulent Plague but it is decidedly not stopping me from playing the game.
Just because you can kinda plkay through it after taking a big hit doesn't mean that it's not a problem. I'm sure if you had to play against it every game because people suddenly could run these kinds of cards without downside you'd change your mind very quickly.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
So what point are you making here? Because this looks like you built a tuned combo deck and your opponents responded correctly by targeting your combo to prevent you from going off. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
The point I'm trying to make is that often the more powerful and potentially oppressive decks (for the general public, we're all playing at that powerlevel here) are a lot more resilient to the narrow hate pieces than the typical casual deck. To me that makes it seem that wishes wouldn't really stop the oppressive decks but mostly just prey on the unprepared weaker decks.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Well if we could all make decks immune to hate, there wouldn't be any reason to play hate cards to begin with. Which seems to be something you're not acknowledging, that hate isn't played just to annoy people, it's played because it's necessary. Did Chainer get RiP'd? Was it because he was about to reanimate 20-mana worth of creatures on his next turn and probably win the game? It never feels good to have your stuff removed or countered or whatever, but from the opponent's perspective it was required to stop you from winning, which is sort of the general point of the game.
No, I definitly understand that. Remember the Tymna/Sidar Kondo deck I mentioned? It plays a significant amount of hatebears and other stax pieces. Those are nothing different. I play them because I know I need to stop certain combos that are faster than me that I can't counter because I'm not in blue.

I'm not worried about having my combo stopped, that happens all the time anyways. What I worry about is the collateral damage. If you put a wish into your deck, you're going to use it. This means that on a table with (for example) a graveyard deck or two or a susceptible deck that's too weak to justify the hate piece you'll still wish up the RiP style silver bullet even if they're not necesarily a threat. I think a lot of unfun moments would come for stuff like that.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
The official Magic rules on wishing have not changed since 2002
Regardless of what was official, players had all kinds of their own ideas about how to Wish well after 2002. The vast majority of players at that time (if not now) didn't play sanctioned games. They played unsanctioned, casual games and tended to interpret cards by their rules text, not errata or other special rules. The homogenized game Magic is today simply wasn't a reality prior to smart phones going mainstream when they became relatively affordable due to Android releasing touchscreen technology in 2010, the year after the rule on Wishing was streamlined.

1. This is the oldest article about Commander that I have found. Wishing was banned since the format's genesis.
2. Here again we see Wishing banned as early as 2002 despite a "gentleman's agreement" (surely the social contract of pre-history) and unbanned in 2004 for the specific purpose of retrieving cards from exile.
3. According to this article from 2002, Wishes could retrieve cards from exile or from sideboards.
4. In 2002, players were still trying to Wish for cards in a "parent game" of a "sub game".
5. In 2003, players were still trying to Wish for cards in the Phased Out Zone. Interesting that Sheldon's ruling precedes Wizard's announcement by several years.
6. According to this article, only Death Wish could be used to Wish for exiled face down cards. (Ring of Ma'Ruf probably could, too.)
7. According to this article from 2003, "Wishes replace in your sideboard whatever card you Wished for. Remember this between games and matches." Not only is that damn strange, but it allowed Wishers to loop Cunning Wishes, Burning Wishes, and Death Wishes.
8. In 2004, players were still trying to Wish for ante cards. Interesting that Sheldon's ruling precedes Wizard's ruling by several months.
9. Wizards introduced a new rule for Wishing in 2009, possibly in preparation for Spawnsire of Ulamog, the first Wish effect at the time to have been printed in 4 years (Research//Development being the last, which was similarly printed 4 years after the Wish cycle).
10. Here we see Wishing in 2010 relying on an optional sideboard rule and the approval of others "as always".

The point in mentioning all this is to show that, like I said, Wishing was messy business back in the day because these kinds of interactions were not widely understood at the time because the very concept of "zones" was not clear to many people (arguably not even to R&D). "Outside of game", which was synonymous with the "removed from game" zone, was a special kind of confusing because it felt like they encompassed areas of play that were actually other zones. People wondered, did they mean a box or binder, a sideboard, ante, phased out, or in a parent game of a subgame? What if a card was removed from game face down but the Wisher knew what the card was? What if a card was removed from a parent game? Can Pull from Eternity get a card from a sideboard in 2006? Why not? So-on-and-so-forth. Answers were not immediately available, so people just filled in the blanks. And despite the rules having been freshly streamlined late 2009, the logistics of Wishing were still not much clearer by even 2012 because news of such things spread slowly back then (though increasingly rapidly). These issues are all solved and easily managed now because the rules have been streamlined for nearly a decade, are easily accessible, and widely understood as a result. We take this for granted now. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't accurate to project today's understanding of Wishing on yesteryear's understanding of it. They just didn't have it. (To do so is actually a logical fallacy, but I can't remember what it's called.)

This matters because what's happening is a twofold mindfork against the proposition of Wishing in Commander. One prong is veteran players living in the past, assuming that if Wishing is allowed in Commander, it will be a mess just like it was 15-20 years ago. The other prong is new players living in the present, assuming that players of the olden days somehow had a contemporary view of Wishing, but still couldn't get it right. It's best to avoid both views.

This has become quite the tangent. The only point that I was making in the previous post or two was that the RC's view of Wishing in Commander during its formative and early years was entirely justified because Wishing was indeed a debacle. Perhaps it was even justified for the last 10 years, but it isn't justified today. That view now seems petrified, frozen in time, dated, pertinent only in a bygone era, and a little insensitive to what's happening in Magic now, despite the streamlining of the rules; widespread, instant access to those rules; Wizard's obvious intent to make Wishing a normal part of the game; and the overall general maturation of the Magic community in regard to respecting others (largely due to social media).
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Look, if wishes can get any card you own, then there is no inherent requirement that the card you get has to follow the deck construction rules of the format. It may seem logically that you should still have to, but technically, you don't. You'd have to create a rule specifying that.
Not "create" a rule, just rewrite Rule 13 to emulate Wizard's rule. The only thing that matters is maintaining the integrity of the format's identity in unsanctioned play because sanctioned play would remain effectively unchanged anyways. Imagine a Rule 13 that handles Wishing sensibly by bridging Wizard's rule into the Commander paradigm.
RULE THIRTEEN 2.0
In unsanctioned games of Commander, 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 (if necessary). A card brought into the game will remain in the game for the remainder of that game. In sanctioned games of Commander, an effect that would bring a card from outside the game into the game will have no effect because there are no sideboards in Commander.
Note that Rule 4 (exactly 100 card deck) isn't a factor because once a game begins, a "deck" becomes a "library", so the rule is technically never broken. (CR 103.1) Similitudinous rules apply to color identity and singleton also. If I had my way, they would not be part of the revised rule either, but I think a version that respects them is more palatable to most players, and understandably so.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
If you are going to make rules about wishing, for example, to preserve the color identity and singleton aspects, that's fine. But you cannot do that AND claim that you are just making wishing function like it does in casual play, where you can get anything. You are then constructing Commander specific rules for wishing, which is not making them function as designed.
I thought we'd moved on from "casual" to "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" for clarity. But I assume by "casual" you mean "unsanctioned".

