Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2018-Jun-22 11:19 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-11 12:02 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Willbender wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
What I'm getting from all of this is that wish effects don't function because:

1. Appeal to status quo.
2. Let's all give worship to "WUN HUNDURD"

How about we allow a 3 card sideboard with the usual deck building rules. That way, we're not nerfing an entire group of cards.

You're free to pursue that with your playgroup.

Your reply contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. I wish to discuss a suggested change to the default rules, not a potential house rule.

Perhaps, what my suggestion needs is clarification. What I'm suggesting is the following:

1. There is a 3 card sideboard in addition to the 100 card mainboard.
2. The sideboard of a commander deck is restricted by the rules and banned list in all the same ways as its mainboard and cannot have any cards in common with the mainboard.

This would only require one additional deck-building rule and some tweaking of two already existing rules. By default, this would preclude banned cards, off color cards, and duplicate cards. Also, because only 3 cards would be allowed, there is no room to include hate for every single color or type. While you could possibly store your best cards in the sideboard, the obvious consequence of this that people seem to overlook is that those cards won't be in your mainboard. You would have to find, play, and resolve a spell that can put it there. Finally, the added benefit of doing all of this is that the Commander format and Magic the Gathering as a whole would more closely align with each other by including more of "the game" in this game, and it would do so at a negligible cost (if any) to Commander's identity.

Please, PLEASE try to discuss and debate the topic seriously. That is practically the function of this forum.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-11 1:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
Willbender wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
2. Let's all give worship to "WUN HUNDURD"

You're free to pursue that with your playgroup.

Your reply contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

To be fair - your statement (quoted above here) doesn't look like you're wanting to take things seriously in the first place.

As for your suggestion -- why 3 cards? Why not 5? Why not 15 as that's the standard sideboard size?

MMLgamer wrote:
Finally, the added benefit of doing all of this is that the Commander format and Magic the Gathering as a whole would more closely align with each other by including more of "the game" in this game

I haven't looked - but I thought Wishes got cards from your sideboard due to the Tournament rules. So, it's more like it aligns with "base" magic more when you don't have a sideboard. Plus, Commander isn't intended for tournaments (despite people using it as such) so why should we look towards matching up with the Tournament rules?

So I see your justification for this change to be suspect. It seems more that you just want to be able to use wish-type-cards (and are willing to restrict yourself in order to be able to do so.) While it's nice that you're willing to see some of the potential problems that others have already brought up and try to work around them -- it still doesn't seem like there's a huge benefit to the format here.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-11 3:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I don't mean to be glib, but the logic behind having such a small sideboard seems to defeat the point of allowing Wishes in the first place. It's like wanting a motorcycle, but after you realize how dangerous and expensive it is you are willing to settle for your younger sister's beaten up tricycle. Honestly for how much good a 3-card wishboard will do you might as well just skip the middle man and make it legal to have a 102 card deck.

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-11 5:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
I agree with Uktabi_Kong, if the rules were to be changed to support Wishes I would rather they actually support them.

Also, I don't know whether a 3 card Wishboard would actually discourage people from playing with Choke and Flashfires, or if it would mean the people who would be 'boarding those AND something more broadly situational would just stick to the most powerful color hate in one or two colors. I have never been drawn to color-hate Wishboards myself so it's hard for me to guess what others might do.

There was a brief period when a 10-card Sideboard was supported by the Rules Committee (under suggested optional house rules). Did it create an abundance of nasty color hate? Or was it just one or two players out of every hundred? Asking anybody who remembers playing during that time; I never ran into it myself.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-11 6:52 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
To be fair - your statement (quoted above here) doesn't look like you're wanting to take things seriously in the first place.
You're probably right. I was trying to be both brief and humorous because I was on my cell phone. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I do stand by my other points.

Quote:

As for your suggestion -- why 3 cards? Why not 5? Why not 15 as that's the standard sideboard size?
Because 3 is more than 0, and it is also the standard number of wishes. It is also low enough that you can't use it to hate out any color you want. If you're suggesting that 3 isn't the sweet spot, state your case for a different one. If you're suggesting that there isn't a sweet spot and you're not just using that as a cheap subjectivist argument against the suggestion, explain why 3 isn't an acceptable default.
Quote:
I haven't looked - but I thought Wishes got cards from your sideboard due to the Tournament rules. So, it's more like it aligns with "base" magic more when you don't have a sideboard. Plus, Commander isn't intended for tournaments (despite people using it as such) so why should we look towards matching up with the Tournament rules?
I never said it should match up with tournament rules. I merely suggested that wishes should have a function, and I question the reasoning behind not letting them have one by default.
Quote:
So I see your justification for this change to be suspect. It seems more that you just want to be able to use wish-type-cards (and are willing to restrict yourself in order to be able to do so.) While it's nice that you're willing to see some of the potential problems that others have already brought up and try to work around them -- it still doesn't seem like there's a huge benefit to the format here.

It smells like status quo in here. Why does the benefit have to be huge? Why can't it be enough that cards would work the way they were made to work, even if they have to have limits?

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
I don't mean to be glib, but the logic behind having such a small sideboard seems to defeat the point of allowing Wishes in the first place. It's like wanting a motorcycle, but after you realize how dangerous and expensive it is you are willing to settle for your younger sister's beaten up tricycle. Honestly for how much good a 3-card wishboard will do you might as well just skip the middle man and make it legal to have a 102 card deck.
I doubt that cards like Spawnsire of Ulamog or Living Wish will be that much more valuable to the user's own game plan without the limitation, and I doubt that mono-red or boros players will cry about the limitations of their sorcery fetcher. Like I said, if there's a better sweet spot than 3, let me know.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 2:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
Because 3 is more than 0, and it is also the standard number of wishes.
If I'm following you -- the standard # of wishes that people play, is 3. Therefore you want to put 3 slots in the sideboard - one for each wish.

Barring the slight bit of overlap (glittering wish and death wish can overlap with others for example) why not ditch the wishes and play those cards you would put in your 3 card sideboard then?

MMLgamer wrote:
I never said it should match up with tournament rules. I merely suggested that wishes should have a function, and I question the reasoning behind not letting them have one by default.
Because other than "get any card in your collection", any other interpretation is handled in the tournament rules. That's been stated before.

MMLgamer wrote:
It smells like status quo in here. Why does the benefit have to be huge? Why can't it be enough that cards would work the way they were made to work, even if they have to have limits?
1) Doesn't have to be huge, but does have to be a benefit. 2) You saying that a wishboard is how they were made to work seems to me that you're not really listening to what people have said about the wishes in this thread.

In fact, lets take a look at a relevant gatherer ruling for Cunning Wish:
Quote:
In a sanctioned event, a card that’s “outside the game” is one that’s in your sideboard. In an unsanctioned event, you may choose any card from your collection.

So.. sanctioned it gets from your SB. I'd say that probably a majority of games are unsactioned. That said - if you know how to sanction a game/event, then you know how to make a rule on how to handle wishes.

For unsactioned game - it's as we've been telling you ... the rules DON'T specify a sideboard (those are part of the tournament rules.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 3:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
Because 3 is more than 0, and it is also the standard number of wishes.
If I'm following you -- the standard # of wishes that people play, is 3. Therefore you want to put 3 slots in the sideboard - one for each wish.

Barring the slight bit of overlap (glittering wish and death wish can overlap with others for example) why not ditch the wishes and play those cards you would put in your 3 card sideboard then?


That's pretty much what was on my mind... if I have only 3 whole cards in my wishboard, what's the functional difference between that and just putting them in my deck and tutoring them out when I need them sooner?

If there's only 3 cards in my wishboard they're relevant enough to my game plan I functionally have a 103 card deck with 3 cards I can only get at with 1-3 other cards.

It's making wishes functional for the sake of making them functional, but not making them useful or have any point.

_________________
Decks: Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem), and Intet dragons (so many dragons) (actually not enough dragons)
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 3:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Carthain wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
Because 3 is more than 0, and it is also the standard number of wishes.
If I'm following you -- the standard # of wishes that people play, is 3. Therefore you want to put 3 slots in the sideboard - one for each wish.

I understood it to mean 'the standard number of wishes in storytelling' such as (EDIT) DISNEY Aladdin or Planescape Torment:
Quote:
An elderly man was sitting alone on a dark path. He wasn't certain of which direction to go, and he'd forgotten both where he was traveling to and who he was. He'd sat down for a moment to rest his weary legs, and suddenly looked up to see an elderly woman before him. She grinned toothlessly and with a cackle, spoke: "Now your *third* wish. What will it be?"

"Third wish?" The man was baffled. "How can it be a third wish if I haven't had a first and second wish?"

"You've had two wishes already," the hag said, "but your second wish was for me to return everything to the way it was before you had made your first wish. That's why you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes." She cackled at the poor man. "So it is that you have one wish left."

