Primitive Justice & Taste of Paradise

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
I know that normally block mechanics aren't errata'd onto older cards, but Primitive Justice and Taste of Paradise have what can only be described as multikicker. Was there ever any consideration of them receiving errata?
Rules Advisor
You said it yourself: block mechanics aren't errata'd onto older cards. Multikicker isn't evergreen.
Not to mention that they would now interact with Rumbling Aftershocks.
For evergreen abilities, they do add them via errata, even if that will change interactions or edge cases. Proliferating evergreen abilities is a good thing, and it's nice when you don't have to worry about "Ability that looks just like ability X but doesn't actually count as it" vs. "Ability X". Mwonvuli Beast Tracker can fetch all the various Spiders that were given reach by errata.

That is, if kicker and multikicker were evergreen abilities, Rumbling Aftershocks wouldn't stop them from giving them to those Alliances cards. Being block mechanics does stop this from happening, however.
How is this different from those old cards that were erratad to have domain? Just because there's nothing that interacts with domain, it was considered okay?
How is this different from those old cards that were erratad to have domain? Just because there's nothing that interacts with domain, it was considered okay?


Nothing can interact with Domain, by the current rules, because domain isn't actually rules text.

That's probably the difference.
Then why doesn't Vinelasher Kudzu have Landfall?

In the case of Domain, one factor may be the fact that the mechanic was always known informally as Domain, both among R&D and among fans.
The only cards that have the Domain ability word are cards from Invasion block, cards from Alara block, and one card from Time Spiral that blatantly did the "revisit an old mechanic for nostalgia" thing. This isn't a case of applying a block mechanic to a one-off card in a completely unrelated set (Vinelasher Kudzu shouldn't have Landfall). Rather, it's a case of them revisiting a block mechanic from a previous block, but now being able to take advantage of a new templating tool. The Invasion cards always did have Domain, and that was how they were referred to; they just hadn't invented ability words yet.

But the lack of any even potential functional change also makes a difference. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they issued some ability word errata to other unkeyworded block mechanics, if that would make them clearer.
How is this different from those old cards that were erratad to have domain? Just because there's nothing that interacts with domain, it was considered okay?


Nothing can interact with Domain, by the current rules, because domain isn't actually rules text.

That's probably the difference.


D&DT is convinced that it is possible, but unexplored, with some also saying it shouldn't be explored. Could you cite the source of this?
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
How is this different from those old cards that were erratad to have domain? Just because there's nothing that interacts with domain, it was considered okay?


Nothing can interact with Domain, by the current rules, because domain isn't actually rules text.

That's probably the difference.


D&DT is convinced that it is possible, but unexplored, with some also saying it shouldn't be explored. Could you cite the source of this?

 207.2. The text box may also contain italicized text that has no game function. ....
207.2c An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities.
Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality,
but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules....

Ability words fall under 207.2: Italicised text that has no game function.
It is explicitly not "rules text defining the card's abilities."


The comprehensive rules are easily changed*; but that's how they stand.

*although making some italicised text have rules meaning is probably not something they want to do. At the moment, if text is italicised, you automatically  know you can ignore it. Changing that would be bad.
The Invasion cards always did have Domain, and that was how they were referred to; they just hadn't invented ability words yet.




Oh, really? So people who drafted Invasion and played with (for example) Collective Restraint casually referred to the card having domain? Huh.




(Vinelasher Kudzu shouldn't have Landfall)




If there's no functional change to be had here, honestly, I think it should. I don't see why we can't apply non-evergreen mechanics to cards outside of their debut block for the sake of clarity. If you show a new-ish player a Vinelasher Kudzu, and they are aware of the landfall mechanic, one of their first remarks would likely be "How is this different from landfall?". What would be the downside? Looking clearer, functionally identical, a "neat" thing for random players to collect in the form of a promotional card or something randomly printed in a duel deck or similar...sounds good to me.

Magic has an absurd amount of cards, and the interactions among cards can be changed by modifying everything down to the halves of phrases or prepositions used in card text. Merely having an ability written out implies that it is actually different from its ability counterpart. Ability word errata makes the most sense for clearing up any ambiguity wherever possible.



But the lack of any even potential functional change also makes a difference. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they issued some ability word errata to other unkeyworded block mechanics, if that would make them clearer.



Absolutely. Rumbling Aftershocks ruins everything for the example in this thread (and the potential of new cards for keyword synergy ;; oh well, I suppose), but for anything else, absolutely.

Oh, really? So people who drafted Invasion and played with (for example) Collective Restraint casually referred to the card having domain? Huh.


"Domain" was the theme/mechanic's name since release. It wasn't one or two random cards like Ravnica's landfall*, there were twenty domain cards in Invasion block.
It was a block theme, referred as "domain" in the rules booklets, FAQs and theme deck's playing guides. (example: "Because all the "domain" cards depend on how many basic land types you have in play, this deck focuses on getting at least one of each basic land into play. ")


The fact the players didn't see the mechanic named out in the cards is one of the reasons they started doing such things as ability words. Alara's Domain was a returning mechanic just as much as Cycling, and with Worldly Counsel's reprint gaining it there was no reason to not give all cards designed for that mechanic the same template.




*everyone forgets poor Stone-Seeder Hierophant...


[<o>]
The term "domain" was used on the product page as well as the FAQ. I wasn't involved with Magic at that time, so I don't know the extent to which that carried over to players.

I'll admit that I am a bit torn on the Vinelasher Kudzu type issue. If we just view the entire Magic cardbase as a unified whole, then it would make sense for that to have Landfall. However, I do think sets and blocks matter, and if someone is just looking at the cards of that one set, a single use of an ability word would just be confusing (the point of ability words is to tie together related cards and to give an official label to these; it doesn't make sense to do that for a single card).
I'll admit that I am a bit torn on the Vinelasher Kudzu type issue. If we just view the entire Magic cardbase as a unified whole, then it would make sense for that to have Landfall. However, I do think sets and blocks matter, and if someone is just looking at the cards of that one set, a single use of an ability word would just be confusing (the point of ability words is to tie together related cards and to give an official label to these; it doesn't make sense to do that for a single card).


Personally I'd treat it on a case by case basis when printing.

If you reprint Vinelasher in a prebuilt Landfall deck, give it Landfall. If you reprint it in a "Ravnica" deck, don't.

Flavour text isn't the same on all reprints of a card, nor is reminder text. Why do ability words have to be any different? 
Unlike flavor text, ability words are part of the Oracle text, so a card officially either has an ability word or not. Any time they reprint a card, the Oracle text gets updated to match the new printing (which usually just means adding or removing reminder text). There's no way to have the ability word depend on what set/product you're searching for.

Side note: they still haven't managed to add italics to ability words in Gatherer. That should really be fixed.
Clearly the solution is to give errata to Goblin Elite Infantry so that, after all these years, it finally gets the "Bushido -1" that it so richly deserves.

Also, Goblin Hero could do with some Bushido 0.
Don't forget the original Bushido Toad

Level 1 Judge

I intentionally didn't bring that one up because everyone talks about the Toad, but no one seems to care about Goblins!
Clearly the solution is to give errata to Goblin Elite Infantry so that, after all these years, it finally gets the "Bushido -1" that it so richly deserves.

Also, Goblin Hero could do with some Bushido 0.



This is brilliant. Definitely doing this*.





* Not doing this, but it's still brilliant.
Side note: they still haven't managed to add italics to ability words in Gatherer. That should really be fixed.



Sure, but I wish they fixed flip cards first. Budoka Pupil still appears wrong: you can't see the oracle text of the flip side. (Whereas Budoka Gardener appears correctly.) I'm not a fan of flip cards, but Gatherer should still support them.
If there's no functional change to be had here, honestly, I think it should. I don't see why we can't apply non-evergreen mechanics to cards outside of their debut block for the sake of clarity. If you show a new-ish player a Vinelasher Kudzu, and they are aware of the landfall mechanic, one of their first remarks would likely be "How is this different from landfall?". What would be the downside? Looking clearer, functionally identical, a "neat" thing for random players to collect in the form of a promotional card or something randomly printed in a duel deck or similar...sounds good to me.

Magic has an absurd amount of cards, and the interactions among cards can be changed by modifying everything down to the halves of phrases or prepositions used in card text. Merely having an ability written out implies that it is actually different from its ability counterpart. Ability word errata makes the most sense for clearing up any ambiguity wherever possible.



The problem is less with errata-ing old cards to have the keywords of recent blocks, and more with dredging up old keywords for new cards. Do you really want new players to have to be able to understand Old Fogey every time they open a booster?

There are dozens of old keywords out there, and if you're going to be consistent about applying non-evergreen keywords whenever they match a card's rule text, a new player is going to have to learn them all simply in order to be able to understand the cards he opens, rather than the much shorter list of evergreen keywords plus the current blocks' mechanics.

If Dragons Maze had a card with Flanking, another with Grandeur (probably a legendary Ooze), one with Rampage, and one with Madness, then that's four keywords a player would have to learn just to play with the latest set...
M:tG Rules Advisor
That would certainly be a problem. However, it's not clear to me that the current policy is actually necessary to solve it. The policy means that they'd just print a card with "Whenever this creature becomes blocked, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn for each creature blocking it beyond the first." instead of Rampage 1, since rampage isn't evergreen. However, I think that they're instead just not printing the ability at all.

There are several cases of printing a keyworded ability after they've done that same ability without the keyword. Are there any cases of the opposite happening, i.e. printing a non-keyworded ability after the keyword already exists?
Things like Ronom Serpent and Bog Serpent were made well after the landhome keyword was introduced (although also after it was retired in that case).

Vigean Hydropon postdates the introduction of defender, but has its ability written out in full because of the natural smoothness provided by pairing it with the not-yet-keyworded "can't block".
Neither of those is a valid example.

rmsgray's point was that, if they had the policy of extending block keywords to cases of that exact ability outside the block, then we'd also be seeing new sets with singleton keywords. I disagreed that this problem would occur, since instead of just avoiding the keyword, they avoid the entire ability. A counterexample, then, would be a block keyword ability that was later reused without the keyword.

Landhome doesn't exist at all, and it wasn't a block mechanic. Defender also isn't a block mechanic, and they didn't keyword it because they preferred to join the two in a single ability (and to avoid the apparent contradiction of a "defender" being unable to block), not because the defender keyword was unavailable to them.
Blasphemous Act is close. ("Affinity for creatures on the battlefield", except Affinity only counts stuff you control).

As already mentioned, Goblin Elite was reprinted in Tenth Edition and has Bushido -1. (Sort of).

Other than that, I haven't been able to find anything.
If there's no functional change to be had here, honestly, I think it should. I don't see why we can't apply non-evergreen mechanics to cards outside of their debut block for the sake of clarity. If you show a new-ish player a Vinelasher Kudzu, and they are aware of the landfall mechanic, one of their first remarks would likely be "How is this different from landfall?". What would be the downside? Looking clearer, functionally identical, a "neat" thing for random players to collect in the form of a promotional card or something randomly printed in a duel deck or similar...sounds good to me.

Magic has an absurd amount of cards, and the interactions among cards can be changed by modifying everything down to the halves of phrases or prepositions used in card text. Merely having an ability written out implies that it is actually different from its ability counterpart. Ability word errata makes the most sense for clearing up any ambiguity wherever possible.



The problem is less with errata-ing old cards to have the keywords of recent blocks, and more with dredging up old keywords for new cards. Do you really want new players to have to be able to understand Old Fogey every time they open a booster?

There are dozens of old keywords out there, and if you're going to be consistent about applying non-evergreen keywords whenever they match a card's rule text, a new player is going to have to learn them all simply in order to be able to understand the cards he opens, rather than the much shorter list of evergreen keywords plus the current blocks' mechanics.

If Dragons Maze had a card with Flanking, another with Grandeur (probably a legendary Ooze), one with Rampage, and one with Madness, then that's four keywords a player would have to learn just to play with the latest set...



The previous examples were for ability or keywords that were written out before those ability or keywords became said keywords. Not after. Wizards doesn't do that anyway, for new cards. They just avoid the template entirely. You're not going to see a singleton card in a new set with the text "Whenever ~ blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.", ever, since that text was keyworded as bushido and the new set doesn't have bushido. They do similar things: for example, Assemble the Legion is close to "Cumulative Upkeep -- Put a 1/1 red and white soldier creature token with haste onto the battlefield.", but not identical. Show me a card that has one that actually is identical, after its original block, as written-out text.
Hedron-Field Purists could be "you and creatures you control have absorb [1 or 2]".
blah blah metal lyrics