Dear Wizards, please fix Mox Diamond

[Troy_Costisick]

The fight then was to bring Time Vault back to its text.   

IMHO, it would just be best if all the cards like Time Vault, Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, etc worked as they are printed.  It's the most consistent, easily understood, and exciting possibile decision concerning these cards.  It's just my preference, but I suspect I'm not alone in it.

Peace,

-Troy

[Polynomial P]

Ive been out of town, without internet access for most of this week, so I am happy to see that WotC has updated the wording on Mox Diamond. This is probably a compromise wording, but it does restore much of the original functionality of Mox Diamond and in that regard I am very pleased that WotC *may* have taken this particular thread into consideration. It is possible that WotC rules team felt that Matt's suggested wording would not work under the current rules system (since with the Rav duals, the lands are coming into play either way) and opted to avoid any extra wording that has never been associated with the card.

My opinion is that original functionality on all cards should be restored as far as the current rules allow for it. I'd like things to be as simple as the printed text, but as Magic evolves that printed text often has no coherent meaning. If WotC is moving towards restoring original functionality, then hopefully they will revisit Time Vault in the near future.

P.S. Wizards, WTF did you do to uba mask? Guess I need to start a new thread for the next oracle update....

[meadbert]

P.S. Wizards, WTF did you do to uba mask? Guess I need to start a new thread for the next oracle update....

Please do!

[Yare]

Looking at Guardian Beast, I would suggest that it probably needs to be changed.  I'm not sure how many people would care, but...

Current Oracle Text:

As long as Guardian Beast is untapped, noncreature artifacts you control can't be enchanted, they're indestructible, and other players can't gain control of them.

Original Text:

As long as Guardian Beast is untapped, your non-creature artifacts cannot be further enchanted, destroyed, or taken under someone else's control. If something occurs that would destroy the Guardian Beast and artifacts simultaneously, the Guardian Beast is destroyed but your artifacts are not. If an artifact is enchanted or stolen while Guardian Beast is tapped, it remains so when Guardian Beast becomes untapped.

The current wording causes auras to fall off, whereas I think the original wording simply prevented new auras from attaching.  Just a little nitpicky thing, but I feel like this should be changed.

[andrewpate]

The current wording causes auras to fall off, whereas I think the original wording simply prevented new auras from attaching.  Just a little nitpicky thing, but I feel like this should be changed.

You're not alone in thinking that.  Just look at the last line of the printed text.  It explicitly states that extant enchantments do not fall off.  The wording should be changed to "auras cannot be attached to noncreature artifacts you control."

[Charlie]

What does Flame Fusilade have to do with this?  The original functionality is not comboing Flame Fusilade. 

The Mox Diamond errata, and Polynomial P, demonstrated, needed functionality errata update.

They are going through and restoring functionality. 

It is 100% logically inconsistent to have a policy of restoring functionality on Mox Diamond and every other card they just errated, but not Time Vault. 

To me the main point they have been trying to drive home (it seems to me at least) is they are removing power level errata not all errata.

That's not the main point that they have been trying to drive home.  Go read the most recent errata changes.   

The absolute 100% crystal clear goal is restoring functionality.  Given the last year and half of errata, what gave you the impression otherwise (since you say "it seems to me at least")?

@ David:

I think the big difference is that we were fighting a different battle two years ago.   The fight then was to bring Time Vault back to its text.   

Since it is now clear that wizards only cares about functionality, it's a whole new ball game. 

EDIT: "now" incorrectly read "Not" - I fixed my post :p

The original functionality of Time Vault was Twiddle=Time Walk, which is probably an auto-ban in every format. Still it may be the best solution, compared to how many times that Time Vault was erretaed arbitrarily.

[Smmenen]

What does Flame Fusilade have to do with this?  The original functionality is not comboing Flame Fusilade. 

The Mox Diamond errata, and Polynomial P, demonstrated, needed functionality errata update.

They are going through and restoring functionality. 

It is 100% logically inconsistent to have a policy of restoring functionality on Mox Diamond and every other card they just errated, but not Time Vault. 

To me the main point they have been trying to drive home (it seems to me at least) is they are removing power level errata not all errata.

That's not the main point that they have been trying to drive home.  Go read the most recent errata changes.   

The absolute 100% crystal clear goal is restoring functionality.  Given the last year and half of errata, what gave you the impression otherwise (since you say "it seems to me at least")?

@ David:

I think the big difference is that we were fighting a different battle two years ago.   The fight then was to bring Time Vault back to its text.   

Since it is now clear that wizards only cares about functionality, it's a whole new ball game. 

EDIT: "now" incorrectly read "Not" - I fixed my post :p

The original functionality of Time Vault was Twiddle=Time Walk, which is probably an auto-ban in every format. Still it may be the best solution, compared to how many times that Time Vault was erretaed arbitrarily.

That is correct.   Incidentally, I've just written an article on this very topic!   Much thanks for Polynomial P for laying the groundwork!

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16079.html

[Polynomial P]

The DCI has made a public policy to remove power-level errata from all of its cards. They have implemented this policy over several updates.

Time Vault has power level errata.

Not sure of this claim? How did time vault originally function? Does its current functionality come close to the original function? The answer is no. Therefore, Time vault has power level errata.

The reason that Steve has pushed for an updated wording in this article is because the DCI will not revisit time vault on its own. Case in point is Mox Diamond. I demonstrated that Mox Diamond had power level errata that had been ignored for too long. By presenting a valid discussion on some possibilities, Mox Diamonds wording had finally been updated. Therefore, this type of article needs to be written in order to get the DCI to re-examine some of its past mistakes.