"All right," he said, "I don't believe this, but there's no harm in wishing. I wish to know who I am."

"Funny," said the old woman as she granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish."


MMLgamer wrote:
Like I said, if there's a better sweet spot than 3, let me know.
10 is what I use. In one deck I have 5 creatures for Living Wish (Dualcaster Mage, Greenwarden of Murasa, Clever Impersonator, Oracle of Mul Daya, Seedborn Muse) and 5 Sorceries for Burning Wish (Guided Passage, Epic Experiment, Preordain, Calming Verse, Mizzix's Mastery). In another I have 10 Instants for Cunning Wish (Back to Nature, Hurkyl's Recall, Mindbreak Trap, Path to Exile, Purify the Grave, Reclaim, Shelter, Simic Charm, Stifle, Wing Shards). It makes them strong situational tutors, which I think is the most 'fair' use of them, and doesn't take forever for me to decide which one I want right now.

You could also make a case for 15, given that it's what people who are coming to the format from other Magic formats would expect.

I'm curious, what do you want to do with Wishes that works with only 3? Is it just to hide a powerful creature behind some anti-Bribery tech?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 4:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
I understood it to mean 'the standard number of wishes in storytelling' such as Aladdin ...
As an aside, in the original Aladdin story, there was no limit on # of wishes :) (There were also two genies/djinni/jinni -- and for a good amount of time, Aladdin had both)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 4:32 am 

Joined: 2012-Nov-21 3:29 am
Age: Drake
I'm disappointed that wishes have a rule that specifically makes them not function. They'd work if that rule didn't exist, although the sideboard rule would be the best.

If people are going to do antisocial things with wishes (use them for color hosing in casual games), that's more on the player. Having them not function takes out a lot of fun opportunities.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 6:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
I don't mean to be glib, but the logic behind having such a small sideboard seems to defeat the point of allowing Wishes in the first place. It's like wanting a motorcycle, but after you realize how dangerous and expensive it is you are willing to settle for your younger sister's beaten up tricycle. Honestly for how much good a 3-card wishboard will do you might as well just skip the middle man and make it legal to have a 102 card deck.
I doubt that cards likeSpawnsire of Ulamog or Living Wish will be that much more valuable to the user's own game plan without the limitation, and I doubt that mono-red or boros players will cry about the limitations of their sorcery fetcher. Like I said, if there's a better sweet spot than 3, let me know.

I'd have to disagree with literally all three of your examples. Especially in a multiplayer game, casting 10+ Eldrazi is far more powerful than just 3. Heck, spending 20 mana to get 3 Eldrazi is probably a weaker play than just Genesis Wave-ing for 20 or using Deadeye Navigator's bounce on (insert big ETB creature here) 10 times will probably be more of an impactful play.

Living Wish... I can't fathom how on earth it wouldn't be more valuable without the limitation. First of all, with the limitation there's pretty much no reason to ever use it for its land-fetching powers. Just staying within the color green you have creatures that fulfill the roles of ramp, artifact/enchantment removal, flier removal, GY hate, recursion, pumping, card draw/filtering, tutors, token makers, and juggernauts, all of which at varying costs and power levels. Just in the realm of artifact hate you got really cheap options like Scavenger Folk, more standard options like Viridian Shaman or Reclamation Sage, reusable effects like Glissa Sunseeker, and mass removal like Bane of Progress or Terastodon. And depending on your deck, a lot or even all of these might be too situational or inflexible to be worth a deck slot. Even with a 15 card sideboard you could probably fill it up with green artifact removal creatures that aren't good enough to get into the main deck. And again, that's just killing artifacts, and not even leaving the color green, and absolutely ignoring the dozens of utility lands that this card could potentially fetch.

And as for Burning Wish in R/RW decks, such a small list does almost nothing to help. Great, so you can have an extra wheel effect, an extra mass removal effect, or a random chaos card. And whichever one you decide to use is going to be over costed, and you can't tutor for it (not that red or white can tutor anyway). And the other part that I don't get is why these three cards that you want to use aren't just in your deck. At least one of them could be if you took out the slot of the Wish, which makes me feel like using the Wish is really creating a rules loophole so that when you get your deck to 98 cards and have 3 remaining options you don't have to choose.

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-12 9:29 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
I never said it should match up with tournament rules. I merely suggested that wishes should have a function, and I question the reasoning behind not letting them have one by default.
Because other than "get any card in your collection", any other interpretation is handled in the tournament rules. That's been stated before.

