Orb and Master Errata: Why not the same for LED and Lotus Vale?

369 posts / 0 new
Last post
For the two people who don't know what I am talking about:
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...

Winter Orb

In the first versions of the Magic rules, the static abilities of an artifact turned off if the artifact was tapped. When this rule changed, three cards (Winter Orb, Static Orb, and Howling Mine) were issued errata to maintain this functionality. Since then, Static Orb and Howling Mine have been reprinted with this errata, but Winter Orb never was. If you pick up this card somewhere and you understand modern Magic rules, you'd never guess it would have to be untapped to function, and the once-common "tap my own Winter Orb at the end of my turn so I get to untap my lands" play would be utterly baffling. Well, we can't have that.


New wording
Players can't untap more than one land during their untap steps.


Master of Arms
Just like Winter Orb, Master of Arms had a mystifying Oracle wording intended to replicate original functionality. The rule that changed this time was the one saying that tapped blockers didn't deal combat damage. Boy, tapped things used to be a lot worse! Additionally, the errata Master of Arms was given didn't do a great job of replicating the original functionality, given the number of things out there that could potentially untap the blocking creature after the activated ability resolved.

My general philosophy is that I'm okay with rules changing out from underneath cards and changing their functionality. Heck, just look at the Magic 2010 rules changes. It wouldn't be reasonable to try and make all previous cards work exactly the same way they did before those rules changes. Take heart, Master of Arms fans—it's still a combo with Royal Assassin!


New wording
First strike
{o1oW}: Tap target creature blocking Master of Arms.




Now, I want to address not necessarily the errata itself, but the reasoning behind it.

Specifically, Matt outright states it's not because of Power Level, it's because "That's what the Card says!"

By this logic, shouldn't cards like [CARD]Lotus Vale[/CARD] and [CARD]Lion's Eye Diamond[/CARD] also receive this change? And if not, why has [CARD]Phyrexian Dreadnought[/CARD] (which was changed to have a simmilar "As X Enters the battlefield" clause, then changed to it's printed wording, which doesn't match the pre-6th functionality) kept it's printed wording and not Vale, LED or Mox?

Now, I understand that Lotus Vale and Diamond were never intended to allow for you to tap them for mana before sacrificing them. That's why they have errata to keep them to their pre-6th functionality. However, if the current stance is to now ensure that cards match their printed wording wherever possible, intended functionality be damned, why have these cards not recived it?

Is it because they are "Powerful"? If so, this seems to contradict Matt, who explicitly mentions that the errata is not for power reasons, it's because " If you pick up this card somewhere and you understand modern Magic rules, you'd never guess it would have to be untapped to function, and the once-common "tap my own Winter Orb at the end of my turn so I get to untap my lands" play would be utterly baffling. Well, we can't have that."

So, my question to you is, why is there a half-arsed approach to this? Either we errata all cards to keep their pre-6th functionality, or we errata them to have "printed" functionality and ban/restrict cards that would otherwise be utterly degenerate (aka Lotus Vale).

Again, I have no issue with either stance, what I have issue with is applying it selectively based off what is considered "powerful" or not. Magic has always been a hallmark of consistency and logic, which is why we have a rulebook that is OVER 9000 pages long.
Magic has always been a hallmark of consistency and logic, which is why we have a rulebook that is OVER 9000 pages long.

Now now, let's not exaggerate. It's currently 200 at most, and you can cut it down to around 30 or so if you play tricks with columns, margins, and font size.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

9000 pages! What font size are you using?!?

 "Either we errata all cards to keep their pre-6th functionality, or we errata them to have "printed" functionality and ban/restrict cards that would otherwise be utterly degenerate (aka Lotus Vale)."

This is not the only choice. We don't always consider similar situations in a group. We do what we feel is best for each individual card. Our guidelines for doing so are sometimes contradictory and paradoxical.
9000 pages! What font size are you using?!?

Presumbably, 72pt. Mr Saturn.
"Either we errata all cards to keep their pre-6th functionality, or we errata them to have "printed" functionality and ban/restrict cards that would otherwise be utterly degenerate (aka Lotus Vale)."

And yet again, I will state the opinion that a card that's restricted in Vintage for being too awesome is in a far better situation than a card that isn't competitively played anywhere because it's too terrible.
The best thing that ever happened to Time Vault was the errata-makers simply giving up on it.
I have to agree with the OP, whom I suspect is Stephen Menendian.  

It is highly suspect that whilst Mox Diamond and Phyrexian Dreadnought have the same text, they are functionally different.  I think Dreadnought used to work like Mox Diamond, but when they changed Flash they changed Dreadnought to its current wording.  It was explained that they wanted cards to be as close to the original text as possible.

This is a good philosophy to have, and one that I agree with.  Whilst some may have a different philosophy on card erratas;  that's fine.  However, the problem occurs when there is an inconsistency of philosophies for different cards.  There is no reason what so ever to have this.  Matt, I'd love your explanation of it, but it would still be wrong.  This confuses players, especially newer players!  And that is a horrible business plan to have. 
MoxD was reprinted in a FTV, so a "corrected" version does in fact exist.
So, if I may ask Matt, what exactly are the reasons for not Errataing Lotus Vale and Lions Eye Diamond?

I know Mox has gotten a FTV reprint, so it won't turn into Lotus Petal 5-8, but I am curious as to why there is, in my opinion, a half arsed approch to this type of errata.
I can't answer for Winter Orb v. Lotus Vale, but after some digging I did finally find an explanation for Phyrexian Dreadnought.

NOTE: This reflects my beliefs, if someone with more knowledge of that time period can correct me, please do.

Basically, although you couldn't respond to triggered abilities, it was supposed to Enter the Battlefield.  (EDIT: Hmmm, it appears there weren't any cards that checked that.  So I guess we don't really know if it ETBed or not, because the question was moot.)  The part where they errata'd that away was a true power-level errata.  So they got rid of that, and then just let the modern rules have their way with the old printed text, thus allowing the Stifle shenanigans.

Diamond / Vale / Ruin are a little trickier, though, as they were never supposed to allow you to activate their tap abilities before their triggers were dealt with.  So in the case of those 3, un-doing the errata and letting the modern rules have their way with the old printed text would have been a huge functional change as well.

So basically, Dreadnought was able to find a happy medium that kept both the printed text intact, and still preserved the old functionality as much as possible in the current rules.  It's a success story, not a strange deviation.

Diamond / Vale / Ruin are much trickier, as their old functionality simply looks nothing like the wording printed on the card (as interpreted with modern rules).  Essentially... they fall into the same camp as Winter Orb in that regard.  And then the problem becomes one of balancing text, functionality, and consistency with each other.  And I'm staying out of that one.
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
So, if I may ask Matt, what exactly are the reasons for not Errataing Lotus Vale and Lions Eye Diamond?

I know Mox has gotten a FTV reprint, so it won't turn into Lotus Petal 5-8, but I am curious as to why there is, in my opinion, a half arsed approch to this type of errata.



In most cases, preserving the original text is the most important thing. This is the ideal I've spoken of where someone armed with modern Magic rules knowledge can pick up a card and interpret it correctly.

In some cases, preserving original functionality is more important. Lotus Vale was never intended to function the way a strict reading of its template under modern rules would dictate.

In a few cases, the printed text and original functionality are both so insane that we just have to approximate.

In all cases, we consider the sometimes-contradictory set of guidelines we operate under and come to the best decision we can. If that's half-arsed, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It just seems very weird that a player has the oprutunity to counter dreadnought's ability, but not Lotus Vale or Scorched Ruins, considering they read the exact same and are all from the same block.
Is there any elegant way to allow the cards to work the same, without allowing the mana abilities to be used?

Something like this?
Lotus Vale
Land
When Lotus Vale enters the battlefield, sacrifice Lotus Vale unless you sacrifice two untapped lands.
T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool. You can't activate this ability while Lotus Vale's first ability is on the stack.

 
When Lotus Vale enters the battlefield, sacrifice Lotus Vale unless you sacrifice two untapped lands.
T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool. You can't activate this ability while Lotus Vale's first ability is on the stack.

Congratulations.  You've just made it even more convoluted.


