Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Dec-08 1:54 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-26 1:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
If having access to more than 100 cards is inherently wrong for this format, then wouldn't it also be inherently wrong to allow more than one copy of Seven Dwarves?

Not at all. You're assuming all aspects of the format are weighted the same, which we know isn't true (as Seven Dwarves lets you play up to 7 copies, but not exceed the 100 card limit.)

The equivalent for wishes is they let you get cards from outside the game, but you're still only allowed to use 100 cards (so... not allowed to use cards outside of the game.)


intreped wrote:
In other (competitive) formats, the strongest decks are almost invariably playing no more than the minimum they must play.
You seem to be conflating optimizing drawing what you want vs options available.

Let's swap out an Elvish Visionary for a Living Wish. You've not made your deck any less optimized except for the Elvish Visionary (and that's only adding 1G extra cost.) Every other card has the exact same odds of being drawn. Now add other creatures/lands to wish for ... you're not reducing the odds of drawing any card in your deck, but you are increasing options for Living Wish, thus increasing the power of Living Wish and you don't have any cost to that (as in, you're not diluting your deck.)

Wishes allow you additional options without diluting your deck. And this format that encourages Battle Cruiser cards and convoluted combos - the additional mana is manageable, especially if you gain enough additional options (thus more power in the Wish cards when you draw them.)

Adding in cards into a wishboard is NOT the same as adding cards to your deck. So to say that people wouldn't run sideboards because it's less efficient seems exceedingly shortsighted to me.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-26 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Carthain wrote:
intreped wrote:
If having access to more than 100 cards is inherently wrong for this format, then wouldn't it also be inherently wrong to allow more than one copy of Seven Dwarves?
Not at all. You're assuming all aspects of the format are weighted the same, which we know isn't true (as Seven Dwarves lets you play up to 7 copies, but not exceed the 100 card limit.)
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that because the 1-of rule is explicitly overridden by some cards, but the deck maximum size rule has no cards printed yet which override it, we should infer that the 1-of rule is weaker or of less value than the deck size rule; is that right? And that, because the deck size rule is 'stronger', making a change that would allow players to circumvent that rule is undesirable, moreso than the cards which explicitly break the 1-of rule; is that also what you are saying?
Carthain wrote:
Adding in cards into a wishboard is NOT the same as adding cards to your deck. So to say that people wouldn't run sideboards because it's less efficient seems exceedingly shortsighted to me.
I think you missed the rest of my paragraph. I said I was only talking about the 100 card maximum that is unique to this format, and NOT saying that Wishes are weak. Your previous post seemed to imply that because this format has a maximum deck size, nobody is allowed to have more "ammo" than any other player, and that somehow keeps things fair. Again if I misunderstood your point please let me know.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-26 3:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
And that, because the deck size rule is 'stronger', making a change that would allow players to circumvent that rule is undesirable, moreso than the cards which explicitly break the 1-of rule; is that also what you are saying?
That's one possible interpretation of it, yes.

Another interpretation is that some things are just more defining on what it makes to be .. "it". Let's take me for example. I'm a programmer, I have brown hair, I have a beard, I like cats. All those define who I am. However being a programmer is more "core" to the essence of being "me." The colour of my hair? That can be dyed and it won't affect the core of me, same with shaving my beard. But what I do for a job and what I like is much more fundamental to how you can define me.

Same as with the definition of this format. Some aspects of what defines it is more core than other aspects. You can change some and keep it the same, but change others and it loses what it means to be Commander.

Also - if you go back and look at the ruling for things like Relentless Rats, I do believe the ruling was (paraphrased): "Sure, it sounds fun and can't think of how that would break things. But we reserve the right to change it should something come to light."

As papa_funk has expressed certain issues with wishes, that seems to be "sure it would be fun, but we've in fact found that it causes issues, so we're changing how they work in this format by default so as to put the task of coming to a workable solution onto the groups who want to use wishes."

intreped wrote:
I think you missed the rest of my paragraph. I said I was only talking about the 100 card maximum that is unique to this format, and NOT saying that Wishes are weak. Your previous post seemed to imply that because this format has a maximum deck size, nobody is allowed to have more "ammo" than any other player, and that somehow keeps things fair. Again if I misunderstood your point please let me know.
That is essentially correct. It is a metaphor so not necessarily an exact way to express what I'm trying to say (not sure if I have a better way to explain it that I haven't already though.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-27 2:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Carthain wrote:
some things are just more defining on what it makes to be .. "it" . . . Some aspects of what defines it is more core than other aspects. You can change some and keep it the same, but change others and it loses what it means to be Commander.
Sure, take away the Commander and it's obviously not Commander anymore, it's just Vintage Singleton 100 cards with a different banlist. But if you're saying that adding an optional Wishboard makes it not Commander anymore, I disagree entirely. I played with Wishboards for a long while. It was both fun, and felt like Commander. I wouldn't say it felt MORE Commander-y to play with Wishes than it does without it, but playing with them did not detract from that feel in my experience.

I also disagree with your interpretation of which rules are more core to the format. I think the 1-of rule is more important to the essence of the format than the 100 card maximum. We could have deck sizes be exactly 150 cards, or 100 to 150, or just minimum 100 cards with maximum being as much as you can physically shuffle, and any of these would still feel Commander-y to me. But without the 1-of the format would be REALLY different.

Your choice to measure a rule's Commanderness by how successful the cards that have been printed so far can circumvent that rule is weird to me. I wouldn't say the 21 Commander damage rule is the strongest rule, but I don't think its Commanderness is weakened by the existence of Shield of the Ages or Protector of the Crown or the hundreds of other cards that have been printed which interfere with it.

My point is, there have been many cards which somewhat circumvent or directly override one or more rules. That doesn't make the cards a danger to the experience of play. Wishes could be among those cards if we let them.
Carthain wrote:
intreped wrote:
I think you missed the rest of my paragraph. I said I was only talking about the 100 card maximum that is unique to this format, and NOT saying that Wishes are weak. Your previous post seemed to imply that because this format has a maximum deck size, nobody is allowed to have more "ammo" than any other player, and that somehow keeps things fair. Again if I misunderstood your point please let me know.
That is essentially correct. It is a metaphor so not necessarily an exact way to express what I'm trying to say (not sure if I have a better way to explain it that I haven't already though.)
Outside the context of Wishes, the 100-card maximum does nothing to promote fairness. If there were no card maximum, and a playgroup had 3 players each with 100 card decks and one player with a 150 card deck, the 150 player would be at no advantage and a slight disadvantage.

I think what you are trying to say is - Wishes are a powerful effect because they allow you to get the benefit of having access to more cards, WITHOUT the drawback of lowering deck consistency and potentially drawing a card with a very narrow effect and having it sit around doing nothing and wasting a draw. I agree that they are powerful in that way. I just don't see that as threatening to the fun of the format.

The format is full of powerful effects and versatile answers. Wishes are not at the top of the curve in that respect. Even if they were at the top or near it, this format is not governed by a philosophy of "let's stop players from doing the most powerful thing so we can maintain deck diversity". Deck diversity outside of cEDH is not under threat at all, even though there are a few cEDH-proven combos that are clearly more powerful, fast, and resilient than anything else the format can deliver. Even knowing this, players of this format generally don't feel the need to play only those decks.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-27 7:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
But if you're saying that adding an optional Wishboard makes it not Commander anymore, I disagree entirely.

No, it's not "not Commander" -- but that doesn't mean it's a beneficial thing.

intreped wrote:
but playing with them did not detract from that feel in my experience.
That's a completely subjective thing. Just because it doesn't detract from the feel for you doesn't mean it won't for others. In case you haven't noticed, this obviously bothers me :)

intreped wrote:
I also disagree with your interpretation of which rules are more core to the format. I think the 1-of rule is more important to the essence of the format than the 100 card maximum.
You can think that -- however we have the RC ruling otherwise. I'm just extrapolating from known information. At least I have that information, you're just saying it (seemingly) based on your own opinion.

Quote:
My point is, there have been many cards which somewhat circumvent or directly override one or more rules. That doesn't make the cards a danger to the experience of play. Wishes could be among those cards if we let them.
Except nothing about them lets us override a deckbuilding limit. (Yes, I consider determining what is in your sideboard part of deckbuilding.)

Intreped wrote:
I think what you are trying to say is - Wishes are a powerful effect because they allow you to get the benefit of having access to more cards, WITHOUT the drawback of lowering deck consistency and potentially drawing a card with a very narrow effect and having it sit around doing nothing and wasting a draw. I agree that they are powerful in that way. I just don't see that as threatening to the fun of the format.
Sure. So, I do and you don't ... our opinions cancel out. So we're still left with wishes being banned. Plus, this was only my attempt to explain papa_funk's comment. So while you may disagree, others don't agree with you. *shrug* But you can't consider his comment to be "dealt with" or anything like that simply because you disagree.