MMLgamer wrote:
It smells like status quo in here. Why does the benefit have to be huge? Why can't it be enough that cards would work the way they were made to work, even if they have to have limits?
1) Doesn't have to be huge, but does have to be a benefit. 2) You saying that a wishboard is how they were made to work seems to me that you're not really listening to what people have said about the wishes in this thread.

In fact, lets take a look at a relevant gatherer ruling for Cunning Wish:
Quote:
In a sanctioned event, a card that’s “outside the game” is one that’s in your sideboard. In an unsanctioned event, you may choose any card from your collection.

So.. sanctioned it gets from your SB. I'd say that probably a majority of games are unsactioned. That said - if you know how to sanction a game/event, then you know how to make a rule on how to handle wishes.

For unsactioned game - it's as we've been telling you ... the rules DON'T specify a sideboard (those are part of the tournament rules.)
You keep talking about "no sideboards/wishboards in unsanctioned" as though Commander could not possibly be an exception. Wishes ALREADY have a rule in Commander dedicated to making them function differently than they do in other unsanctioned formats (by nature of the fact that the rule takes away their function). Why can't wishes work differently in a way that makes them useful, even if 3 wishes isn't the sweet spot?

Also, a point I keep getting is that I just want wishes for wishes' sake. What I want is for cards to work for the sake of cards working. Placing a limitation may not completely accomplish this, but it is closer to the mark than the current setup.

OK, let's say that we don't want a limitation and we also don't want wishes to function the way they normally do in unsanctioned play. That must mean we don't want wishes at all. However if that's the case, that begs a final question: why aren't they just banned? Before you answer this, I do not buy that it allows players to decide how to use them, because banned cards work in the exact same way. Both the description of the banned list on the official website and the wording of Rule 14 use the same language. Other than allowing another meh token spell, another bad tutor, another REALLY bad eldrazi, and a REALLY, REALLY bad eldrazi retriever, Rule 14 is just banning by another name that hammers half as sweet and twice as puzzling. If I recall, "Banned as Commander" was abolished for reasons that could easily justify just putting wishes with Rofellos and Leovold.

EDIT: I say 14, but I mean 13

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-13 1:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
I do not buy that it allows players to decide how to use them, because banned cards work in the exact same way.

Not quite. People feel better about altering a rule than they do at unbanning a card.

First off - if you do want wishes to do something, then making a house rule lets them feel like they are acheiving/fixing something in the format. That's a pretty good feeling.

Secondly, if someone proposes to their group "Hey, let's unban card X" that's very likely going to lead to someone else wanting to unban other cards. Which is something that the person proposing to unban wishes (if they were banned) would want - so it's easier to just go with the flow on that.

As someone who has (in the past) altered the local ban list in agreement with some other local players -- it's much more contentious than other house rules (for example, what was banned and what wasn't was talked about a LOT more than the house rule at the time of "no infinite-recurring mindslaver" that was also introduced.)

I feel like you haven't given this all that much thought, but have just been throwing out ideas, hoping something sticks (which it hasn't) and then complaining when there doesn't seem to be much agreement with you.

Very often when someone wants a rule changed, they test the change in their own playgroup. Have you tested a wish sideboard with your group at all? How does 3 cards work out ('cuz actual data works better than any theorcrafting we can do on these boards.)

Also, I'm not sure wishes working is all that high on the list of things that people want. Someone earlier (intrepid?) asked if anyone has experience with wishboards when they were specifically allowed -- and I've not heard anyone speak up about it.

Also - for the Commander rules - the status quo is the status quo because it serves the purpose it's intended to, and because some thought has been given to the different rules. You'd be much better off trying to get change by first asking why things are the way they are, instead of starting off by mocking the established rules and saying people like the status quo simply because it's the status quo. As such your comments of "appeal to [the] status quo" and "smells like status quo in here" do you a huge disservice. It means you're not really looking to understand the existing rules, you're just saying that what you propose is different, and we're just afraid of things being different.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-13 8:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
OK, let's say that we don't want a limitation and we also don't want wishes to function the way they normally do in unsanctioned play. That must mean we don't want wishes at all.

Let's not say that, because that's not what anyone is saying, especially not me. Personally I'd rather have no wishes at all, but I'd also be willing to entertain and discuss the idea of limited wishes. The biggest problem I've had is with the specific limitation you've mentioned. Allowing Wish cards to search for as few as three cards is barely better than them not working at all, and it provides a whole host of annoying problems/confusions on the side.

The entire point of Wishes and why people like them is just how stupidly versatile they are, being able to get any card. I don't see a point in making a change to accommodate them if the number of cards you have to choose from is so tiny. Simply put, if Wishboards do exist, they should be as large as possible without causing power level or logistical problems. If it turns out that you are correct and that ideal number is three, then that's some pretty hard evidence that Wishes just don't belong in the format.

Quote:
However if that's the case, that begs a final question: why aren't they just banned?

Better question: why would they be? I don't know about you, but a simple effect that says "this effect doesn't work in Commander" is preferable to adding 10+ cards to the banlist. And while I can't speak for the other quasi-Wish cards, I can tell you that I've used and enjoyed Spawnsire of Ulamog in multiple different decks, and I can't imagine people won't be just fine with using a new shiny functional reprint of Diabolic Tutor.

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Jan-13 10:08 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
I do not buy that it allows players to decide how to use them, because banned cards work in the exact same way.

Not quite. People feel better about altering a rule than they do at unbanning a card.

First off - if you do want wishes to do something, then making a house rule lets them feel like they are acheiving/fixing something in the format. That's a pretty good feeling.

Secondly, if someone proposes to their group "Hey, let's unban card X" that's very likely going to lead to someone else wanting to unban other cards. Which is something that the person proposing to unban wishes (if they were banned) would want - so it's easier to just go with the flow on that.

As someone who has (in the past) altered the local ban list in agreement with some other local players -- it's much more contentious than other house rules (for example, what was banned and what wasn't was talked about a LOT more than the house rule at the time of "no infinite-recurring mindslaver" that was also introduced.)
This is the exact point I was refuting. A quick look at the rules page of this site says the following for the banned list and Rule 13:

"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. "

"Abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the game (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf) do not function in Commander without prior agreement on their scope from the playgroup."

Everyone in my playgroup who is aware of both the banlist and the rule is aware of the fact that they are the default setup. As such, no one bothers to put wishes in their deck, because they may as well be using Garbage Fires.

Quote:
I feel like you haven't given this all that much thought, but have just been throwing out ideas, hoping something sticks (which it hasn't) and then complaining when there doesn't seem to be much agreement with you.

Very often when someone wants a rule changed, they test the change in their own playgroup. Have you tested a wish sideboard with your group at all? How does 3 cards work out ('cuz actual data works better than any theorcrafting we can do on these boards.)

Also, I'm not sure wishes working is all that high on the list of things that people want. Someone earlier (intrepid?) asked if anyone has experience with wishboards when they were specifically allowed -- and I've not heard anyone speak up about it.
Thank you for telling me how you feel about my opinion and what you feel it means, but I actually HAVE discussed it with the people I play with. They allowed wishes for a while, but then banned them again because people abused Spawnshire and they didn't want that particular combo happening again. Since it is an LGS, there are very few opportunities to bring up alternative solutions or house rules and very little point in doing so as different people show up all the time.

Quote:
Also - for the Commander rules - the status quo is the status quo because it serves the purpose it's intended to, and because some thought has been given to the different rules. You'd be much better off trying to get change by first asking why things are the way they are, instead of starting off by mocking the established rules and saying people like the status quo simply because it's the status quo. As such your comments of "appeal to [the] status quo" and "smells like status quo in here" do you a huge disservice. It means you're not really looking to understand the existing rules, you're just saying that what you propose is different, and we're just afraid of things being different.
Again, thank you for telling me what I mean. I admittedly have a particular disdain for "status quo" arguments, because in the same way that you feel I don't think about the reasons behind the current rules, I feel like you don't give much consideration to a possibly better alternative and are instead just lazily dismissing an idea and effectively the whole argument by setting an arbitrary bar for change.

I would personally love to see the data that the RC uses, and I'd love to know if all the possibilities were discussed. Rule 13 is the ONLY rule in all of unsanctioned Magic that directly singles out a particular effect for the purpose of changing how it works. It is the ugliest rule on the page. The comprehensive rules don't even acknowledge the rule's existence, but of course the comprehensive rules give the function of meld commanders and a more accurate description of the command tax rule which this website doesn't. As such, you actually have to read two different sets of rules to understand the game completely. I imagine this is because Rule 13 works not like a rule, but as a sloppy but somewhat necessary regulation in the same category as the banlist, except the banlist is designed to change overtime.

If a 3-card wishboard is not the proper limitation, okay, but I'd be interested in seeing people discuss alternative solutions.

_________________
.


Last edited by MMLgamer on 2018-Jan-13 11:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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: