Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-13 5:22 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
Also - I feel it's poor to take it as an argument, instead of merely the statement that it is.

If it wasn't an argument, why is it in the context of someone essentially saying that they believe I'm wrong about something, and then providing a reason (no matter how fallacious) to persuade me that I'm wrong.

That's literally the definition of an argument.

_________________
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 12:32 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
It wasn't said at all.

_________________
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 12:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Feb-29 5:57 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Duvall, WA
Carthain wrote:

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


Quote:
May 19th, 2010: Re-clarified "Wish rule" that wishes may retrieve cards from the sideboard if the optional sideboard rule is in use.
May 18th, 2010: Clarified "Wish rule" that extra cards cannot be brought into an EDH game (without the approval of other players, as always).


9 years worth of cards? 9 years of more tutors. 9 years of cultivating the social contract to make people treat each other with respect and try and present a positive game state for one another.

also, I wish people would listen to me about Banned cards and wishes. You ALREADY cannot wish for banned cards. if you read the banned list:

Quote:
Commander is played with vintage legal cards. Cards are legal to play with as of their sets' prerelease.

The following is the official banned list for commander games. These cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards.


emphasis mine. It doesn;t just say they should not be included in decks, they should NOT BE PLAYED.

Quote:
601.1a Some effects still refer to “playing” a card. “Playing a card” means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 12:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Shoe wrote:
9 years worth of cards? 9 years of more tutors. 9 years of cultivating the social contract to make people treat each other with respect and try and present a positive game state for one another.

Sure, but which cards in these past 9 years have made wishes better?

How do tutors make wishes better?

More time to cultivate the social contract sounds good -- except we have people suggesting that WotC they include a blurb in the Commander products to talk about it because so many people don't seem to get it. That sort of sounds like the 9 years of cultivating it hasn't been enough.

Sinis wrote:
If it wasn't an argument, why is it in the context of someone essentially saying that they believe I'm wrong about something

Because that whole post was someone trying to sum up bits and pieces of what we know and are suggesting about wishes. Had it been an argument, it would have been along the lines of "RC has them banned. Thus they don't want it. Deal with it." -- but that's not what was said. At best it's showing that the RC hasn't felt that they want the wishes in the format, and we've seen no evidence of that changing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 1:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Carthain wrote:
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.

I disagree with this statement - if, in fact, the RC believed wishes interact poorly with the rules of the format, then I would expect them to be outright banned, not subject to rule 13, and the few cards that wish + something else would be banned alongside them, because it's just a cleaner approach to ban them than to do what they have done. So this to me indicates that the RC doesn't think they need to be banned. That said, I'll quote myself from a few posts up;

Sid the Chicken wrote:
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.


Shoe wrote:
I wish people would listen to me about Banned cards and wishes.

I'm not convinced that your argument would hold water. Banned lists are understood to apply to deck construction. Imagine if Sinis gets what he wants, and wishes are allowed completely unrestricted... you're relying on a choice of word on the banned list page to convince someone they can't pull, say, Primeval Titan out of their binder and use it, even though their shiny new Living Wish says they can. Sounds like a bitter argument to me.

_________________
"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 1:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
(Disclaimer: EDH is not Vintage etc etc etc)

When you're playing Vintage you can't wish for a card that's not legal in Vintage either. I see no reason why any reasonable person could think they could wish for a banned card.

Edited to add: And anyone who does clearly knows what they're doing

_________________
"Degenerate, unfun decks generally come from degenerate, unfun players in my experience." - Cthulus Thrall

"- if this spell is played ten times in a given game then I suggest you warm up the tar and pluck some chickens" - tarnar

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 2:15 pm 

Joined: 2012-Jun-07 5:38 pm
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
If it wasn't an argument, why is it in the context of someone essentially saying that they believe I'm wrong about something

Because that whole post was someone trying to sum up bits and pieces of what we know and are suggesting about wishes. Had it been an argument, it would have been along the lines of "RC has them banned. Thus they don't want it. Deal with it." -- but that's not what was said. At best it's showing that the RC hasn't felt that they want the wishes in the format, and we've seen no evidence of that changing.


@Sinis - I wasn't trying to argue, like Carthain said. I'm trying to weigh the delicate balance of typing out enough detail to add to the conversation while also limiting the wall of text to avoid someone seeing and saying "Nah, not reading that." and skipping it. If it seemed shorter in some places, that's why.

Something I found interesting though, you skipped some choice parts of what I said, those being:
"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?"

Whether or not you agree or disagree that it's circumventing the 100 card singleton rule via wishing, it does do that. You want to cast and copy Research to manage to win with Battle of Wits? You have other formats for that... it's not a cool or fun thing for commander, it's just a ridiculous route of hoops to jump through to end the game. Without limitations for what wishes can pull from, that can happen, and your opponents will be forced to suffer through it.

Try as you might to make a case for why it has worked for you in your group, it doesn't change that it's not going to be a net positive for all groups, LGS's, tournaments, etc. That's right, tournaments. Even without the cEDH crowd, a wishboard would basically function as a sideboard in-game for sanctioned events. That's straight up a reason to include more narrow hoser cards. Why worry about the super narrow stuff when you can adapt midgame against an ever changing field? This is obviously thought-craft stuff, but it's a very real inevitability. The format is at or near the status of "most popular format" and that's only going to increase with time. More popularity = more sanctioned events.

In relation to the rules that would have to be added to make wishes work, you had this to say:
Sinis wrote:
"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)."


How do you figure that additional rules wouldn't need to be added? People say "reading the card, explains the card", but there are recent cards like Hostage Taker that needed to be errata'd immediately after release because WotC screwed up. Leaving people to their own devices is a bad idea. There are people who still haven't visited this site and play EDH/Commander by word of mouth, and don't know that the RC makes the official rules for the format.

Considering that wishes haven't ever worked in EDH/Commander before (AFAIK), it bears mentioning that something, akin to a wishboard, would be required for multiple reasons. Things like:
* You can't find a card that's already in your deck (duplicate card that breaks singleton)
* You can't find a banned card (they're outside the game and not a part of your "deck construction", so despite you meaning well, some people are going to try to be rules lawyers)
* You can/can't wish for a card outside your color identity.
* etc.

That's not even to go into the potential issues of people searching their collection for cards rather than a smaller subset of cards, which could cause turns to drag on. When Rule 1 can literally change the way people play the game and format, there is PLENTY of room for interpretation for what could/couldn't work and what should/shouldn't work. This goes for wishes, this goes for the agreed upon power level of decks, potential reasoning for banning/unbanning cards for the play group, etc. Do you really want the wish cards to be a wild west scenario where people argue that because it doesn't say you can't, that you can? That is very easily something that could happen.

Rules and limits (and Laws) are in place for a great many things beyond magic because people push boundaries, and sometimes for malicious reasons, sometimes not. Some people just need things spelled out for them and it's better to have it in plain text on the rules site (if wishes ever become legal) than not, to avoid potential confusion as new and old players adapt.

As an aside, and somewhat related. It is my strong belief that cards like Primeval Titan and Sylvan Primordial died for Blue's sins. Were it not for all the value of the repeated copy/bounce/steal effects, they wouldn't have been so terrible. There were fair ways to use those cards, but the plethora of ways to abuse it in a format with ~20,000 cards, necessitated they get the boot. People played those cards fairly, but it was the abuse and ubiquity that got them where they are today. This is why I said the onus was on "you and the pro-wish camp" to justify the inclusion of wishes, not just because of your own experience, but for the rest of the playerbase. You might have good and fair intentions, but if the end result turns into what many of us are suggesting will be a worst case scenario, it will not be a justifiable change... not when the house rules option easily solves your desire to play them.

At least for the time being, you'll have to be content with using wishes in a playgroup that has agreed to allow them. Subjecting your local LGS to wishes (per official rules) and any random flexes of obscure cards that couldn't make the maindeck will have to wait.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 2:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crimsonwings3689 wrote:
It is my strong belief that cards like Primeval Titan and Sylvan Primordial died for Blue's sins. Were it not for all the value of the repeated copy/bounce/steal effects, they wouldn't have been so terrible..

Complete tangent, but I'm not so keen on letting red and black get off scot-free. Red had its billion Threaten effects and Kiki-Jiki, and black I'd argue was far worse than blue to the pair. It had a zillion ways to tutor it, reanimation and recursion to ensure the stupid creatures never stayed gone short of an exile, and in Titan's case the Urborg/Coffers shenanigans were a large part of the reason people were so eager to abuse it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 2:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
I might use Death Wish to get Repay in Kind and make the game the lightning round.

I might use Cunning Wish to get Harrow if I was starved for lands.

I might play Glittering Wish in my almost-all-guild-color Niv-Mizzet Reborn deck. For maybe a proactive threat. Maybe I'll just shuffle a pile of cards that all meet the criteria and pick one at random!

I might play Fae of Wishes to get a card with the Madness mechanic, which seems to dovetail nicely with the activated ability on the main text, and has a mischief-y feel to it.

Burning Wish could find Smallpox, Pox, or Fraying Omnipotence depending on how the game is going. Maybe everything in my Burning Wishboard would be a kind of big, bigger, biggest comedy bit.
I find this particular bit interesting, as all of the examples but one seem to beg the same question: why wish for that card outside of the deck, rather than tutor for the card in the deck? Especially with the first, third, and last example I think the creativity is shining much more when those cards are already in the deck and part of your main theme/strategy, rather than some random idea you had that you didn't actually consider good enough to put in the deck.

It's also telling that the one interaction that can't be equated with a tutor doing the same thing is the one that involves a card that does something other than wishing. That one's not interesting because you're wishing for something interesting, but because you're creating a synergy with the card's other effect. And even then, my original point is still somewhat relevant: what are you doing running a card like Fae of Wishes without a pretty decent slew of maindeck cards that synergize with self-discard?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-15 11:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
I find this particular bit interesting, as all of the examples but one seem to beg the same question: why wish for that card outside of the deck, rather than tutor for the card in the deck? Especially with the first, third, and last example I think the creativity is shining much more when those cards are already in the deck and part of your main theme/strategy, rather than some random idea you had that you didn't actually consider good enough to put in the deck.

If the nature of your argument is "Cards in your main deck are inherently more interesting than cards in your wishboard" I'm not sure there's much I can say to that.

But, surely you've encountered this thing, where you are building a deck and have more cards that you want to play than slots to play them. I know the other anti-wish proponents in this thread will say "bUt DeCkBuIlDiNg IS pArT oF cOmMaNdEr" but I think you're basically asserting standards that are impossible to meet; either a card is interesting/thematic/whatever enough to be maindecked, or it doesn't deserve to see the light of day because it's a 101st card.

Quote:
It's also telling that the one interaction that can't be equated with a tutor doing the same thing is the one that involves a card that does something other than wishing. That one's not interesting because you're wishing for something interesting, but because you're creating a synergy with the card's other effect. And even then, my original point is still somewhat relevant: what are you doing running a card like Fae of Wishes without a pretty decent slew of maindeck cards that synergize with self-discard?


I mean, I'm not sure you're disproving my point here; all I'm getting from this part is that you also believe Fae of Wishes is more than just a blanket wish, but, I think the reason why I might wish for anything is because it didn't fit in the main deck and that I felt it would be interesting.

The bolded part is what I would take issue with: "Why would you play Fae of Wishes without some maindecked synergies?" To that, answer in two parts:

1. Playing Fae of Wishes and wishing for Madness cards doesn't preclude me also playing maindecked thematically appropriate cards.

2. Why play Fae of Wishes at all? Why play any card? Why play Magic? Why do anything? These aren't questions with answers that can have satisfactory criteria. Should anyone have to justify their card choices to another person? Why do I, personally, want to play Fae of Wishes? Because I want to, and I opened an alt-border one in a pack. Because I think 3U for 'any card I'm carrying that's not in the deck I'm playing, as long as I genuinely believe it might be fun' is an appropriate cost. Should those reasons satisfy your criteria? I don't know, but I don't think your criteria on what cards I play (in terms of theme/synergy) should matter a whole lot.

_________________
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-16 12:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
But, surely you've encountered this thing, where you are building a deck and have more cards that you want to play than slots to play them. I know the other anti-wish proponents in this thread will say "bUt DeCkBuIlDiNg IS pArT oF cOmMaNdEr" but I think you're basically asserting standards that are impossible to meet; either a card is interesting/thematic/whatever enough to be maindecked, or it doesn't deserve to see the light of day because it's a 101st card.
Right. Because this format has a deck size LIMIT as well as a deck size minimum. This is the only (largely popular) format that does this. Why do you want to effectively chuck that aside?

Also I might add, using that constantly changing case when "quoting" the other side doesn't make you look good. It makes you look like you're resorting to childish taunts to try to inflame the other side. If your arguments can't stand on their own without trying to aggro the other side, perhaps your arguments simply aren't good enough.

Sinis wrote:
2. Why play Fae of Wishes at all? Why play any card? Why play Magic? Why do anything? These aren't questions with answers that can have satisfactory criteria. Should anyone have to justify their card choices to another person?

You know .. I feel you just went off the deep end. "Because you want to" -- sure, but that's the reason for any card, so that doesn't say why that card specifically. And the rest of what you said basically amounts to "because I want to use wishes" -- so, you want to change the whole format and use wishes --- because you want to use wishes.

Yes, you can open cool cards that aren't viable in Commander -- not every card is made for this format.

And as it stands, you can play Fae of Wishes -- it's just the adventure part doesn't do anything. The rest of the card is still an interesting card and can be used - so nobody is stopping you from running the card. And yes, you also have to maindeck the cards you want to use with it. Yes that means you may not be able to include everything in your deck that you want to. That's a "problem" that we all have to deal with.

What we are saying is that the rules say you get to bring 100 cards into the game, and then work with that. You don't get to bring 100 +random amount that you get access to if you draw one or more specific cards in your deck.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-16 12:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
But, surely you've encountered this thing, where you are building a deck and have more cards that you want to play than slots to play them. I know the other anti-wish proponents in this thread will say "bUt DeCkBuIlDiNg IS pArT oF cOmMaNdEr" but I think you're basically asserting standards that are impossible to meet; either a card is interesting/thematic/whatever enough to be maindecked, or it doesn't deserve to see the light of day because it's a 101st card.
Right. Because this format has a deck size LIMIT as well as a deck size minimum. This is the only (largely popular) format that does this. Why do you want to effectively chuck that aside?

Having wishes doesn't chuck aside the 100 card rule. It remains present. The deck is still only 100 cards. Let's avoid hyperbole.

It is simply not the position of the pro-wish crowd that wishes undermine the 100 card deck construction rule in any harmful way.

Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
2. Why play Fae of Wishes at all? Why play any card? Why play Magic? Why do anything? These aren't questions with answers that can have satisfactory criteria. Should anyone have to justify their card choices to another person?

You know .. I feel you just went off the deep end. "Because you want to" -- sure, but that's the reason for any card, so that doesn't say why that card specifically. And the rest of what you said basically amounts to "because I want to use wishes" -- so, you want to change the whole format and use wishes --- because you want to use wishes.

You've misunderstood and taken this out of context. Someone asked Sinis why they'd want to play Fae of Wishes in a certain way. That reason is “because I want to.”
That “because I want to” is not given as the reason why to add wishes to the format, it's just a reason why they'd want to do something in particular with Fae of Wishes.

There is an incredible amount of abuse going on in this thread. It's gross as hell.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Last edited by spacemonaut on 2019-Oct-16 12:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-16 12:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
Right. Because this format has a deck size LIMIT as well as a deck size minimum. This is the only (largely popular) format that does this. Why do you want to effectively chuck that aside?
So, I should not play my Gonti, Lord of Luxury deck with Conjurer's Closet? I wouldn't want to have 101st, or many more cards available, it has to be exactly 100?

On page 5, I put forward an argument about how the anti-wish camp strongly suggests that you get to pick 100 cards from a limited pool (i.e. your collection), and that's it. Gonti, and a few other (legal) cards permit you to pick a 101st card from a limited pool. The only functional difference is that you payed mana to do so. Not unlike a Wish. So, why are Gonti and Praetor's Grasp legal, but Wishes not? Because it requires some amount of 'cooperation' from your opponent? That doesn't seem like a principled reason.

