[MCD] Wishes

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
There 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.
I 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.
What's your point?
Any of these are narrow and not always good draws. They can be your tutor targets depending on the wish in question.
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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
I think it is very optimistic to think that people will take this route. It does not play to the strength of wishes.
That's always been true, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
. 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?
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.
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.
LOL... are they good or not?
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.
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.
There is no evidence, you just have conjecture.
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).
. 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".
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.
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.
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.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
Myllior
Posts: 229
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Myllior » 2 years ago

Well there's no way I'm searching back through 450 posts on a 2 year old topic...

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've said before that I think the 2-3 increased mana cost that most wishes impart to effectively turn what would have been one card into a three-mode spell (i.e. three card wishboards) appears reasonable at the surface. Strong? Yes. Offers up new ways to build if used proactively? Yes. Offers up new ways to make people miserable if used that way? Also yes. But you're all going over that now.

Two of my gripes about wishboards are logistical. The first being that sleeves come in packs of 100, with a couple spare. In my experience 102 is the most common numbers, although 101-103 is the range I've encountered personally; needing to source additional sleeves is a bit of a hassle. The second is deck box size; you can comfortably sit 103 cards in most boxes, but if you have tokens or store other cards there (or a wishboard greater than three) then you'll run into space issues. Some practicalities of the format were built around a 100-card deck size and this will need to be solved in a straightforward and simple way.

The other thought, which has no doubt been covered many times already, is that many wishes will become almost auto-includes for many decks, but in a way that requires a change in deck building. On the Gifts Ungiven topic yesterday, I said that I'd be all for it even though it would be a powerful addition to the format, yet I believe it would not influence deck construction; I also believe there would be less of an impetus for it to be included in decks compared to wishes. Choosing not to run Gifts Ungiven would be less impactful on your deck than choosing not to run wishes.

So yeah. I feel the existence of wishboards would create too much of an impetus to include them (build-your-own-modal too stronk) which, in combination with the sleeve and box logistics, puts them on the side where I believe the risk:reward isn't adequate to justify their release.
Kefnet Voltron | Ayli Reanistocrats | Derevi Pod | Kodama//Ishai Blink | Jetmir Hatebears | Kess Storm | Smasher//Sakashima Control

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
What's your point?
Any of these are narrow and not always good draws. They can be your tutor targets depending on the wish in question.
I don't think I'd consider any of them narrow. I guess they could be, if you're running a lot of the things that they blow up (like Bane of progress is "narrow" if you're playing a lot of artifacts/enchantments), but assuming they're an effect you're interested in I'd say they're pretty widely useful. I include them all the time and I'm hardly ever disappointed to draw them.

You brought up wishboarding a narrow card like Back to Nature which I agree, I wouldn't want to run it in the mainboard but could potentially consider it in the wishboard (for sake of argument at least). But to extrapolate, let's say you include Tranquility (sorcery B2N), Shatterstorm, and Wrath of God as your three targets for your Burning Wish. Is that a problem? Well, you just kinda made a janky 3-color Austere Command at that point, right? Is austere command a problematic card in the format? I'd argue no. So I don't think the ability to run an enchantment wipe in the wishboard is problematic. Cards like Austere command already give you a way to include an enchantment wipe in the main without it being narrow and it hasn't prevented people from running enchantment decks.
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.
I try to avoid running narrow cards in the first place. I guess it's a lot to ask, but maybe leaf through one of my decks (ideally not a super old one) and try to pick out a more concrete example?
The point is that it is very good at improving draws.
Sure, but so is Telling Time. Most decks don't consider the increase in draw quality to be worth the tradeoff in tempo, though.

I think if you have cards in your deck that you're drawing and thinking "crap, this card isn't useful this game" then probably just don't run that card at all.
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.
I did my big list of archetypes earlier, and that wasn't even including any archetypes I'd consider narrow. With only 3 slots, how do you think people are going to be able to have enough room to cover even a small fraction of the possible archetypes?
You are introducing cards become auto-include in every deck
Evidence?
and that also favour getting narrow cards from the board.
With 15 cards, probably. With 3 cards, maybe a little bit, but not by much. If someone does run a very narrow answer, I'd assume it's because they have a particular problem with that archetype, which seems fair.
I think it is very optimistic to think that people will take this route. It does not play to the strength of wishes.
The strength of wishes is flexibility, and that applies both offensively and defensively. Someone mentioned a legacy deck earlier which I looked up that uses burning wish as a core part of its strategy, and as far as I can tell it uses it primarily to find proactive tools depending on how their opponent is trying to counter them.

It helps that, with only 3 targets, your ability to cover the wide swath of archetypes is quite limited, whereas the number of proactive things you might want to do is probably much smaller, so it's much easier to cover your proactive bases than reactive ones.
Right, and that is a deckbuilding tension. Do you play GY hate on the off-chance you need it?
Yes, I run Scavenger Grounds which also provides an always-useful resource in games where GY hate isn't needed. Or I use Relic of Progenitus, Nihil Spellbomb, etc which effectively cycle themselves. Or Scavenging Ooze which is also a lifegain source and a beatstick. We aren't living in the days of Tormod's Crypt anymore, where GY hate options are total blanks against other decks. Just like how Austere Command gives you access to an enchantment nuke without being useless against non-enchantment decks.
This argument again. Versatility is more important than efficiently playing a narrow card.
At cEDH tier, they're running extremely narrow answers like Mental Misstep because it's extremely efficient. So depending on the context that statement can be quite false.

I will agree that, in a 75% meta, the ability to find a particularly nasty narrow counter to an enemy deck could be worth sacrificing quite a bit of tempo. However, with only 3 cards available, that's not a practical option as detailed above.
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.
I think you missed my point. You're saying versatility is worth paying extra mana. Yes, I agree (within constraints and dependent on context of course), that's why I would run more expensive but more flexible answers instead of B2N. Idk why you see wishes as being flexible, but don't see Austere Command as being flexible. It's the same principle.
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?
It's kinda hard to put a power level on a card that doesn't do anything intrinsically. What's better, Diabolic Tutor or Avenger of Zendikar? Kinda depends on the targets and context, right?

I think I'd at least consider cunning wish and divide by zero in Phelddagrif. Kaervek is already borderline on running Mastermind's Acquisition so I'd probably throw some stuff in the wishboard and include that at least to try it. Zirilan I really don't think so. Looking at my current temp decks, they're be god-awful in bright-paws and probably not worth it in Shigeki, Jukai Visionary, though maybe I could find a package to justify living wish.

I think in other contexts they could be stronger than in my current decks, but I haven't built any decks with the intention to take advantage of them. I'd definitely try them out in future decks if they got unbanned.
do you think they will be worth playing?
In the right context, absolutely.
Then why do you think other people will not?
When did I say that?

It seems like you have a very narrow line between "useless garbage" and "auto-include in literally every deck". Whenever I point out a downside to wishes, you seem to think I'm saying they're unplayable, and whenever I point out an upside you seem to think I'm saying they're auto-includes. Most cards fit between those two lines. Idk why you think it's different for wishes.
You like arguing for the sake of arguing, don't you?
Guilty as charged.

Doesn't mean I don't believe what I'm saying, though. I'm not playing devil's advocate.
Wishes are played in highly competitive formats, so not sure why you say they are not efficient enough for Commander.
Yes, they are played, but not by every deck. Which is exactly what I'd expect in commander as well.
LOL... are they good or not?
Sigh...it depends on the context.
Also, I find it very hard to include hate cards in my deck.
Wotc keeps making it easier and easier with multi-functional cards that don't punish you too badly when they don't counter the enemy deck. I don't think it's that hard to include some degree of hate against most major archetypes unless you really need all your slots for more proactive tools.
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.
Don't we all. The last cuts are the deepest.
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.
Okay, so then give them a shot and see how it plays. Sounds like a fun experiment. But of course keep in mind that you are paying for the improved quality of your draws, just like any other card selection spell.
But why exactly am I arguing with you about wishes being good. I really don't get you.
Wishes are good. I'm not saying they aren't (well, some of them are, Golden Wish is pretty crap). I'm just saying they aren't problematically good.
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.
ty.
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.
Well yes, but wishes merely being played doesn't seem like a problem to me. It's only a problem if they're getting played everywhere, or being used in ways that makes the game markedly less enjoyable.
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.
Again, I think the sorts of answers wotc prints these days make it pretty painless to run most sorts of hate cards. Maybe not certain types of very narrow answers, but those are often going to be too narrow even to put into a wishboard effectively.
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.
You can just run Scavenger Grounds or relic or scooze though.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned but I think is another big plus side to wishes in this context - maining RIP you're probably just going to play it if someone else is playing graveyard stuff, even if they weren't necessarily the threat at the time, because you aren't giving up anything else. The RIP was never going to become a different card. Whereas if you wish for RIP, you have to do so knowing that you're giving up the other possible targets for your wish. Which I would imagine makes you a lot less likely to play RIP unless the gy player looked like the threat, in which case he presumably had it coming a little bit.
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.
That's a curious statement. I think I get what you mean, but it seems like a selective interpretation of the word "variance". If you're comparing running a normal card, versus running a wish that can fetch that card or fetch RIP, then it increases the variance in games between you and a GY deck because you will sometimes have a powerful hate tool against them, whereas without the wish you didn't. However, if we're comparing the wish scenario to one in which you just maindeck RIP, the variance is slightly lower with the wish against the GY deck because you have to pay more for it, and much lower against other decks because you don't have a dead draw.

It seems unfair to say "well, if we compare running a normal deck without narrow hate cards, compared to a wish deck that uses narrow hate cards, there is more variance with wishing" because that presupposes that you weren't running narrow hate cards before, and that you are afterwards. Wishes do mitigate some of the downsides to running narrow hate cards, but especially with only 3 targets they don't give you free access. You're paying extra mana on whatever you wish for the possibility of having an active hate card, and you have a very limited number of slots available that you're sacrificing to run them. I'd expect some people might run some narrow-ish hate cards (the sort of effect that could be achieved via a flexible card instead as in the B2N vs Austere command example), and maybe a particularly narrow hate card if they really despise a certain archetype, but I think going any further will result in them finding their wish to be quite subpar. Of course I wouldn't assume that everyone will use wishes optimally, but I think as people get used to them they'll realize that using a trio of narrow hate cards is still quite narrow in a format this diverse.
There is no evidence, you just have conjecture.
And you have a mountain of evidence, then? Or is this a glass houses situation?

I think tutors are the closest comparison for wishes among currently legal cards, and while the best ones are pretty popular, other ones are at pretty reasonable frequencies imo. That indicates to me that wishes will likely fall into a similar space, given that the costs of wishes are more in line with second/third tier tutors and not the best ones. It's not a perfect comparison, but we work with what we have. If you think there's somewhere else I ought to be looking, by all means tell me.
People will play them.
There is no evidence, you just have conjecture.
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 I missed a beat. Are all stax decks mono-blue? Or are we saying the stax decks themselves are playing boil to counter control decks?

At the power level this sounds like, boil would probably be pretty fair tbh. And considering that you'd need to pay at least 6 mana and reveal the boil when you cast it, it seems like the blue decks are going to have plenty of opportunity to have a counterspell ready at the power level we seem to be talking about.

Unless we're talking about stax players stomping a casual game? But if someone is pubstomping a casual game, wishes aren't responsible for that.

But regardless of all that, this is pure conjecture without even an attempt to find corroborating information. I'm not sure why you're comfortable making such bold assertions while rejecting mine because you think the evidence is insufficient.
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.
How many tutors does your karador deck play? From the description it just sounds like a deck that has a variety of effects.

Sunforger is a toolbox card, sure. I have personally built a sunforger-focused deck because it's (arguably) my favorite card in the game, but everyone else I've seen play sunforger plays it as one flexible card in a deck that does plenty of non-sunforger, non-toolboxy things.

Toolboxes as a card exist and are played, sure, and you can build a whole deck as a toolbox in theory, but in practice I don't think I've seen any other players do that. I guess if the commander is a toolbox like Sisay? But that wasn't your example.

It's not particularly relevant to the point I suppose.
Also, if you have a dead wish you have built your wishboard incorrectly.
I agree, that's why I think people won't pack them full of narrow answers.
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.
How narrow of hate cards are we talking about?
Depending on your answer, I'd probably say either "those cards are useful enough that they'd be playable in the mainboard so people should anticipate that sort of thing" or "I think you're just going to end up overpaying for Junji".
Also, before you start talking to me about efficiency, I would replace Grim Tutor with Mastermind's Acquisition in a heartbeat.
Masterminds is maybe the most dangerous wish imo since it already has guaranteed good targets in your deck. So you could actually run 3 narrow answers in the wishboard and not get punished. I don't think it'd be competitive since it's still a 4 cmc tutor, though. Anyway if it's a problem we could just ban it.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 2 years ago

tstorm823 wrote:
2 years ago
onering wrote:
2 years ago
The larger the wish board, the more room for less relevant hate cards, and eventually your able to start putting in things "just in case" and that's where the problem starts.
I kind of disagree with this. If "build casually, play competitively" is a sufficient philosophy to limit problematic card usage, and I believe that it is, that would apply to wishboards just as much as maindecks. If you limited someone to even a 100 card wishboard, they would still have to make the active decision to put Winter Orb into that pile before they could wish for it, and people building casually would not do that, regardless of how big the limit is. If I'm not making the sort of deck that would maindeck Winter Orb, I equally would not put it in a wishboard. If, however, the limit does not exist, I personally own a Winter Orb, so I could wish for it just by virtue of having that binder with me. I don't think all the calculations on how big a wishboard should be are justified, I think the important thing is to make people decide what they personally want to play in a vacuum rather than calculate the most effective card in their collection for a specific set of circumstances.
I brought up the quote to emphasize the difference between wishboards of any size and unlimited wishing. Even larger wishboards would be less likely be abused than unlimited wishing.

That said, if you are using wishes as modal hate spells, you're already a step closer to running that harder hate that causes problems. Not everyone will do it, and most probably won't, but the larger the wish board the more tempting it is to run cards that can basically steal games, just because you might as well run the maximum number of targets for the wish. A random mono red deck isn't going to run flashfires, a mono red deck with a 3 wish board probably isn't either, but a mono red deck with a 15 wish board might. Social contract and all that will keep most people from doing it, but enough will to be annoying. And that's flashfires, a hated card. Less well known and loathed narrow hate pieces are more likely to be ran. The smaller the board, the greater the opportunity cost for putting any particular card in it, because the slots have higher value, so there's less temptation to run something like flashfires and more incentive to keep the board tight and focused on countering actual meta threats.

In short, once you start putting meta answers in your wishboard, you're building at least somewhat competitively, the same way that once you put a 2 card combo in your deck and ways to search it up you've moved into semi-competitive building at minimum. The "build casually" adage still puts some pressure on players to avoid the really nasty stuff, but its undermined by the competitive tinge of building a wishboard to metagame against your opponents. That's really where the importance of the smaller size comes in, to make the nasty %$#% less attractive.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

One thing I want to say is that if we were having an unbanning discussion on demonic tutor chances are good it would have very little support. So having a good understanding of which wishboard size makes any of the wishes close in power to demonic tutor is a good idea.

Demonic tutor is flat out problematic in its power we're just used to it.

Fundamentally I think a three card wish board is probably safe. That's where the line is for me. I think 5 lets burning wish and living wish get a little too close and 10 is where it's more powerful in enough circumstances that I draw a hard line.

The big problem with anything beyond 5 is it starts putting you into critical mass mode where you can run multiple wishes. If a 3 card wishboard lets you play one wish a 7 card board lets you run two.

Now we've added two to the tutor count of most decks.

And with unlimited wishboards 5c decks can run 5+ decent tutors. yuck

—-

Now with that comes one potential upside. Only goons are gonna jam every tutor and some people might replace some tutors with wishes. I don't hate that. The price of some of the best tutors is bananas and while wishes would spike if released there are a ton of copies and it probably wouldn't stick if you kept the board small.

I am still very fuzzy on adding more searching to the format but at least wishing would be faster with a small defined board that was face up.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 2 years ago

Honestly, it seems like "3 is fine" is a consensus opinion at this point.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

onering wrote:
2 years ago
Honestly, it seems like "3 is fine" is a consensus opinion at this point.
I would say 3 is fine power level wise. As far as logistics go I'm still "face up or bust."

Even at 3 I think it's a net negative to the format, but has some good sides. I'd rather it not happen, but I'd admit that it's probably not going to ruin the format.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago
You brought up wishboarding a narrow card like Back to Nature which I agree, I wouldn't want to run it in the mainboard but could potentially consider it in the wishboard (for sake of argument at least). But to extrapolate, let's say you include Tranquility (sorcery B2N), Shatterstorm, and Wrath of God as your three targets for your Burning Wish. Is that a problem? Well, you just kinda made a janky 3-color Austere Command at that point, right? Is austere command a problematic card in the format? I'd argue no. So I don't think the ability to run an enchantment wipe in the wishboard is problematic. Cards like Austere command already give you a way to include an enchantment wipe in the main without it being narrow and it hasn't prevented people from running enchantment decks.
. Austere command is white. White has the most answers. Probably if I wanted a wish for a white deck I would not include back to nature. I would include Spirit of the Labyrinth or Eidolon of Rhetoric or other cards that are pretty dang narrow but help me against problematic archetypes. I get that there are many archetypes, which you have repeatedly mentioned. But most decks struggle against a handful of strategies that may not come up often. I have definitely played cards just of the sake of thwarting a specific commander. spirit of the labyrinth is one such card. I cut it because most of the time it just annoyed people.
I try to avoid running narrow cards in the first place. I guess it's a lot to ask, but maybe leaf through one of my decks (ideally not a super old one) and try to pick out a more concrete example?
I just looked through four of your decks. You definitely seem to avoid narrower cards. I don't know... maybe it's just me? I like having answers to things that blank my deck. You have decks that would have 1-2 outs to a Humility or Solitary Confinement. You have decks that have 1 answer to a spore frog with recursion. You play more tutors than I do on average so I guess that's your attitude. Since I like high variance to my games, I only play tutors in two types of decks:
1. A + B + C decks that don't work without tutors, but do something very unique.
2. more competitive decks that have toolbox aspects to them.
I would say 75% of my decks play next to no tutors, and if they do they are highly synergistic/limited in scope. I do play Austere Command and Scavenger grounds in many decks. I just don't have ways to tutor them reliably, so I play additional cards for redundancy. I also don't have white in every deck. all this to say that sometimes my decks have to play sub-par interaction to hedge my odds against problematic opponents. But most of the time those cards are pretty dead to me.
Am I wrong to think that the reason that tutors are underplayed in commander is because people dislike tutors?
When I said wishes increase variance I mean this
1. in a deck with no tutors or wishes, 1/100 cards is a spirit of the Labyrinth.
2. In a deck with tutors, each tutor is an additional copy of SotL. They are also additional copies of win conditions, answers, and more. They greatly reduce variance.
3. In a deck with wishes and not tutors, with sotl in the wishboard, it is still 1/100 cards. Except, that the wish can get two other cards. So when playing you will have sotl in your hand less frequently. You will have other cards from your wishboard more frequently. I know this is not a matter of variance, but when I talk about liking variance it is about the feeling of each game playing differently, and I think wishes help with that.

I don't know how the average player feels about tutors but the more casual the table the fewer tutors I see. I don't think that's a matter of budget or competitiveness. I think it is a matter of preference.

So for players like me that dislike tutors, I think it is easy to conceptualize removing a narrower card and putting it in the wishboard.
Masterminds is maybe the most dangerous wish imo since it already has guaranteed good targets in your deck. So you could actually run 3 narrow answers in the wishboard and not get punished. I don't think it'd be competitive since it's still a 4 cmc tutor, though. Anyway if it's a problem we could just ban it.
I would also add Karn to that list. Null rod for opponents plus tutor seems so generically useful.


I don't know what you think, but I think I have finally understood why our perspectives on 'auto-includeness' are so different.

And I will add to what others have said. 3 cards is probably fine. I think it raises concerns about how easy it is to implement for such marginal value, but it's one of those situations where it is easier to grok than it is to actually write out the rules so it works. I am not worried about rules issues.

I do think they will be close to auto-includes. I guess I should define this because I do not mean every deck would play them. I think I would expect Cyclonic rift levels. Sure, you can not play rift, but it is probably incorrect. I also think it is super easy to add them to a deck. Whether you are cutting narrow cards and moving them to your wish board, or cutting a bunch of win conditions because they clog up your hand... wishes are just so easy to implement.
All that to say that I have 2 separate issues with wishes:
1. They are super good and super easy to implement, so I think they will feel like 'auto-includes'. I am against this kind of thing.
2. I think that playing hate cards should take up deck resources, and that wishes make it way easier to play them without consequences.

And like all arguments in this thread, all of this is conjecture. There is no proof. If I have accomplished anything today, I hope that I have accomplished to convince you that tutors are not great comparisons for wishes. For people who dislike tutors, wishes are very different animals.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 2 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago
I think if you have cards in your deck that you're drawing and thinking "crap, this card isn't useful this game" then probably just don't run that card at all.
And in the other thread you were accusing cEDH of forcing optimization.

Anyways, most of the modal hate cards trade off totality for options. Whereas the narrow hate cards were designed to delete an archetype, with the drawback of only being played when that archetype is relevant. So you have Farewell packaging a one-off graveyard exile with several sweepers, but something like Rest in Peace locks those decks out until removed. With Wishes, you'd see people getting the brutality of narrow effects, without the needing the commitment. And even Farewell itself has raised some hackles, showing that there is a limit to what people are OK with on modal answers.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
One thing I want to say is that if we were having an unbanning discussion on demonic tutor chances are good it would have very little support. So having a good understanding of which wishboard size makes any of the wishes close in power to demonic tutor is a good idea.
That's a really hard to answer question since it depends on a lot of factors. Plus dtutor is, as you point out, very very good. A better point of comparison would probably be grim or diabolic.
Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
Austere command is white. White has the most answers. Probably if I wanted a wish for a white deck I would not include back to nature. I would include Spirit of the Labyrinth or Eidolon of Rhetoric or other cards that are pretty dang narrow but help me against problematic archetypes. I get that there are many archetypes, which you have repeatedly mentioned. But most decks struggle against a handful of strategies that may not come up often. I have definitely played cards just of the sake of thwarting a specific commander. spirit of the labyrinth is one such card. I cut it because most of the time it just annoyed people.
I wouldn't call either of those narrow answers. Almost every deck will be effected by them. Which deck doesn't regularly try to double spell or draw cards? The bigger issue is that they're probably going to trip YOU up too, which will be true in the main or the side. If you can operate happily underneath them, I think they're probably pretty strong to play in the main, but I'm guessing you don't because they annoy people and annoying people isn't fun.

And if we're talking about decks that really dramatically abuse those things - like a storm deck for casting spells, or some version of thassa's oracle deck-emptying-via-draw...those both sound pretty competitive and I'd have no problem with them getting shut down out of the board. Although based on my experiences I'd guess you'd only be able to use either of them maybe 5% of the time you use your wish, which seems like a pretty bad tradeoff. Plus they're enchantment creatures so not exactly hard to answer, at least temporarily.
I just looked through four of your decks. You definitely seem to avoid narrower cards. I don't know... maybe it's just me? I like having answers to things that blank my deck. You have decks that would have 1-2 outs to a Humility or Solitary Confinement. You have decks that have 1 answer to a spore frog with recursion. You play more tutors than I do on average so I guess that's your attitude.
I have hardly ever played against those cards. Like if I added all three of those together, the total number of times I've played against them are low single-digits. Why would I waste card slots preparing for things that aren't played? It takes a lot of slots to have a good %chance to draw a specific effect too, so even if I threw five answers to X, my odds of finding it is pretty low.
I would say 75% of my decks play next to no tutors, and if they do they are highly synergistic/limited in scope. I do play Austere Command and Scavenger grounds in many decks. I just don't have ways to tutor them reliably, so I play additional cards for redundancy. I also don't have white in every deck. all this to say that sometimes my decks have to play sub-par interaction to hedge my odds against problematic opponents. But most of the time those cards are pretty dead to me.
Am I wrong to think that the reason that tutors are underplayed in commander is because people dislike tutors?
I won't presume to know why some people don't like tutors, but people can play whatever cards they like, for whatever reasons they like. If they like wishes they should play them. If they don't, they shouldn't.
When I said wishes increase variance I mean this
1. in a deck with no tutors or wishes, 1/100 cards is a spirit of the Labyrinth.
2. In a deck with tutors, each tutor is an additional copy of SotL. They are also additional copies of win conditions, answers, and more. They greatly reduce variance.
3. In a deck with wishes and not tutors, with sotl in the wishboard, it is still 1/100 cards. Except, that the wish can get two other cards. So when playing you will have sotl in your hand less frequently. You will have other cards from your wishboard more frequently. I know this is not a matter of variance, but when I talk about liking variance it is about the feeling of each game playing differently, and I think wishes help with that.
I assume you mean a single wish, not wishes plural.

Right, so you mean variance as in "the number of different effects you deck could play (effects that actually do something, not find other cards or whatever)". So then it sounds like you would like wishes. Cool, try them out then.

Personally I would consider variance to be "how consistently effective the deck is". Wishes reduce variance in that sense, but they increase it in your sense.

I'm still not sure why this is a problem though.
I don't know how the average player feels about tutors but the more casual the table the fewer tutors I see. I don't think that's a matter of budget or competitiveness. I think it is a matter of preference.

So for players like me that dislike tutors, I think it is easy to conceptualize removing a narrower card and putting it in the wishboard.
Okay, go ahead and do that. I'm really not seeing the problem here.
I would also add Karn to that list. Null rod for opponents plus tutor seems so generically useful.
Yeah maybe although I think social contract might rein him in. Anyway happy to banhammer if necessary. We've functionally got a ton of banned cards thanks to the rule, so adding a few seems like a small tradeoff.

I don't know what you think, but I think I have finally understood why our perspectives on 'auto-includeness' are so different.
I think your perspective of auto-include is very focused on how you personally feel about the effect - it circumvents your dislike of tutors, increases the variance you like and decreases the variance you don't like. But not everyone feels the same about any of those things. It's an auto-include for you, maybe. That doesn't really say very much about the format at large, though.
And I will add to what others have said. 3 cards is probably fine. I think it raises concerns about how easy it is to implement for such marginal value, but it's one of those situations where it is easier to grok than it is to actually write out the rules so it works. I am not worried about rules issues.
agree
I do think they will be close to auto-includes. I guess I should define this because I do not mean every deck would play them. I think I would expect Cyclonic rift levels. Sure, you can not play rift, but it is probably incorrect.
Are we talking each wish, or just any wish?
I also think it is super easy to add them to a deck. Whether you are cutting narrow cards and moving them to your wish board, or cutting a bunch of win conditions because they clog up your hand... wishes are just so easy to implement.
If you cut 3 wincons and replace them with 1 wish, you now have 2 fewer wincons in your deck.

Also keep in mind a lot of these things have type restrictions so you can't necessarily just pick any 3 cards.
All that to say that I have 2 separate issues with wishes:
1. They are super good and super easy to implement, so I think they will feel like 'auto-includes'. I am against this kind of thing.
They're harder to implement than basically any other card. You have to pick out 3 good targets that provide you with reliable value in varied circumstances. Not to mention crossing the streams with multiple wishes gets way more complicated. Most cards you just put them in your deck and that's it. I think laziness will prevent a lot of people from playing them tbh.

Again it seems like you're assuming everyone thinks the same way about tutors and wishes that you do. And I don't think that's true.
2. I think that playing hate cards should take up deck resources, and that wishes make it way easier to play them without consequences.
Depends on how you mean, but as I've said, most forms of hate can already be included without having a narrow answer in the deck - and the penalty for those more flexible cards generally comes as a mana markup. Austere command costs more than B2N. Wishes just provide a more free-form version of that. Mana costs are the consequences in both cases.
And like all arguments in this thread, all of this is conjecture. There is no proof.
Yes of course, but it seems a bit hypocritical to only point that out in my conjecturing, no?
If I have accomplished anything today, I hope that I have accomplished to convince you that tutors are not great comparisons for wishes. For people who dislike tutors, wishes are very different animals.
I understand how you think about them. Where I disagree is thinking that everyone thinks the same way.

It'd be like saying "Squire is an auto-include because I don't like noncreatures, abilities, or creatures with good stat lines". Obviously that's an exaggeration but hopefully you get what I'm saying. If wishes are the sort of thing that appeals to your personal sensibilities, then idk why you wouldn't want to play them. Seems like a win to me.

And if you don't want to, you don't have to. Don't come at me with this "but they're auto-includes" thing when you literally just told me you intentionally don't include tutors because you don't like them. You're already weakening your deck to fit your preferences - which is great. Just make up your mind on whether you do or don't like wishes, and act accordingly.
BeneTleilax wrote:
2 years ago
And in the other thread you were accusing cEDH of forcing optimization.
Not sure if you're being serious, but I don't think telling people to stop running narrow answers in the main is a bad sort of optimization. I think it overall improves the quality of games when people aren't playing flashfires in the main, hot take.

I optimize the crap out of my decks, I just do it with a very specific, non-cEDH goal in mind.
Anyways, most of the modal hate cards trade off totality for options. Whereas the narrow hate cards were designed to delete an archetype, with the drawback of only being played when that archetype is relevant. So you have Farewell packaging a one-off graveyard exile with several sweepers, but something like Rest in Peace locks those decks out until removed. With Wishes, you'd see people getting the brutality of narrow effects, without the needing the commitment. And even Farewell itself has raised some hackles, showing that there is a limit to what people are OK with on modal answers.
Anyone who dislikes farewall just hates white lol. Being good at board wipes is the one thing white wins at.

With only 3 cards, I don't think you can practically cover many archetypes if you're using answers as narrow as RIP. Plus RIP is a double-edged sword for a lot of decks, it's hard to avoid having some grave synergy these days. So I would mostly expect people to include RIP if they particularly disliked grave decks.

And I'll circle back to what I said before - if you're maining RIP, even if the graveyard player isn't currently leading, you're probably just gonna play it if you have 2 spare mana and ruin that guys day (maybe). Some people will play it even when someone else is clearly leading. Whereas if you have to cast your wish and consider the other cards you might get, which probably have more proactive value for you, or the ability to react to something someone else is doing, you're a lot less likely to ultimately cast the RIP, and much less likely to cast it when the grave player is behind, which is when RIP feels most unfun. RIP currently has quite a bit of play, it's in the top 100 white cards, so it's not like we're currently living in a RIP-less utopia for grave decks. To even hit it with a wish, I think you have to be playing the (fairly expensive) wish of another color or play the extremely clunky Golden Wish, so it's sure not a free-roll.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

@DirkGently
I have played so many solitary confinement decks. So many Azami + Mind over Matter decks. Storm decks. I don't want to play a hate card that will randomly slow down opponents. That's why I cut the narrower cards. But I really miss the hate cards when I play against these hyper linear decks.

I am really surprised you never see them, but I guess that's what Metas are about.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
Jemolk
Compulsive Jank Builder
Posts: 418
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Jemolk » 2 years ago

You know, it's very rare that I have strong opinions on a subject but don't feel the need to say much of anything, but here, @DirkGently is hitting all the points I'd want to. So, thanks, Dirk.

There are a few points I'd add. Toolbox decks came up as a point here. I do have a toolbox deck -- it's Scion of the Ur-Dragon 5c toolbox dragons. And it's fun and weird, and the way I have it built, there's no one line that's always correct -- it always depends on the other decks and the board state. So while the deck is consistently powerful, it plays out in very different ways. Heck, with the way I build my decks, that's the general function of Demonic Tutor in my hands as well. And that is exactly what I expect to be the most frequent and most desirable aspect of wishes.

I mentioned the last time this thread was open that I had a potential 5-card Wishboard for my Nicol Bolas deck that I always struggled to get the nerve to ask people to allow me to use, but the contents as of right now are: Apex of Power, Rakka Mar, Mindclaw Shaman, Blood Reckoning, and Malfegor|Conflux Promos. For this particular deck, Apex of Power approaches being a dead card; it's just too good as a Bolas-themed card to ignore, though. This is what I'd like to use the rule change for, myself, and I think this approach would be fairly common.

As for the alternative? Rest in Peace could be backbreaking for graveyard decks, yes, but I don't expect it to be a perpetual staple of wishboards, and I do think more people should run graveyard hate. I always make room for at bare minimum two pieces of graveyard hate in any deck I build, three is closer to my goal, and if I can have half a dozen, so much the better. There's a reason -- a very good reason -- that I consider Rakdos Charm to reach staple status for me even though I refuse to play Cyclonic Rift on the principle of hating staples. And I always try to make sure I have options for most any situation I could run into. But plenty of people don't, and the result is that value engines can just run away with the game. And that's another way people can be prevented from meaningfully participating in the game. I find that being unable to deal with an arch-enemy is far more frequent a cause of non-participation in games than getting trashed by a hate card, despite seeing far more hate cards in my meta than what I'm gathering is typical from the comments here. Wishing for answers would help solve that problem. Heck, wishing for ways to hose the arch-enemy would be fine with me, including when I'm the arch-enemy being hosed. Games should have more back-and-forth in my view. All this means that even the plausible version of the worst-case scenario all you anti-wish advocates are talking about sounds like an outright benefit to me. And this is why I'm having some trouble grasping what the problem is. Someone wishing for Arcane Lighthouse? Good. That means a more interactive game. Now, me, I'd just maindeck the card wherever I expected I might need it. And I do, by the way. But if wishes get more people to run it, all the better.
39 Commander decks and counting. I'm sure this is fine, and not at all a problem.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
@DirkGently
I have played so many solitary confinement decks. So many Azami + Mind over Matter decks. Storm decks. I don't want to play a hate card that will randomly slow down opponents. That's why I cut the narrower cards. But I really miss the hate cards when I play against these hyper linear decks.

I am really surprised you never see them, but I guess that's what Metas are about.
You initially asked about humility, solitary, and spore frog loops. Those things I rarely see (also solitary and spore frog are usually kind of a "deal with it when it becomes a problem" situation unless you're playing aggro and really need to get damage in ASAP or something). Now you're asking a different question, though, so I'll respond to that.

Azami Mommy decks (as I've just now decided to call them) were all the rage in 2010 or so, played against a lot of them back then. These days pretty rare but I think I did play against an arcanis mom deck a year ago or so after the dude claimed it was very casual which pissed me off a bit. Storm decks, not common but they show up from time to time.

I've got a few ways of handling that sort of thing.

-I prefer to play very broad answers. You don't need Eidolon of Rhetoric to stop azami mommy. If you can counter either, or blow up either while the other is on the stack, you're good. So, removal and counterspells, which are also useful against almost anything else. Sure, they'll probably counter your removal, but they'd probably bounce and/or counter your eidolon, and at least the removal can be a surprise whereas eidolon usually needs to be cast in advance of the problem and telegraphs your intentions. Obviously not every color has counterspells, but every color has removal of some kind, not to mention karn, o-stone, blast zone, etc. Storm can be harder, but any deck can run wasteland and strip mine, or destroy on-board discounts or artifact ramp. A lot of the time it doesn't take much to throw a wrench into the gears.

-Don't forget that you aren't the only other person at the table. Okay, I didn't draw an answer to Azami Mommy this game, but I've been around the block before and I know a rat when I see it. I can point out the potential threat to other players and try to leverage and coordinate their answers as well (or their attacks to put pressure on the combo player). Often these decks are pretty obvious right from the start by their choice of commander and play patterns. I'll often say things like "if someone doesn't keep up a way to stop X combo, we're all probably going to lose the game." That sort of environment makes it much harder to pull off shenanigans, unless the table is pretty hideously mismatched.

-Phelddagrif is my "oh, so we're gonna play like THAT, are we?" deck. I'm not going to try to make every deck I construct capable of going toe-to-toe with a top-tier storm deck, because it's just not practical. I make decks to pull off new, interesting, silly things, and trying to put in answers to handle every possible opponent I might come across is going to homogenize my decklists significantly. So I put in some versatile answers, but past that I usually don't bother. If I pull out my latest meme deck and get run over by someone pubstomping, I pull out the griff and ram answers down their throat.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

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

Post by Legend » 2 years ago

So many great ideas. I wish I could comment on all of them.
onering wrote:
2 years ago
At least when you mention companions you touch on a way that the RC could allow wishes to function without actually creating wishboards, by specifying that you can have a number of cards start the game in the command zone and count as outside the game for the purposes of wish effects and similar
I think you have me confused with someone else, understandably. There's alot of players here. I haven't said anything about the CZ though.
onering wrote:
2 years ago
Legend, as has been explained to you multiple times, Dungeons don't function as real cards you can grab, but as more complicated emblems, and companions reside in the command zone in commander. And with dungeons specifically, the fact that you don't actually need a dungeon card to use Venture and the dungeon mechanic in sanctioned tournament play is all the proof needed that dungeons aren't cards. If a judge can look at someone's poorly drawn dungeon scrawled on a napkin and say "its legit", then dungeons aren't cards.
The comprehensive rules say that Dungeons are cards, they're nontraditional cards, but they're still cards. If the point was irrelevant, then Rule 10 wouldn't have been reworded to accommodate them.
DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago
1) Saying "we should preemptively ban all these cards because they might become problematic with wishes" implies that wishes pose a lot of danger to legalize.
Suggesting bans is just a concession, not a validation. It would be more of a proverbial hostage exchange than a preemptive ban anyways since WISHING is in effect banned by dint of Rule 10. It's kind of a weird illusion that there's only 45 cards on the ban list when in reality there's 125. An exchange of WISHING for color-hosers would actually shrink the list to 100. The whole problem behind the problem that is Rule 10 is that each WISH isn't subject to the same criteria for banning as all other cards. Sheldon says cards are banned for their own merits, not for those of adjacent cards. Okay, fine, apply that to WISHES. Whatever issues Karn, the Great Creator might pose is no reason for Research // Development or Study Break to not function.
onering wrote:
2 years ago
I'm not worried about someone living wishing for Arcane Lighthouse. That, to me, is a fair use for wishes and an argument in their favor. That kind of counter play is good for the format. I'm worried more about the more extreme hate cards that are better used to just take someone out of the game rather than reign in a strategy.
Well said! My overall hope is for people to arrive at a contemporary view of WISHING, part of which puts it in its proper place (equal with all other contemporary effects) and part of which puts color-hosing in its proper place (subordinate to contemporary effects). I can't say this enough, it's been 20 years since Wizards designed a color-hoser. We're beyond the point where its out of touch to honor them above an effect that Wizards clearly intends to explore and expand. #maketheexchange
tstorm823 wrote:
2 years ago
I think the important thing is to make people decide what they personally want to play in a vacuum rather than calculate the most effective card in their collection for a specific set of circumstances.
This is where sanctioning comes in. Or just Rule 0. "Hey are we WISHING?" . . . "Nah, not this game." . . . "Alright, next game then." . . . "Alright, bet."
Jemolk wrote:
2 years ago
I find that being unable to deal with an arch-enemy is far more frequent a cause of non-participation in games than getting trashed by a hate card . . .
Abso-%$#%-lutely. And for some reason this made me think that WISHING just might be the proverbial foot that proverbially kicks literal pubstompers in the proverbial balls.
“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
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 1199
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 2 years ago

Maybe baby steps. If they created a separsts zone for companions, let them create another one for learn/lesson. Once that proves to have zero negative impact open a beta period test for wishes. Try with 3, 5 etc. Get the resulta and maje an wducated decisiion

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 years ago

Legend wrote:
2 years ago
%$#%. And for some reason this made me think that WISHING just might be the proverbial foot that proverbially kicks literal pubstompers in the proverbial balls.
That's probably excessively optimistic. Most decks would only have 1 wish, you'd have to know before wishing that you needed your cEDH answer, you'd have to have right one, you'd probably have to reveal it, and the whole thing is probably way too slow. I'd say you're a lot more likely to throw them off with any random answer in your mainboard.
duducrash wrote:
2 years ago
Maybe baby steps. If they created a separsts zone for companions, let them create another one for learn/lesson. Once that proves to have zero negative impact open a beta period test for wishes. Try with 3, 5 etc. Get the resulta and maje an wducated decisiion
If I was an anti-wisher idk that lessons going smoothly would do much to quell my fears. I don't think any sane person can look at learn/lessons and think it might be a problem. So it's a bit of a very small step compared to jumping to wishes (relatively speaking, I don't think either step is dangerous at least under 3 wishes ofc but you can still compare the relative danger even if it's 0.0001% to 0.1%).

I'm not sure if that last sentence is supposed to be misspelled ironically or not :thinking:
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 1199
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 2 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago


If I was an anti-wisher idk that lessons going smoothly would do much to quell my fears. I don't think any sane person can look at learn/lessons and think it might be a problem. So it's a bit of a very small step compared to jumping to wishes (relatively speaking, I don't think either step is dangerous at least under 3 wishes ofc but you can still compare the relative danger even if it's 0.0001% to 0.1%).

I'm not sure if that last sentence is supposed to be misspelled ironically or not :thinking:

Thing is, no ammount of online discourse advances the debate. While its in theoritical field we can say whatever we want and it holds no meaning while we dont put it to actual test. Start small and test it out.bif eventually things get bad just default to when they were past good

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 2 years ago

duducrash wrote:
2 years ago
Thing is, no ammount of online discourse advances the debate.
100%.

I'm in the pro-wish camp, but everything I've ever seen from the RC has strongly suggested that Wishes should never become legal, and that there will never be a mitigating circumstance where something like Golden Wish will be allowed. Realistically, at some point, we'll have reached some critical mass of maindeck tutors where Wishes will not only not be legal, but also not be worth playing in any circumstance anyway.

I don't expect testing will result in any changes in that attitude, either.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

Legend wrote:
2 years ago
This is where sanctioning comes in. Or just Rule 0. "Hey are we WISHING?" . . . "Nah, not this game." . . . "Alright, next game then." . . . "Alright, bet."
This really glosses over the issue of deck construction. If we're not wishing you have to find replacements for every wish in your deck or use a different deck. And if your deck is designed around wishes (which rates to be rather common in an unlimited wish world) then it's dead.

Things like that are not effective ways to use rule 0. In the unlimited wishing rule you advocate for with no wishboards I can 100% guarantee wishes become format staples. It's like having a rule 0 discussion banning mana rocks. It just isn't feasible.

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 1760
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 2 years ago

Sinis wrote:
2 years ago
duducrash wrote:
2 years ago
Thing is, no ammount of online discourse advances the debate.
100%.

I'm in the pro-wish camp, but everything I've ever seen from the RC has strongly suggested that Wishes should never become legal,
My interactions with the RC on discord make me think, that if you can find a whole new argument they will be willing to listen and start talking about wishes in a serious manner, but since no one has come up with a whole new argument, there's no point.
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

Hermes_ wrote:
2 years ago
My interactions with the RC on discord make me think, that if you can find a whole new argument they will be willing to listen and start talking about wishes in a serious manner, but since no one has come up with a whole new argument, there's no point.
I think the biggest single argument pro wishes for me (outside of maybe reducing tutor use? on the fence about that, it might just be worse) is that wizards legit keeps pushing new effects like this that just do not work. It's sad seeing mechanic after mechanic and card after card we can't use.

I wish every wish mechanic was like Lessons and had serious enough constraints that it wouldn't be problematic, but as it is there is a real time cost of them having to police every single mechanic and decide to allow it.

As it is I think the bottom line is that administering wishboards overbalances that complexity.

--

If that argument doesn't sway them then I doubt anything is going to, and I am glad for that :)

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
I think the biggest single argument pro wishes for me (outside of maybe reducing tutor use? on the fence about that, it might just be worse) is that wizards legit keeps pushing new effects like this that just do not work. It's sad seeing mechanic after mechanic and card after card we can't use.
I think it's great design space for Wizards, as sad as it is when things don't work in commander, toolbox cards that don't require shuffling are A+ design in my book.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 years ago

Imagine how cool it would be to have something like Volatile Chimera or Caller of the Untamed or Arcane Savant as a commander. It would be hard to design in a way where it wouldn't be broken or have obvious best-in-slot choices, but what a cool thing to have. A commander that can be built in a thousand different ways depending on which cards you "imprint" onto it.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 years ago
Imagine how cool it would be to have something like Volatile Chimera or Caller of the Untamed or Arcane Savant as a commander. It would be hard to design in a way where it wouldn't be broken or have obvious best-in-slot choices, but what a cool thing to have. A commander that can be built in a thousand different ways depending on which cards you "imprint" onto it.
Yeah, I definitey see the design space as being the biggest pro. I am not blind to the cool side of wishes (and having cards just work as intended, as a side-effect).

It's kinda how I feel about Hybrid cards too, that the rules unnecessarily restrict design space.

But sadly I think, ultimately, that a wishboard mechanism is going to prove 1) unnecessarily restrictive to support all the mechanical options, and 2) problematically good and homogenizing if not restricted.

Think about how the concept of a wishboard just kills it after time. A 3 wish wishboard basically makes it impossible to combine more than one of the cards in a deck, and yet if you go to 7 or 10, things become so good they're autoinclude level. You can't combine even one wish card and a lesson card and Lessons are unnecessarily garbage at 3 card wishboards.

Honestly enabling lessons is more enticing to me than wishes for some reason.

Maybe you could just ban every overly good wish effect with extreme prejudice. I don't have any issue with Golden Wish getting any card you want including the kitchen sink, because the mana cost is just too extreme. If somoene said "my enchantment deck plays golden wish so I can get random cool enchantments" I would be cool with it.

But "my goodstuff deck plays Burning Wish so I can have an answer to every situation at a bargain mana cost" is just not OK.

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 2 years ago

I don't think the Conspiracy stuff would work regardless. Those don't work in Legacy either, which has wishes and sideboards.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”