Like I said, I'd love for them to function as designed even in Commander, which is perfectly supported by the existing rules of Magic, but I'm much less inclined to lobby for that than I am to just get them a proper place in the format. With that in mind, rather than saying Wishing should function as "designed", I should have said as "intended" – as in, according to Wizard's Rule, but with Commander specific stipulations. Wishing doesn't necessarily have to function as designed sans stipulations in order to function as intended – or better yet, as "imagined" – in Commander. Because let's face it, everyone imagines them syncing with Commander's basic rules. I wonder, has there ever been a time or format in which Wishing literally worked as designed as opposed to as intended or imagined? Anyways, all that matters is that Wishing works in Commander according to Wizard's Rule, which deals with sanctioned and unsanctioned, but of course modified to the modi of Commander.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
The simplest and best way to preserve those rules is to use the official rules sanctioned functionality, not the casual one.
Again, I assume by "casual" you mean "unsanctioned". I couldn't disagree more. This flies in the face of the entire format philosophy. As long as Commander is first-and-foremost a casual format, the default state of Commander should be assumed to be unsanctioned and casual. All the more reason for Wizard's Rule to be the pattern. Assimilating unsanctioned and sanctioned Wishing has created and perpetuated frustration if not confusion. The distinction between the two should be restored and preserved.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Social contract is fine for managing implicit expectations, and thats something people can expect to deal with. But the explicit expectations are defined, and if they are to be modified, thats what Rule 0 is for. If people are sitting down to a game with real deck construction rules, the sideboard vs anything functionality of wishes should default to sideboard. Rule 13 codifies that, and clarifies the result of it in a format for decks that have no sideboards. Rule 13 is entirely compatible with the official rules for wishing.
Only regarding sanctioned play. Otherwise, Rule 13 is a wart on the face of Commander, which might be pardonable if it actually did clarify the result. Think about it. Right now, if a player brews a Commander deck with Wishes in it, there's a chance they could function in unsanctioned play thanks to Rule 0, but there is no chance of them functioning in sanctioned play, not due to Rule 13, but due to the overriding presence of Wizard's Rule, which is not subject to Rule 0. That's neither clear nor consistent. I've already made this point at least once but you conveniently ignored it.

You claim that it would confuse players for Wishing to function differently in sanctioned play than it does in unsanctioned play. Honestly, I think that's a novel and excellent point. Though one to which I ask, "Where is the evidence?" For a decade, Wizards' Rule has been based on the delineation between sanctioned games and unsanctioned games. Yet despite a decade of opportunity for evidence of confusion to manifest, there is only evidence to the contrary. Virtually universal comprehension, approval, and practice. The same will hold true in Commander.

As an aside, I really do want to thank you for making some previously murky things clear to me (and not only because doing so has actually strengthened the case for Wishing in Commander).
“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
Right now, if a player brews a Commander deck with Wishes in it, there's a chance they could function in unsanctioned play thanks to Rule 0, but there is no chance of them functioning in sanctioned play, not due to Rule 13, but due to the overriding presence of Wizard's Rule, which is not subject to Rule 0. That's neither clear nor consistent. I've already made this point at least once but you conveniently ignored it.
Right now, the rules establish that if a player puts wishes in his deck, they do nothing. The players can agree to modify those rules (in unsanctioned play), but otherwise they are functionless.

If the rules change as you ask, if a player puts wishes in his deck, they might work, depending on when and where the deck is played.

I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of the concept of "clear and consistent."

I went to my game store and played several games of commander yesterday. It was one of the few times I've been able to get into the game store and play since my daughters were born. There were a lot of players there, playing games with the precons (like I did) or games with their constructed commander decks. It was a great event. Just like the Command Zone events at Magic Fest Las Vegas were great events. Tons of people brought together to play magic, and pumping tons of money into magic vendors and magic stores. Altogether a fantastic showcase for Commander and a huge success for WotC.

Under the rules of Commander in all of those games at those events, Wishes did not function. Arguing for the rules to have cards work differently at those events than during other games is just a nonstarter. You might as well be arguing for wishes to only function on specific days of the week.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

That's a fine and dandy assumption based on subjective experience. I don't expect you to quote my entire previous reply or to answer every sentence, but you sure are ignoring a whole lot of reality (again). So I ask again with emphasis added:
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
You claim that it would confuse players for Wishing to function differently in sanctioned play than it does in unsanctioned play. Honestly, I think that's a novel and excellent point. Though one to which I ask, "Where is the evidence?" For a decade, Wizards' Rule has been based on the delineation between sanctioned games and unsanctioned games. Yet despite a decade of opportunity for evidence of confusion to manifest, there is only evidence to the contrary. Virtually universal comprehension, approval, and practice. The same will hold true in Commander.
“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
Impossible
Posts: 67
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Still, even in a scenario where you play against a different decks that would be susceptible to wished for silver bullets, ultimately you're going to wish for the same 2-3 cards to deal with them every game. Sure, maybe the order will be a bit different, but that's not even guaranteed. All it takes is one of the decks being a little faster than the rest and suddenly you'll find yourself wishing for their respective hatecard first every time. This doesn't mean that their deck is a lot more powerful than the rest, some decks simply present threats a bit faster than others and will therefore be percieved as "the biggest threat" first.
You keep saying people will Wish for the same few cards, but I honestly don't see how that's true. We've been using Rest in Peace as an example, but the fact is that Rest in Peace is one of the most brutally efficient hate pieces ever printed. Rest in Peace does it's job extremely well at any point in the game. That simply can't be said of most other hate cards. Yeah, Torpor Orb is pretty good against Yarok, the Desecrated on turn 2, but pretty useless on turn 10 after they've already vomited a bunch of ETB creatures into play. Conversely, Wishing for Vandalblast doesn't do much on turn 2 and seems more like a waste of a Wish than anything. You seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone is always starting with multiple Wishes in their opening hand and those Wishes can get actual anything. Only 4 Wishes can actually get Rest in Peace, and one of them requires 10 mana. In non-black decks, Wishes are actually pretty limited in what they can get, and people will have to be pretty creative to be able to have these insanely powerful silver bullets exactly when they need them for literally every strategy.

Like, if I'm playing a deck, what exactly are my Wishboard options to combat a graveyard deck? Living Wish for Loaming Shaman or Scavenging Ooze, maybe? That's a pretty far cry from having access to every silver bullet ever printed.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I'm not sure about the mainboarding part. If the answer is narrow enough, it might still be correct to have it in the wishboard to reduce the chance of it being dead vs other opponents.
Well it can't really go both ways, can it? If it's a card that's so good I'm Wishing for it literally every game, it stands to reason it should just be in the deck to start with, no? And if it's not that good, I'm probably not Wishing for it every game, am I?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
A boardclear could be a thing in wishboards, I'm not contesting that. However you might also find certain silver bullets dooing that job very well or better. For example if creatures are out of control consider something like Ensnaring Bridge. This way not only will you be safe from them, but your opponents still have to find a way to protect themselves of lose to eachother. Normaly you probably wouldn't want to run that, because it's not always a desirable effect, but with wishes that's no longer a downside.
You'd have to be in a pretty specific scenario where Wishing for Ensnaring Bridge is a good plan in a deck that doesn't want to main deck Ensnaring Bridge. I'm just saying, most EDH decks don't really want to be Hellbent or even remotely close to it. And even then, it's not like Bridge is a particularly good card. Imagine you're staring down a lethal horde of 4/4 Angels from a Finale of Glory, and you have the choice of Wishing for Planar Cleansing or Ensnaring Bridge. Would you really trust the Bridge in that situation? Because that's just begging for someone to remove it and then you're back to being dead on board. Also you seem to think Bridge only prevents players from attacking you, which it doesn't. It stops all attacks against everyone if the creatures are too big.

Sorry, I feel like I missed the point by getting caught up on the specific example.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I doubt Counterspell would ever make it into a wishboard. That's easily flexible enough to always be in the main.
Maybe not actual Counterspell, but if you're running Cunning Wish you 100% have a card that says "counter target spell" on it somewhere in your Wishboard.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Just because you can kinda plkay through it after taking a big hit doesn't mean that it's not a problem. I'm sure if you had to play against it every game because people suddenly could run these kinds of cards without downside you'd change your mind very quickly.
It's not a "kinda play through it" thing. Virulent Plague is a mild annoyance at best, the same way having my board Planar Cleansinged away is. Honestly, the Cleansing is far more obnoxious to me, because losing all my creatures and enchantments is worse than losing tokens. Hell, under a Virulent Plague at least my tokens can still be useful from Fecundity or Vicious Shadows. It's a well-balanced deck that I made sure had some back-up plans for when things go south, and I think that's how most people should build their decks. To prevent this literal exact situation where someone plays one card and suddenly the deck doesn't work anymore.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
The point I'm trying to make is that often the more powerful and potentially oppressive decks (for the general public, we're all playing at that powerlevel here) are a lot more resilient to the narrow hate pieces than the typical casual deck. To me that makes it seem that wishes wouldn't really stop the oppressive decks but mostly just prey on the unprepared weaker decks.
I'm not really sure this is true. The higher you go up the power scale, the more potentially disastrous mistakes or disruptions become. Losing even a single turn of tempo because a Karador deck got hit with a Nihil Spellbomb might be the difference between winning and losing when all of the opponents have equally powerful combo decks. Compare that to a far more casual table that eschews combos, and suddenly taking a few turns to restock the graveyard with more value creatures isn't a big deal because there's no imminent threat of being combo'd out on the next turn.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I'm not worried about having my combo stopped, that happens all the time anyways. What I worry about is the collateral damage. If you put a wish into your deck, you're going to use it. This means that on a table with (for example) a graveyard deck or two or a susceptible deck that's too weak to justify the hate piece you'll still wish up the RiP style silver bullet even if they're not necesarily a threat. I think a lot of unfun moments would come for stuff like that.
I guess that's a concern, but collateral damage happens in games all the time right now, Wishes or not. It's never fun to fall behind, and then right when you start putting together a board presence someone Planar Cleansings because a different opponent had a crazy threatening board. It's not like they set out to screw you over, but getting caught in the crossfire is just a fact in multiplayer games.

So I don't think Wishing would really change that. So while someone who wasn't really a threat might lose their graveyard to my Rest in Peace, if I Wished for RiP it was because someone's graveyard needed to be stopped. I obviously didn't do it just to pick on the player that fell behind, but it had to be done, so #sorrynotsorry.
Image

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

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

Legend wrote:
4 years ago
That's a fine and dandy assumption based on subjective experience.
Please be more specific. I see subjective experience in my post (My attendence this weekend), but what assumption are you referring to? That changing the rules is a nonstarter? [mention]papa_funk[/mention] basically told you so 50 posts ago. Otherwise, I don't see any assumptions in my post other than that this weekend was successful, which I don't expect you to be disputing, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
I don't expect you to quote my entire previous reply or to answer every sentence, but you sure are ignoring a whole lot of reality (again).
I'm ignoring points you make that are irrelevant or meaningless, and trying to stick to key points that I believe are relevant,
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
So I ask again with emphasis added:
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
You claim that it would confuse players for Wishing to function differently in sanctioned play than it does in unsanctioned play.
Don't put words in my mouth. If the forums search function works, there is not a single prior post of mine with the word "confuse" in it. My only post with the word "confusing" in it is a quote of someone else. So I have demonstrably not done that.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Honestly, I think that's a novel and excellent point. Though one to which I ask, "Where is the evidence?"
I have no evidence to support an argument that I am not making that you incorrectly claim that I am.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
For a decade, Wizards' Rule has been based on the delineation between sanctioned games and unsanctioned games. Yet despite a decade of opportunity for evidence of confusion to manifest, there is only evidence to the contrary. Virtually universal comprehension, approval, and practice. The same will hold true in Commander.
Please provide this evidence that there is no confusion surrounding wishes. To clarify, I am not saying that there is or isn't confusion surrounding wishes, I simply would love to see you support your points with evidence, as you insist others must do. Also, "lol" at "virtually universal comprehension" for anything in magic.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
*snip*
An appeal to authority and a few quips like "Your points aren't relevant", "I didn't use the word 'confusing'", and "I lol at you". It sounds like you're out of steam. I'm going to go back and give your OP in this thread the attention it deserved.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
I think everything revolves around this:
In a sanctioned event, a card that's "outside the game" is one that's in your sideboard. In an unsanctioned event, you may choose any card from your collection.
In a literal reading of this statement you are correct. Commander games are unsanctioned, so the "any card in your collection" would apply.
This is where the argument should have ended. What more needs to be said?
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
But when you delve into the motivation for two separate functionalities, I think logic dictates things the other way.
Oh this. Take what is proven to be logical by virtue of a decade of efficient and effective operation and just to be contrary, twist it with an insane theory. If that's what you still think, then you haven't delved deep enough, because when you do, it becomes more and more clear that the motivation for two separate functionalities results in the ideal. To think otherwise is to think that Wizards' Rule on Wishing is illogical. Is that what you think?
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Wishes aren't limited to sideboards because Planeswalker points (or formerly ELO rating) are at stake. Wishes are limited because in a structured, organized event, they need to be. Wishes are limited because it answers, simply and succinctly, all the stupid corner cases that come up with them.
Show me a corner case that Rule Thirteen 2.0 can't cover, and I'll show you a corner case that Rule 0 can cover.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
So Commander can either make a bunch of rules for wishes…
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Not "create" a rule, just rewrite Rule 13 to emulate Wizard's rule. The only thing that matters is maintaining the integrity of the format's identity in unsanctioned play because sanctioned play would remain effectively unchanged anyways. Imagine a Rule 13 that handles Wishing sensibly by bridging Wizard's rule into the Commander paradigm.
RULE THIRTEEN 2.0
In unsanctioned games of Commander, 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 (if necessary). A card brought into the game will remain in the game for the remainder of that game. In sanctioned games of Commander, an effect that would bring a card from outside the game into the game will have no effect because there are no sideboards in Commander.
Note that Rule 4 (exactly 100 card deck) isn't a factor because once a game begins, a "deck" becomes a "library", so the rule is technically never broken. (CR 103.1) Similitudinous rules apply to color identity and singleton also. If I had my way, they would not be part of the revised rule either, but I think a version that respects them is more palatable to most players, and understandably so.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
…or adopt the sanctioned play functionality. Now, the sanctioned play functionality renders them functionless, but so be it.
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
I couldn't disagree more. This flies in the face of the entire format philosophy. As long as Commander is first-and-foremost a casual format, the default state of Commander should be assumed to be unsanctioned and casual. All the more reason for Wizard's Rule to be the pattern. Assimilating unsanctioned and sanctioned Wishing has created and perpetuated frustration if not confusion. The distinction between the two should be restored and preserved.
Most paper players are not interested in sanctioned play even if it's casual. And it isn't even close like 60/40, it's like 90/10 that want true casual play – i.e., "kitchen table" Magic. It's part of their gaming identity. They're tribal in the best sense of the term. They don't want to be assimilated into the DCI system. They take pride in being off the grid and even off the radar. These are the people that actually fill the ranks of Commander. So why should they be beholden to a minority of sanction-oriented players just because they QQ about the possibility of Wishing in unsanctioned play?
“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 asked for a direct response to your posts, and when I gave you one with direct questions, you proceeded to ignore that post entirely and respond to a mish-mash of out of context and partial statements from past posts.

Do you honestly believe that is going to lead to a productive discussion?

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
That's a fine and dandy assumption based on subjective experience.
Please be more specific. I see subjective experience in my post (My attendence this weekend), but what assumption are you referring to? That changing the rules is a nonstarter?
Uh, wait a second, No wonder you were confused. I am too. I think I somehow screwed up my copy and paste or final edit of that post. I don't have it anymore and don't remember exactly what it was, but I think my point must have been that sanctioned tournaments going smoothly doesn't have anything to do with Wishing in unsanctioned play. They're just two different things altogether that have diddly to do with each other. If they weren't, and they did, then Wizards would acknowledge it. I hope that answers your question sufficiently.
“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
You keep saying people will Wish for the same few cards, but I honestly don't see how that's true.
Assuming wishboards, it's definitly true. People just won't have too many options to wish for. They'll try to cram as many different pieces in there as possible, which means only 1 hate piece per strategy, which will then be wished up whenver they encounter such a strategy.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
We've been using Rest in Peace as an example, but the fact is that Rest in Peace is one of the most brutally efficient hate pieces ever printed. Rest in Peace does it's job extremely well at any point in the game. That simply can't be said of most other hate cards.


Of course not all hate pieces are created equal. That doesn't mean however that there aren't a ton of powerful ones akin to RiP out there. Think of cards like Stony Silence, Trinisphere, Rule of Law or even the color hosers we talked about before like Choke.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Like, if I'm playing a deck, what exactly are my Wishboard options to combat a graveyard deck? Living Wish for Loaming Shaman or Scavenging Ooze, maybe? That's a pretty far cry from having access to every silver bullet ever printed.
As long as Karn, the Great Creator exists? How about Grafdigger's Cage?
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Well it can't really go both ways, can it? If it's a card that's so good I'm Wishing for it literally every game, it stands to reason it should just be in the deck to start with, no? And if it's not that good, I'm probably not Wishing for it every game, am I?
Technically yes, but that's only true if I'm playing vs the exact same opponents every game. As soon as I venture out to play with other people I run the risk of it being a dead card again.

I don't think never ever playing with strangers is the most realistic scenario for most people.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
You'd have to be in a pretty specific scenario where Wishing for Ensnaring Bridge is a good plan in a deck that doesn't want to main deck Ensnaring Bridge.
Make it a Moat or Magus thereof, make it a Crawlspace. The idea is the same. Hitting the reset button with a boardclear is not always the most advantagous option if you have a properly prepared wishboard available to you.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Maybe not actual Counterspell, but if you're running Cunning Wish you 100% have a card that says "counter target spell" on it somewhere in your Wishboard.
Possibly? I'd say the extra 2U stapled on top of that counter make this option pretty unattractive.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
It's not a "kinda play through it" thing. Virulent Plague is a mild annoyance at best, the same way having my board Planar Cleansinged away is. Honestly, the Cleansing is far more obnoxious to me, because losing all my creatures and enchantments is worse than losing tokens. Hell, under a Virulent Plague at least my tokens can still be useful from Fecundity or Vicious Shadows. It's a well-balanced deck that I made sure had some back-up plans for when things go south, and I think that's how most people should build their decks. To prevent this literal exact situation where someone plays one card and suddenly the deck doesn't work anymore.
That's commendable on your part, however I think we can both agree, that this is not the typical thing that happens when a token player is confronted with such a card.

It's reminiscent of a more competitive mindset to me. One where hate cards have to be expected, so you should be expected to fight through them. I follw a similar philosophy when building my own decks aswell. It's one of the reasons I retired my personal Chainer deck.

Though I can't help but wonder how the vast majority of players would take this. They're very casual players that hold up the social contract to keep them safe from anything more broken that a Phyrexian Arena. I don't think they would adapt well to something like this at all.

This is the main concern I have. The majority of the playerbase suddenly being confronted with cards that shut down decks over and over again, reducing deck diversity and forcing them to adapt. It doesn't matter if we think they should do that anyway. If it reduces the amount of fun they have with the format it would be a collossal mistake to "unban" wishes.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
I'm not really sure this is true. The higher you go up the power scale, the more potentially disastrous mistakes or disruptions become. Losing even a single turn of tempo because a Karador deck got hit with a Nihil Spellbomb might be the difference between winning and losing when all of the opponents have equally powerful combo decks. Compare that to a far more casual table that eschews combos, and suddenly taking a few turns to restock the graveyard with more value creatures isn't a big deal because there's no imminent threat of being combo'd out on the next turn.
Yes, it can be a very big deal at the more powerful tables. However one of the positive things about wishes you and Legend claimed, was that it would help lower powered deck fight against the (higher power) linear combo decks.
Thing is, if we have a situation with one of those decks at a table full of weaker decks, it will still be able to recover far easier from the hate piece and combo out, because the casual table can't close out the game in the gained time like the higher power one could.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
I guess that's a concern, but collateral damage happens in games all the time right now, Wishes or not. It's never fun to fall behind, and then right when you start putting together a board presence someone Planar Cleansings because a different opponent had a crazy threatening board. It's not like they set out to screw you over, but getting caught in the crossfire is just a fact in multiplayer games.

So I don't think Wishing would really change that. So while someone who wasn't really a threat might lose their graveyard to my Rest in Peace, if I Wished for RiP it was because someone's graveyard needed to be stopped. I obviously didn't do it just to pick on the player that fell behind, but it had to be done, so #sorrynotsorry.
So what happens when you have your wish, no other play and none of your opponents are currently a big enough threat to justify a hate piece to lock them out of the game?
I know what most people would do: They'd think "Hey James ususally tries to win first, let me just get that Trinisphere to stop his stroming before it even starts.

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

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

Honest question: is there even productive discourse at this point? Because all I'm seeing is two sets of people going around in a circle with no clear yield being given.

The problem here is that there isn't a "right answer". Both sides have valid points and can make a case for why wishes should/should not be legal (or function as intended if you prefer). Toby has chimed in with the mindset of the RC, so if you've made your case to them then I don't know what else we can accomplish in this thread. But even after the thread being locked and warnings given, I'm still seeing posts that are intended to take jabs at other users and instigate.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

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

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Honest question: is there even productive discourse at this point? Because all I'm seeing is two sets of people going around in a circle with no clear yield being given.

The problem here is that there isn't a "right answer". Both sides have valid points and can make a case for why wishes should/should not be legal (or function as intended if you prefer). Toby has chimed in with the mindset of the RC, so if you've made your case to them then I don't know what else we can accomplish in this thread. But even after the thread being locked and warnings given, I'm still seeing posts that are intended to take jabs at other users and instigate.
I don't think we'll get to a point where we agree, that's true. Both Impossible and I have already talked about how this will end up as a agree to disagree situation due to different visions on how the format should look like.
Not sure how the other part of the discussion is going, I haven't really been following that one tbh.

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

Post by Sharpened » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Not sure how the other part of the discussion is going, I haven't really been following that one tbh.
Here's a simple primer:
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
That's a fine and dandy assumption based on subjective experience.
Sharpened wrote:
4 years ago
Please be more specific. I see subjective experience in my post (My attendence this weekend), but what assumption are you referring to?
Legend wrote:
4 years ago
Uh, wait a second, No wonder you were confused. I am too. I think I somehow screwed up my copy and paste or final edit of that post. I don't have it anymore and don't remember exactly what it was
It's neither productive, pleasant, or enlightening, and you are right to ignore it. Although to be fair, I have been ignoring your discussion with Impossible, but that's more about personal interest than it being a blight on rational discourse.

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 1761
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 4 years ago

From the AmA Q:

If Wizards prints more "You may choose a card from outside the game" cards, would that potentially cause you and the rest of the RC/CAH change their tune on Wishes being unusable?

/u/Surgingchaos

A:

I'd listen to a reasonable argument, but unless there were a flood of cards (like dozens), I wouldn't seriously consider changing the rule. I think that R&D is moving in the direction of making cards like new Karn that reference both outside the game and exile, which might make the point moot (especially if they errata the old cards to match, although I doubt they have any interest in doing so, and understandably).
If you sat at a table with me and asked if you could use a Wish board, I'd snap call no—then I'd rethink it and ask to see what you intend to use. If it were just "answers," I'd still say no. If it were cards that would undeniably cause some wildness in the game or something unusual, I'd likely give it a whirl.
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

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

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Assuming wishboards, it's definitly true. People just won't have too many options to wish for. They'll try to cram as many different pieces in there as possible, which means only 1 hate piece per strategy, which will then be wished up whenver they encounter such a strategy.
This feels like a gross oversimplification. It's not just a matter of "oh look, a Karador deck, gonna wish for Grafdiggers Cage immediately". There's far more to consider than being able to guess the general theme of an opponent's deck from their Commander and predetermining a silver-bullet to grab, the most glaringly obvious being that there are multiple opponents. So I will maintain my position that if you're Wishing for the actual same card in the vast majority of your games, there's a deeper problem than the Wishes going on with the playgroup. Either someone's deck is too good and becomes Archenemy every game, or the meta isn't very diverse and the card you're getting should just be maindecked anyways.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Of course not all hate pieces are created equal. That doesn't mean however that there aren't a ton of powerful ones akin to RiP out there. Think of cards like Stony Silence, Trinisphere, Rule of Law or even the color hosers we talked about before like Choke.
And when exactly would one Wish for Trinisphere or Rule of Law? Even Stony Silence, the best of the bunch here, comes with it's own deckbuilding restrictions unless you're planning on just collateral damaging your own Sol Ring and other artifact mana. These aren't exactly cards you're automatic to Wish for against Commander [X].
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
As long as Karn, the Great Creator exists? How about Grafdigger's Cage?
Karn is an outlier and might need to be banned. I mean... restricted in Vintage is kind of a warning sign.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Technically yes, but that's only true if I'm playing vs the exact same opponents every game. As soon as I venture out to play with other people I run the risk of it being a dead card again.

I don't think never ever playing with strangers is the most realistic scenario for most people.
Oh, so you're saying a Wishboard is like being able to customize your deck a bit to the current game without having to rebuild the deck every time you want to make a change? My God... the horror. /sarcasm

Sorry, but you make it sound like this is a bad thing. Being able to Wish for a Crypt Incursion against a recursive graveyard deck but then next game Wish for a Leadership Vacuum against a suited up Sigarda seems like a good thing. It ensures players aren't caught with their pants down, so to speak.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Make it a Moat or Magus thereof, make it a Crawlspace. The idea is the same. Hitting the reset button with a boardclear is not always the most advantagous option if you have a properly prepared wishboard available to you.
I still don't think any of those cards are particularly good choices in the face of a lethal amount of creatures. Betting the game on your opponents not having a Disenchant effect seems pretty loose.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Possibly? I'd say the extra 2U stapled on top of that counter make this option pretty unattractive.
Maybe not in your competitive games. But those of us that expect our games to go on for 10 or 15 turns would probably enjoy having an emergency counterspell to get in case someone plays a spell that absolutely need to be stopped and all you have in hand is Cunning Wish. I think Summary Dismissal would be mine. Sometimes you just need to say "no".
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Though I can't help but wonder how the vast majority of players would take this. They're very casual players that hold up the social contract to keep them safe from anything more broken that a Phyrexian Arena. I don't think they would adapt well to something like this at all.

This is the main concern I have. The majority of the playerbase suddenly being confronted with cards that shut down decks over and over again, reducing deck diversity and forcing them to adapt. It doesn't matter if we think they should do that anyway. If it reduces the amount of fun they have with the format it would be a collossal mistake to "unban" wishes.
Okay, but what's stopping them from running to cards that shut them down without Wishes right now? We were talking about Virulent Plague but what about Elesh Norn? She sees more play right now than Virulent Plague would even if Wishes were functional, and she is significantly stronger at shutting down dorks and tokens than Plague is. Are we supposed to ban her because she might be ruining someone's token fun?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, it can be a very big deal at the more powerful tables. However one of the positive things about wishes you and Legend claimed, was that it would help lower powered deck fight against the (higher power) linear combo decks.
Thing is, if we have a situation with one of those decks at a table full of weaker decks, it will still be able to recover far easier from the hate piece and combo out, because the casual table can't close out the game in the gained time like the higher power one could.
Wishes aren't magic, man. Craw Wurms.dec probably won't be able to beat a Flash-Hulk deck, regardless of how many Wishes they get. But a 75% combo deck getting hit with some targeted hate might be enough to allow some 60% decks a fighting chance.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
So what happens when you have your wish, no other play and none of your opponents are currently a big enough threat to justify a hate piece to lock them out of the game?
I know what most people would do: They'd think "Hey James ususally tries to win first, let me just get that Trinisphere to stop his stroming before it even starts.
...or they'd wait to see if they need to Wish up a specific answer once someone deploys a threat. Or they'd Wish for something proactive, even if that's not the best use of a Wish. Or maybe James really does need to be stopped from Storming off. Who knows. That's what's so great.
Hermes_ wrote:
4 years ago
I'd listen to a reasonable argument, but unless there were a flood of cards (like dozens), I wouldn't seriously consider changing the rule. I think that R&D is moving in the direction of making cards like new Karn that reference both outside the game and exile, which might make the point moot (especially if they errata the old cards to match, although I doubt they have any interest in doing so, and understandably).
If you sat at a table with me and asked if you could use a Wish board, I'd snap call no—then I'd rethink it and ask to see what you intend to use. If it were just "answers," I'd still say no. If it were cards that would undeniably cause some wildness in the game or something unusual, I'd likely give it a whirl.
This is a pretty disappointing answer. Mainly because it sounds dangerously close to "please hand me your deck before you sit down and allow me to riffle through it. I'd like to veto cards I personally disapprove of". Imagine if we did this for any other card(s). "Oh, you'd like to use Demonic Tutor? Please show me your entire deck and I'll decide if you're allowed to play it."
Image

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

Post by Cow31337Killer » 4 years ago

I personally don't like the idea of "wishboards" for commander. I'd rather wishes just let you get any card from your collection, because I think that allows for more fun and random interactions and makes it a lot simpler to understand for newer players. Anytime someone asks if they can use wish cards in their deck I say go for it, because I'm optimistic that they'll use them for fun and not for spiky, oppressive plays. So far it's worked out, but I understand that not everyone plays the same way. Maybe the RC could make Wish cards function in Commander for a couple months like they did with the Un-stable cards. Then they could see whether or not their current feelings over wishes are justified. If they prove to be too problematic for the format, then they just go back to doing nothing like before. If they end up being a lot of fun and players show a lot of positive feedback, then after the "trial period" ends the RC would have some more feedback surrounding wishes to consider in the future.

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

Post by Legend » 4 years ago

Hermes_ wrote:
4 years ago
I think that R&D is moving in the direction of making cards like new Karn that reference both outside the game and exile, which might make the point moot (especially if they errata the old cards to match, although I doubt they have any interest in doing so, and understandably).
I've considered this as a possibility. I also doubt it though because the game all but needs a "never to return" answer for some cards. Sure, Richard Garfield's original intent was for Ring of Ma'Ruf to be able to get a card from exile or outside the game, but it was a different world. If it is indeed Wizard's intent to eventually restore the original functionality of Wish effects, then they obviously haven't fully committed to it yet and are still testing the waters because as we can see Coax from the Blind Eternities and Karn, the Great Creator have the exile clause but Mastermind's Acquisition and Vivien, Arkbow Ranger do not. I think it's more likely that Wizards just doesn't want Wish effects and nothing else on a card, so they're coupling or grouping them with other effects, and one of them happens to be getting a card from exile.
“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
So I will maintain my position that if you're Wishing for the actual same card in the vast majority of your games, there's a deeper problem than the Wishes going on with the playgroup. Either someone's deck is too good and becomes Archenemy every game, or the meta isn't very diverse and the card you're getting should just be maindecked anyways.
Except for the not so uncommon scenario where you play at a store with unknowns and don't want to maindeck the card you use to counter your not so diverse playgroup of friends that you meet with regularly, but still want access to that exact card without the downside of it being a possible dead draw in a wide open field.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
And when exactly would one Wish for Trinisphere or Rule of Law? Even Stony Silence, the best of the bunch here, comes with it's own deckbuilding restrictions unless you're planning on just collateral damaging your own Sol Ring and other artifact mana. These aren't exactly cards you're automatic to Wish for against Commander [X].
Trinisphere and Rule of Law are very useful hatepieces vs anything resembling a storm strategy. This might go so far that you could wish for RoL vs say an Enchantress deck. It prevents them from casting more than one spell and stops them from drawing tons of cards like they would without it.

Yes, the Null Rod equivalents have a bit of a deckbuilding restriction on them. They are still very very powerful and can be used to shut down entire strategies. For example it stops Isochron Scepter decks that run tons of mana rocks. You don't even need to hugely restrict your own deck to play them. All of the cEDH lists that run them still include most of the fast mana rocks lile Mana Crypt and Sol RIng. You even see them in decks with Mox DIamond and Chrome Mox. Sure sometimes you draw both things and they're a nonbo, but it's usually not a very big deal. With wishes we can prevent this problem even further, if your curretn boardstate would be weak to them, simply don't get them at that specific moment.

Cards not being an auto-wish vs certain commanders only holds up if your meta is on the more casual side. In the higher power pods or even cEDH that would most definitly happen.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Sorry, but you make it sound like this is a bad thing. Being able to Wish for a Crypt Incursion against a recursive graveyard deck but then next game Wish for a Leadership Vacuum against a suited up Sigarda seems like a good thing. It ensures players aren't caught with their pants down, so to speak.
I like how you bring up these super fringe almost unplayable cards that we both know wouldn't be considered for any even close to realistic wishboards. You want to shut down a graveyard deck? You wouldn't spend a slot in your wishboard for 1-shot gravehate with 3 cmc. Grafdigger's Cage and Rest in Peace are right there. People would use them.
For Sigarda you wouldn't run a extremely inefficient answer that even lets them recast her very easily. Instead something like Runed Halo is a far more suited.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Okay, but what's stopping them from running to cards that shut them down without Wishes right now? We were talking about Virulent Plague but what about Elesh Norn? She sees more play right now than Virulent Plague would even if Wishes were functional, and she is significantly stronger at shutting down dorks and tokens than Plague is. Are we supposed to ban her because she might be ruining someone's token fun?
Nothing is stopping them from plying these cards. Well, maybe the fact that they're dead in some matchups, but the reality is, that they don't enjoy playing with cards that shut certain players out from the game.

Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite is a wonderful example of this.

First up, she serves other purposes too instead of just shutting off token boards, which is why she sees more play as a wincon. She's not really the kind of card I'd expect in wishboards.

Still, you only really see Elesh Norn show up in decks once you reach a certain (not that high, but still) powerlevel. The most casual playgroups despise her, because she completely shuts off small creatures from being played. You don't need to search the internet long to find lots of "We house-banned all preators bc they're too powerful/unfun" threads on different places.

I don't think Elesh Norn is a problematic card, but many people dislike her. Why should we subject these people who clearly don't wnat these effects to tons more of them? How do you justify that?
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
But a 75% combo deck getting hit with some targeted hate might be enough to allow some 60% decks a fighting chance.
If it's a proper hate piece and we're talking actual 75% & 60% powerlevel wise, I don't think it would give them 60% decks a fighting chance. I think it would make it very difficult for the 75% deck to crawl back into the game and a 60% deck would be very likely to take that game.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
or they'd wait to see if they need to Wish up a specific answer once someone deploys a threat. Or they'd Wish for something proactive, even if that's not the best use of a Wish. Or maybe James really does need to be stopped from Storming off. Who knows. That's what's so great.
The reason hate pieces like Rest in Peace and Trinisphere are so good (this goes for most stax pieces btw) is that they are not reactive answers that require you to wait for a threat to happen before they're useful. They can be deployed well ahead of time and will stop a certain angle of play from then on out.

I know you'll tell me that I'm being pessimistic and that peole will use them for fun interactions and counterspells. Let's take a look at your Cunning Wish and Summary DIsmissal example from before. That requires you to leave up 7 mana for instant speed interaction. If the same expected problem could be solved by spending much less mana and not needing to continuously keep up such a large amount, don't you think the vast majority of players would do that? I certainly do.

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

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Except for the not so uncommon scenario where you play at a store with unknowns and don't want to maindeck the card you use to counter your not so diverse playgroup of friends that you meet with regularly, but still want access to that exact card without the downside of it being a possible dead draw in a wide open field.
So it's a matter of convenience? What you're proposing is that whenever I play with my friends I should be maindecking Rest in Peace, but whenever I play with randos I should remember to take RiP out beforehand and replace it with something more appropriate. Or, I could just use a Wish + Wishboard so I don't have to remember to remake my deck every time I change who I play with.

Why should I deal with the hassle of changing my deck every time when there's a pretty simple way to allow that in-game with Wishes?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Trinisphere and Rule of Law are very useful hatepieces vs anything resembling a storm strategy. This might go so far that you could wish for RoL vs say an Enchantress deck. It prevents them from casting more than one spell and stops them from drawing tons of cards like they would without it.

Yes, the Null Rod equivalents have a bit of a deckbuilding restriction on them. They are still very very powerful and can be used to shut down entire strategies. For example it stops Isochron Scepter decks that run tons of mana rocks. You don't even need to hugely restrict your own deck to play them. All of the cEDH lists that run them still include most of the fast mana rocks lile Mana Crypt and Sol RIng. You even see them in decks with Mox DIamond and Chrome Mox. Sure sometimes you draw both things and they're a nonbo, but it's usually not a very big deal. With wishes we can prevent this problem even further, if your curretn boardstate would be weak to them, simply don't get them at that specific moment.
I'm just gonna pause right here and ask you to double check all these examples you just gave: Storm, Isochron Scepter, Mana Crypt, Mox Diamond, Chrome Mox, These are not casual cards or strategies. You've been arguing that Wishes can potentially harm casual players because they'll allow easier access to hate cards that will lock them out of the game, but you've consistently given examples that really only affect competitive players. Things like Trinisphere and Rule of Law are both exceedingly rare and mostly useless at a casual table; nobody is trying to storm off so the most these cards will do is mildly annoying a Maelstrom Wanderer player until they are blown up.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you're looking at this through a more competitive lens than I think is relevant. Tables playing Mana Crypts and Moxen aren't exactly the intended audience here. The ban list is supposed to represent the 'battlecruiser' style of EDH that skews toward the more casual side. And things like Trinisphere or RiP simply aren't a real concern for us casual folks because when games go on for 10+ turns, there is plenty of time to overcome having our graveyard eaten and just play a different angle of our deck until the RiP inevitably gets destroyed by a Planar Cleansing effect. So these hate cards that can seem like they lock you out of the game because they stopped you for 2 turns before you got combo killed at your competitive table simply don't do that at casual tables.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Cards not being an auto-wish vs certain commanders only holds up if your meta is on the more casual side. In the higher power pods or even cEDH that would most definitly happen.
Again, cEDH isn't our concern here.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I like how you bring up these super fringe almost unplayable cards that we both know wouldn't be considered for any even close to realistic wishboards. You want to shut down a graveyard deck? You wouldn't spend a slot in your wishboard for 1-shot gravehate with 3 cmc. Grafdigger's Cage and Rest in Peace are right there. People would use them.
For Sigarda you wouldn't run a extremely inefficient answer that even lets them recast her very easily. Instead something like Runed Halo is a far more suited.
Of course, I should have realized Cunning Wish could get Runed Halo and Rest in Peace. Rookie mistake by me. /sarcasm

Let's assume for a minute, however, that I actually have to follow the rules and Cunning Wish can only get instants in my deck. What are my options? And let's try to avoid just saying Karn because he's clearly on another level, being both his own one-sided Stony Silence + having access to any effect via artifact. There's a reason Tinker and Academy are banned but Natural Order and Cradle aren't. So let's also assume Karn is banned.

What are my Cunning Wish options for graveyard hate or to stop an untargetable/unsacrificable voltron general?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I don't think Elesh Norn is a problematic card, but many people dislike her. Why should we subject these people who clearly don't wnat these effects to tons more of them? How do you justify that?
That was the point. Elesh Norn is clearly a popular card with strong casual appeal because she's a cool legendary that helps you while hurting your opponents. It's a pretty cool and unique effect, so it's no surprise to see she is in approximately 9% of all possible decks on EDHrec.

So when you try to say things like Virulent Plague (<1% on EDHrec right now) are suddenly going to start wrecking casual games at a higher rate because of Wishes, I'm kind of flabbergasted. Elesh Norn is more powerful than Virulent Plague and is pretty easily maindeckable, so even if Wishes are legal, a casual player is still significantly more likely to end up playing against an Elesh Norn than a Virulent Plague. Ergo, Elesh Norn is currently ruining more games than Virulent Plague ever will. So why aren't we talking about banning Elesh Norn?

We can't just go around willy-nilly banning anything that might possibly ruin someone's fun. These supposed casual players that can't handle anything more powerful than a Phyrexian Arena are going to run into those more powerful cards no matter what, Wishes or not. The answer is for them to regulate it themselves, not to ban literally anything that they might not like.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
The reason hate pieces like Rest in Peace and Trinisphere are so good (this goes for most stax pieces btw) is that they are not reactive answers that require you to wait for a threat to happen before they're useful. They can be deployed well ahead of time and will stop a certain angle of play from then on out.
Sure, but that also means you're opening them up to being destroyed. Yeah, an early Rest in Peace is pretty good against Karador, but really all you've done is maybe exiled a dork or two while letting the Karador player know their highest priority is GSZ for Rec Sage. And if you're doing it that early, that means you've already committed to stopping Karador instead of waiting to see if any of the other players suddenly does something threatening. You're just assuming the Karador player is the one to beat instead of waiting for the game to develop. Which is fine when you know your up against something like a competitive Hulk/Boonweaver combo, but seems kind of petty and unwarranted against a random value Karador deck.

Which is why I suggested it's probably best to hold onto Wishes until you see something that is likely to end the game unless you stop it.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I know you'll tell me that I'm being pessimistic and that peole will use them for fun interactions and counterspells. Let's take a look at your Cunning Wish and Summary DIsmissal example from before. That requires you to leave up 7 mana for instant speed interaction. If the same expected problem could be solved by spending much less mana and not needing to continuously keep up such a large amount, don't you think the vast majority of players would do that? I certainly do.
Well, it's not like there are a ton of ways to stop uncounterable spells, or on-cast triggers. And again, I'd like to remind you we're looking at casual games, where 7 mana isn't really that much because games go long. Yeah, if you're at a competitive table your Wishboard would probably have something more mana efficient, but I'm more focused on battlecruiser games.
Image

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

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
o it's a matter of convenience? What you're proposing is that whenever I play with my friends I should be maindecking Rest in Peace, but whenever I play with randos I should remember to take RiP out beforehand and replace it with something more appropriate. Or, I could just use a Wish + Wishboard so I don't have to remember to remake my deck every time I change who I play with.

Why should I deal with the hassle of changing my deck every time when there's a pretty simple way to allow that in-game with Wishes?
Isn't this the wishes promote lazy deckbuilding argument that anti-wishers often bring up? The one that's oh so definitly not true? We are going in circles here ^^

Regardless, to me it's not a matter of convenience, but one of the spirit of the format. Counterdecking is not encouraged by the philosophy of the RC. If you filled your deck with hate cards specifically suited to take on your friends only whenever you play them, you won't be popular there for long.
That sort of behaviour should for sure be against the casual mentality of EDH that you seem to think is very important. Wishes provide a workaround for this, as you're not actually counterdecking your friends but instead only building a diverse and prepared wishboard.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
I'm just gonna pause right here and ask you to double check all these examples you just gave: Storm, Isochron Scepter, Mana Crypt, Mox Diamond, Chrome Mox,
Did you actually read what i wrote? I only brought up the cedh rocks seeing play in the same decks as Stony Silence to show it's not as restrictive as you claimed. Storm in its various forms sees play at all powerlevels except the chair tribal one. IsoRev is one of the classic pubstompy combos, so I'd argue it's actually very relevant here.

I even brought up a casual strategy (enchantress), but I guess that one didn't count for some reason.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
What are my Cunning Wish options for graveyard hate or to stop an untargetable/unsacrificable voltron general?
Yeah, yeah, good job, you got me there. Didn't hover over your card tag.

Personally I think Cunning Wish is one of the worst wishes out there so basing our discussion on it seems inefficient. Likely that one is not going to be one of the game-breaking ones, why waste time with it in a discussion about if wishes as a whole would break the game or not?
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
So when you try to say things like Virulent Plague (<1% on EDHrec right now) are suddenly going to start wrecking casual games at a higher rate because of Wishes, I'm kind of flabbergasted. Elesh Norn is more powerful than Virulent Plague and is pretty easily maindeckable, so even if Wishes are legal, a casual player is still significantly more likely to end up playing against an Elesh Norn than a Virulent Plague. Ergo, Elesh Norn is currently ruining more games than Virulent Plague ever will. So why aren't we talking about banning Elesh Norn?
My friend we're not comparing Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and Virulent Plague here. If we were you would be right, but what we're comparing is Elesh Norn and a Wish that can get Virulent Plague or any equivalent in addition to all the hate pieces for other strategies you can possibly imagine.

An anti token effect is not the problem. It coming at zero deckbuilding cost and being an anti every other strategy effect at the same time is.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
You're just assuming the Karador player is the one to beat instead of waiting for the game to develop. Which is fine when you know your up against something like a competitive Hulk/Boonweaver combo, but seems kind of petty and unwarranted against a random value Karador deck.

Which is why I suggested it's probably best to hold onto Wishes until you see something that is likely to end the game unless you stop it.
Isn't there like only a single instant speed wish? Even at a casual level I think that's pushing it. Especially so if you want to claim that wishes would solve the problem of mismatched powerlevels, as at that point they would have to be capable of fighting some of the more powerful things in the format.
Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Well, it's not like there are a ton of ways to stop uncounterable spells, or on-cast triggers. And again, I'd like to remind you we're looking at casual games, where 7 mana isn't really that much because games go long. Yeah, if you're at a competitive table your Wishboard would probably have something more mana efficient, but I'm more focused on battlecruiser games.
I don't care how casual you playgroup is, 7 mana is always a lot. Especially on something that you want to keep up for a while, waiting for a good target.

I'm a bit confused though. If your meta is mostly battlecruiser, what do you need the hate cards for that you said you play so regularly?

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

Post by Impossible » 4 years ago

tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Regardless, to me it's not a matter of convenience, but one of the spirit of the format. Counterdecking is not encouraged by the philosophy of the RC. If you filled your deck with hate cards specifically suited to take on your friends only whenever you play them, you won't be popular there for long.
How so? There's nothing wrong with going "hey I keep losing to [X] maybe I should include some cards to deal with that". If I keep losing to graveyard shenanigans, why on earth wouldn't I put Rest in Peace in my deck?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Did you actually read what i wrote? I only brought up the cedh rocks seeing play in the same decks as Stony Silence to show it's not as restrictive as you claimed. Storm in its various forms sees play at all powerlevels except the chair tribal one. IsoRev is one of the classic pubstompy combos, so I'd argue it's actually very relevant here.
Not really, my eyes tend to glaze over when you start talking about cEDH. And just so we're clear here, are you saying that Storm and a 2-card infinite mana combo is something you'd expect to see in a casual game of EDH?
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I even brought up a casual strategy (enchantress), but I guess that one didn't count for some reason.
Because I didn't see how Rule of Law was in any way a serious counter to enchantress. Their power generally comes from all the extra cards they draw, not from how many enchantments they can play in a turn.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Personally I think Cunning Wish is one of the worst wishes out there so basing our discussion on it seems inefficient. Likely that one is not going to be one of the game-breaking ones, why waste time with it in a discussion about if wishes as a whole would break the game or not?
Okay then, try . Again assume you can't Karn. What are these game-breaking Wish targets we're getting to stop a graveyard strategy or Sigarda? Because if your answer is Golden Wish for Rest in Peace I'll point out that's a 7-mana combo, the same amount you were deriding me for earlier because it wasn't efficient enough.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
My friend we're not comparing Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and Virulent Plague here. If we were you would be right, but what we're comparing is Elesh Norn and a Wish that can get Virulent Plague or any equivalent in addition to all the hate pieces for other strategies you can possibly imagine.

An anti token effect is not the problem. It coming at zero deckbuilding cost and being an anti every other strategy effect at the same time is.
Except that's not what you said. You said that any decision that caused harm to players because it disrupted their strategy would be unacceptable. But Elesh Norn is both popular and oppressive toward tokens, meaning these players who might dislike their token strategy being stopped are exceedingly likely to run into an Elesh Norn right now and have their fun disrupted. So why aren't we picking on Elesh Norn to be banned to prevent that?

Because, as we both know, that would be absurd. The RC shouldn't step in ban cards except in the most egregious cases because even though playgroup A might not like Elesh Norn, playgroup B might love her. It's up to those groups to police themselves. We shouldn't just err on the side of ban everything that might cause someone distress.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
Isn't there like only a single instant speed wish? Even at a casual level I think that's pushing it. Especially so if you want to claim that wishes would solve the problem of mismatched powerlevels, as at that point they would have to be capable of fighting some of the more powerful things in the format.
...what? You don't have to literally wait until a game-winning spell is on the stack. It can be something as simple as "oh my opponent played a Purphoros that's probably going to kill me I should stop that" and then Burning Wishing for a Revoke Existence. The point was that you probably shouldn't just be deciding to dunk on someone from the moment ya'll shuffle up because that's how people get salty. You should be dunking because it was dictated by the board state.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I don't care how casual you playgroup is, 7 mana is always a lot. Especially on something that you want to keep up for a while, waiting for a good target.
Maybe for you. It's not unusual for us to have 20+ mana available toward the end of the game.
tarotplz wrote:
4 years ago
I'm a bit confused though. If your meta is mostly battlecruiser, what do you need the hate cards for that you said you play so regularly?
...because I don't want to just lose to some graveyard shenanigans or people vomiting Sol Ring-Signet into play on turn 1? Why wouldn't I play stuff like Rest in Peace or Stony Silence? I don't expect them to single-handedly win me the game, though. They're gonna get blown up a few turns later. Hopefully I did something productive in the meantime.
Image

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

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

Impossible wrote:
4 years ago
Not really, my eyes tend to glaze over when you start talking about cEDH. And just so we're clear here, are you saying that Storm and a 2-card infinite mana combo is something you'd expect to see in a casual game of EDH?
Well, if you don't even read my arguments, there is not much point in continuing this, is there? (If you had read them you would have noticed that I only ever drew parallels to cEDH and never actually talked about it directly...)

Neither one of us is going to change their opinion and I think we're the last ones left in this thread anyway.

It's been fun (more or less).

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”