Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2018-Jul-22 10:36 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 1:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Drake
MMLgamer wrote:
spacemonaut wrote:
I don't see how it'd be unintuitive: "Rule 13: Abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the game, instead only refer to cards owned in the exile zone. (For example, casting Living Wish can find a creature you own exiled by Detention Sphere, but cannot find a creature in your collection.)" That reads just fine to me.

We don't need WotC whole-game-level errata to change a format-specific rule to another format-specific rule. I don't think anyone here is asking for the core rules of the game to change. (I'm not motioning for any specific change myself either, but I don't think any suggestion so far would be hard to implement clearly in EDH's ruleset.)

It's unintuitive because reading the card (or, at worst, its oracle text) is supposed to explain the card. If players have to read the CR to find out that "outside the game" also means a zone "inside the game", I would call that unintuitive.

The game is full of rules that exist outside the card. Our Commander cards don't explain the "can go to the command zone" replacement effect, or explain the "you can only have one of these in your deck" rule. No cards explain how to handle the turn structure or the combat procedure. People demonstrably don't have much trouble dealing with any of these concepts, except insofar as they need to learn how to play the game at all. I think people will also be fine handling a "wishes search exile" rule. (Or a "wishes search exile or your library" rule.)

_________________
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-Apr-15 3:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
MMLgamer wrote:
Why can't the current wish rule be in the CR? Isn't it just a matter of writing "Cards outside the game can't enter a Commander game. If the effect of a spell or ability tries to accomplish this, nothing happens."

If that were what rule 13 said, then it could be in the CR. But it's not. This is rule 13;
Rule 13 wrote:
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.

Red added for emphasis. "Negotiate how this works before each game" is not something WotC is going to put in the CR, because that's not a rule - it's instructions to make your own rule, with a difficult to enforce default case tacked on.

MMLgamer wrote:
The reason I think WotC should make the sort of change I was talking about in my last post, if any change at all, is because any rule that changes how "outside the game" is defined so that it actually grabs a card "inside the game" would be unintuitive.

I guess my question here is why is WotC more qualified to do things that are unintuitive? And if they are, how do we reconcile that with the current management of the format - i.e. the RC makes a rule and WotC adopts it? This would be WotC making a rule and the RC having to make a decision as to whether to follow suit. Seems like a bad idea to me.

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


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 4:48 am 

Joined: 2018-Apr-15 12:28 am
Age: Hatchling
Wish-cards are absolute playable in the commander format. There are simply tutors like Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor,... allowed, wich have at least the same (ore even more) powerful effect.

So the wish-cards are definitely no problem for the game!!!! And there you may argument the situation of no commander sideboard? It's clear, a sideboard is good for the format, not just because of the wishes. Normally you are playing more than one game in a row, so why not having some cards for some improvement? For me it's clear: MTG Commander should be balanced and these are important rules change!

My vote is for update this rule as soon as possible.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 5:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2013-Oct-26 9:21 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Xenia, OH, USA
thom-le wrote:
Wish-cards are absolute playable in the commander format. There are simply tutors like Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor,... allowed, wich have at least the same (ore even more) powerful effect.

So the wish-cards are definitely no problem for the game!!!! And there you may argument the situation of no commander sideboard? It's clear, a sideboard is good for the format, not just because of the wishes. Normally you are playing more than one game in a row, so why not having some cards for some improvement? For me it's clear: MTG Commander should be balanced and these are important rules change!

My vote is for update this rule as soon as possible.


I'll post the same response to what you said in the unnecessary thread you made.

First off, bolded part, that's not what sideboards are for. Sideboards are for changing your deck in the middle of a tournament. Single games you simply change your deck from your collection between games.

Second, they fundamentally disagree with the deck construction rules. Given a 15-card sideboard, you're essentially making a 115-X deck where X is the number of wishes you have in your deck. Just freaking cut cards already.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 6:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
thom-le wrote:
Wish-cards are absolute playable in the commander format. There are simply tutors like Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor,... allowed, wich have at least the same (ore even more) powerful effect.

Welcome to the correct thread. It appears you didn't actually take the time to read the thread... I guess I can't blame you, as 12 pages is a lot to go through and digest, but let me break it down for you as quickly as I can;
1. Wishes are not unbalanced, and no one is claiming otherwise. Rule 13 exists to limit the use of wishes unless a scope of use can be agreed on, due largely to the issue of scope - do you get to search your binders for whatever you want? Do you have a group of cards set aside somewhere? Also see #2 below.
2. Wishes are against the intent of the format for a few key reasons;
a. They would break the 100 card limit
b. Nothing would enforce color ID rules
c. Nothing would enforce the singleton rule
d. Taken together and without any limitation imposed by the rules, this means that wishes are absolutely more powerful than conventional tutors, because you would be able to use them to get cards you normally wouldn't even have access to, or to get extra copies of things that are already in your deck.
3. We could make a "wishboard" rule to address 1, 2b, 2c and 2d, but not 2a. Sideboards are not appropriate for EDH as we do not play "matches", but a series of one-off games.
a. It is likely that if "wishboards" were allowed, they would end up filled with narrow hosers. This isn't inherently unbalancing, but it does nothing to foster the sort of environment the RC would like to promote - the idea of "games you want to remember not games you'd like to forget". Having someone wish for the perfect card to ruin your game is not a game you'd like to remember.
4. We could make a rule that limits wishes to cards that are IN the game. This would cleanly address items 1 & 2, but depending on the decided scope (library, exile, library & exile, etc) would make the cards significantly weaker.
5. We could just ban them and be done with it.

As of right now, you CAN run wishes - you just have to accept the fact that your opponents can effectively veto your ability to have them do anything.

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


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 6:50 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
As far as I'm concerned, there are two viable choices. Have the rule we have now (which is more of a reminder to talk to your playgroup than a rule, hence it not being in the CR), or no rule at all, which means you can grab any card from your collection, ignore color identity, deckbuilding restrictions, etc, etc.

We used to have the latter. Some people didn't like it, and we had lots of people wanting a rule. So, we wrote one. Different people didn't like that. On the whole, I think the current approach is probably the better of the two.

Zero interest in introducing tournament concepts or changing how the rules of Magic work.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 6:00 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Sid the Chicken wrote:
MMLgamer wrote:
Why can't the current wish rule be in the CR? Isn't it just a matter of writing "Cards outside the game can't enter a Commander game. If the effect of a spell or ability tries to accomplish this, nothing happens."

If that were what rule 13 said, then it could be in the CR. But it's not. This is rule 13;
Rule 13 wrote:
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.

Red added for emphasis. "Negotiate how this works before each game" is not something WotC is going to put in the CR, because that's not a rule - it's instructions to make your own rule, with a difficult to enforce default case tacked on.


That part of the rule is irrelevant. "Without prior agreement" is exactly the same phrase used in the banlist description. It's basically the official way of saying "unless you make a house rule for it" which you can do even if it were in the CR.

MMLgamer wrote:
The reason I think WotC should make the sort of change I was talking about in my last post, if any change at all, is because any rule that changes how "outside the game" is defined so that it actually grabs a card "inside the game" would be unintuitive.

I guess my question here is why is WotC more qualified to do things that are unintuitive? And if they are, how do we reconcile that with the current management of the format - i.e. the RC makes a rule and WotC adopts it? This would be WotC making a rule and the RC having to make a decision as to whether to follow suit. Seems like a bad idea to me.[/quote]I know it's a bad idea, but it's not a worse idea than changing the functionality of "outside the game" for the reasons I've already stated.

Sid the Chicken wrote:
1. Wishes are not unbalanced, and no one is claiming otherwise. Rule 13 exists to limit the use of wishes unless a scope of use can be agreed on, due largely to the issue of scope - do you get to search your binders for whatever you want? Do you have a group of cards set aside somewhere? Also see #2 below.
2. Wishes are against the intent of the format for a few key reasons;
a. They would break the 100 card limit
b. Nothing would enforce color ID rules
c. Nothing would enforce the singleton rule
d. Taken together and without any limitation imposed by the rules, this means that wishes are absolutely more powerful than conventional tutors, because you would be able to use them to get cards you normally wouldn't even have access to, or to get extra copies of things that are already in your deck.
3. We could make a "wishboard" rule to address 1, 2b, 2c and 2d, but not 2a. Sideboards are not appropriate for EDH as we do not play "matches", but a series of one-off games.
a. It is likely that if "wishboards" were allowed, they would end up filled with narrow hosers. This isn't inherently unbalancing, but it does nothing to foster the sort of environment the RC would like to promote - the idea of "games you want to remember not games you'd like to forget". Having someone wish for the perfect card to ruin your game is not a game you'd like to remember.
4. We could make a rule that limits wishes to cards that are IN the game. This would cleanly address items 1 & 2, but depending on the decided scope (library, exile, library & exile, etc) would make the cards significantly weaker.
5. We could just ban them and be done with it.

As of right now, you CAN run wishes - you just have to accept the fact that your opponents can effectively veto your ability to have them do anything.
This line of argument is a tad questionable.

First you say that wishes are not unbalanced, then you list all the reasons why people all over this very thread are constantly saying that wishes are unbalanced. "They're super tutors." "They're super-charms." "They're super-hosers." "They bypass color restrictions." "They blaspheme the Deus Centum." You seem to be listing all the reasons why the wish function ban should be a comprehensive rule, and yet you keep insisting that it shouldn't be a CR because we need to leave room for house rules, as if house rules couldn't possibly happen otherwise.

I also think it's strange that the same people who think "outside the game" effects and the intentions behind their main design can change also think the concept and intention of sideboards can't change at all.

As I said in a previous post, Rule 13 was obviously designed to ban a function in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons that the banlist was designed to ban cards. Any other interpretation is an insult to our intelligence. Either make it a Comprehensive Rule, or move the rule to the banlist page so that it will be honestly portrayed.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
That would almost certainly create more confusion, not less. Labeling it as a "function ban" isn't more honest, it's more ambiguous. Is a "function ban" a ban on the function itself or a ban on cards with that function? And what exactly does a ban on a function entail exactly? Furthermore, putting it on the banned list page would give the exact opposite impression of what we'd be going for.
Yes it is more honest, because it would be more aligned with the reasons why the rule actually exists. You think just labeling it as a function ban is confusing and ambiguous? So give a description that explains it. What's the problem? You say it would give the opposite impression that you want? What impression does it give now? If you say that it's to force or empower playgroups who want to use wishes responsibly, I'm going to have to call that a lie, since that is not at all what it actually accomplishes. It actually discourages the use of wishes entirely, and it does more to empower the individual player than it does the playgroup; that's what every rule does. Also, its not the impression I get from the people in this forum arguing against it, namely, that it goes against the spirit of EDH in several disgusting ways. That is how cards get banned. Why should banned functions work differently?

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 8:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I really wish this board had an ignore thread button....

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

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

"I'm happy to serve as a quote machine" - Sheldon


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-15 9:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Drake
Viperion wrote:
I really wish this board had an ignore thread button....

Same tbh.

_________________
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-Apr-16 3:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
spacemonaut wrote:
Viperion wrote:
I really wish this board had an ignore thread button....

Same tbh.

The power is within all of us. Some of us choose not to.

MMLgamer wrote:
I know it's a bad idea, but it's not a worse idea than changing the functionality of "outside the game" for the reasons I've already stated.

Since rule 13 already effectively changes the functionality of "outside the game" to "do nothing, unless...", I don't think it's that big a leap to give it another purpose.

MMLgamer wrote:
This line of argument is a tad questionable.

I'll concede it wasn't great wording. Also I forgot to include "Nothing enforces the banned list". Nonetheless, what I'm seeing between the pro-wishboard and anti-wishboard side is "This wouldn't be overpowered and we could use these cards we like" vs. "Maybe not, but it would break the spirit of the format and probably not be fun for the rest of us". In other words, the debate isn't so much about the raw power of the cards as it is about whether we should make a rule that enables people to bypass the 100 card limit. I think the general consensus is that a codified wishboard would enforce the color ID, banned list and singleton rules.

MMLgamer wrote:
yet you keep insisting that it shouldn't be a CR because we need to leave room for house rules, as if house rules couldn't possibly happen otherwise.

Whoa, hold up... when did I say that? I said that the current incarnation of rule 13 can't be in the comprehensive rules because it includes that ambiguous "talk to your group" language as part of the rule. It can't be in the CR because WotC rules people are never going to put a suggestion into the comprehensive rules. This is not my "can't" it's WotC's, hence why rule 13 is not in the CR now. I would absolutely like the rule to be in the CR (without the qualifier) so that there is consistency between the CR and the rules on this page. Sadly, it appears at least one member of the RC is dead-set against such a move.

MMLgamer wrote:
That part of the rule is irrelevant. "Without prior agreement" is exactly the same phrase used in the banlist description. It's basically the official way of saying "unless you make a house rule for it" which you can do even if it were in the CR.

That part of the rule is not irrelevant because it is literally keeping the rule out of the CR.

papa_funk wrote:
We used to have the latter. Some people didn't like it, and we had lots of people wanting a rule. So, we wrote one. Different people didn't like that. On the whole, I think the current approach is probably the better of the two.

If memory serves, a lot of the outcry had to do with Sheldon stating something similar to rule 13 on the forum somewhere in response to a question about using wishes, and people wanting clarification because the most prominent member of the RC was stating rules that weren't on the rules page.

papa_funk wrote:
Zero interest in introducing tournament concepts or changing how the rules of Magic work.

To be fair to the wishboard people, it would be a cleaner solution than letting people rummage through binders. I don't like it, but it would be cleaner than the current rule. Also, you guys have changed the rules of magic plenty in the past (mana generation rules, general rules, color identity, the infamous tuck decision...), so what about this particular situation is so different? Rule 13 already effectively creates a replacement effect of "find a card outside the game" with "do nothing"... but it can't be "do something else"?

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


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-16 4:24 pm 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
If memory serves, a lot of the outcry had to do with Sheldon stating something similar to rule 13 on the forum somewhere in response to a question about using wishes, and people wanting clarification because the most prominent member of the RC was stating rules that weren't on the rules page.


Nah, that was a symptom; we had lots of people wanting answers by the time anyone waded in.


Sid the Chicken wrote:
Also, you guys have changed the rules of magic plenty in the past (mana generation rules, general rules, color identity, the infamous tuck decision...), so what about this particular situation is so different? Rule 13 already effectively creates a replacement effect of "find a card outside the game" with "do nothing"... but it can't be "do something else"?


Notice how all the game play rules other than "general rules" are gone? That's intentional.

The current rule is the minimal thing we can have without simply removing the rule entirely. It puts the power on the playgroup to set the scope of wishes and if they can't, it removes that functionality. Going beyond that intrudes further into gameplay modifications than we'd like to, especially for such a minor thing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-20 7:19 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
papa_funk wrote:
The current rule is the minimal thing we can have without simply removing the rule entirely. It puts the power on the playgroup to set the scope of wishes and if they can't, it removes that functionality. Going beyond that intrudes further into gameplay modifications than we'd like to, especially for such a minor thing.


So, does this mean you don't think Rule 13 could be codified in the C.R. as a default Option? For example,

"903.XX. Cards outside the game can't enter a Commander game. If an effect would bring a card into the game from outside the game, it doesn't; that card remains outside the game.
903.XXa. As an alternative option, a Commander game may have exceptions to 903.XX. If this option is used, these exceptions must be specified and announced before the game begins."

Or something like that. I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it, but still.

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Since rule 13 already effectively changes the functionality of "outside the game" to "do nothing, unless...", I don't think it's that big a leap to give it another purpose.

I just thought of something. What if WotC errata'd Wishes so that they use an evergreen keyword that had different definitions depending on the format? Is that even possible, or would that be too convoluted?

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-20 7:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think it's your 903.XXa example that WotC wouldn't put into the Comp Rules.

Nothing in the Comp Rules is wishy-washy on how things work. They just state it works like X. And it's the wishy-washy-ness of rule 13 that papa_funk mentioned that keeps it out of the Comp Rules.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-20 10:16 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
I think it's your 903.XXa example that WotC wouldn't put into the Comp Rules.

Nothing in the Comp Rules is wishy-washy on how things work. They just state it works like X. And it's the wishy-washy-ness of rule 13 that papa_funk mentioned that keeps it out of the Comp Rules.

My example wasn't a final draft by any means. Having said that, I don't think a clear and comprehensive version of Rule 13 is impossible. There are plenty of precedents in the C.R. for "options", "exceptions", and "criteria".

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mastermind's Acquisition - Can we haz sideboardz now?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-21 12:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Drake
MMLgamer wrote:
Carthain wrote:
I think it's your 903.XXa example that WotC wouldn't put into the Comp Rules.

Nothing in the Comp Rules is wishy-washy on how things work. They just state it works like X. And it's the wishy-washy-ness of rule 13 that papa_funk mentioned that keeps it out of the Comp Rules.

My example wasn't a final draft by any means. Having said that, I don't think a clear and comprehensive version of Rule 13 is impossible. There are plenty of precedents in the C.R. for "options", "exceptions", and "criteria".

Can you give some examples? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not conscious of parts of the CR that leave thing open in the style of letting playgroups decide their own thing.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 37 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: