Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-12 11:34 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 8:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
So why should we allow them more ways to do this?
Because it doesn't matter to them. It won't affect them at all. But it might provide us more fun.

But, let me put a finer point on it from the Philosophy document: The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level

It being powerful, or not, shouldn't even be a consideration.

Quote:
...fun applications would be fine. But you've failed to show how that's how it'll be used.


Don't you think this might be an unrealistic burden of proof? I provided examples on how it could be fun, or what themes you could build along for nearly every Wish.

I guess without an alternate universe machine and a recording device, I can't prove anything to the top minds of mtgcommander.net :roll:

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Last edited by Sinis on 2019-Oct-15 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 9:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
specter404 wrote:
We definitely do not self regulate literally every other aspect of the format.


We absolutely do. We self-regulate most often to adhere to the banlist. But, long before Kokusho was unbanned, many people played it and allowed it in their groups.

And now? Kokusho is officially unbanned. And the sky didn't fall.

Quote:
The RC does consider wish cards unsociable, they are functionally banned.

I'd like a receipt for this. Any RC member want to check in and confirm? Because I have my doubts.

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 9:46 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Firstly, so that we're clear, Wishes are not too powerful. The arguments being made, at least by me are based on format diversity and adherence to the rules. More on that in a moment.

Second, you self regulate, I self regulate. We, as people, have playgroups which allow for some degree of self-regulation. The format is not self-regulating. The existence of a regulatory body, or more specifically two regulatory bodies, is in direct contradiction to your suggestion that the format self-regulates. Additionally, if your suggestion was true, it is self defeating. If we are self-regulating, then there is no need to request for something to be allowed.

You have suggested a group of things that can be done with wishes, they all amount to grabbing a card in response to a relevant board-state. No matter how niche of obscure the card you are using is, what you are doing is getting an answer to a given situation. Your answer might be "I need a threat, so I'll get a threat" but wishes are inherently design to be the thing you need now. They are answers to questions you don't know yet.

The other thing that has not been answered is the issue of rules. Wishes break the deck construction rules. So far you have been unwilling to engage in discussion about how the wishes will actually function beyond the comp rules. Without including clear rules on the function of wishes you leave that in the hands of players.
Cards are banned for a reason.
Silver bordered cards are not allowed for a reason.
The singleton rule exists for a reason.
Colour Identity
Whether or not we individually agree with those things isn't relevant to this argument, the fact is those rules exist and wishes break all of them. Why should we abandon these rules in favor of wishes?

And no, the answer is not rule 1, because rule 1 exists along side these rules already. If rule 1 was sufficient to police these things then we wouldn't need all the other rules.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 10:07 am 

Joined: 2012-Jun-07 5:38 pm
Age: Drake
What do we either know so far, or can we discern from the thread and the various conversations thus far?

The pro-wish camp feels that proving that Wishes are worth the inherent risk associated with their being made functional, is an unrealistic burden of proof. Opinion

The RC believes that the wishes interact poorly with the format they created.
Fact
* Otherwise they would be legal.

Limitations or additional errata would be necessary to allow wishes (some 25-ish cards) to function. Fact
* Otherwise everything from the size limit of a "wishboard" to pulling cards that are banned, or duplicate copies of cards (Spawnsire of Ulamog), or even non-magic cards could be tutored.
* This is also similar to the "Banned as a Commander" ruling that was done away with to simplify the rules for the format. Why have a separate ruling for a very small subset of cards (again, it would 100% be necessary) when it only serves to add additional complexity?

The Pro-wish camp has largely evaded/ignored the House Rules option when brought up. Observation
* Outside of a thought experiment and as a topic of conversation to better understand the format and the rules that govern it...why? Surely you can opt to convince your playgroup(s) to give wishes a shot.
- If you can't, then that's that.
- If you can, and it works for your group, that's great that you and your group managed to alter the format in a way that works for you.
* Just realize though that your experience is unique and does not necessarily translate to the rest of the format/playerbase.

The onus is on the Pro-wish camp to prove that allowing wishes to function in Commander is a net positive, because the potential negatives are rather substantial. They include, but aren't limited to:
* Adding format specific errata to cards to limit where they pull from.
* Establishing a size of a wishboard.
* Determining how color identity interacts with a wishboard.
* Potential for removing wish functionality and the effect on the playerbase (and player faith in the RC to manage the format), after the play experience ends up being a detriment to the format.
* Potential for game size to be lengthened due to additional searching (only gets worse if it's part of someone's "collection" instead of a set board size).
* Forcing the interaction with a change and knowledge of the errata and rules changes of the format as a whole.
* Possibility for most players who use a wishboard to opt for narrow hoser cards over the ideal of fun/janky/underused cards.

All of that and the potential for it to turn out poorly for what? ~25 cards that don't see play, to start seeing play? To allow players to circumvent the 100 card limitation and opportunity cost (of cutting to 100 cards) for the occasional mega-modal spell? To force the potential use of wishes on the format as a whole?

IMO, it doesn't seem like it's worth the risk and effort for such minimal gains. The House Rules option neatly allows for individual play groups to guide and police themselves. Think Primeval Titan should be unbanned? Play it if your group agrees. Think you should be able to pull a Pokemon/Yu-Gi-Oh/banned Magic card with a wish? Go ahead, if your group agrees.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 10:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
It being powerful, or not, shouldn't even be a consideration.

I never said it was. Where are you getting that from?

Sinis wrote:
Don't you think this might be an unrealistic burden of proof? I provided examples on how it could be fun, or what themes you could build along for nearly every Wish.
Nope. Go out and find groups that will house rule it. Let it be tested in live situations. It's exactly what we ask of people when they want something unbanned. As you yourself mentioned when you started talking about the ban list philosophy points - they are in some sense de facto banned.

In fact, you mentioned that some groups tested with Kokusho unbanned. That is exactly what I'm suggesting you do.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 10:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Sinis wrote:
We self-regulate most often to adhere to the banlist.

That's not self regulation.

Sinis wrote:
Quote:
The RC does consider wish cards unsociable, they are functionally banned.

I'd like a receipt for this. Any RC member want to check in and confirm? Because I have my doubts.

As I recall, when rule 13 happened, the official reason was that the scope of what was allowable needed to be agreed upon in advance by the participants.

As far as I'm concerned, IF wishes become a thing (which I hope they don't), there must be rules forbidding you to get things that aren't legal for you to have, especially with the removal of the color generation rule.

Sinis wrote:
This format is about doing what you want.

Only if "you" refers to a group of players. Since the primary concern is that games are social and enjoyable for all the participants, that means some things are going to be off the table, at least in most groups. But if we're using "you" in a plural sense, we can agree. However,

The rules are there to establish a baseline. This baseline is necessary because people are not always going to play within their established groups, and many do not have an established group. As such, there needs to be an understood starting point. The RC have chosen to make the starting point the most restrictive case. This forces people that want to use the cards to establish an agreed-upon functionality, rather than starting from the other end and allowing literally anything, which can very easily piss people off.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 11:16 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I think it's a safe bet that *IF* wishes were to be legalized the rules would be changed such that there was a finite wishboard and said WB must adhere to the ban list, color identity, and MB+WB would jointly follow the singleton rule. There would still be complaints that you couldn't fully use Spawnsire, but it would be the cleanest option.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 11:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
specter404 wrote:
The RC does consider wish cards unsociable, they are functionally banned.


So, no proof of this, and you were just talking out of your ass, then?

specter404 wrote:
<snip>


Tbh, you seem a bit disingenuous. You make an argument to authority, and when called on it, you switch gears to something I already covered two pages ago (deck construction rules!) with an argument that I haven't seen rebutted.

Thanks for coming out.

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 11:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
crimsonwings3689 wrote:
What do we either know so far, or can we discern from the thread and the various conversations thus far?

The pro-wish camp feels that proving that Wishes are worth the inherent risk associated with their being made functional, is an unrealistic burden of proof. Opinion
Sure, we can agree. I don't know how I can Prove to you that wishes are fine, except to show that in-game extant analogues are better in almost every respect.
Quote:

The RC believes that the wishes interact poorly with the format they created.
Fact
* Otherwise they would be legal.


1. You probably should not presume to know what the RC thinks about anything. They're not a monolith, and I've heard they have disagreements.

2. This is ridiculously dogmatic. You're citing evidence that, since something is banned, then it must not be okay. That means Kokusho and Protean Hulk were definitely completely awful for the format, until they suddenly weren't. This is circular; you say since something is banned, it therefore ought to be banned.

Edit to add:
3. I like how you mask a set of people's opinions as a 'fact' and therefore more important than any individual's opinion here. People's opinions aren't sacrosanct, you're making an appeal to authority and not actually addressing any logical point put forward.

Quote:
Limitations or additional errata would be necessary to allow wishes (some 25-ish cards) to function. Fact
* Otherwise everything from the size limit of a "wishboard" to pulling cards that are banned, or duplicate copies of cards (Spawnsire of Ulamog), or even non-magic cards could be tutored.
* This is also similar to the "Banned as a Commander" ruling that was done away with to simplify the rules for the format. Why have a separate ruling for a very small subset of cards (again, it would 100% be necessary) when it only serves to add additional complexity?
I have specifically mentioned that Wishes would not simplify rules or make them more parsimonious. I will however, suggest that there need not be rules for what we Wish for (at which point the rules will be more parsimonious).

Quote:
The Pro-wish camp has largely evaded/ignored the House Rules option when brought up. Observation
* Outside of a thought experiment and as a topic of conversation to better understand the format and the rules that govern it...why? Surely you can opt to convince your playgroup(s) to give wishes a shot.
- If you can't, then that's that.
- If you can, and it works for your group, that's great that you and your group managed to alter the format in a way that works for you.
* Just realize though that your experience is unique and does not necessarily translate to the rest of the format/playerbase.


I have played with wishes before, no rules on what you could or could not get. It turned out okay;

Spawnsire: Functionally won the game for 30 mana. It was less effective than a Comet Storm for 28, since someone could have exiled the board before they got to untap.

Burning Wish: Postgame, they realized they could have maindecked the one sorcery they ever intended on wishing for.

Deathwish: Lost a player the game because they lost half their life.

Quote:
The onus is on the Pro-wish camp to prove that allowing wishes to function in Commander is a net positive, because the potential negatives are rather substantial. They include, but aren't limited to:
<snip>
IMO, it doesn't seem like it's worth the risk and effort for such minimal gains.

Opinion

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Last edited by Sinis on 2019-Oct-15 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 11:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
It being powerful, or not, shouldn't even be a consideration.

I never said it was. Where are you getting that from?

This was in response to your question "Why give degenerate players more tools to be degenerate with?"

They're not powerful, and they do not add to their degeneracy. Nothing is being added that a degenerate player will use. "It's too powerful" is a shorthand for that, since Wishes aren't actually powerful enough to increase the degeneracy of a deck.

Quote:
Sinis wrote:
Don't you think this might be an unrealistic burden of proof? I provided examples on how it could be fun, or what themes you could build along for nearly every Wish.
Nope. Go out and find groups that will house rule it. Let it be tested in live situations. It's exactly what we ask of people when they want something unbanned. As you yourself mentioned when you started talking about the ban list philosophy points - they are in some sense de facto banned.

In fact, you mentioned that some groups tested with Kokusho unbanned. That is exactly what I'm suggesting you do.

This is a fair point. I have limited data in my response to crimsonwings3689.

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
It being powerful, or not, shouldn't even be a consideration.

I never said it was. Where are you getting that from?

This was in response to your question "Why give degenerate players more tools to be degenerate with?"

They're not powerful, and they do not add to their degeneracy. Nothing is being added that a degenerate player will use. "It's too powerful" is a shorthand for that, since Wishes aren't actually powerful enough to increase the degeneracy of a deck.

I don't see how "tools for degenerate players" translates to "powerful."

Sinis wrote:
This is ridiculously dogmatic. You're citing evidence that, since something is banned, then it must not be okay. That means Kokusho and Protean Hulk were definitely completely awful for the format, until they suddenly weren't. This is circular; you say since something is banned, it therefore ought to be banned.

That's incredibly short sighted. Kokusho & Hulk were banned because at the time they were awful for the format. However, as the format evolved and additional cards were added to the card pool, they were then deemed to no longer be so awful for the format. You're completely omitting the "then things changed" of what happened.

As we ask those who want cards unbanned: What's changed to make these better for the format now than they were before?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
That's incredibly short sighted. Kokusho & Hulk were banned because at the time they were awful for the format. However, as the format evolved and additional cards were added to the card pool, they were then deemed to no longer be so awful for the format. You're completely omitting the "then things changed" of what happened.

As we ask those who want cards unbanned: What's changed to make these better for the format now than they were before?

The logic offered by specter404 was:

"Banned cards deserved to be banned, otherwise they would not be banned."

It's circular. It's not an argument. It's not a justification to keep wishes banned now because "they're currently banned, and we can only conclude they're awful for the format."

_________________
Check out my old column, Generally Speaking, at CommanderCast.com
http://www.commandercast.com/category/a ... y-speaking

Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:09 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
So, no proof of this, and you were just talking out of your ass, then?

You're not going to take my word for it, you asked for an RC member to weigh in. I cant help you with that. I can offer you my logic based on the existence of the rules, but I can't make RC members apparate. You can try to refute my logic of the situation, wait for the RC or be a dick about it. Id prefer if we refrained from the last one.

Sinis wrote:
Tbh, you seem a bit disingenuous. You make an argument to authority, and when called on it, you switch gears to something I already covered two pages ago (deck construction rules!) with an argument that I haven't seen rebutted.

I made what is in my mind a legitimate argument to authority, and we are waiting for that authority to respond. In the mean time I continued the discussion on other relevant points. It's not to duck the challenge, I don't have the proof you want for you at this time.

You made no posts two pages ago, you did make a post 3 pages ago (page 5) that mentioned the 100 card deck construction rule only. My argument calls out the rules for colour identity, banned cards and silver bordered cards, which you note in the following posts requires additional rules to cover them, so what are those rules going to be? If I have missed it please show me where, but I have yet to see anyone on the pro-wish side explain how you are going to manage those problems. If we get a solution to those problems then we can debate if the solution proposed is worthwhile for the format.

Quote:
Thanks for coming out.

d.b.a.d, that's twice in one post.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:24 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
The logic offered by specter404 was:

"Banned cards deserved to be banned, otherwise they would not be banned."

It's circular. It's not an argument. It's not a justification to keep wishes banned now because "they're currently banned, and we can only conclude they're awful for the format."

Just because you put it in quotation marks, doesn't mean I said it. What I said was, Cards are banned for a reason.

It is a point is support of the idea that if we accept that a subset of cards are not allowed, why should we then accept a different subset of cards that breaks that rule. It is predicated on the idea that banned cards should not be allowed, not that banned cards should be banned.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
The logic offered by specter404 was:

"Banned cards deserved to be banned, otherwise they would not be banned."

It's circular. It's not an argument.

Ugh. Fine.

The RC previously believed that the wishes interact poorly with the format they created and we have no evidence that they have (collectively) changed their minds on this. FACT.
* Otherwise they would have become legal already.

Does that restating of the point make you feel better? There's now a temporal portion to it, therefore it can't be circular.

Also - I feel it's poor to take it as an argument, instead of merely the statement that it is.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron