What's your point?DirkGently wrote: ↑2 years agoI wouldn't run back to nature, but I'd happily run Farewell or Austere Command or...that other 5cmc one I forget...or Bane of Progress, or whatever. Back to nature's main advantage compared to those is that it's very efficient. But if you're wishing for it, it's a lot less efficient.Dunharrow wrote: ↑2 years agoThere have been many arguments. Regarding the points you have made - yes, any deck can play rest in peace, but as you mention many of us leave it out of the deck because it hits our graveyards too and maybe you want to run Eternal Witness.
Or maybe my deck is particularly bad against enchantress decks. I don't want Back to Nature in my main because it is usually a dead card.
Any of these are narrow and not always good draws. They can be your tutor targets depending on the wish in question.
Depends on the size of your wishboard. If we are going with 3 cards, then take the 3 narrowest cards in your deck and replace them with a wish. That's what I mean. Or take out 2 from your deck and put a generally useful card in your wishboard in case you don't need a narrow card. The point is that it is very good at improving draws.well, those cards were probably never in your deck. I guess you can say it does either 1 or 2, but I think 1 will not be common. And even if that does happen, it seems fine? Like in the most egregious example, if they were running flashfires in the main and now they have it in their wish pile...either way they're running flashfires. Their deck is overall better now but their deck strength wasn't the problem imo.
. It's not okay. It pushes out narrow strategies because everyone will have these cards in their deck. Right now, people are skimping on hate cards and that allows narrow strategies to exist.That's true but I think it's okay, except in the case of answers that I don't think many people will actually run (and which should be banned) i.e. flashfires.
You are introducing cards become auto-include in every deck and that also favour getting narrow cards from the board. It hurts the game in many ways.
I think it is very optimistic to think that people will take this route. It does not play to the strength of wishes.And let's not forget all the non-answer uses for wishes. I really think my wort example was pretty good and I'm a bit sad no one has engaged with it at all.
Right, and that is a deckbuilding tension. Do you play GY hate on the off-chance you need it? But with wishes you can cut the narrow cards and still access them if needed.That's always been true, though.
This argument again. Versatility is more important than efficiently playing a narrow card. Above I mentioned Back to Nature as a wish target and you retorted that a bunch of 5-6 mana cards would be better. I mean, come on. Versatility is worth it, in any case. That's why tutors are so heavily played.Probably not when you're developing. You're trading efficiency for flexibility, so when efficiency is paramount, it's going to be significantly worse than a card that does something directly. As anyone who's be forced to demonic tutor for a land can testify.
. I don't get arguing to make wishes usable in the format while also arguing that they are not good. Do you want to play them? do you think they will be worth playing? Then why do you think other people will not?Also we're kind of assuming living/burning wish, but most wishes cost 3-4 which is REALLY inefficient. And living/burning wish are (with the exception of the obnoxious and bannable land hate) not able to pull super nasty counters, as those are mostly artifacts and enchantments. Like I think the burning → answer sequence is pretty close to just casting Farewell in most cases.
You like arguing for the sake of arguing, don't you?
Wishes are played in highly competitive formats, so not sure why you say they are not efficient enough for Commander.
LOL... are they good or not?Aside from burning/living which are type restricted (and I guess glittering but that's pretty color restrictive) the wishes are all 3+ cmc I think, which makes them comparable to Grim Tutor, which has no type restrictions yet is only in 7% of applicable decks, and diabolic tutor up to 11% presumably because it's cheap as dirt. Especially with only 3 targets, I would definitely argue that the greater flexibility to use high-impact but likely-dead cards via a wish is outweighed pretty significantly by the much greater number of targets a tutor can get. Not to mention a tutor hitting cards good enough to be in your deck - whatever you fallback wincon in your wishboard is, it's not as good as the one in your deck.
Also, I find it very hard to include hate cards in my deck. I also have a dozen cards for each of my decks that would be great in the deck but that I can't fit in. So, the idea of a) cutting narrow cards from my deck, making room for more synergistic cards and in turn improving my draws, and b) having an extra synergistic card in my wishboard while having access to my narrow cards, are both upside for most decks. But why exactly am I arguing with you about wishes being good. I really don't get you.
You may focus on the fact that Grim Tutor for Rest in Peace is better than Wish for Rest in Peace (because grim tutor can find more targets), and you are right. The existence of black tutors doesn't make it so that other tutors are not played. People play Demonic Tutor and Idyllic Tutor in the same deck sometimes. But tutors are also built around differently.
If I am tired of drawing a narrow hate card in my deck... I can't replace it with a tutor and still have access to it. tutors decrease variance. They find you hate cards when you need them. they find you win conditions when you need them. They find you lands when you need them.
The strength of a wish is not the same as a tutor. Wishes are strong because you can take Rest in Peace out of your deck, avoid bad draws, and in the 10% of games you really need it you have access to it. And the rest of the time you draw your wish? You are playing something better than your rest in peace.
Wishes and tutors are not easily compared because the way you build around them is very different. Most of my decks eschew tutors because I like high variance. Wishes actually increase variance.
There is no evidence, you just have conjecture.I guess it depends by what you mean by "auto-includes" but if you mean "most people will want to include it" I think the evidence indicates that this is very unlikely.
. People will play them. If people show up with stax decks then will show up with these cards in their board. "Do you hate playing against blue? Try Boil".I think we should ban all those MLD cards, regardless of what we do with wishes. But I think the main argument against any of them is that people tend not to play them because they violate the social contract, not because they're dead (ruination is rarely dead tbh, unless you are running lots of nonbasics yourself in which case it's still bad in the wishboard).
I mean my Karador deck has Spirit of the Labyrinth, Angel of Finality, Mindslicer, Gaddock Teeg, Spore Frog, Acidic Slime and much more. My sunforger deck can hit counterspells (not narrow obviously), graveyard hate, silence effects, artifact or enchantment removal.... I feel it is probably unlikely that you don't face toolbox decks.What sort of deck do you consider a toolbox? A deck with a lot of tutors and narrow answers? I don't think I've ever seen a deck that operates in that way irl. Anyway with only 3 cards, extremely narrow cards mean you're very very likely to end up with a dead wish. Refer back to my long list of archetypes.
Also, if you have a dead wish you have built your wishboard incorrectly. If it is 3 cards, my Karador deck would play 2 hate cards and a synergistic card I can't fit into my deck. Maybe the new black Kamigawa dragon.
Also, before you start talking to me about efficiency, I would replace Grim Tutor with Mastermind's Acquisition in a heartbeat.