The core issue is, a card that was only really being used in Casual was crippled to do what it actually says, making it largely unplayable.  Meanwhile errata that renders Lotus Vale unplayable is retained, in spite of not doing what the card actually says.
Is the goal to make as many cards unplayable as possible?
So, if I may ask Matt, what exactly are the reasons for not Errataing Lotus Vale and Lions Eye Diamond?

I know Mox has gotten a FTV reprint, so it won't turn into Lotus Petal 5-8, but I am curious as to why there is, in my opinion, a half arsed approch to this type of errata.



In most cases, preserving the original text is the most important thing. This is the ideal I've spoken of where someone armed with modern Magic rules knowledge can pick up a card and interpret it correctly.

In some cases, preserving original functionality is more important. Lotus Vale was never intended to function the way a strict reading of its template under modern rules would dictate.

In a few cases, the printed text and original functionality are both so insane that we just have to approximate.

In all cases, we consider the sometimes-contradictory set of guidelines we operate under and come to the best decision we can. If that's half-arsed, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


I am afraid I do disagree. If Lotus Vale was never intended to function the way a strict reading of its template under modern rules would dictate, then neither was Phyrexian Dreadnought or LED. I just don't see the sense in having different rules for different cards dependnent on "Power Level", if the intention is for someone picking up an old card to play it correctly 90% of the time.

I can understand when the Wording is a total and utter mess, then yes, sometimes things need to be changed (Transmute Artifact for example) but Lotus Vale has completly acceptable modern wording, it's only changed because "It didn't work that way before 6th edition", which is what has just been reversed with Winter Orb and Master of Arms.
Is the goal to make as many cards unplayable as possible?

Lotus Vale is exactly as playable as when it was printed.

PS, just because a card doesn't see play in tier-1 tournament decks doesn't mean it is "unplayable".
Lotus Vale is exactly as playable as when it was printed.

Wasteland didn't exist when Lotus Vale was printed.

But Strip Mine did and was even in Type 2.
blah blah metal lyrics
Lotus Vale is exactly as playable as when it was printed.

Wasteland didn't exist when Lotus Vale was printed.

That has nothing to do with lotus vale's wording. You said that lotus vale's errata was responsible for it being unplayable.
Meanwhile errata that renders Lotus Vale unplayable is retained, in spite of not doing what the card actually says.

Should i assume that you have abandoned that position and are now claiming "the cards that have been printed since Weatherlight have rendered Lotus Vale unplayable"?
Should i assume that you have abandoned that position and are now claiming "the cards that have been printed since Weatherlight have rendered Lotus Vale unplayable"?

No.  It's just a bumbling tangent that really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

"Make it do what is says it does, instead of what it did in 1998" is apparently essential for Worb, while "make it do what it did in 1998, instead of what the card says it does" is apparently essential for Lotus Vale. 
Why?

Why de-errata a rules-adapting errata on a card and reduce that card's playability, and insist on retaining a rules-adapting errata on another card that reduces that other card's playability?
The only logical answer I can see is intentionally keeping as many cards as weak possible.
The blatantly cynical answer is that using Worb as intended is "cheating", while using a Lotus Vales as printed is also "cheating".

"Make it do what is says it does, instead of what it did in 1998" is apparently essential for Worb, while "make it do what it did in 1998, instead of what the card says it does" is apparently essential for Lotus Vale. 
Why?

Why de-errata a rules-adapting errata on a card and reduce that card's playability, and insist on retaining a rules-adapting errata on another card that reduces that other card's playability?

The last two rules managers have both given insight into your question.

To quote Matt Tabak (current rules manager):
We don't always consider similar situations in a group. We do what we feel is best for each individual card. Our guidelines for doing so are sometimes contradictory and paradoxical.


To quote Adeyke, who's comment was accurate enough that Mark Gottlieb (previous rules manager) included the quote in an update bulletin.
The different standards are contradictory. They're trying to reach an ideal Oracle text for each card, but the factors are pulling them in opposite directions. They want to keep it close to the printed wording, but oftentimes, what's printed on the card simply doesn't work. They want to update it to a modern template, but some cards have quirks that simply can't be written cleanly (e.g. Raging River). They want cards to work the same way they did when they were first printed, but they also want them to interact correctly with cards that didn't exist at that time. If all their goals pointed in the same direction, it'd be easy. Since they don't, getting the right Oracle text is a matter of prioritizing and compromising.