Quote:
Sinis wrote:
2. Why play Fae of Wishes at all? Why play any card? Why play Magic? Why do anything? These aren't questions with answers that can have satisfactory criteria. Should anyone have to justify their card choices to another person?

Quote:
You know .. I feel you just went off the deep end. "Because you want to" -- sure, but that's the reason for any card, so that doesn't say why that card specifically. And the rest of what you said basically amounts to "because I want to use wishes" -- so, you want to change the whole format and use wishes --- because you want to use wishes.


1. "Why do you want to play Fae of Wishes?" is kind of a non-question. Implicit in it is to describe/justify what I find interesting about it, and to open that criteria to criticism. But, that's separate to the point. My personal taste in cards isn't actually relevant to the discussion of whether Wishes are bad to the format or not.

2. I don't think it's "changing the whole format." That's hyperbolic sky-is-falling talk.

Quote:
Yes, you can open cool cards that aren't viable in Commander -- not every card is made for this format.
But they could be. What you're telling me is "It's not allowed, go home." Sometimes things change. I'm sure plenty of people said "It's not allowed, go home" to Kokusho players.

But, let's take a further look at the exchange here. Someone asked, 'Why Fae of Wishes?' and I provided an answer. And then you decided to criticize my reason for wanting to play Fae of Wishes as though it were an argument for including the functionality of wishes in the format. (Which it clearly is not.)

So, I didn't go off the deep end. It was a completely irrelevant question to begin with.
Quote:
And as it stands, you can play Fae of Wishes -- it's just the adventure part doesn't do anything. The rest of the card is still an interesting card and can be used - so nobody is stopping you from running the card. And yes, you also have to maindeck the cards you want to use with it. Yes that means you may not be able to include everything in your deck that you want to. That's a "problem" that we all have to deal with.
I mean, half the card doesn't do anything. It just kinda feelsbad, you know?

Quote:
What we are saying is that the rules say you get to bring 100 cards into the game, and then work with that. You don't get to bring 100 +random amount that you get access to if you draw one or more specific cards in your deck.
So, how do you feel about Gonti/Grinning Totem/Praetor's Grasp/Hostage Taker, then? Because it's pretty easy to have more than 100 cards in a game if you play those.

_________________
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-16 1:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sinis wrote:
On page 5, I put forward an argument about how the anti-wish camp strongly suggests that you get to pick 100 cards from a limited pool (i.e. your collection), and that's it. Gonti, and a few other (legal) cards permit you to pick a 101st card from a limited pool.

Yes, and I ignored it because it's a horrible analogy. Once the game starts, you're not adding cards to your deck. It's that simple. You also posited that creating tokens somehow lets you use more cards -- it doesn't. An Ant Queen just lets you make tokens -- you're still only using that one card.

Sinis wrote:
So, why are Gonti and Praetor's Grasp legal, but Wishes not? Because it requires some amount of 'cooperation' from your opponent? That doesn't seem like a principled reason.
Wishes let you get something from outside of the game. It allows your option set to be higher, and that option set is increased through your own choices. The contents of that is through your own decisions. Praretor's Grasp doesn't do that. Yes, it lets you play with a different card (similar to wishes) but what you can choose from is not something that you've predefined - it's something that the other players have put up as (partially) unknown option sets and then you get to make the best of it. That's different than you grabbing whatever the hell you want without any restrictions.

Sinis wrote:
2. I don't think it's "changing the whole format." That's hyperbolic sky-is-falling talk.
If you don't want to change the whole format -- then why not use play wishes in your group as house rules? (As you seem to have put forth evidence for having done that.) You are wanting a change to rule 13 - one of the rules of the format -- so you are wanting to change the format. And by "whole format" I was meaning "all play groups" vs just your playgroup which can be done via house rules.

Sinis wrote:
But they could be. What you're telling me is "It's not allowed, go home."
No. I'm telling you that your arguments are not convincing. As for Kokusho -- I've said, it was changed because things over time changed for the format. What's changed for wishes? I got a very unhelpful answer to that from shoe -- perhaps you'd like to give it a shot? You say "Sometimes things change" -- sure, so tell me what has changed about the format (what over the past 9 years) that now makes wishes better than they were 9 years ago?

Sinis wrote:
I mean, half the card doesn't do anything. It just kinda feelsbad, you know?
Then don't play it? I mean, you have that option as well.

Sinis wrote:
So, how do you feel about Gonti/Grinning Totem/Praetor's Grasp/Hostage Taker, then? Because it's pretty easy to have more than 100 cards in a game if you play those.

No it isn't. It's not increasing the number of cards in the game. In a 4 player game there will be 100 cards. Hostage Taker doesn't alter that number. Wishes do. That is a key fundamental difference and trying to gloss over that is ridiculous.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-16 1:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Jan-16 5:36 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Toronto, ON
Carthain wrote:
Yes, and I ignored it because it's a horrible analogy. Once the game starts, you're not adding cards to your deck. It's that simple. You also posited that creating tokens somehow lets you use more cards -- it doesn't. An Ant Queen just lets you make tokens -- you're still only using that one card.


It is not a horrible analogy; when you activate Ant Queen, you're functionally adding cards to your deck.

Let's take the following set of cards:

Cloudseeder
Grim Reminder

Every iteration of activating Cloudseeder and then activating Grim Reminder, you are functionally adding a Cloud Sprite (including the card name!) to your deck. Just because Ant Queen's tokens are vanilla insects doesn't mean that they aren't representations of cards being added to the game.

Quote:
Wishes let you get something from outside of the game. It allows your option set to be higher, and that option set is increased through your own choices. The contents of that is through your own decisions. Praretor's Grasp doesn't do that. Yes, it lets you play with a different card (similar to wishes) but what you can choose from is not something that you've predefined - it's something that the other players have put up as (partially) unknown option sets and then you get to make the best of it. That's different than you grabbing whatever the hell you want without any restrictions.


I would put forward the idea that when you Wish for something, you're choosing from a limited set of cards. When you Praetor's Grasp something, you are choosing from a limited set of cards. One of those limits happens to be much higher (if you permit someone to Wish for anything they own), but, that could be changed with rules; currently Rule 13 says the limit is zero, but Rule 13 *could* say the limit is higher.

Quote:
If you don't want to change the whole format -- then why not use play wishes in your group as house rules? (As you seem to have put forth evidence for having done that.) You are wanting a change to rule 13 - one of the rules of the format -- so you are wanting to change the format. And by "whole format" I was meaning "all play groups" vs just your playgroup which can be done via house rules.
This was a misunderstanding of what you meant by 'changing the whole format'.

I've played with wishes in local house rules before. It's turned out fine. I want to change Commander's ruleset so that other people feel freer to explore the Wish space.

Quote:
No. I'm telling you that your arguments are not convincing.
Well, okay.
Quote:
As for Kokusho -- I've said, it was changed because things over time changed for the format. What's changed for wishes? I got a very unhelpful answer to that from shoe -- perhaps you'd like to give it a shot? You say "Sometimes things change" -- sure, so tell me what has changed about the format (what over the past 9 years) that now makes wishes better than they were 9 years ago?


I think you're going to have to qualify what you mean by 'better'. You wrote "Sure, but which cards in these past 9 years have made wishes better?"

But it's not clear to me what standard of 'better' you're looking for. I think that it's 'better', but that's within my own terms of 'better'.

Quote:
No it isn't. It's not increasing the number of cards in the game. In a 4 player game there will be 100 cards. Hostage Taker doesn't alter that number. Wishes do. That is a key fundamental difference and trying to gloss over that is ridiculous.
I do not understand this as a principled reason beyond deckbuilding. Why is this sacrosanct once gameplay begins?

Also, why is it sacrosanct that, at a four player table, there needs to be exactly 400 cards among all players, but that they need not be distributed evenly among all the players (in the event of something like Praetor's Grasp)? Why is the 400 card limit sacrosanct, but the distribution of cards between players NOT sacrosanct?

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 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: