7/14/2010: July 2010 Update Bulletin

69 posts / 0 new
Last post

This thread is for discussion of this month's Update Bulletin, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

I have a silly question:  Why not the Chimeras also?
Okay, that could be interpreted as part of the +2/+2 counter, but then there's also Quarum Trench Gnomes, as well as other "this effet on that thing lasts forever" cards I've forgotten.


Or does the "ignore everything before right damn now" axiom still apply?
Not sure I think there is any good reason to avoid "last printed wording." The cards in question don't seem to be particularly harmed outside of Instill Energy, but this is how the slippery slope started in the first place. We finally got Gottleib to start reverting, but now he leaves and on his way out kicks the door open again.

From the "I have buried him and now I shall praise him" archives: I still think the deathtouch change was a great decision.
I have a silly question:  Why not the Chimeras also?
Okay, that could be interpreted as part of the +2/+2 counter, but then there's also Quarum Trench Gnomes, as well as other "this effet on that thing lasts forever" cards I've forgotten.



Those are cases where the effect applies to something that is in play when the ability in question resolves. It's not just a matter of a permanent effects, which are rare (for good-design-principle reasons) but perfectly valid under the rules.

The only other card I can think of that might be an Emblem candidate would be Channel, but it sounds like emblems are currently being reserved for permanent abilities, rather than temporary abilities. (Unless the construction "you get an emblem ... until end of turn" is valid.)
I like the idea of emblems a lot. In MTGO the concept is obvious because continuous static effects which are not tied to a permanent are instead attached to mysterious, floating objects. (Channel)

Still though, what about the game's other already existing "continuous static effects" (CSEs) which also lack a body? There's more than Elspeth.

Channel - this card seems to create a static effect which allows you access to an activated ability. The word "whenever" usually means a replacement effect, but in this case it means an added strategic option. Channel worded as an emblem would require the emblem to have a duration. So?

Stigma Lasher - Just like Elspeth, this guy writes a static effect on an index card. Removing Stigma Lasher won't remove his index card.

Epic Spells - You gain an emblem of silence. Then there's a repeating triggered ability set up for you.

And then there are sorceries like Yawgmoth's Will and Angel's Grace which effectively create "new rules" like static effects. It's true that every such sorcery always has a duration which expires at the end of the turn, like Channel. But if you're rethinking the obviousness of static effects which don't originate from a permanent, then what are the effects generated by non-permanent spells?
I understand the use of emblems for MtGO, as a similar item would be coded for the effect to persist anyway.

However, I fail to see the necessity to apply emblems to the physical card game rules. I think the same effect is achieved by the wording.

In the Elspeth example- if we replace her ultimate ability with an ability granted applied to creatures: "[-8]: For the rest of the game, creatures you control have flying"- the wording of the ability is so that it is applied to creatures you control, for as long as you control them, regardless of when they're played. Once control shifts, the ability would be lost.

Were the ability worded "[-8]: For the rest of the game, creatures [you've controled/you have controlled] have flying" or "[-8]: For the rest of the game, creatures you control [gain] flying", then if control switchs- the ability remains.

Take Glorious Anthem for example. If Glorious Anthem is in play, "Creatures you control get +1/+1". If control of a creature switches to your opponent, that creature loses the +1/+1 granted by Glorious Anthem. As long as Glorious Anthem is in play, any creatures you play after it's casting, gain +1/+1. Why should this change for non-targetable, permanent effects?

As Elspeth's ability is beyond destruction(since it's effect is not targetable)- the effect would persist solely for permanents under your control, for the duration of the game. And the effect should be applied constantly to anything played after it's activation.

...

Am I wrong, or missing some thing important? I'm nowhere near informed enough on Magic's technical rulings and wording, so please let me know.

...

All that said, I can see some of the logic behind creating emblems for new/casual players- as it simplifies the game rules, by replacing specific wording with a non-targetable permanent, thus removing the need for complex understanding of card workings/wordings.

It's the deathtouch that I need explaining further. 

A 2/2 with Eel Umbra (making it 3/3) blocks a 3/3 deathtouch creature.  This should trigger two state based effects - damage equal to or greater than toughness and damage dealt by deathtouch - both of which set up a "destroy this creature" SBE.  Therefore, the Umbra should not save the creature as it can only replace one of the destructions.  And yet, this is apparently not the case.
Jedit: The state-based effects are not triggered abilities. They only try to kill the creature once. Deathtouch damage is dealt as notmal damage, but the difference is that the creature dealt damage is always destroyed regardless of the amount of damage dealt.

It´s not very intuitive, but it does work that way.
I agree with Katastrophe re: Emblems, Stigma Lasher, and Epic.

Charisma 
There's a family of cards that refer to two different creatures and have to go to great lengths to distinguish which creature it's referring to at any given time. For example, the Oracle wording of Venomsays "Whenever enchanted creature blocks or becomes blocked by a non-Wall creature, destroy the other creature at end of combat." All such cards use "the other creature," except for Charisma, which uses "the second creature." Just to be consistent, Charisma is changing to match the rest.


New wording 
Enchant creature
Whenever enchanted creature deals damage to a creature, gain control of the other creature for as long as Charisma remains on the battlefield.



Personally, I think that "the second creature" is more clear.

Ogre Marauder 

The ability that Ogre Marauder grants itself is "Ogre Marauder can't be blocked." This is unusual, though. If there was a qualifier on there, like "Ogre Marauder can't be blocked by blue creatures," or "Ogre Marauder can't be blocked except by two or more creatures," it'd be fine. But in the general case, we always say "Ogre Marauder is unblockable."


New wording 
Whenever Ogre Marauder attacks, it gains "Ogre Marauder is unblockable" until end of turn unless defending player sacrifices a creature.



This seems like an unnecessary functional change.  As written, if someone casts Ovinize on the Marauder after the triggered ability resolves, it is still unblockable.  Under the new wording, Ovinize will remove the unblockability.

Why can't it just say "Ogre Marauder is unblockable this turn"?
I love MaGo.  He understands we Melvins.

Not only does it not appear on any Magic card (let alone on a white enchantment, which is all you can affect with Balduvian Shaman's ability), it can't appear on a Magic card. What kind of ability would say "counters black spells" on it? "If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it counters black spells instead"?



Gerdef
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
Personally I don't get the Emblem thing. How, exactly, will it help memorizing those effects without using a token or something, and not simply complexify the game for no reason ?
Belz... The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese visual kei heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
Re emblems: I think that what's going on is, basically, the rules are happier dealing with things than with ephemeral effects that have no body. The emblem is just an 'anchor' for the effect, which makes the rules happier. It's not really meant to help humans (though if you scribbled out emblem 'cards' like people do tokens, it could do that too!)
Personally I don't get the Emblem thing. How, exactly, will it help memorizing those effects without using a token or something, and not simply complexify the game for no reason ?



Can you explain to me how it makes the game more complex to add emblems as opposed to having to continually remember an effect someone set off 5 turns ago?
I can only assume tip/trick cards will include Emblems AND Tokens going forward.
You pop the emblem out once the ability is active as a reminder that the ability is ongoing.

The entire point of the change is to make effects such as Elspeths something that can be represented and manifested physically.
"Stop *****ing, start brewing" -YoMTGTaps Trying to talk Magic players off ledges since 2001. Sharing my knowledge of rumor history, and how to discuss rumors effectively.
I like Emblem. Heck, I like everything about the Command Zone so far.

It was mentioned before, but my first thought was that Epic should produce an emblem as well.

However, damn you Mark for reminding the world of Debt of Loyalty! I throw that out in multiplayer EDH in response to someone else's removal spell on a thrid player's creature and everyone says, "Wait, what? Let me read that."

Edited to add: Oh you bastards! I had an Egg-tribal subtheme in one of my EDH decks. Stop eliminating creature types!
Were the ability worded "[-8]: For the rest of the game, creatures [you've controled/you have controlled] have flying" or "[-8]: For the rest of the game, creatures you control [gain] flying", then if control switchs- the ability remains.

Take Glorious Anthem for example. If Glorious Anthem is in play, "Creatures you control get +1/+1". If control of a creature switches to your opponent, that creature loses the +1/+1 granted by Glorious Anthem. As long as Glorious Anthem is in play, any creatures you play after it's casting, gain +1/+1. Why should this change for non-targetable, permanent effects?


The difference is in templating. They don't use the word "have", they use the word "gain". There's two ways to interpret the message. The first is "creatures you currently control gain flying for the rest of the game" and the second is "for the rest of the game, any creatures controlled by you will have flying as a condition of being controlled by you."

The alternate templates that you suggested all still create the first effect. Here's the brain melting thing: when you replace "flying" with "indestructible", all of the templates mean the second thing instead! This is why Elspeth's ability works. The difference is granting a static ability to a permanent (like flying), or creating a stand-alone static ability (like a new rule). Magic only has a template for the latter.

(The condition of being indestructible is a game rule, not a mere static ability such as flying or Blazing Archon's "Creatures can't attack you." Being indestructible isn't even a characteristic setting ability such as "CARDNAME is all colors." Being indestructible is more like "You can't cast spells" or "You may spend white mana as though it were mana of any color.")

Edited to add: Oh you bastards! I had an Egg-tribal subtheme in one of my EDH decks. Stop eliminating creature types!



So the entire TWO cards that counted as Eggs counted as a 'tribal subtheme' in your singleton, 100 card EDH deck?
"Stop *****ing, start brewing" -YoMTGTaps Trying to talk Magic players off ledges since 2001. Sharing my knowledge of rumor history, and how to discuss rumors effectively.

When Stigma Lasher deals damage to a player, that player gets an emblem with "You can't gain life."

I'm going to miss "for the rest of the game", but I guess is sort of the same. Only wonders if this means more of such cards are seeing print in the future, making it less unique.

Personally I don't get the Emblem thing. How, exactly, will it help memorizing those effects without using a token or something, and not simply complexify the game for no reason ?

The point of the emblems is not to help players remember that the effects exist.  The point is to help players correctly identify the set of affected objects.

The continuous effect "Creatures you control are indestructible" works the same whether created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability; at any time, any creature you control is indestructible.

On the other hand, the continuous effect "Creatures you control have/gain flying" works differently depending on whether it's created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability.  In the former case, at any time, any creature you control has flying; in the latter case, only creatures you controlled as the effect was created have flying, and they keep it even if you lose control of them later.

An emblem has a static ability, so the set of affected objects is the same whether it's "Creatures you control are indestructible" or "Creatures you control have flying".
New Curtain of Light wording
Activate this ability only during combat after blockers are declared.
Target unblocked attacking creature becomes blocked. (This spell works on unblockable creatures.)
Draw a card.

Hmm....
The new wording of Charisma is an incorrect functional change from the printed version. As printed, if the controller of the enchanted creature is different from the controller of the enchantment and the creature deals damage to itself then the controller of the enchantment will gain control of the creature. Adding "other creature" or "second creature" to the text prevents this from occurring. For a practical example, suppose you control Sorrow's Path enchanted with Corrupted Zendikon and an opponent's Charisma. If Sorrow's Path becomes tapped, it will deal two damage to itself and the opponent should gain control of it.
Emblems???  WTBBQ?
Jun 19, 2010 -- 10:50PM, JaketheLate wrote: have you ever SEEN Yoked Plowbeast!? It's totally BROKEN!!!11ONEONEONE It has five power AND it cycles!!111ELEVEN You can either get rid of it early, or play it lategame for a serious ****ing beatdown; it's ****ING NUTS!!111ELEVENONEONEONE

The difference is in templating. They don't use the word "have", they use the word "gain". There's two ways to interpret the message. The first is "creatures you currently control gain flying for the rest of the game" and the second is "for the rest of the game, any creatures controlled by you will have flying as a condition of being controlled by you."

The alternate templates that you suggested all still create the first effect. Here's the brain melting thing: when you replace "flying" with "indestructible", all of the templates mean the second thing instead! This is why Elspeth's ability works. The difference is granting a static ability to a permanent (like flying), or creating a stand-alone static ability (like a new rule). Magic only has a template for the latter.

(The condition of being indestructible is a game rule, not a mere static ability such as flying or Blazing Archon's "Creatures can't attack you." Being indestructible isn't even a characteristic setting ability such as "CARDNAME is all colors." Being indestructible is more like "You can't cast spells" or "You may spend white mana as though it were mana of any color.")


Thanks for the reply. I kind of get it a little more now. Though I'm still not certain why Indestructable isn't an ability. Is it due to it's nature?

The point of the emblems is not to help players remember that the effects exist.  The point is to help players correctly identify the set of affected objects.

The continuous effect "Creatures you control are indestructible" works the same whether created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability; at any time, any creature you control is indestructible.

On the other hand, the continuous effect "Creatures you control have/gain flying" works differently depending on whether it's created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability.  In the former case, at any time, any creature you control has flying; in the latter case, only creatures you controlled as the effect was created have flying, and they keep it even if you lose control of them later.

An emblem has a static ability, so the set of affected objects is the same whether it's "Creatures you control are indestructible" or "Creatures you control have flying".


I think this does the best job so far of explaining why there's a need for emblems. I never realised there was such a specification for how abilities are applied depending on whether or not their source is permanent.
Re emblems: I think that what's going on is, basically, the rules are happier dealing with things than with ephemeral effects that have no body. The emblem is just an 'anchor' for the effect, which makes the rules happier. It's not really meant to help humans (though if you scribbled out emblem 'cards' like people do tokens, it could do that too!)



Yeah but you still need some way to "note" that the emblem exists, otherwise it's just as hard to remember.

Can you explain to me how it makes the game more complex to add emblems as opposed to having to continually remember an effect someone set off 5 turns ago?



Because not only do you add the Command zone (previously only reserved for special game formats), but emblems don't actually help unless you can represent them.

The entire point of the change is to make effects such as Elspeths something that can be represented and manifested physically.



It could before, too. There is nothing that says you have to place an emblem as a physical object.

The point of the emblems is not to help players remember that the effects exist.  The point is to help players correctly identify the set of affected objects.

The continuous effect "Creatures you control are indestructible" works the same whether created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability; at any time, any creature you control is indestructible.

On the other hand, the continuous effect "Creatures you control have/gain flying" works differently depending on whether it's created by a static ability or by a resolving spell or ability.  In the former case, at any time, any creature you control has flying; in the latter case, only creatures you controlled as the effect was created have flying, and they keep it even if you lose control of them later.

An emblem has a static ability, so the set of affected objects is the same whether it's "Creatures you control are indestructible" or "Creatures you control have flying".



I thought that was correctly explained in the rules. How many other cards have such effects ?
Belz... The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese visual kei heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
i miss MaGo. i can't remember the name but a long time ago he had a series of 'film noire' detective type articles that were so hilarious. can anyone help me out here?
I love MaGo.  He understands we Melvins.

Not only does it not appear on any Magic card (let alone on a white enchantment, which is all you can affect with Balduvian Shaman's ability), it can't appear on a Magic card. What kind of ability would say "counters black spells" on it? "If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it counters black spells instead"?



Gerdef



I'm going to write that on one of the Bosses in my deck
I've already wrote 'rigger' on the Moriok Riggers.

Can you explain to me how it makes the game more complex to add emblems as opposed to having to continually remember an effect someone set off 5 turns ago?



A new player will read the card and might think "Hmm what could I do with Emblems?". It certainly sounds like something interactive if you don't know it's not, so I say it's not intuitive.

But my guess is they're going to do something with emblems in Scars that makes sense.
Gottlieb seems unaware that in the early days of magic, "can attack the turn it comes into play" was synonymous with contemporary "haste".

For example, Ball Lightning's original printing vs. the current version. The same is true of EVERY creature with haste printed before 5th edition. I speculate that whoever wrote the cards neglected to specify that the creature could use activated abilities because they all lack such abilities; regardless, all of the creatures' Oracle wordings now grant them haste, with no "halfway haste" exceptions at all.

Why do you hate Instill Energy, Dr. Wombat?


or a 1/6 Wall artifact creature with defender in addition to its other types.

the "in addition" clause is misplaced; as written, this sounds like Primal Clay becomes an Artifact Creature -- Wall Defender.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
For now I will limit myself to a single comment - while the Vorthos part of me is as depressed as always to have a bunch of rules raining on my fantasy simulation, the Timmy/Johnny part of me is very amused by the fact that Soraya the Falconer can now give Rukh Eggs +1/+1 and banding.  I picture a bunch of eggs hopping along frantically as Soraya chases them with a spatula.

My usual rant about how the RM needs to stop ruining the elegance of Magic will be coming when I have time to write it, which is probably this weekend; the only question is whether I will do it here or as a separate thread in this or another forum, or even as a blog post which I will link to here.  I'm aware most people will not agree with me, but I still want to get in people's faces with it a bit, remind them that not everyone wants this game to be an intricate jigsaw puzzle that they can solve with logic and a calculator.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Oh, and one other thing.  I hate that you "get" an Emblem.  It just doesn't sound like the correct word to use in this context; as usual, I can't quite explain why, it just rubs me the wrong way but hard.  It should say "You gain an emblem".

I believe the reason why "gain" is correct here is that "gain" is used for abilities, while "get" is used for numerical bonuses.  Giant Growth used to say the creature "gained" +3/+3, while Weakness said the creature "lost" -2/-1, but they replaced both "gain" and "lose" with "get" for
consistency, and I approve of that.  But you can't "get" a negative ability that would require you to say "lose" instead of "gain" for the addition of that ability, the way it did for Alpha's Weakness.  So abilities still use "gain", and emblems should too.  An ability or an emblem is not positive or negative, so it doesn't need to avoid the use of "gain -X" like numerical modifiers do.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Oh, and one other thing.  I hate that you "get" an Emblem.  It just doesn't sound like the correct word to use in this context; as usual, I can't quite explain why, it just rubs me the wrong way but hard.  It should say "You gain an emblem".



I believe the correct and proper wording would be "Put an emblem with "" into your command zone".  But that's unwieldy and requires the explanation of several different rules.

I'm late on saying this, but I think the new "bands with other" is completely hypocritical.

Wizards' Oracle changes are all about being consistent with the original intentions and printed wording.  Well the new bands with other is very intuitive.  But it's in direct opposition to the original intention.  So it doesn't matter how intuitive it is.  (If being intuitive mattered, how do you explain Animate Dead's oracle wording?)

The next update bulletin should revert bands with other back to its original functionality.
The rules and cards' Oracle texts can't really be compared.

The issue with cards is that people will be looking at what's printed on their physical copy of the card and will be trying to figure out how it works.  So having an Oracle text that's completely divorced from the printed text would be a big problem.

The rules are different.  The CompRules document is only available in digital format, so you won't have people reading their old print version of it to determine how the rules currently work.  If they have any version of it, they can easily get the newest version.  This makes it much less important to maintain the idiosyncrasies that were present in older versions.
Okay, here's my rant.

I'm really tired of seeing MaRo re-break what previous rules teams have attempted to fix in the Oracle; many past cards are horribly flawed due to the limitations of the design technology of their day, and past rules teams made a priority of cleaning them up to be elegant and streamlined, rather than trying to preserve every obscure idiosyncracy of their printed wording when literally applied.  The ur-example of this is Artifact Ward.  It's very clear that Artifact Ward's design intention was to give protection from artifacts; it doesn't say "protection from artifacts" because at the time, designers did not believe you could give protection from something other than a color.  Had AW been reprinted anywhere in the time since then, it would have been printed as prot-art and been locked in, the way Castle is.  But instead, Gottlieb would rather fuss over the printed wording and create something horribly clunky.  Now if a future design team wants to print a real protection-from-artifacts Aura, they have to name it something other than Artifact Ward, and it won't line up with the original five Wards as intended.  Bleah.

Okay, they did something right for a change.  The Drain Power change is a very good thing.

The Goblin Shrine change is interesting; it makes me hope perhaps someday Castle will go back to not letting Serra Angel attack as a 4/6.  Invalidates some of my argument about AW, but oh well.

And then Kormus Bell goes absolutely haywire wacky by taking the 4th Ed version as authoritative.  That version has always been the stupid wrong one and everyone knows it.  What's really absurd here is that they make some vague hand-wave about how the "last printed" rule can be fudged when necessary, and then arbitrarily decide whether or not to obey it.  This is all bass-ackward.  The correct policy is to use the newest design technology (or rather all design technology, whatever best works) to best implement the original designers' intent.  Kormus Bell was in Alpha.  Bad Moon was in alpha.  They didn't combine to make 2/2 swamp creatures then; they shouldn't now.  It is contrary to the will of Garfield.

Ah, Splintering Wind.  Frankly I don't really care much what they do to a card this absurd.  It's always been a favorite of mine for its very wrongness, though I wouldn't mind seeing an update someday.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
(1) Curtain of Light's new first sentence is "Activate this ability only during combat after blockers are declared."!  I hope there's still time to change it to "Cast Curtain of Light only ..."!

(2) Should cards tell you to "reveal" cards "from your hand" or "reveal" cards "in your hand"?  The most recent cards like this that I could find are Induce Despair and Living Destiny, both of which say "reveal a creature card from your hand", so I assume that "from" should be used.  (There are many other cards that use "from".)  However, the Seers and Scents from Urza's Destiny (Jasmine Seer, Scent of Jasmine, etc.) still say "reveal any number of [color] cards in your hand".  A few other cards that still use "in" are Metalworker, Nightshade Assassin, Phosphorescent Feast, and Rofellos's Gift.
Okay, here's my rant.

I'm really tired of seeing MaRo re-break what previous rules teams have attempted to fix in the Oracle; many past cards are horribly flawed due to the limitations of the design technology of their day, and past rules teams made a priority of cleaning them up to be elegant and streamlined, rather than trying to preserve every obscure idiosyncracy of their printed wording when literally applied.  The ur-example of this is Artifact Ward.  It's very clear that Artifact Ward's design intention was to give protection from artifacts; it doesn't say "protection from artifacts" because at the time, designers did not believe you could give protection from something other than a color.  Had AW been reprinted anywhere in the time since then, it would have been printed as prot-art and been locked in, the way Castle is.  But instead, Gottlieb would rather fuss over the printed wording and create something horribly clunky.  Now if a future design team wants to print a real protection-from-artifacts Aura, they have to name it something other than Artifact Ward, and it won't line up with the original five Wards as intended.  Bleah.



I think the new direction is better. Making sure as many cards work as how they were printed, as opposed to bending them to current rules.

However, exceptions should be made (creatures types is the biggest exception ever) and Artifact Ward is a good example, as its part of a cycle and really screams "protection from artifacts".

Also, even if Artifact Ward has its current wording, if they ever choose to reprint it, it should be possible to take a different wording (prot:artifacts) and override the older written & current oracle text in cases like this. Smile
Disapproves on Artifact Ward as well.

Now, there is this obscure rule, that allows Lions Eye Diamond to be used like a Black Lotus:

When you decide to cast a spell, you first show the card, and only then you tap lands and draw mana from your sources and pool.

I believe that requiring there be the required amount of mana floating would be more intuitive...
At the time Lion's Eye Diamond, you did need to have all the mana in your mana pool before casting a spell.  Now, you can also activate mana abilities while casting a spell.  However, Lion's Eye Diamond was given errata to disallow its use during this time ("Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant.").

So no, you can't use the mana from Lion's Eye Diamond to cast a spell from your hand.
I thought that the updates are supposed to be impacted since last wednesday, but it is not. What's the planning?
Gottlieb seems unaware that in the early days of magic, "can attack the turn it comes into play" was synonymous with contemporary "haste".

For example, Ball Lightning's original printing vs. the current version. The same is true of EVERY creature with haste printed before 5th edition. I speculate that whoever wrote the cards neglected to specify that the creature could use activated abilities because they all lack such abilities; regardless, all of the creatures' Oracle wordings now grant them haste, with no "halfway haste" exceptions at all.

Why do you hate Instill Energy, Dr. Wombat?

But note that even when it came out, the Fifth Edition Instill Energy was functionally different from earlier printings of the card: you could now put it on, say, a Prodigal Sorcerer that you just cast and use its ability right away.

I'm guessing we're going back to the original version of Instill Energy because there are more copies of it in circulation than there are copies of the Fifth Edition version.  The relative availability of different versions might also explain why we haven't gone back to, say, the original Castle.

At the time Lion's Eye Diamond, you did need to have all the mana in your mana pool before casting a spell.  Now, you can also activate mana abilities while casting a spell.  However, Lion's Eye Diamond was given errata to disallow its use during this time ("Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant.").

Which of course means a double (if not triple) standard.
Cards apparently must do what they say they do, instead of what they should do - unless, of course, the rules changed around the card to make it awesome.  Meanwhile, anyone who has played the game for more than a couple weeks can clearly and quickly deduce that Artifact Ward was intended to fudge "protection from artifacts" in an era where "protection from [anything other than a color]" wasn't really doable and the protection rules themselves were quite fluid.

Or rather, intent of the card is seemingly only preserved when it was intended to be "bad" (LED, those WCIP lands, Dreadnought).
This is why I say to go with what the last printed card says. If rules change to make a card function differently, that's life. If it actually breaks a card, let the DCI handle it. It's just so damned simple. If you don't have a matched set, or if something else happened along the way, that should never be relevent. Errata that functionally changes a card from what I hold in my hand should only be necessary when a rules change actually makes a card impossible to play correctly. I just had a conversation with someone at work two days ago about this. (He was doing the complaining, not me.) When I look at a card from more than ten years ago, I want to read it and know what it does. I do not want to have to whip out my laptop or my smart phone and verify what MaGo thinks it is supposed to do this week.

It is unfortunate that they decided to functionally change cards over and over again for so long, but what they need to do right now, is just stop doing that and stop reinterpreting old cards.
Sign In to post comments