Has anyone else been aware that the mtgcommander.net forums suffered an outage over the past 1-2 months? From the looks of things, the restore they managed to perform has ~3-4 months worth of posts having been deleted. I haven't been able to post anything on the website, new or otherwise, and there's been no updates on the Rules Committee's Twitter page.
Holidays withstanding, there hasn't been any updates there and we just finished Theros: Beyond Death's spoiler season.
Has anyone else been aware of updates made elsewhere or have a link for anything the rules committee posted?
I like nothing about this card. Estrid players are getting their deck spoon fed to them.
As opposed to zombie/vampire/angel/graveyard decks getting spoonfed by the Innistrad block? Planeswalker/superfriend decks with War of the Spark? Artifact decks with Kaladesh? Merfolk/vampires/dinosaurs with Ixalan?
It's just how it goes, and there's nothing abnormal about it.
Just to say: On Standard and Pioneer we have Bonecrusher Giant as the counter for 2 and 3. Also stomp makes this guy die to any block soo if you are playing vs a red deck better never block with this guy.
The "Protection from cmc" clause still prevents you from using Stomp to target Hektos if the die roll came up as 3 or 4; The damage prevention is irrelevant at that point. If his weakness is 2, then you'd be able to both target and damage Hektos. If you're talking about using Stomp as a sort of Skullcrack effect before using a damage based sweeper, then that could work.
As far as blocking, short of the turn he comes out without haste and without having vigilance somehow, he's not going to be doing a whole lot of blocking.
How and why is Mystic Forge preordering for $20 foil pretty much everywhere? It's a core set and it's a sub $3 card everywhere. The foil multiplier is insane, it's like it's a premium/limited set rare/mythic...
I would argue that Golos, Tireless Pilgrim is more playable in that it can easily slot into any 5 color deck, but Forge needs either a colorless deck or a deck (commander anyway) of probably 30+ artifact/colorless cards. Star City Games has foil Golos for $10... and he's a viable commander option himself.
Is there something I'm not seeing? Sub $3 rare at prerelease, near zero potential to do anything worthwhile in standard, likely too slow for modern and beyond...
Hell, The new mythic swords from Modern Horizons only have a 300% foil multiplier by comparison... This has almost a 800-900% multiplier...
I just wanted to point out a few things about this sword that might not be obvious to everyone here to clarify why this sword is not only ridiculous, but more powerful than the other sword in the set, Sword of Truth and Justice.
For Modern:
Most swords haven't seen any play since Stoneforge Mystic was banned. So whether it's playable there isn't so much of an arguement. Modern set yes, but it's obvious by now that WotC caters to multiple formats with sets like these.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being black. Black is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can target "up to one" of both a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact. Unlike most swords (Sword of Feast and Famine, Sword of Body and Mind, Sword of War and Peace), you can target different permanents than have them directed at/limited by the person you've just attacked.
-- You can attack the vulnerable opponent to hit 2 targets that are controlled by 1-2 other opponents.
* You can blow up your own artifacts if needed. (ex. Spine of Ish Sah)
* You don't have to decide whether to swing at a Planeswalker or at your opponent, you can have your cake and eat it too.
* Gives conditional removal to decks that might not have access to straight up Planeswalker or artifact removal.
* If there are no planeswalkers or artifacts out, opponents are unlikely to play them if they can't protect them or outright blow up your sword with them. This means that your opponents aren't progressing in the game as fast as you might be.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You might not have a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact to blow up (Though this is super unlikely in multiplayer since just about everyone is playing one or the other, or both in their deck).
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being blue. Blue is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters.
* You can proliferate, so there's a high upside for Planeswalkers and other permanents that have counters.
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters... (Obviously this has a more exponential curve of utility. While the ceiling is quite high, the floor is in the basement.)
* Gives conditional proliferate to decks that might not have as much access to the effect.
I for one hope that popular opinion on this one tanks, because it just means that I'll be able to scoop up copies for cheaper than I should be able to.
Platinum Angel doesn't break the rules, it sets a static effect on the board. Don't "trumps" Do. Ex. If Teferi is out and you have Yeva, Nature's Herald out, you still can't play your creatures at instant speed. I do believe that wishes will prove to be more troublesome than they're worth. If there was a sensible way to make them work without causing problems, overly complicated erratas or the inclusion of sideboards, the RC likely would have found a way to do it.
My gripe with the cards like Relentless Rats and co. is more about it being an exception to the rule that allows it to break singleton. I don't like it, but I understand that it's realistically the only way Rats exists as a tribe, and makes budget mill a thing.
While sideboards can exist in the scenario that you mentioned, cards you mentioned could, and likely should see mainboard play (ex. Fade into Antiquity) as removal is almost always relevant when it has more than one mode. The potential for dick-ish things already exists in running cards like Choke, Tsunami, etc., but the potential to run them in a side/wishboard is literally inviting feel-bads. All it will likely take is a handful of people in a play group or LGS to do it, before it becomes commonplace to do the same thing. After all, if you're at a disadvantage to not, then you're likely to adopt what puts you on an even playing field. Some people also don't have the luxury of an LGS, or multiple potential groups to play at so switching in the event of "adapt or leave" isn't always available.
I would argue that sideboards aren't as big of a thing because they're not official and people don't expect to be able to use them regularly. The arms race is a thing. Especially at an LGS for events - if there's a buy in and a prize is to be won, people play to win.
I DO feel like cards like Shadowborn Apostle and Relentless Rats are against the flavor of the format. The fact that it's been legal for as long as it has and that some have embraced it, means that those cards have value as multiples are needed. If they were banned this far into the format's life, people would lose entire decks on the decision to ban them. It's not something that the RC would ever do.
