I believe that Rule 10 is an artifact of a bygone era. The purpose of this post is to shine a progressive light on age-old talking points about WISHING that span the last 20 years and to perhaps even offer a new argument or two, with the ultimate goal of inspiring the RC to reconsider Rule 10 and to rewrite it to reflect the comprehensive and Oracle rules, bringing the effect into the modern age and into sync with the rest of Magic. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a crucible for talking points both for and against WISHING in Commander, in the form of respectful, if not sometimes heated, discourse. After all, what good is a crucible if it isn't heated?The spirit of the format is playing together, not against each other. – Sheldon Menery, Commanderin' Podcast 32
All major concerns about WISHING in Commander can be traced back to either rules or etiquette. The first of which is solved by comprehensive rules 101.1, 103.2, 108.3b, and 903.10 and the Oracle rule. The second of which is solved by the Commander Philosophy Document, the social contract, and the criteria for banning – namely, color-hosers and select WISHES as needed.You can't ban a mechanic. That makes no sense at all. — Sheldon Menery, The Spike Feeders, Episode 14, 28:05
PRACTICE: Rule 10 is the only reason WISHING doesn't function in Commander. There is no longer a need for a WISH rule because WISHING in Commander is now thoroughly supported by existing comprehensive and Oracle rules.
PHILOSOPHY: WISHING aligns with the Commander Philosophy Document and with philosophical statements made elsewhere by RC members.
PROTOCOL: As with all etiquette in Commander, WISHING should be settled by the social contract both before and during games.
PROBLEMS: Each WISH should be subject to the same criteria for banning as all other cards. Whatever issues Karn, the Great Creator might pose is no reason for Research // Development or Study Break to not function.
If anyone remembers anything from this post, I hope it's this. The points against WISHING presented in this post are not strawmen that have been set up to burn down in order to make people look stupid. They are paraphrased points drawn from all over the web, from all throughout the years, made by people in favor of Rule 10. If you believe you have a stronger case, by all means, please make it.
A line-item format has been used for this post because it's easier to reference and parse. There's also a degree of forced brevity. For an extended discourse, this thread in its entirety and others like it await.* This thread is by far the best of them though, despite occasional discord.
This post is a "living document" and therefore subject to modifications. If you want to preserve the language of its content at any given time, be sure to record it. In fact, the very words you're reading are part of a total overhaul. Please PM the author of this post to request a copy of the original version, and one will be PM'd in return, though it isn't recommended.
In this thread, the term "WISH" and its derivatives refers to this rapidly growing list of cards, each with an ability that allows players to bring a card from outside of the game into the game. Though the term itself has no technical rules application, it's the vernacular that the makers of the game use when referring to the effect, cards with the effect, and the act of executing the effect. So naturally, it's used here as well. It also represents Learning and Companion.
*Note that "Rule 10" was formerly "Rule 13" and later "Rule 11". They are synonymous.
Rule 10 (and the nearly identical Comprehensive Rule 108.5) is what this thread is all about:
Rule 0 is the one rule to rule them all. It's helpful to have a basic understanding of it in general regarding Commander and critical to understand it regarding Rule 10 since it's frequently presented as a reason why Rule 10 doesn't need to be changed.Rule 10 Parts of abilities which bring other traditional card(s) you own from outside the game into the game [. . .] do not function in Commander.
Not to be confused with Rule 0 is the "Social Contract". While Rule 0 and the Social Contract are closely related, they aren't the same thing. Rule 0 is a mechanism of the much greater Social Contract.Rule 0 "Local groups are welcome to modify [rules 1-10] as they see fit. If you'd like an exception to these rules, especially in an unfamiliar environment, please get the approval of the other players before the game begins."
There's nothing preventing players from WISHING before games except for the social contract, which can just as effectively administrate WISHING during games.That vision [for Commander] is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to include a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game. – Sheldon Menery, SCG
The social contract would be strengthened by WISHING."It is far easier to Rule 0 legal-but-unwanted behavior out of a group than it is to Rule 0 an illegal-but-harmless behavior into a group. So, when Rule 10 sets the default that WISHING doesn't function, that is more often than not seen as a definitive ruling that WISHING is banned and it becomes essentially impossible to house-rule it in the other direction. Thus, regardless of the RC's intention to just leave it up to the playgroups, in practice, it's never actually up for debate. Compare that to WISHING functioning. Everyone that can use them responsibly is freely able to do so, and if they do end up causing problems by people WISHING for Mindslaver, it is significantly easier to ask them to tone it down because it is having clear negative effects on games, the same way you'd ask someone to please stop tutoring for an infinite combo every game. The question stops being just a hypothetical ("Please let me play with these banned cards I promise I'll use them fairly") and instead becomes easily demonstrable ("WISHING for color-hosers/MLD isn't fun would you please stop doing that?"), in line with every other Rule 0 conversation." – Jemolk
Rule 10 contradicts the Golden Rule of Magic. It's that fundamental, foundational concept that Richard Garfield called a "eureka moment" almost 30 years ago. The truth on which all of Magic (if not the entire genre) relies, enshrined as Oracle Rule 101.1."It's fairly easy to convince a group to allow an individual card, but an entire mechanic? Not so much. Nobody objects to someone running Old Fogey in Dinosaur tribal, especially after they learn Vorinclex is being swapped out for it. But it's a much bigger ask, at least psychologically for a lot of people, even if the WISH targets are casual jank. On the other hand, "That deck is too powerful for this group, could you use a different one?" generally works quite well, and similar objections could be raised to a deck with WISHES or at least to the targets of them." – Jemolk
Rule 10 exists for the sole purpose of overruling the otherwise universal Oracle Rule for WISHING.101.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation.
Some people ask, in the absence of Rule 10, just exactly how WISHING would work within the other rules of Commander. Oddly enough, despite Rule 10, there is a comprehensive rule about WISHING in Commander.Oracle Rule "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."
Toby Elliot brought up card ownership in this thread.903.10. If a player is allowed to bring a card from outside the game into a Commander game, that player can't bring a card into the game this way if it has the same name as a card that player had in their starting deck, if it has the same name as a card that the player owns in the current game, or if any color in its color identity isn't in the color identity of the player's commander.
But if we look ahead a little to 108.3b, we see that it clearly defines who owns a card that is outside the game.
Bringing a card into the game from outside the game does not break Rule 3 because Rule 3 deals with deck construction, not library composition. Once a game begins, a "deck" becomes a "library" for the duration of the game.108.3b …the owner of a card outside the game is its legal owner.
We see this reflected in a rule regarding companions in Commander.103.2. After the starting player has been determined . . . The players' decks become their libraries.
With any luck, this information may clear up any general rules misunderstandings and misinformation that may be floating around. If you have any observations, please share them."Your companion is not one of your one hundred cards."
Dec 1993
Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic and lone designer of Arabian Nights, introduced WISHING to Magic on the card Ring of Ma'ruf. Yup, the inventor of the TCG also invented WISHING. That's quite a credential! (And quite an appeal to authority!)
1993-2001
Players could and would WISH for cards from outside the game, from exile, sideboards, phased out, subgames, or anywhere else a playgroup considered "outside the game". This would continue for another ten years, however to a lesser and lesser degree as time went on.
May 2002
Sheldon Menery published that Burning Wish, Cunning Wish, Death Wish, Golden Wish, Living Wish, and Ring of Ma'ruf were banned in Commander.
2002
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for cards in Parent Games of Sub Games in Magic (not just Commander).
2003
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for phased out cards in Magic (not just Commander).
March 2004
Sheldon Menery ruled that players can't WISH for anteed cards in Magic (not just Commander).