The only logical answer I can see is intentionally keeping as many cards as weak possible.

Your hypothesis is contradicted by Phyrexian Dreadnought and Flash.
Are there any reasons, other than power-level concerns, not to unerrata Lotus Vale?
Your hypothesis is contradicted by Phyrexian Dreadnought and Flash.

That sort of cynicism is closer to insane conpiracy theory than it is to a hypothesis.

However, consider this:
Matt is all but admitting that Wizards doesn't care if removing errata makes a card weaker (Worb), but they have to "do what we feel is best for each individual card" if removing errata makes that card much stonger.  Why is this acceptable?  Are there any other cards left that are being propped up in power-level by unprinted errata?

And also consider the counterpoint:
If Dreadnought and Flash (and Time Vault) demonstrate that it's acceptable to let a card do what it says it does, instead of what it used to do or what it was intended to do, even if if means having to ban/restrict that card, why not be rid of the errata on Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and those Alliances lands?
Your hypothesis is contradicted by Phyrexian Dreadnought and Flash.

That sort of cynicism is closer to insane conpiracy theory than it is to a hypothesis.

What?

However, consider this:
Matt is all but admitting that Wizards doesn't care if removing errata makes a card weaker (Worb), but they have to "do what we feel is best for each individual card" if removing errata makes that card much stonger.  Why is this acceptable?  Are there any other cards left that are being propped up in power-level by unprinted errata?

This is acceptable because he is the bloody rulesmanager. What does your last sentence even mean? Look, the thing is, if Scorched Ruins et al were given Oracle text that was like their printed Text, noone would use them like they were supposed to be used. They would just be BlackLotusses of some form. Woohoo.


And also consider the counterpoint:
If Dreadnought and Flash (and Time Vault) demonstrate that it's acceptable to let a card do what it says it does, instead of what it used to do or what it was intended to do, even if if means having to ban/restrict that card, why not be rid of the errata on Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and those Alliances lands?

See above.

Btw, I do not like the Master of Arms thing. It was nice that the intended function got carried over.

[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Look, the thing is, if Scorched Ruins et al were given Oracle text that was like their printed Text, noone would use them like they were supposed to be used.

Much like Worldgorger Dragon is used exactly as intended, huh?
Functional errata to cards does not happen without consultation with Development. Decisions with the potential to be controvertial are further reviewed by the director of Magic R&D. In the cases of Lion's Eye Diamond and Lotus Vale, explanations of why those changes would be good for the Magic game as a whole would perhaps be more compelling than appeals to logic.

Del Laugel

Editing manager, Magic TCG

In the cases of Lion's Eye Diamond and Lotus Vale, explanations of why those changes would be good for the Magic game as a whole would perhaps be more compelling than appeals to logic.

Alright, Del, I'll make a stab at it.

Cards doing what the text on the card says it does is "good for the Magic game as a whole" all by itself.

The "WCIP" lands (Balduvian Trading Post, Heart of Yavimaya, Kjeldoran Outpost, Lake of the Dead, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, Sheltered Valley, and Soldevi Excavations) have pretty much all fallen into the Unplayable Abyss of cards that have left Extended, and are all but useless in Vintage and Legacy.  Changing these cards to do what they actually say, instead of what they did in 1998, would not only be good for the game because they don't require knowledge of their errata (the "Worb Precident"), but also because these cards become relevant in Vintage (and possibly also in Legacy if they don't end up banned) and Vintage-based casual.

Vale and Ruins would very likely end up banned in Legacy.  Lake would be no more dangerous than Dark Ritual, Sheltered Valley would still be pretty terrible, and the rest would all gain a decent bump in playabilty by being 'tossable' for one-shot effects or a couple mana.



Of course, this does beg the question: What, exactly, is "good for the Magic game as a whole" about removing usefulness from Winter Orb and Master of Arms?
Is the goal to make as many cards unplayable as possible?


Probably. That sounds about right. It maybe not true across the board, especially with the newer cards in print, but when you have something like Lotus Vale operating at the same power level as Black Lotus, something, I suppose, has to be done about. What better than to relegate it to the realm of Casualists?


PS, just because a card doesn't see play in tier-1 tournament decks doesn't mean it is "unplayable".



Just like the word "attack" in Magic, "unplayable" doesn't go by it's normal definition as far as Magic is concerned. Just as "attack" means "declare as an attacker during the Declare Attackers Step" (or something like that), "unplayable" means "not good enough to compete in high level, competitive Magic".

Of course, though, at our kitchen tables we are free to pay mana and cast those cards.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
In the cases of Lion's Eye Diamond and Lotus Vale, explanations of why those changes would be good for the Magic game as a whole would perhaps be more compelling than appeals to logic.

Alright, Del, I'll make a stab at it.

Cards doing what the text on the card says it does is "good for the Magic game as a whole" all by itself.

The "WCIP" lands (Balduvian Trading Post, Heart of Yavimaya, Kjeldoran Outpost, Lake of the Dead, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, Sheltered Valley, and Soldevi Excavations) have pretty much all fallen into the Unplayable Abyss of cards that have left Extended, and are all but useless in Vintage and Legacy.  Changing these cards to do what they actually say, instead of what they did in 1998, would not only be good for the game because they don't require knowledge of their errata (the "Worb Precident"), but also because these cards become relevant in Vintage (and possibly also in Legacy if they don't end up banned) and Vintage-based casual.


I fear that "playablility", as people like you and I define it, are is not a concern when it comes to what cards can and can't do as it relates the the overall health of the game. We have to remember that it is likely that at least 85% of the Magic playing community have no idea that the concept of "unplayable" exists. I used to be one of them, and I would likely still be one of them had I not lost my playgroup, learned to play correctly (mostly through these forums), and forced to play tournament Magic if I wanted to play more than once every six months. Most people get together and have very healthy games of Magic, though they are playing with house rules or blatantly wrong, along with unplayability scattered all about the table.

Of course, this does beg the question: What, exactly, is "good for the Magic game as a whole" about removing usefulness from Winter Orb and Master of Arms?


Games not devolving into fistfights because an experienced player is doing something with a card that the card doesn't even have written on it probably sounds more healthy than making sure that a playability quota is filled, especially since "playability" is a term not known to most Magic players.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
Just like the word "attack" in Magic, "unplayable" doesn't go by it's normal definition as far as Magic is concerned.

While i'm quite familiar with the rulebook entries for "attack", i apparently overlooked the ones for "unplayable".
Just as "attack" means "declare as an attacker during the Declare Attackers Step" (or something like that), "unplayable" means "not good enough to compete in high level, competitive Magic".

If that's the definition you and Qmark wish to use, that's fine. I wonder, however, why it is important whether or not a card fits into that category.
Games not devolving into fistfights because an experienced player is doing something with a card that the card doesn't even have written on it probably sounds more healthy than making sure that a playability quota is filled, especially since "playability" is a term not known to most Magic players.

How is this any different than "fistfights" ensuing from someone playing a Vale, tapping for three, then simply letting it self destruct because that's how the words on the cards say it works?
Functional errata to cards does not happen without consultation with Development. Decisions with the potential to be controvertial are further reviewed by the director of Magic R&D. In the cases of Lion's Eye Diamond and Lotus Vale, explanations of why those changes would be good for the Magic game as a whole would perhaps be more compelling than appeals to logic.



Ok. Here's why removing the power-level errata on these cards is good for the game as a whole:

1. Reverting cards to their printed wording, so that they do "exactly what they say on the tin," has been acknowledged by WotC to be a good thing (and is the motivation behind the latest changes to Winter Orb and Master or Arms.) I'm assuming that if these cards had no power-level concerns, there would be no hesitation by development or the director of R&D to revert them to their printed wording. (If this assumption is incorrect, let me know and I'll write more on this point.)

2. Removing the power-level errata, and preemptively restricting them in Vintage (note LED is already restricted), would not break the Vintage metagame. The cards would become very powerful, to be sure, but they are not "Black Lotus two and three" and most decks would not include them. Lotus Vale, unlike Black Lotus, does not build storm count, costs a land drop, and cripples your mana development, in an environment where shaky manabases are being severely punished by the dominant Workshop-based decks and their Lodestone Golems.

The decks that would play these cards are storm-based combo and Belcher combo. These archetypes are currently underdogs in the Vintage metagame as they have severe difficulty beating the format-dominant Workshop decks. Giving combo decks access to one copy each of unerrataed Lotus Vale and LED is the shot in the arm these decks need to successfully compete. Far from breaking the Vintage format, the cards would increase deck diversity in that format, making Vintage more fun, which is obviously good for Magic.


In summary, removing the errata is
1) Good for casual players, who can now read the card and correctly infer how to play with it, without needing ot memorize errata;
2) Good for Vintage, where the cards would shake up the format without being overpowered;
3) Neutral for Legacy (the cards would go from being unplayed due to being underpowered, to unplayed due to being banned);
4) Neutral in Extended and Standard (not legal).
Removing the errata is thus good for the game as a whole.
Damn.
That's a fine argument there.

Just as "attack" means "declare as an attacker during the Declare Attackers Step" (or something like that), "unplayable" means "not good enough to compete in high level, competitive Magic".

If that's the definition you and Qmark wish to use, that's fine. I wonder, however, why it is important whether or not a card fits into that category.



As it relates the the rules, really, it doesn't matter whether a card is unplayable or not. I think the reason why it came up, though, is because Lotus Vale not doing what the card says and Winter Orb getting errata to make the card do exactly  what it says, while contradictory, both make the cards unplayable.

If the errata was consistent across the board, there would be at least one less unplayable card. It's quite easy, the way things are, to deduce that WotC is willing to contradict their own system of errata so that fewer cards are playable. And with that, I see where he is coming from. At first, I thought he was just being an insane cynic, but now I have to agree.

Nobody's out there searching out players to play with Winter Orb and win because the card can do something that isn't printed on the card. I don't even think that there are enough relevant* players out there playing with Winter Orb in such a manner that this errata even needed to be done. But even so, why can't Lotus Vale get errata to do with the card says? Why the contradiction?

The only answers to those questions, as they are right now, is to keep the overall power level of these ancient, bottom-of-the-shoebox cards low.


*irrelevant players are those that don't know that Oracle exists, thus don't care and don't know what the card does differently now

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.


2. Removing the power-level errata, and preemptively restricting them in Vintage (note LED is already restricted), would not break the Vintage metagame. The cards would become very powerful, to be sure, but they are not "Black Lotus two and three" and most decks would not include them. Lotus Vale, unlike Black Lotus, does not build storm count, costs a land drop, and cripples your mana development, in an environment where shaky manabases are being severely punished by the dominant Workshop-based decks and their Lodestone Golems.

[...]

In summary, removing the errata is
2) Good for Vintage, where the cards would shake up the format without being overpowered;



Damn.
That's a fine argument there.



Well, it could have been better if it was at least mentioned that 70% of players and 100% of WotC doesn't care about Vintage. It'll be broken no matter what.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
9000 pages! What font size are you using?!?

 "Either we errata all cards to keep their pre-6th functionality, or we errata them to have "printed" functionality and ban/restrict cards that would otherwise be utterly degenerate (aka Lotus Vale)."

This is not the only choice. We don't always consider similar situations in a group. We do what we feel is best for each individual card. Our guidelines for doing so are sometimes contradictory and paradoxical.



Frankly this just a pompous response to your original article.  the logic behind why you made the change was supposedly for the reasons you gave in your article.  But to me and my playgroup it just smacked of you wanting to do something that was your pet peeve. 
Instead of keeping up with the oracle changes like certain predecessors did, it appeared to the six of us that you wanted to nerf the card.  So you churn up some 'reasoning', bring it to print and then walk off smiling.

As soon you apply your logic to the whole of magic though you realize just how arrogant your position is.  It is MUCH easier to keep Oracle text and later find a judges print, online print or otherwise special set the orb rather than to take your logic and apply it across the board.

So keeping to yoru reasoning, why is that we cannot reorder our graveyard to keep the cards we want on top?  AFter all the cards didn't change text, it was the rules that changed.  Fine, I want to go back and play my beta/ice age graveyard matters black creatures.  Oh wait, I can't because instead of applying the graveyard order doesn't matter RULE, exception to the rule were made to prevent the up-powering of cards in legacy.

Come on!  Sheesh, admit it.  You had a issue with the Winter Orb specifically and nerfed it.  You created some logic sequence to justify your position.  And now when your position is called out for inconsitancies, you fall back on "we'd have to ban so many cards though if we didn't". 

Great!  Take your football and go home.  That's we all heard.  "I'm the rules manager.  What I say is right!  Yell" Now you're jsut putting your fingers in your ears and saying LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU!

It was a lame article that just showed who's in charge.  You're in charge now and you've nerfed Winter Orb because you wanted to.  no other reasoning because your core reason doesn't live up to scrutiny. 

Got it.  Move along here, nothing else to see.  Just another person on apower trip. 
That was... ridiculous.

U mad?

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

...


I find that people throw the word "arrogant" around without having the slightest clue what it means.  Even if your conspiracy theory had the slightest grain of truth, how would that make his position arrogant?  The job requires decisions to be made, and some of them have no logical best solution.  How is it arrogant to make the decision?  What does it help for you to complain about that decision being made?  It's fine to disagree with the decision and the reasons for it, and it's fine to express that disagreement, but calling someone names isn't the answer.
First off, no I am not mad.  I may agree or disagree with changes in the rules of the game since I started playing, but I am not angry nor am I mad.  Certainly, rules changes in the past were made that improved the game.  Others changed the game without any appearance of improving the game. 

I've found that I am less tolerent of catering to the least intelligent the world.  A little mockery sound of "bhuutttt thhaaaee cchhhiilllllldddrrreeeeen!" runs through my brain everytime people cater to 9 year olds not being able to comprehend rules.   

...


I find that people throw the word "arrogant" around without having the slightest clue what it means.  Even if your conspiracy theory had the slightest grain of truth, how would that make his position arrogant?  The job requires decisions to be made, and some of them have no logical best solution.  How is it arrogant to make the decision?  What does it help for you to complain about that decision being made?  It's fine to disagree with the decision and the reasons for it, and it's fine to express that disagreement, but calling someone names isn't the answer.



arrogant: pretensions to superior importance.

hmm, pretty well spot on.  The reasoning behind nerfing Winter Orb is arrogant.  It completely ignores every other condition where special changes were made to the text of the card via oracle but the card itself was never reprinted in the new text. 
Case in point: lotus vale.  
See the new rules show that it's a trigger.  Triggers use the stack.  Oh wait, see the stack was a change from the batch. . .  Did Lotus vale get printed someplace else without anyone knowing it?  How come  then  lotus vale gets special treatment?  You know there are numerous conditions exactly like the writer explained that continue to get special treatment.

Actually the writer went OUT OF HIS WAY to change Winter Orb because of the children, those poor children who don't know what oracle is, . . . I mean he changed it to make the game plays better and because he can't possible go and make oracle changes to cards every time the rules change and casue a functional change in an old card.  Doesn't do what it was supposed to do?  Too bad, thems the new rules of the game and I can't be bothered to care.  Except it is ANY other card that was changed in oracle so that it works like it supposed to after a rules reboot or revision.  Clearly that article and logic is nothing but a bunch of horse hockey.  Want to explain why similar lands trigger and lotus vale doen't?  wait for it. . . here it comes. . . it's my football and I make the rules.  Ehr, I mean we had to make exceptions otherwise lots of cards would be broken.  So we change Winter Orb but nothing else?  Rhhhiiiiiigghhhtttt.  .  . it's for the children.   
Yeah, real even handed there Matt.

I'll stand by the arrogant statement and that he had a pet peeve against Winter Orb.  not a big deal overall, but shows this guy doesn't live up the standard of the position. 


Saying, "Well, we looked at this card, and we think this is the best way to handle it," isn't arrogant (whether or not that's in fact the best way to handle it).  It would be arrogant to say, "Look, Winter Orb needs to change.  I know this with my superior knowledge and intelligence, and, if you disagree, you're just naive."  Simply having the power to enforce one's will isn't enough to make that person arrogant.

Additionally, it would be arrogant to say, "I think Winter Orb should work [as printed/as it originally did], and anyone who disagrees must just have a pet peeve about it because I'm obviously right."
Saying, "Well, we looked at this card, and we think this is the best way to handle it," isn't arrogant (whether or not that's in fact the best way to handle it).  It would be arrogant to say, "Look, Winter Orb needs to change.  I know this with my superior knowledge and intelligence, and, if you disagree, you're just naive."  Simply having the power to enforce one's will isn't enough to make that person arrogant.

Additionally, it would be arrogant to say, "I think Winter Orb should work [as printed/as it originally did], and anyone who disagrees must just have a pet peeve about it because I'm obviously right."



"We changed winter orb because it needing chaning." is the basic gyst of what Matt was saying.  But he reasoning was clearly "too bad, so sad".  That WotC MAtt when out of his way to change the specific card shows that it was important enough to do.
Importance is therefore established. 
That WotC Matt didn't treat all cards as he had done Winter Orb clearly exstablishes that the importance of changing Winter Orb's oracle text was higher than the other examples shown here in this thread.
Now differing importance is established.

Reasoning were put forth in the article clearly specificing why Winter Orb was nerfed.  Why wasn't this the case for the past 18 years?  Because someone else was in charge.   ding ding ding we've got a new boss and . . .he's smart.  He knew this one card needed changing even though everyone else before him didn't think so. So at this point Matt exercises the power of his position while IGNORING ever other case where his logic would be foolishness and once again fundementally alter how magic is played.  Further his position ignores not just the mono-poly nature of the original cards, but clearly ignores other fundemental changes to the rules where cards would be better. 

That is showing that his knowledge and reasoning is superior even when it clearly show to be in error. 

That is the very definition of arrogant.  Feel free to spin a new hey it's not arrogant in this other manner, but by the example I've shown, arrogant is the right term to be used. 
Reasoning were put forth in the article clearly specificing why Winter Orb was nerfed.  Why wasn't this the case for the past 18 years?  Because someone else was in charge.   ding ding ding we've got a new boss and . . .he's smart.  He knew this one card needed changing even though everyone else before him didn't think so.

The process of restoring cards to their original wording began long before Mr Tabak took the reins. He* was continuing a trend, not deviating from one.

*and when i say "he", i really mean "everyone that was involved in the decision" 

Having a card follow its printed text is good.  Having a card work how it has worked in the past is good.  Sometimes, those are mutually exclusive.  Sometimes, the decision between them is a judgment call based on things other than logical necessity.  Disagreeing on this point does not make either side arrogant.  Being the rules manager and having an opinion on which side should win this tug-of-war in regards to a few specific cards is not arrogant, even if that opinion is different from that of previous rules managers.  Being the rules manager and changing a card to match one's own philosophy on the subject is not arrogant.  Having the opinion that printed text should win out in some cases while past function should win out in other cases is not arrogant.

Besides, we don't even know that prior rules managers wouldn't choose to change it at this point; maybe now is exactly the right time to change the card.  Furthermore, we don't know what Matt thinks prior rules managers would do.  How can we assume that the current rules manager thinks all the past ones were stupid in the absence of that knowledge?

*shrug* Two former rules managers sit within a few feet of me. Neither objected. In fact, I wasn't even the one who nominated the change, but I definitely supported it. The rules give you no indication Winter Orb had its original functionality. Winter Orb itself give you no indication. Having it work the way that it did was dumb, and I'm more than happy to eliminate things that are dumb when I'm in a position to do so.

I am interested in reasons to alter the Oracle text of Lotus Vale and LED that don't include the words "Winter" or "Orb." But be warned, Development feels strongly that changing them is bad for Magic, so you'll have to convince them. I'd also advise you to stay away from namecalling. Other than being entertaining, it won't get you anywhere.

Sign In to post comments