I brought it up as something that needs to be addressed, and I'm only guessing at what was meant. For you to truly argue against it, we'd need him to pop back in and explain that part.

But simply saying "people won't do that" isn't really an argument - at best it's anecdotal evidence.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-28 2:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Carthain wrote:
intreped wrote:
I also disagree with your interpretation of which rules are more core to the format. I think the 1-of rule is more important to the essence of the format than the 100 card maximum.
You can think that -- however we have the RC ruling otherwise. I'm just extrapolating from known information. At least I have that information, you're just saying it (seemingly) based on your own opinion.
I am providing my opinion, yes, as well as my experience playing with them. You aren't extrapolating, you're stretching a ruling to mean something it doesn't. When papa_funk said that Relentless Rats couldn't let you put more than 100 cards in your deck, he didn't say "because a 100 card deck including sideboard is the unbreakable Rule that defines the format." He just said, with the rules as they are, Relentless Rats doesn't override that particular rule. That's what a ruling is: a clarification from someone who is more immersed in the logic of the rules. It's not like legal rulings which set precedent for future rulings, and even if it were you are stretching that one ruling too hard to be taken seriously.
Carthain wrote:
Intreped wrote:
I agree that they are powerful in that way. I just don't see that as threatening to the fun of the format.
Sure. So, I do and you don't ... our opinions cancel out.
. . .
But simply saying "people won't do that" isn't really an argument - at best it's anecdotal evidence.

Opinions don't "cancel out"; they aren't quantifiable values. Neither does the RC make its decisions based on which side has more votes on the internet.

And why are you dismissing my anecdotal evidence as 'just' anecdotal evidence? You specifically asked for such earlier in this thread:
Carthain wrote:
Sinis wrote:
What would that evidence even look like? You've repeatedly said my anecdotes don't mean much to you. You seem to give some credence to Coco's anecdote; is it because it agrees with your sentiments?
If you at least had other people speaking up with anecdotes counter to Coco's that would be great, but I don't see that happening so far (if I've overlooked any, please point them out to me.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-28 3:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
And why are you dismissing my anecdotal evidence as 'just' anecdotal evidence? You specifically asked for such earlier in this thread

Sure, we'll add it to the pile. But so far what I've seen in this thread is a few people speaking up for it -- while it seems like just as many are arguing against them.

And I was dismissing it as anecdotal evidence because it seemed like you were using it as justification that it would be better for the format. It helps I'll give you that, but it in itself isn't an argument. If I took what you were saying there incorrectly, I'm sorry.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-28 10:06 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I think the 1-of rule and the exactly 100 cards rule are both equally important. It's just that the RC has chosen to make the cards work as intended and conform to the rules as much as possible, and we haven't yet had a card that let's you bypass a deck size (although I feel like there were some Conspiracies that did something during drafting but that obviously doesn't apply to Commander).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wish you were here: A mechanic defunct
AgePosted: 2019-Oct-28 10:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
cryogen wrote:
I think the 1-of rule and the exactly 100 cards rule are both equally important. It's just that the RC has chosen to make the cards work as intended and conform to the rules as much as possible, and we haven't yet had a card that let's you bypass a deck size (although I feel like there were some Conspiracies that did something during drafting but that obviously doesn't apply to Commander).

Some people do play commander cube... this is something I just wouldn't have time in my life to do, but for those that do it, I hope they play with conspiracies, because that mechanic was kinda awesome, and so were the "as you draft this" cards and the cards that did shenannigans during the draft itself.

_________________
"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-29 1:24 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
cryogen wrote:
I think the 1-of rule and the exactly 100 cards rule are both equally important. It's just that the RC has chosen to make the cards work as intended and conform to the rules as much as possible, and we haven't yet had a card that let's you bypass a deck size (although I feel like there were some Conspiracies that did something during drafting but that obviously doesn't apply to Commander).

Some people do play commander cube... this is something I just wouldn't have time in my life to do, but for those that do it, I hope they play with conspiracies, because that mechanic was kinda awesome, and so were the "as you draft this" cards and the cards that did shenannigans during the draft itself.

Sure, I have one myself, which does include draft matters cards. But Commander is the only format which puts an upper limit on deck size (yes I know there is technically an upper limit requiring a reasonable shuffle time). So it makes sense that a card altering deck size wouldn't be something we would see unless it was specifically in a Commander set, and that has logistical difficulties in addition to philosophical ones.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

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: