|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 11:10AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2011
|
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 Lotus Vale  and Lion's Eye Diamond  also receive this change? And if not, why has Phyrexian Dreadnought  (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. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 11:24AM
#2
|
|
|
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. 
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 11:34AM
#3
|
|
|
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.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 11:37AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 12:06PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 12:09PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
MoxD was reprinted in a FTV, so a "corrected" version does in fact exist.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 7:29PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 05, 2011 - 11:12PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 06, 2011 - 9:19AM
#9
|
|
|
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.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 06, 2011 - 9:37AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