My intention isn't to be a fearmonger, but to stress that the potential for abuse is present. The potential for game length to be increased is very much present for sideboarding. Again, I will reference my previous points that cards like Sylvan Primordial and Prophet of Kruphix were banned; not for the fair play that they saw, but because of how they were abused.
Sideboards, in general, have the potential to drag out games more than anything else, which is effectively a requirement to allow wishes to work. Deciding which card(s) out of 99 can be swapped out post game 1 or beyond depending on which decks switch and who is playing what... the odds that sideboards aren't used how they are for constructed formats is unlikely. Dragging out games at an LGS, let alone at a kitchen table, doesn't seem worth them being official.
This seems like less of a point against what I said and more of a grasp at...something... Act of Treason effects are plentiful. Taking or exchanging control effects as well. Copy spells, etc. Resources can be shared, stolen or copied; control of them can change whether it be permanent or temporary.
What doesn't change is ownership. You can never shuffle a card you don't own into your library. Things that are inherently yours, does not change when a game starts or ends. You still only ever had access to the 100 cards in your library, that you built and shuffled up before hand. That a card outside of your decklist could be shuffled into your deck is problematic.
People get access to more than 100 cards in a given game. Players are then incentivized to play wishes and to copy them to have/pull more resources than your opponents. This also means that it is possible, through multiple means, that more than 100 cards can be in the game between library, hand, board, graveyard and exile.
Two things. Why do you think having more than 100 cards is a problem? And why do you think copying Wishes is going to be incentivized? You even said yourself that "If it's not worth running the majority of the time, you shouldn't be running it." Do you honestly think copying Cunning Wish once or twice is a better use of resources than, say, simply spending all that mana drawing cards that actually made the cut in your deck? Seems pretty loose to me.
I see having more than 100 cards as being a problem because the deck construction limits a deck to 100 cards, including the commander. To have wishes function serves only to circumvent that rule, after games are started. You get access to cards you wouldn't normally have access to, and can cherry pick silver bullets with them. I do not see how it is not detrimental to the format. Both from a deck building perspective and even a state based effect sort of way. Your deck/available resources after resolving a wish amounts to more than the legal limit for cards available to players.
Potentially, yeah. It's effectively a tutor at that point. Since when are tutors not worth running? Maybe you start running some nasty stuff, like Armageddon, Insurrection, Time Stretch, etc in the wishboard. Things that are highly costed or generally situational that you don't deem worth running all the time. You keep the average cmc of your deck down and save it for something ridiculous later.
Or, you pull something like Narset's Reversal and Nexus of Fate with Cunning Wish and take infinite extra turns... versus tutoring from your deck. Considering that that's basically Demonic Tutor for blue's purposes, yeah, that can get pretty damn problematic.
Or, you run Golden Wish to find both Nevermore and I dunno, Runed Halo to make a Voltron commander irrelevant. Is it done versus Black/red or mono of either? I guess that thing the deck was built to do isn't doing much of anything now...
Do these outcomes exist normally? Sure, if they're run mainboard. I'm considering the worst possible scenario. It's not unlikely to see someone using blue or red to copy these wishes to maximum effect.
Hell, even the new Karn, the Great Creator gets more ridiculous with a wishboard. Sure, Mycosynth Lattice from the wishboard, no one can play the game anymore. You want to enable that? They have to at least tutor from deck or naturally draw that combo to try to pull it off. You want a 1 card guaranteed combo to be a thing to ruin games, in any colors? That would very likely end with one of those 2 cards being banned. I'm sorry, but the versatility and power level of Karn 3.0, as is, is more than fair and is not worth banning. Karn 3.0 as a casualty of this is another point against wishes being functional. The writing for this eventual ban is on the wall and plain as day to see if wishes were made functional.
The choices at that point seem clear... Enable wishes and see games devolve into longer games with wish/sideboards like it is in constructed formats with silver bullets and see a newly printed, fair card be banned. (one that plenty of people will have with the new set) OR leave wishes where they are and allow individual play groups to determine what wishes mean or don't for them.
To reduce slow play, why not just make it so you can't dig through a non-wishboard source? That way if you only have, say 10, cards and you have packed say 3 sorceries and are looking for a sorcery with a Burning Wish, you only have 3 choices. Plus you can't shuffle anyway which is another time consumer.
Sure, but we are still at the original problem of saying the RC needs to create a concrete definition, either through working with WotC to make the comp rules and Oracle allow wishes to be defined in Commander, or by creating functional errata. If you're on the latter side, then you just dont like the errata they came up with.
I'll go on the record and say that while all of this seems plausible, and is likely the best case scenario in favor of wishes, it's a significant amount of effort to make ~10 cards work.
Things that would need to happen to allow for wishes in Commander:
WotC needs to define/errata how the wishes work in Commander
The RC needs to define a side/wishboard rule
The RC needs to clarify, within the rules of Commander, what can/can't be in the sideboard
The issues this causes are as follows:
Sideboards become a thing... This is an issue because the whole slow play thing is now magnified. If people start running hoser/color hate cards to side in between games, they then may choose to side in some of those cards versus the current landscape of the table... now they're mulling over what they can afford to take out for the hoser cards...
In addition to the above point, cards that people can't justify running in their mainboard (silver bullet answers), suddenly see an increase in play via wishes or sideboarding between games. If it's not worth running the majority of the time, you shouldn't be running it.
