Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
Thanks for the reply.
papa_funk wrote: ↑4 years ago
This both stipulates that the format needs stabilizing, and that Wishes might do it; neither of which has any backing.
Perhaps "stabilize" wasn't exactly the right word. What I meant by it is that Wishes could provide answers to problematic decks and cards (in the future, if not now), thereby quelling dissent and reducing the overall need to ban this or that card. What backing was there to verify that
Painter's Servant wouldn't be problematic?
So your argument is that Wishes might magically make something better in the future? I think you're straying a long way into opinion here. I can see no particular scenario where Wishes might be the correct answer; if it does arise, we'll figure out if it's the correct answer then.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
papa_funk wrote: ↑4 years ago
I have read the philosophy document; heck, I wrote large chunks of it. I don't see this purported contradiction.
The contradiction lies between the bullet points which explain what leads to cards getting banned and Rule 13 which spits on the rest of the philosophy document by ignoring it and instead de facto banning an entire effect without reason or explanation.
Setting aside that Rule 13 isn't a ban, did you intentionally ignore "The following list isn't exhaustive, nor is it a checklist".
When putting that together, I argued that we shouldn't include the list. I said there'd be people who would miss the forest for the trees, and overfocus on some of the things that cause us to look at cards. I was reassured that people would read the full context and understand. Alas, I have been right multiple times here.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
papa_funk wrote: ↑4 years ago
...we decided that defining outside the game as containing nothing was the cleanest solution, and playgroups could set parameters from there.
I still have some questions, if you don't mind.
1. What were the "lots of issues around
Spawnsire of Ulamog"?
Can I drop 250 Eldrazi into play? How long do I have to gather them all? Can I trade for them? At least back then they were all colorless.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
2. Why not just allow Wishing to function in Commander as intended?
What does "as intended" mean? The CR is very vague on this.
Note that we do have a partial answer in the form of the MTR. Since you claim to like logic, let's consider the following tenets:
* It's a good thing to have the base rules of Commander be consistent across all play.
* The MTR defines "outside the game" in sanctioned play as being the contents of a player's sideboard.
* Commander does not have a sideboard.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
3. If Wishing in general is truly so problematic, why create a special rule for it instead of just banning cards with the effect?
Who said truly problematic? We put in the cleanest rule when the first attempt wasn't great, and it's worked out fine. Not banning them also has the advantage that we don't have to preemptively announce bans whenever a new variant comes out, and people in general are more comfortable messing with the rule around wishes than the banlist. We're happy for groups who have set appropriate parameters to use them.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
4. Why expect players to figure out that Wishing doesn't work in Commander, despite not a single card with the effect appearing on the ban list, which is the thing that people look at when brewing? (Talk about feel bad moments, I have seen new players try to Wish, not realizing that it didn't function. Even though we've always let the new player have their Wish, they've declined every time, surely because it just isn't the same as playing by the official rules.)
4. Why put the burden of responsibility on players to decide whether or not Wishing works in a given game? It's a feel bad situation for everyone involved.
People get things wrong all the time, and would continue to do so no matter what the rules were. It's not generally a problem unless a group decides to make a big deal out of it, which they shouldn't.
The point of the current rule is that it doesn't put the burden of responsibility on players to decide. There's a simple default that works nicely until they choose to take on that burden. Any alternative likely requires either a bunch of rules, or puts the burden back on the players.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
5. Why not do away with the ban list and rule that everyone is to defer to Rule 0 to preemptively manage effects they don't like? If it's able to manage Wishing, shouldn't it be able to manage every other effect, too?
The fact that this argument also applies to the singleton rule, color identity and the existence of a Commander should suggest that it's not very strong.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
6. Why assume the worst about Magic players when it comes to how they would Wish? Sure, it's the easy thing to do, but consider the possibility that pessimism isn't the same as realism.
I haven't made any assumptions here.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
7. Why not Rule 14 for "extra turns"? Rule 15 for "gain control of"? Rule 16 for "search your library"? Rule 17 for "counter target spell"? Rule 18 for "destroy all lands"? Rule 19 for "you control target player"? And so-on. Some of these effects actually exhibit the pesky attributes projected onto Wishes and all of them are obnoxious to a vast portion of the Commander community, yet they work just fine. What's so different about "from outside the game" that it alone gets singled out?
Um, the fact that all those other mechanics function clearly and cleanly within the rules of a game of Commander and Wishes do not? Are you really trying to hang your argument on "why don't you have a rule for how flying works?"
Why does the MTR feel the need to define extra rules for Wishes? Surely we could just use the ones in the CR.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
8. There is no universally fun effect in Magic. How is that an argument against Wishing and/or in favor of Rule 13?
I'm not sure this is an argument at all. Pointing out that when wishes were in the format it led to a lot of disagreeing is simply an observation.
Legend wrote: ↑4 years ago
9. How hard would it be, really, to rewrite Rule 13 to eliminate arguments over what is acceptable to Wish for? This seems like a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
RULE THIRTEEN 2.0
An effect that would bring a card from outside the game into the game may do so only if the card meets the requirements of the effect, is legal in Commander, doesn't break the color identity rule, doesn't break the singleton rule (unless the card itself can do so), and the card back is indistinguishable from other card backs in the deck.
You've just picked a bunch of arbitrary criteria, which isn't exactly where you started. Plus, you've failed to describe what ownership means (can I take back a card I loaned a friend if he tries to wish for it?), failed to set any time or geographic limit, and provided a pretty substantial advantage to whoever is hosting this week. The current version is shorter, more elegant, and doesn't leave room for arguments.
At this point, most of your viable points are opinions, which are great, but not universally shared. Thanks for the discussion, though! I think the others can take over again.