Oct 2004
Wizards of the Coast ruled that players can't WISH for anteed cards. In Commander, a rule was published stating that players may choose cards from exile but not from outside the game, and the WISH cycle and Ring of Ma'ruf were removed from the ban list.
2006
The Commander optional sideboard rule was published.
Rather than filling every deck with banal responses, it is preferable to allow some flexibility in the composition of a deck.
• Players may bring a 10-card sideboard in addition to their 99 cards and 1 Commander.
• After Commanders are announced, players have 3 minutes to make 1-for-1 substitutions to their deck.
• Any cards not played as part of the deck may be retrieved by "WISHES".
Reasoning:
Highly tuned threats piloted by skilled opponents mandate efficient answers. The minimum number of response cards required to ensure they are available in the early turns can easily overwhelm the majority of [a Commander] deck's building space.
Sideboards allow players to respond to the "best" strategies in a timely fashion. They should be strongly considered as a necessary defense against brokenness and degeneracy [in respect to cards] in an environment where no gentleman's agreement on style of play exists.
Wizards of the Coast ruled that players can't WISH for phased out cards.
Oct 2009
Wizards of the Coast published the current Oracle rule for WISHING.
May 2010
The Commander WISH rule was rewritten so that if the optional sideboard rule was in use, players could choose a card from their sideboard but not from anywhere else.
Sep 2013
The Commander optional sideboard rule was no longer endorsed by the CRC.
Sep 2016
The Commander optional sideboard rule was removed and the WISH rule was rewritten so that WISHING would no longer function in Commander whatsoever.
April 2019
The Commander WISH rule was reworded for clarity.
April 2020
The Commander WISH rule was reworded to permit cards with Companion to enter the game via the Companion mechanic.
July 2021
The Commander WISH rule was slightly reworded to permit nontraditional cards to enter the game, currently just Dungeons via the Venture into the Dungeon mechanic.
It might also be worth noting that the ability to WISH for cards in exile would enable infinite loops of WISHING for WISHES. And renew confusion for countless players who would not be aware of such extreme errata and who upon learning it would then conflate "exile" with "outside of game", and nobody wants that, do they?
Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level (REL)
Rules Enforcement Levels
If a lack of sideboards is the top-secret reason that WISHING doesn't function in Commander, then that means Rule 10 exists purely to permit Companion to function in Commander despite the Oracle Rule, which doesn't explain why a WISH rule was published years before Companion debuted, indicating that there's another reason. And there is, but it's necessary to decipher some Magic legalese to make sense of it.
This may come as a surprise to many (it did to me), but Commander is a sanctioned format, despite not having been so for many years and despite also being a casual format to this very day. However . . . the term "sanction" (and its derivatives) confusingly has three applications in Magic, one of which always applies to Commander, one of which may be applied to Commander, and one of which never applies and may not be applied to Commander. Unfortunately, there aren't any alternative descriptors to differentiate these disparate designations. All we have is the one root word, "sanction", which has led to more than one death spiral debate. So, it behooves us to identify the nuances thereof in order to grasp the relevancies of sanctioning as they relate to WISHING in Commander. Particularly to suss out whether or not a lack of sideboards plus the Oracle Rule has anything to do with why WISHING doesn't function in Commander.
Sanctioned A: A format can only be officially sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast. A format that is not sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast is by default unsanctioned. Once Wizards of the Coast sanctions a format, that format remains sanctioned until Wizards of the Coast declares that that format is no longer sanctioned. It's in this sense that Commander is sanctioned.
Sanctioned B: A format can also be officially sanctioned by the Wizards Play Network (a division of Wizards of the Coast, formerly known as the Duelists' Convocation International, and still confusingly referred to as the DCI in the Magic Tournament Rules and common parlance). Thereby classifying that format as a "DCI-Sanctioned format" (even though it's actually the WPN that sanctions it). This classification in turn enables that format to be run as a "sanctioned, rated tournament". In this sense, Commander is not sanctioned.
Sanctioned C: Anyone with access to a WPN account may run any format – including an unsanctioned format – as a "sanctioned, casual event" by using Wizards EventLink. In these cases, it is the event that is sanctioned, not the format. Even when an unsanctioned format is run as a sanctioned event, that format remains unsanctioned despite being the substance of a sanctioned event. But whenever a sanctioned format is run as a sanctioned event, it is both a sanctioned format and a sanctioned event for the duration of the event. Its sanctioned status is reliant on Wizards of the Coast, not an event.
So . . ."Commander exists as the anti-tournament format." – Sheldon Menery, Kitchen Table Magic, 24:30
1. Commander is a sanctioned format. It is sanctioned at all times, not just during sanctioned events.
2. Even though Commander is a sanctioned format, Commander games and events are unsanctioned unless someone with access to a WPN account sanctions those games or events via Wizards EventLink. Only people with access to a WPN account can sanction games and events.
3. Sanctioned Commander games and events can only be casual. Even if a game or event is sanctioned and organized, run, judged, and played in close approximation to the Professional Rules Enforcement Level, it's still technically a casual game or event. Sanctioned, casual games and events boost the WPN metrics of the WPN accountholder.
4. Commander games and events can't be DCI-sanctioned. This is in part because a format in which the players can alter the rules can't be sanctioned. And in part because no set of uncompromising rules could manage the infinite variations of social behaviors inherent to Commander – i.e., politics. And to even do so, were it possible, would violate the very essence of Commander.
5. Because Commander games and events can't be DCI-sanctioned, they can't be rated. Not ethically anyways, because not only do sanctioned, rated games and events boost the WPN metrics of the WPN accountholder, but they also effect the metrics of each player registered for that game or event.
I hope this helps clear up the three meanings of "sanctioned" in Magic and how they would and wouldn't effect WISHING in Commander. In the absence of Rule 10, WISHING would default to the Oracle Rule and function accordingly based on whether or not it's being played in a sanctioned event, not based on the fact that it's being played in a sanctioned format. So, in sanctioned Commander events, players would choose any card from their sideboard, which doesn't exist and so therefore choose nothing. And in all other Commander events, players could choose any card from their collections. And to say that would include most Commander players would be an understatement.
The vast majority of Magic/Commander players aren't even registered for a Wizards Account, which is required to participate in sanctioned events. And it isn't even close. Out of about 35 million Magic players, about 500 thousand are registered at least in part for Commander. Of course, that doesn't mean players can't opt to play as though they're playing a sanctioned game, but that's another subject.
Mere ubiquity is not and has never been sufficient for banning.
Certain colors may have stronger WISHES than others, but if that's true, it's certainly true of many if not all effects in Magic. It's an inherent part of Magic. Power level or uneven distribution of power among colors is not and has never been sufficient for banning.
Anecdotal experiences are not entirely without merit, particularly en masse, but they too are not and have never been sufficient for banning. Testimonies like "someone played a card that made me feel bad" are just far too isolated and subjective to have any bearing on their own and carry no more weight than testimonies to the opposite effect. What's more is these kinds of experiences are not unique to any one effect in Magic.
Even though the Perceived High Barrier to Entry is no longer a reason for banning, and actually never resulted in the banning of a single card, it's still occasionally brought up as a reason why WISHES shouldn't function in Commander. But the concept of a "high barrier" – being undefined yet based on "perception" (according to defunct iterations of the Commander Philosophy Document) – was from the beginning limited in usefulness, not to mention contrary to the nature of CCGs. Price fluctuations of Magic cards are inherent to the hobby. This isn't a quirk or a bug. It's a feature that was deliberately mixed into the cement of its foundation by its creator. The value of cards is one of Magic's many attractive qualities. Thankfully, Wizards of the Coast can reprint every WISH other than Ring of Ma'rûf anyways. They could even release products featuring WISHES. I can see it now, From the Vault: WISHES; Secret Lair: WISHES; Commander 2024: WISHES Do Come True. Besides . . .
Player discretion and the social contract are why cards like Protean Hulk and Flashfires aren't on the ban list. The reason players don't always use cards like Tooth and Nail to find Mike & Trike every time is because it's like jumping over a toddler to dunk on a seven-foot hoop. (Dana Roach) Sure it's fun at first, but anyone can do it and it gets old quick. The reason players don't put color-hosers into their decks between games isn't because they aren't effective, it's because people know they aren't fun. They aren't even fun to play. Just because the option exists to WISH for Flashfires doesn't mean it's inevitable or even a temptation. (Impossible) It isn't, except perhaps in sanctioned Commander events, where WISHING won't function anyways due to the Oracle rule."In the core demographic, people are playing the card for value, not for brokenness." – Sheldon Menery, The Command Chair, Episode 7, 27:15
The idea that players would always WISH for color-hosers is no more demonstrably true as the equal and opposite idea that players would never WISH for color-hosers."Sure, it's possible to do awful things with WISHES. But it's also possible to do awesome things." – Impossible
Sometimes, it's the player that's the problem not the card."The people that are going to WISH for Acid Rain are the people that I'm not going to want to be playing with more than once." – Impossible
Not every WISH even has the potential to get a color-hoser. Issues that Burning Wish might pose are no reason for Coax from the Blind Eternities or Hunt for Specimens to not function, especially while Venture and Companion do function. Just as it would make no sense to ban Magistrate's Scepter because of Time Vault, especially while Mindslaver isn't banned.We don't compare a card to other cards to decide if we're going to ban it. We compare a card to itself. – Sheldon Menery
WISHING for silver bullets won't necessarily have a negative impact on the format. It could actually be highly beneficial as a means for players to answer format or meta warping strategies. It's even possible that WISHES could prevent other cards from being banned by keeping them in check. Compared to even a couple of years ago, this is a more relevant and realistic premise in light of an alarming rate of power creep. WISHES could wind up being to Commander what Force of Will is to Legacy. And as we all know . . .Putting too many answers in a deck is usually a bad thing, from both strategic and entertainment perspectives. – Gavin Duggan
Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers, and color-hosers go against the spirit of Commander. It would be perfectly feasible to ban a finite number of egregious color-hosers rather than keeping an ever-growing list of WISHES behind the dam of a rule."Keeping things in check is a good idea." – Sheldon Menery, The Mind Sculptors
The question "How will WISHING improve Commander?" is a Socratic trap. It can't be taken seriously beyond being a theoretical, if not fanciful, exercise in thought. Sure, it's fun to ask and answer questions like, "Do extra turn effects make Commander better? Does the inclusion of wheel effects solve anything? Are control another player effects fun for everyone?" Questions, curiously enough, all asked of WISH effects. But the answers should not determine if those effects function in Commander. There really doesn't have to be a reason for WISHING to work in Commander any more than there does for any other card or effect in Magic. The status quo requires as much justification as anything else. Rule 10 is not automatically justified just because it exists. The question itself implicitly assumes that the status quo is justified without doing any of the work to actually justify it. The burden of proof for the status quo is on those who support Rule 10."The criteria should be "legal until proven problematic" not "illegal until proven fun"." – Impossible
With that being said, one answer could be "modality", of flavor . . .
of strategy . . ."WISHES would enable people to play more weird cards that are too narrow to be used generally and too weak to be worth playing for the times when they apply, but which are awesome flavor for a deck. As the space for on-flavor cards gets more cramped, some of the fun options get pushed out in favor of efficiency, but I'd rather see more weird pet cards than have the same nonsense happen every game." – Jemolk
and of resources . . .Threat diversity has been increasing over time to the point that even decks built specifically to feature hate cards cannot possibly include enough niche answers in enough quantity to ensure they are able to deal with problematic cards. – Impossible
WISHING can be the best option for players with limited resources including money, cards, and even decisiveness. – Legend
"It would probably be better for the format if more people had access to solid hate cards. It'll help prevent individual players from dominating games because opponents weren't prepared with/didn't draw their one copy of relevant disruption. If more decks had access to Relic of Progenitus and Torpor Orb and Grafdigger's Cage we'd probably see generally better deck building, in the sense that people would hopefully become less reliant on powerful linear strategies and would instead have to diversify. Players would have to ensure that their deck doesn't just fold up and die to a single piece of moderate hate." – Impossible
Despite superficial similarities to tutoring, in practice WISHING is fundamentally divergent from tutoring. Unlike tutoring, in instances where WISHING was used, it would lead to more diverse gameplay than ever due to its modal nature. And it would take less time to WISH than it does to tutor because there's no shuffling involved.WISHES are good for getting reactive cards to deal with whatever the current problem of the table is. They're significantly less good at actually advancing your strategy every game in the exact same manner. – Impossible
Due to its reactive nature, WISHING could even serve as a foil for tutoring at times.WISHES can't get copies of cards that are in your deck. The point stands with tutors. If I want to play two copies of my combo piece, I run Demonic Tutor to grab it. Tutors actually give you multiple chances to draw into a particular card, as drawing into the tutor gets you the card you want. WISHES can't do that, they can only grab similar, but different, cards from outside the game. That's essentially the same as just running that card in your deck. You're also paying a premium in the form of the WISH'S mana cost, AND you're most likely putting the best version of the card in your main deck and saving the weaker version [outside the game]. In practice, the WISH becomes a worse version of the card already in your library, and you'd have rather drawn either the card that's actually in your deck or a tutor to grab it with.
More simply, WISHES becoming tutors, but not as good, is a pretty fair use and I'd be happy if that's how they played out. As Dirk pointed out, there's already a critical mass of tutors and so WISHES are wholly unnecessary to anyone who wants to build tutors.dek, so if someone is using WISHES that way they're either using them in place of tutors (which I see as an absolute win), or they're going full {deleted} and just cramming in card search effects well beyond the point of diminishing returns. – onering
This reasoning no longer holds water since outside the game contains dungeons, companions, and copies. It actually never really did because of copies always existed outside the game until cast.
"If the logic functions at all, it functions everywhere." – Jemolk
Players have the right to tote as much of their collection along with them as they like.
Cheating and pubstomping are problems unrelated to WISHING.
If ever there was an effect in Commander that should be banned, it's controlling another player. Controlling another player is an offense to personal sovereignty.
It's fair to say that WISHING was messy business back in the day. Players had all kinds of colloquial ideas about how to WISH even well after 2002 and tended to interpret cards by their rules text, not errata or other special rules. "Outside of game" and "phased out" were widely considered synonymous with the "removed from game" zone. Questions abounded, but answers were not immediately available like they are now, so players just filled in the blanks. The homogenized game Magic is today simply wasn't a reality prior to smart phones going mainstream in 2010 and the ensuing rise of social media. And despite the rules having been freshly streamlined late 2009, the logistics of WISHING were only becoming clear by 2012. But now questions about WISHING are all easily and correctly answered thanks to clear rules and social media. We take this for granted now, and there's nothing wrong with that, but we can arrive at misconceptions if we project today's understanding of WISHING on yesteryear's understanding of it. We just didn't have it back then.Magic is in a brave new era in which there are several different WISH cards in Standard at any given time. It's clearly design space that WotC intends to thoroughly explore. It's time for us as a community to take a long hard look at why this effect was banned and whether those reasons for the decision to ban it still hold true today. – Impossible
There's developed a two-pronged mindfork against the functionality of WISHING in Commander. One prong is veteran players living in the past, assuming that if WISHING were to function in Commander, it would just be a mess just it was 10-25 years ago. The other prong is new players living in the present (naturally), assuming that players of the olden days somehow had a contemporary view of WISHING but still couldn't get it right. And so ironically, despite looking at it from opposite viewpoints, both come to the same erroneous conclusion.
But there's a third, uh, prong.
The RC's response to WISHING during the formative and early years of Commander was entirely justified because WISHING was indeed a debacle by no fault of their own. Perhaps it was even justified up to 5 years ago, but with all due respect, it just isn't justified today. The view that WISHING is problematic has become 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, despite instant global access to those rules, despite Wizard's obvious intent to make WISHING a normal part of the game, and despite the maturation of the Magic community as a whole regarding both acumen and peer consideration.Whatever evidence may have existed from 2002 is 100% utterly meaningless in 202[2]. – DirkGently
Five years ago, even the RC believed that the stuff people would do with Painter's Servant would "far outweigh the cool stuff they'd do with it" until they realized that cards like Iona are the real problem. (Sheldon Menery – Commanderin' MTG Podcast E013, 34:00) But now look where we are. The same thing can – and should – happen with WISHING.
The very term "WISH' is a bit of a misleading misnomer, isnt' it? It fills our heads with fears of unlimited power, when in reality that isn't the case at all. You can't actually have anything your heart desires, especially in Commander where a given WISH isn't just limited to what type of card it can WISH for, but is also limited to what color and name of card it can WISH for because of comprehensive rule 903.10. For convenience, here's a readout of how every color-hoser corresponds with a WISH.
Coax from the Blind Eternities, Research // Development, Ring of Ma'rûf, The Raven's Warning, and Spawnsire of Ulamog aren't listed because none of them pose a threat by extension of color-hosers and never will because Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers.
Wish, Death Wish, Mastermind's Acquisition, The Raven's Warning, Research // Development, and Ring of Ma'rûf aren't listed because obviously they can WISH for any card within the limits of comprehensive rule 903.10.
Fae of Wishes // Granted can WISH for any noncreature card, however also within the limits of comprehensive rule 903.10.
Burning Wish can WISH for:
Golden Wish can WISH for:
Cunning Wish can WISH for:
Living Wish and Vivien, Arkbow Ranger can WISH for:
Glittering Wish can WISH for:
Karn, the Great Creator can WISH for:
PROBABLE BANS focusing on color-hosers
- Acid Rain
- Anarchy
- Boiling Seas
- Choke
- Conversion
- Curse of Marit Lage
- Drought
- Flashfires
- Flooded Woodlands
- Glaciers
- Glaciers
- Karma
- Karn, the Great Creator
- Light of Day
- Llawan, Cephalid Empress
- Martyr's Cry
- Nature's Ruin
- Perish
- Reclamation
- Reclamation
- Reign of Terror
- Stench of Evil
- Tsunami
- Virtue's Ruin
- Wrath of Marit Lage
Fortunately, Wizards of the Cost doesn't print color-hosers anymore. The vast majority of color-hosers were printed by 1997, at which point Wizards of the Coast greatly slowed down printing them until they stopped in 2002 and then stopped reprinting the remaining two of them altogether in 2005. A year after they stopped reprinting color-hosers, they started printing WISHES again and are now up to 53 black-bordered cards that utilize outside the game compared to the 25 egregious color-hosers. And Wizards of the Coast shows no signs of slowing down. Meanwhile, not a single color-hoser has been printed or reprinted in 17 years (other than masterpiece Boil). So, ask yourself, who's the real culprit here?
So, even though the alternative bans list is shorter, the probable bans list is the better option in the long run because:
A. It's full of cards that go against the spirit of the format.
B. Color-hosers don't get played in the format now and therefore won't be missed.
C. The probable bans list is finite and fixed because Wizards of the Coast no longer prints color-hosers whereas the alternative bans list would grow indefinitely.
D. WISHING is fun, color-hosing is not.