Deck building can very likely go from "Commander + 99 cards" to "Commander + 99 cards(+ defined sideboard amount) - # of wish effects you can run in your colors". This results in people being less selective in what they choose to run because wishes can be multiple things.
People get access to more than 100 cards in a given game. Players are then incentivized to play wishes and to copy them to have/pull more resources than your opponents. This also means that it is possible, through multiple means, that more than 100 cards can be in the game between library, hand, board, graveyard and exile.
It may just be my opinion, but the issues brought about by enabling wishes outweigh the potential benefits. The concessions that would have to be made to allow for them to function isn't worth the effort and long term damage on the games yet to be played and the deck construction process over all.
This is effectively a summary of the points I've gathered so far, with an attempt to be as unbiased as possible (I'm in the anti-wish camp):
Pro-Wish Camp:
1) We have cards that we want to use on a regular basis, with any group we might come across, without having to ask permission before doing so.
2) We don't like that the rules are in the grey area of legal but non-functional in the Commander/EDH format and we want the RC/CAG to either ban them or make them legal.
3) We don't feel that comparing other format cards to wishes (ex. planechase and draft) are valid arguments against why wishes can't be functional in Commander. Cards that have alternate conditions like Battle of Wits also don't count in the argument against playability because while legal, they inherently break the limit on deck construction of 100 cards or require multiples prohibited by singleton.
4) The "spirit of the format" is to allow all cards that could see play in other formats, but don't, due to mana cost, effect, efficiency, etc. Wishes are a part of that list of cards, in our opinion, and want them to see play as well.
5) Don't judge the cards and their 'worst-case scenario' in the hands of competitive players, they don't represent the majority - some of us just want to try to pull off these cool plays.
6) The 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' isn't an issue because the majority of the cards are well within reasonable limits and are even lower than most of the most commonly played cards.
Anti-Wish Camp:
1) Any functionality granted to wishes violates one or more rules, would circumvent the rules, or would require too many additional concessions to limit their scope. The changes that would need to be made would change the wish card's functionality to be something else entirely (or at least heavily errata'd).
2) Wishes are currently cards that have the potential to spike in popularity/demand, and the single time printings of them could cause a 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' for players.
3) The social contract is determined/interpreted to be something different for each play group, and the current state of wishes being non-functional maintains reasonable expectations going into anywhere, be it a new group of friends, an LGS or anywhere else.
4) The 'worst-case scenario' has to be taken into account when banning/unbanning anything. While this case is unique, it is not immune to the same consideration.
5) The current system isn't broken when it comes to dictating what sort of things are suitable for casual, group accepted play. Everything from running currently banned cards, making your own banned lists, running wishes, or even special mulligan rules is all within reach, if your play group agrees to it.
Rule 0: These are the official rules of Commander. Local groups are welcome to modify them as they see fit. If you’d like an exception to these rules, especially in an unfamiliar environment, please get the approval of the other players before the game begins
Rule 0 has been part of Commander philosophy for more than a decade. Urged by the CAG, we simply decided to formalize it. Making it the first rule does two things. First, it lays out the baseline rules for the format. If you want to play official Commander, the rules that follow are set in stone.
This becomes important in unfamiliar environments. When you go to a large event or play with people you don’t know, we want everyone to have the same basic expectations and understanding of what they’re getting into.Second, it underscores that quality communication is one of the best ways to ensure the best possible experience.
I've seen plenty of comments on the subject, as new action or continued inaction often bring these things back up to the surface. This is especially true for those that hold a topic close to heart. In addition to what I feel are logical points against wishes and the often mentioned 'wishboards/sideboards', These next points might tip the scales in favor of things remaining as they currently are.
1) There is a distinct lack of consistency in what people want when it comes to wishes. Some favor the most literal reading of the card... duplicate of a card in your 99, card in a binder, off color card, etc. Some of those same people later make concession after concession, from trying to make it adhere to the rules of singleton to bartering for the size of the side/wishboard. Some are suggesting that the RC adopt an official sideboard from which wishes can be pulled, despite a sideboard never having been legal by official rules.
This all points to what the social contract is for. While the RC/CAG could technically implement the changes that are requested, and the Pro-wish camp would sing it's praises, there are still likely those among that same camp that would complain that their vision for how wishes would function isn't what's official. ex. "We shouldn't be limited to 5/10 cards. Magic's sideboard is 15!" or "The card says I can pull any card that matches the criteria, why am I limited to anything at all?"
2) Setting aside potential demand and cost increases for these underutilized cards, the ease with which a card can be abused and how good a card is at what it does are some of the things that eventually gets it banned (see: Primeval Titan, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial, Prophet of Kruphix).
When there's a will, there's a way. People will find the most degenerate uses for them, and with enough attention and prevalence, the outcome will be the same. Even if you're not on "team hyper-competitive", a subsequent banning or rule change would effect you as well if you play by the official rules. If you choose not to play by the official rules at that point, then you're already in unofficial territory, so why persist in getting wishes into official gameplay?
TL;DR
Convincing individuals you know and play with regularly to try out wishes and their wishboards seems like the path of least resistance here. If you can't manage to do that, try to find another group of people at an LGS or come to terms with people not liking/wanting wishes in Commander/EDH. Trying to force the issue and your desire to use cards that don't currently function in the format isn't in line with the social contract as it is. When people come together and agree on the kind of games they want to play, they stay and do so. When no agreement is met, people don't play. Find people who agree to play the way you want to and play games with them.
I get it that some people don't like wishes because they fear the kinds of cards that people will Wish for. My only response to that is that if the Social Contract is good enough to discourage "anti-social" play, then why wouldn't it be good enough to discourage people from using a Wish in an "anti-social" way? Just like the RC doesn't ban cards based on the worst possible ways that cards can be used, there is no reason to think that Wishes wouldn't fall under the same stigma. If there is a "fair use", then that is what we should be evaluating the card on. If that "fair use" goes too far, then just ban the card.
Because you're suggesting the rule be amended to play cards that have a high potential for anti-social play via hate cards that wouldn't otherwise be in a deck (because they might not make the cut). The social contract is all well and good when you have a regular group, but to make it legal at large subjects people to it with pickup games where a contract might not be in place, because the players are unknown.
Quote from Forgotten One » »
I also get it that there is a minority that don't like the idea that a Wish somehow breaks the 100-card deck limit, and that after Wishing for a card your deck is now greater than 100 cards and is no longer legal at that point. This is total rubbish. The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins. Relentless Rats violates Rule 5 (the Highlander rule), Partner commanders violate Rule 2, Planeswalkers that can be used as your commander a la Teferi, Temporal Archmage violate Rule 2, Transguild Courier violates Rule 3 (the Color Identity rule), but we allow these cards to all function as-printed and we acknowledge (and celebrate) how they bend/break the rules. I don't understand how Wishes get singled out, but if this is indeed the actual issue here (which I highly doubt) then just ban the card.
First, it is highly presumptuous to state that those that don't want wishes to be legal are in the minority. If anything, it's a 50/50 split at the least - likely more in favor of anti-wishes considering that it's the current status-quo. The 100 card deck limit isn't rubbish, it's a defining characteristic of the format. You can't play [[Battle of Wits]] just because it's legal and you really like the card... The other concessions you mentioned don't directly violate any rules because they have text that states such, and they also maintain the 100 card singleton rule... the very basis of the format. You stance of the card wins versus the rules is clearly not the case here.
Quote from Forgotten One » »
I also somewhat get the concern of how one can verify that the player isn't violating the Highlander rule, but honestly how do you verify that now? Nobody is registering decks and doing deck checks, so why is it a non-issue now but a deal breaker when the topic of Wishes come up?
If a player plays or reveals that they have multiple copies of a card, it's a DQ. You're suggesting all of these additional conditions to allow for wishes, yet you just stated "The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins." Not that it's true here, but that statement alone is enough of a point to argue for pulling a copy of a card that's already in the 99. After all, the card doesn't specify, does it? You want concessions to play your wishes, want to force these rulings on the player base at large, and you want and extra subset of rules added for less than 10 cards for this sort of effect. Meanwhile, there are cards like Dichotomancy, Hedron Alignment, Battle of Wits and more, that don't have this concession to allow for their usability. They're all perfectly good examples of functionally useless cards in commander, yet are still legal. Why should wishes be any different?
How can anyone ever verify my base deck is legally built without checking it ahead of time? Nothing changes here. Casual play tends to run on the honor system.
While you're right, in that the honor system tends to be in place, you didn't answer the question. If someone was found to have pulled a duplicate of a card in their deck list, should that not be a game loss/DQ? Regardless of whether the wishes state "from outside the game" it shouldn't then also give a person free reign to try and circumvent the core deck construction that defines the format. 100 card singleton.
Also, whether a card is "exiled" or not, it's still a part of the game. Something could bring that original wish back, make you reshuffle it into the deck, etc. Access to over 100 cards is still against the rules of the format, regardless of when it happens in a game.
This will change a lot based on group. For my part, I wouldn’t include wishes in every deck. But I have a silly monored deck that is perfect for Burning Wish, grabbing situational cards that increase the nonsense factor. More competitive decks don’t need Wishes to be effective and adding them is unlikely to change the power level radically. It’s not as though Legacy or Vintage are ruined by these cards.
Yet it's what? 7 cards that are rendered useless? You keep mentioning that it's not likely to change power levels radically and that it's fine in your play group(s), yet there are those in the community that are looking for any edge they can get, any way to skirt the line just a little bit closer. Look at the recently banned cards over the past 5-6 years. Sylvan Primordial is pretty busted, but it's not the craziest thing in the world. It was it's ability to easily be abused with blink/copy effects that made it too strong. Those in the community that were using/abusing it to the extent that they were gave it it's death sentence. Sure, you'll have the cheeky people that are going to want to pull a Pikachu into the game with no way to play it, but you'll also have people effectively running cards 101-110. I'm sorry, but if you can't justify running something like Choke to fight blue mainboard, but want the option to pull it mid game once you get the lay of the land? That's too bad, but those are the rules.
You want what is effectively an official side/wish board, seemingly justified on the idea of saving time and giving people more options. That has never been a thing for the format. Resolving Warp World or any other similarly game resetting card is a time suck/nightmare, sure... but that doesn't justify having an official side/wishboard added when the format will gain little for doing so. The RC might revisit this in the future if WotC prints more cards with effects like the wishes, but so few cards, in my opinion, is not enough to justify changing the rules to make them playable.
This sort of "fun" should stay where it's currently relegated to - play groups that have agreed to allow it. The format is complicated enough with interactions, and it's part of the reason why "Banned as a Commander" and "tucking" aren't a thing anymore. Having to explain why you're effectively circumventing the rules of the format to a new person or play group, isn't an ideal scenario. Going to any LGS/group and having the same expectations of deck construction limits IS the ideal scenario.
Quote from Dormammu » »
Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.
That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.
And wishes have functioned in the same way that they are ruled now, right along with sideboards - play group specific, not official. It was a matter of seeing the rules of the format as they are and understanding that optional sideboards were realistically the only place a wish card could pull from, because the term "wishboard" is not a new term for the format or in the forums.
Quote from Kamino_Taka » »
While technically correct in a legal sense, If wizards change the Commander rules to differ from the RC ones and people like the RC ones better they would still be playing the RC rules anyway, as for stuff like unsanctioned/kitchentable play neither has the authority people play what they like.
Kamino hit this on the head. WotC can't prevent anyone from coming up with a varient of their game. They can't enforce anything due to fair use rights. As far as we know, the RC isn't making money off commander directly, they aren't making counterfeit cards, and they're not infringing on any copyrights. What grounds does WotC have to steal the format? Even if they tried and deviated from the RC list of rules, if people like EDH/Commander better under the RC, they're going to play by those rules.
EDH has plenty of its own rules that make it unique among formats. Why not one more? .
Simple rules:
1. You own the tutored card.
2. The card is outside of the game.
3. The card is within the color identity of your deck.
4. The card is legal in Commander (or allowed by your play group).
5. The card is (or will be) sleeved to match your deck’s sleeves, if any.
Not's not ONE more that's FIVE more
And why does it have to match my commander's CI? It says any card......
EDIT II: Maybe this hsould be moved into it's own thread?
This is exactly why we left the rule as it was. Everyone has their own idea of what's a "reasonable interpretation" of the cards for Commander. People would be unhappy with any set of restrictions or allowances we gave, so it's best to let playgroups hash out these issues within themselves.
By that logic, the rule shouldn’t have been made and should be immediately removed because the committee has made their “reasonable interpretation” into a rule, and right out of the gate, there’s people that are unhappy with it.
While I am not one of them, I do like for as many cards as possible to be playable, and meaningfully so. Aren't the rules, at least in part (a great part), intended to direct players to the greatest potential for enjoyment? Of course. So then why not try something fun rather than something that literally amounts to nothing?
Because Chaos for the sake of Chaos, is not a good reason to do anything (contrary to what the Scrambleverse/Warp World/Possibility Storm players think).
They just said that if all Planeswalkers were available as commanders, that they would have to ban 6 or more cards to allow for it. That is the opposite of what the RC/CAG is trying to do.
Even in the case of wish cards, you're still looking at 2 options:
1) Someone decides to grind the game to a halt to pull out their binder to cherry pick a card for a niche situation (if a sideboard rule isn't implemented)
Sideboards further complicate the rules and defies the roots of the format as a 100 card singleton format - we don't need sideboards.
"We" don't want to wait while people sift through their deck for that 1-3 cards they want to cut pre/post game("We" being a safe assumption for the collective playerbase).
"We" also don't want hear complaints about cards that people forgot to switch back out after a game is underway and how those sideboard cards were supposed to be something else.
2) People start including "wish/side boards" to effectively make their deck 10-15 cards larger, allowing for specific hate cards for metas or decks that a particular one struggles with.
Both scenarios speak to an issue with the competitive tit-for-tat, silver bullet answers that are found in constructed formats. Cards aren't worthy of inclusion mainboard because they're too narrow of an answer and won't be effective against all deck types. I'd recommend building a more versatile deck with a variety of answers to account for a wider range of threats. Even cEDH doesn't allow wishboards...
For the sake of continuity and a singular message, the official statement/stance was made. The proverbial line in the sand...
If you and your play group don't want to abide by it, that's fine. You can literally wipe away the line with your foot and draw a new one in either direction.
What you can't do, however, is expect people of another group or LGS to accept your stance on wishboards/sideboards. It's never been a thing before on account of how the rules have been to date, it's just now a clear stance on the matter versus an ambiguous one where "the card text wins out".
Holidays withstanding, there hasn't been any updates there and we just finished Theros: Beyond Death's spoiler season.
Has anyone else been aware of updates made elsewhere or have a link for anything the rules committee posted?
As opposed to zombie/vampire/angel/graveyard decks getting spoonfed by the Innistrad block? Planeswalker/superfriend decks with War of the Spark? Artifact decks with Kaladesh? Merfolk/vampires/dinosaurs with Ixalan?
It's just how it goes, and there's nothing abnormal about it.
The "Protection from cmc" clause still prevents you from using Stomp to target Hektos if the die roll came up as 3 or 4; The damage prevention is irrelevant at that point. If his weakness is 2, then you'd be able to both target and damage Hektos. If you're talking about using Stomp as a sort of Skullcrack effect before using a damage based sweeper, then that could work.
As far as blocking, short of the turn he comes out without haste and without having vigilance somehow, he's not going to be doing a whole lot of blocking.
I would argue that Golos, Tireless Pilgrim is more playable in that it can easily slot into any 5 color deck, but Forge needs either a colorless deck or a deck (commander anyway) of probably 30+ artifact/colorless cards. Star City Games has foil Golos for $10... and he's a viable commander option himself.
Is there something I'm not seeing? Sub $3 rare at prerelease, near zero potential to do anything worthwhile in standard, likely too slow for modern and beyond...
Hell, The new mythic swords from Modern Horizons only have a 300% foil multiplier by comparison... This has almost a 800-900% multiplier...
For Modern:
Most swords haven't seen any play since Stoneforge Mystic was banned. So whether it's playable there isn't so much of an arguement. Modern set yes, but it's obvious by now that WotC caters to multiple formats with sets like these.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being black. Black is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can target "up to one" of both a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact. Unlike most swords (Sword of Feast and Famine, Sword of Body and Mind, Sword of War and Peace), you can target different permanents than have them directed at/limited by the person you've just attacked.
-- You can attack the vulnerable opponent to hit 2 targets that are controlled by 1-2 other opponents.
* You can blow up your own artifacts if needed. (ex. Spine of Ish Sah)
* You don't have to decide whether to swing at a Planeswalker or at your opponent, you can have your cake and eat it too.
* Gives conditional removal to decks that might not have access to straight up Planeswalker or artifact removal.
* If there are no planeswalkers or artifacts out, opponents are unlikely to play them if they can't protect them or outright blow up your sword with them. This means that your opponents aren't progressing in the game as fast as you might be.
For Commander - Sword of Sinew and Steel Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You might not have a Planeswalker and/or an Artifact to blow up (Though this is super unlikely in multiplayer since just about everyone is playing one or the other, or both in their deck).
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Pros:
* It has pro 2 colors, one of them being blue. Blue is one of the most heavily played colors and in today's tendency for 2+ color commanders, you still have a fair amount of the board being unable to block this thing.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters.
* You can proliferate, so there's a high upside for Planeswalkers and other permanents that have counters.
For Commander - Sword of Truth and Justice Cons:
* Like all swords, you might not have protection from the color(s) you want at the time you need it.
* Like all swords, you might have to build around effects in your deck if you plan on targeting your creatures with colored effects that the sword protects against.
* You can give one of your creatures a +1/+1 counter... and then give it another one if nothing else you have has counters... (Obviously this has a more exponential curve of utility. While the ceiling is quite high, the floor is in the basement.)
* Gives conditional proliferate to decks that might not have as much access to the effect.
I for one hope that popular opinion on this one tanks, because it just means that I'll be able to scoop up copies for cheaper than I should be able to.
My gripe with the cards like Relentless Rats and co. is more about it being an exception to the rule that allows it to break singleton. I don't like it, but I understand that it's realistically the only way Rats exists as a tribe, and makes budget mill a thing.
While sideboards can exist in the scenario that you mentioned, cards you mentioned could, and likely should see mainboard play (ex. Fade into Antiquity) as removal is almost always relevant when it has more than one mode. The potential for dick-ish things already exists in running cards like Choke, Tsunami, etc., but the potential to run them in a side/wishboard is literally inviting feel-bads. All it will likely take is a handful of people in a play group or LGS to do it, before it becomes commonplace to do the same thing. After all, if you're at a disadvantage to not, then you're likely to adopt what puts you on an even playing field. Some people also don't have the luxury of an LGS, or multiple potential groups to play at so switching in the event of "adapt or leave" isn't always available.
I would argue that sideboards aren't as big of a thing because they're not official and people don't expect to be able to use them regularly. The arms race is a thing. Especially at an LGS for events - if there's a buy in and a prize is to be won, people play to win.
My intention isn't to be a fearmonger, but to stress that the potential for abuse is present. The potential for game length to be increased is very much present for sideboarding. Again, I will reference my previous points that cards like Sylvan Primordial and Prophet of Kruphix were banned; not for the fair play that they saw, but because of how they were abused.
Sideboards, in general, have the potential to drag out games more than anything else, which is effectively a requirement to allow wishes to work. Deciding which card(s) out of 99 can be swapped out post game 1 or beyond depending on which decks switch and who is playing what... the odds that sideboards aren't used how they are for constructed formats is unlikely. Dragging out games at an LGS, let alone at a kitchen table, doesn't seem worth them being official.
Act of Treason effects are plentiful. Taking or exchanging control effects as well. Copy spells, etc. Resources can be shared, stolen or copied; control of them can change whether it be permanent or temporary.
What doesn't change is ownership. You can never shuffle a card you don't own into your library. Things that are inherently yours, does not change when a game starts or ends. You still only ever had access to the 100 cards in your library, that you built and shuffled up before hand. That a card outside of your decklist could be shuffled into your deck is problematic.
I see having more than 100 cards as being a problem because the deck construction limits a deck to 100 cards, including the commander. To have wishes function serves only to circumvent that rule, after games are started. You get access to cards you wouldn't normally have access to, and can cherry pick silver bullets with them. I do not see how it is not detrimental to the format. Both from a deck building perspective and even a state based effect sort of way. Your deck/available resources after resolving a wish amounts to more than the legal limit for cards available to players.
Potentially, yeah. It's effectively a tutor at that point. Since when are tutors not worth running? Maybe you start running some nasty stuff, like Armageddon, Insurrection, Time Stretch, etc in the wishboard. Things that are highly costed or generally situational that you don't deem worth running all the time. You keep the average cmc of your deck down and save it for something ridiculous later.
Or, you pull something like Narset's Reversal and Nexus of Fate with Cunning Wish and take infinite extra turns... versus tutoring from your deck. Considering that that's basically Demonic Tutor for blue's purposes, yeah, that can get pretty damn problematic.
Or, you run Golden Wish to find both Nevermore and I dunno, Runed Halo to make a Voltron commander irrelevant. Is it done versus Black/red or mono of either? I guess that thing the deck was built to do isn't doing much of anything now...
Do these outcomes exist normally? Sure, if they're run mainboard. I'm considering the worst possible scenario. It's not unlikely to see someone using blue or red to copy these wishes to maximum effect.
Hell, even the new Karn, the Great Creator gets more ridiculous with a wishboard. Sure, Mycosynth Lattice from the wishboard, no one can play the game anymore. You want to enable that? They have to at least tutor from deck or naturally draw that combo to try to pull it off. You want a 1 card guaranteed combo to be a thing to ruin games, in any colors? That would very likely end with one of those 2 cards being banned. I'm sorry, but the versatility and power level of Karn 3.0, as is, is more than fair and is not worth banning. Karn 3.0 as a casualty of this is another point against wishes being functional. The writing for this eventual ban is on the wall and plain as day to see if wishes were made functional.
The choices at that point seem clear... Enable wishes and see games devolve into longer games with wish/sideboards like it is in constructed formats with silver bullets and see a newly printed, fair card be banned. (one that plenty of people will have with the new set) OR leave wishes where they are and allow individual play groups to determine what wishes mean or don't for them.
I'll go on the record and say that while all of this seems plausible, and is likely the best case scenario in favor of wishes, it's a significant amount of effort to make ~10 cards work.
Things that would need to happen to allow for wishes in Commander:
The issues this causes are as follows:
It may just be my opinion, but the issues brought about by enabling wishes outweigh the potential benefits. The concessions that would have to be made to allow for them to function isn't worth the effort and long term damage on the games yet to be played and the deck construction process over all.
Pro-Wish Camp:
1) We have cards that we want to use on a regular basis, with any group we might come across, without having to ask permission before doing so.
2) We don't like that the rules are in the grey area of legal but non-functional in the Commander/EDH format and we want the RC/CAG to either ban them or make them legal.
3) We don't feel that comparing other format cards to wishes (ex. planechase and draft) are valid arguments against why wishes can't be functional in Commander. Cards that have alternate conditions like Battle of Wits also don't count in the argument against playability because while legal, they inherently break the limit on deck construction of 100 cards or require multiples prohibited by singleton.
4) The "spirit of the format" is to allow all cards that could see play in other formats, but don't, due to mana cost, effect, efficiency, etc. Wishes are a part of that list of cards, in our opinion, and want them to see play as well.
5) Don't judge the cards and their 'worst-case scenario' in the hands of competitive players, they don't represent the majority - some of us just want to try to pull off these cool plays.
6) The 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' isn't an issue because the majority of the cards are well within reasonable limits and are even lower than most of the most commonly played cards.
Anti-Wish Camp:
1) Any functionality granted to wishes violates one or more rules, would circumvent the rules, or would require too many additional concessions to limit their scope. The changes that would need to be made would change the wish card's functionality to be something else entirely (or at least heavily errata'd).
2) Wishes are currently cards that have the potential to spike in popularity/demand, and the single time printings of them could cause a 'Perceived Barrier to Entry' for players.
3) The social contract is determined/interpreted to be something different for each play group, and the current state of wishes being non-functional maintains reasonable expectations going into anywhere, be it a new group of friends, an LGS or anywhere else.
4) The 'worst-case scenario' has to be taken into account when banning/unbanning anything. While this case is unique, it is not immune to the same consideration.
5) The current system isn't broken when it comes to dictating what sort of things are suitable for casual, group accepted play. Everything from running currently banned cards, making your own banned lists, running wishes, or even special mulligan rules is all within reach, if your play group agrees to it.
I've seen plenty of comments on the subject, as new action or continued inaction often bring these things back up to the surface. This is especially true for those that hold a topic close to heart. In addition to what I feel are logical points against wishes and the often mentioned 'wishboards/sideboards', These next points might tip the scales in favor of things remaining as they currently are.
1) There is a distinct lack of consistency in what people want when it comes to wishes. Some favor the most literal reading of the card... duplicate of a card in your 99, card in a binder, off color card, etc. Some of those same people later make concession after concession, from trying to make it adhere to the rules of singleton to bartering for the size of the side/wishboard. Some are suggesting that the RC adopt an official sideboard from which wishes can be pulled, despite a sideboard never having been legal by official rules.
This all points to what the social contract is for. While the RC/CAG could technically implement the changes that are requested, and the Pro-wish camp would sing it's praises, there are still likely those among that same camp that would complain that their vision for how wishes would function isn't what's official. ex. "We shouldn't be limited to 5/10 cards. Magic's sideboard is 15!" or "The card says I can pull any card that matches the criteria, why am I limited to anything at all?"
2) Setting aside potential demand and cost increases for these underutilized cards, the ease with which a card can be abused and how good a card is at what it does are some of the things that eventually gets it banned (see: Primeval Titan, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial, Prophet of Kruphix).
When there's a will, there's a way. People will find the most degenerate uses for them, and with enough attention and prevalence, the outcome will be the same. Even if you're not on "team hyper-competitive", a subsequent banning or rule change would effect you as well if you play by the official rules. If you choose not to play by the official rules at that point, then you're already in unofficial territory, so why persist in getting wishes into official gameplay?
TL;DR
Convincing individuals you know and play with regularly to try out wishes and their wishboards seems like the path of least resistance here. If you can't manage to do that, try to find another group of people at an LGS or come to terms with people not liking/wanting wishes in Commander/EDH. Trying to force the issue and your desire to use cards that don't currently function in the format isn't in line with the social contract as it is. When people come together and agree on the kind of games they want to play, they stay and do so. When no agreement is met, people don't play. Find people who agree to play the way you want to and play games with them.
Because you're suggesting the rule be amended to play cards that have a high potential for anti-social play via hate cards that wouldn't otherwise be in a deck (because they might not make the cut). The social contract is all well and good when you have a regular group, but to make it legal at large subjects people to it with pickup games where a contract might not be in place, because the players are unknown.
First, it is highly presumptuous to state that those that don't want wishes to be legal are in the minority. If anything, it's a 50/50 split at the least - likely more in favor of anti-wishes considering that it's the current status-quo. The 100 card deck limit isn't rubbish, it's a defining characteristic of the format. You can't play [[Battle of Wits]] just because it's legal and you really like the card... The other concessions you mentioned don't directly violate any rules because they have text that states such, and they also maintain the 100 card singleton rule... the very basis of the format. You stance of the card wins versus the rules is clearly not the case here.
If a player plays or reveals that they have multiple copies of a card, it's a DQ. You're suggesting all of these additional conditions to allow for wishes, yet you just stated "The card does what the card does, and when the card does something outside of the rules the card wins." Not that it's true here, but that statement alone is enough of a point to argue for pulling a copy of a card that's already in the 99. After all, the card doesn't specify, does it? You want concessions to play your wishes, want to force these rulings on the player base at large, and you want and extra subset of rules added for less than 10 cards for this sort of effect. Meanwhile, there are cards like Dichotomancy, Hedron Alignment, Battle of Wits and more, that don't have this concession to allow for their usability. They're all perfectly good examples of functionally useless cards in commander, yet are still legal. Why should wishes be any different?
While you're right, in that the honor system tends to be in place, you didn't answer the question. If someone was found to have pulled a duplicate of a card in their deck list, should that not be a game loss/DQ? Regardless of whether the wishes state "from outside the game" it shouldn't then also give a person free reign to try and circumvent the core deck construction that defines the format. 100 card singleton.
Also, whether a card is "exiled" or not, it's still a part of the game. Something could bring that original wish back, make you reshuffle it into the deck, etc. Access to over 100 cards is still against the rules of the format, regardless of when it happens in a game.
Yet it's what? 7 cards that are rendered useless? You keep mentioning that it's not likely to change power levels radically and that it's fine in your play group(s), yet there are those in the community that are looking for any edge they can get, any way to skirt the line just a little bit closer. Look at the recently banned cards over the past 5-6 years. Sylvan Primordial is pretty busted, but it's not the craziest thing in the world. It was it's ability to easily be abused with blink/copy effects that made it too strong. Those in the community that were using/abusing it to the extent that they were gave it it's death sentence. Sure, you'll have the cheeky people that are going to want to pull a Pikachu into the game with no way to play it, but you'll also have people effectively running cards 101-110. I'm sorry, but if you can't justify running something like Choke to fight blue mainboard, but want the option to pull it mid game once you get the lay of the land? That's too bad, but those are the rules.
You want what is effectively an official side/wish board, seemingly justified on the idea of saving time and giving people more options. That has never been a thing for the format. Resolving Warp World or any other similarly game resetting card is a time suck/nightmare, sure... but that doesn't justify having an official side/wishboard added when the format will gain little for doing so. The RC might revisit this in the future if WotC prints more cards with effects like the wishes, but so few cards, in my opinion, is not enough to justify changing the rules to make them playable.
This sort of "fun" should stay where it's currently relegated to - play groups that have agreed to allow it. The format is complicated enough with interactions, and it's part of the reason why "Banned as a Commander" and "tucking" aren't a thing anymore. Having to explain why you're effectively circumventing the rules of the format to a new person or play group, isn't an ideal scenario. Going to any LGS/group and having the same expectations of deck construction limits IS the ideal scenario.
And wishes have functioned in the same way that they are ruled now, right along with sideboards - play group specific, not official. It was a matter of seeing the rules of the format as they are and understanding that optional sideboards were realistically the only place a wish card could pull from, because the term "wishboard" is not a new term for the format or in the forums.
Kamino hit this on the head. WotC can't prevent anyone from coming up with a varient of their game. They can't enforce anything due to fair use rights. As far as we know, the RC isn't making money off commander directly, they aren't making counterfeit cards, and they're not infringing on any copyrights. What grounds does WotC have to steal the format? Even if they tried and deviated from the RC list of rules, if people like EDH/Commander better under the RC, they're going to play by those rules.
</blockquote>
Because Chaos for the sake of Chaos, is not a good reason to do anything (contrary to what the Scrambleverse/Warp World/Possibility Storm players think).
They just said that if all Planeswalkers were available as commanders, that they would have to ban 6 or more cards to allow for it. That is the opposite of what the RC/CAG is trying to do.
Even in the case of wish cards, you're still looking at 2 options:
1) Someone decides to grind the game to a halt to pull out their binder to cherry pick a card for a niche situation (if a sideboard rule isn't implemented)
- Sideboards further complicate the rules and defies the roots of the format as a 100 card singleton format - we don't need sideboards.
- "We" don't want to wait while people sift through their deck for that 1-3 cards they want to cut pre/post game("We" being a safe assumption for the collective playerbase).
- "We" also don't want hear complaints about cards that people forgot to switch back out after a game is underway and how those sideboard cards were supposed to be something else.
2) People start including "wish/side boards" to effectively make their deck 10-15 cards larger, allowing for specific hate cards for metas or decks that a particular one struggles with.Both scenarios speak to an issue with the competitive tit-for-tat, silver bullet answers that are found in constructed formats. Cards aren't worthy of inclusion mainboard because they're too narrow of an answer and won't be effective against all deck types. I'd recommend building a more versatile deck with a variety of answers to account for a wider range of threats. Even cEDH doesn't allow wishboards...
For the sake of continuity and a singular message, the official statement/stance was made. The proverbial line in the sand...
If you and your play group don't want to abide by it, that's fine. You can literally wipe away the line with your foot and draw a new one in either direction.
What you can't do, however, is expect people of another group or LGS to accept your stance on wishboards/sideboards. It's never been a thing before on account of how the rules have been to date, it's just now a clear stance on the matter versus an ambiguous one where "the card text wins out".