There are a few criteria for how the DCI handles errata.

Original Intent: This is a terrible way to deal with old cards. Heck even Richard Garfield doesnt know what the original intentions of Time Vault were. This criteria should NEVER be used to update oracle wording. This is also completely subjective and secretive, in that it defies logical reasoning and circumvents rational discussion.

Original Functionality: This is the gold standard. It is well know how cards originally functioned. This is also the general understanding of how judges and players interpret the card. The problem with original functionality is that sometimes rules changes (notably the 6th edition rules change) completely destroys the original functionality. Under these circumstances, the DCI has correctly decided to get the card as close to original functionality as possible. (see mox diamond)

Time Vault can function like it originally did under the current rules system. Therefore, original functionality of time vault could be restored.

A lot is riding on these wordings since the DCI rarely goes back to fix things once they have decided on it. Flash is probably never going to get touched by erratas again now that it functions like it originally did. Therefore, we should try and get the DCI to restore original functionality of any card that has power-level errata no matter how big or small.


Nice article steve, and thanks for linking to my discussion on mox diamond.

[andrewpate]

Agreed, but n.b. that there is one other criterion which has been discussed before by Wizards:  that of original text.  Gottleib has indicated in the past that it is considered somewhat valuable to make the card do what a first-time reader would assume it does, even if this is not what it "should" do.  Now, this has not prevented functionality wordings such as that on Waylay and the other substance cards from being implemented, but apparently it is taken under consideration to some extent.  In fact, much of the original Time Vault debate centered on the fact that nobody could agree on what the text actually DID indicate.

[Concentration]

I have a hard time believing most of the peopel who are making this argument.  It is rather obvious that you all have a vested interest in your pet cards becoming playable again.

I support original intent as long as all counter-spells are given Split Second along with all cards printed as or intended as interrupts.

[Webster]

I have a hard time believing most of the peopel who are making this argument.  It is rather obvious that you all have a vested interest in your pet cards becoming playable again.

I support original intent as long as all counter-spells are given Split Second along with all cards printed as or intended as interrupts.

If all counterspells had split second, then you wouldn't be able to Burnout a Dismiss in mental magic; and honestly, who wants to not be able to do that?


My opinion is partially motivated by the casual group highlander games that I play with my friends. I go to play a card and have to say, "The text on this card is wrong. Its current wording is ~foo~. This is what it actually does."

Having a card's functionality match its print is very important. It creates far fewer awkward situations and less upset people.

[AmbivalentDuck]

My ongoing favorite example of text not mirroring functionality without a clear reason is Oath of Druids. The card *says* target, but the Oracle wording does not target.  As printed, it 'comboed' with Ivory Mask (including in Maher's PT extended deck) to make Oath one-sided.

[Harlequin]

Anyone who believes wotc does things for "a reason" is dreaming.

The fact of the mater is some cards -do- have power level errata and others don't.  And reguardless of any reasons they feed us, cards will never do what they were printed as.  Unless someone can point out where its printed on the card that Chaos Harlequin is effected by Engineered Plague naming Humans.  Also has anyone done any cognition testing on Floral Spuzm lately?!

They -say- they are removing power level errata from all cards to make the game more closely related to the paper cards?  BS.  They are doing whatever they want for what ever reasons they want.  So any logic you point at that is irrelivent because thier decicions are not based in logic.  Steven Colbert would be proud of their decissions.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, please message me because I have a Rock I'd be willing to sell you that is GAURENTEED to keep tigars out of your home offer not valid outside of the US.

[Anusien]

The fact of the mater is some cards -do- have power level errata and others don't.  And reguardless of any reasons they feed us, cards will never do what they were printed as.  Unless someone can point out where its printed on the card that Chaos Harlequin is effected by Engineered Plague naming Humans.  Also has anyone done any cognition testing on Floral Spuzm lately?!

There is a difference between power-level errata (when they changed Cloud of Faeries to only untap from hand) and errata that changes functionality (Uba Mask or Avoid Fate).  They can fix one but not the other.

[Tempus]

About Uba Mask: What does the new oracle text allow what the old didn't?

[Concentration]

I have a hard time believing most of the peopel who are making this argument.  It is rather obvious that you all have a vested interest in your pet cards becoming playable again.

I support original intent as long as all counter-spells are given Split Second along with all cards printed as or intended as interrupts.

If all counterspells had split second, then you wouldn't be able to Burnout a Dismiss in mental magic; and honestly, who wants to not be able to do that?


My opinion is partially motivated by the casual group highlander games that I play with my friends. I go to play a card and have to say, "The text on this card is wrong. Its current wording is ~foo~. This is what it actually does."

Having a card's functionality match its print is very important. It creates far fewer awkward situations and less upset people.

I'm not questioning anyone's personal opinions, but it is an obvious fact that this "outcry" by prominent Vintage players is in keeping with the duplicity they've displayed in the past

[Smmenen]

Can't it just say "if you would draw a card, Uba Mask removes the top card of your library from the game instead"?

Yes.  But the problem is that, according to Gottlieb and (the rules), the source of the "RFG" would remain the draw, not the Uba Mask.   

I think this could be solved by simplying changing the rules rather than changing the card. 

Well, apparently, that's what they are doing.

Note that Gottlieb admitted that their oracle policies are inconsistent:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/465a

I know I'm inconsistent. Dealing with Oracle is an art, not a science; it's all judgment calls and balancing interests. We have half a dozen different policies guiding our hands. They're not consistent with one another, and different ones take precedence at different times.

That's a pretty substantial change in rhetoric from two years ago, when Gottlieb spoke in universal declarations about truth and how the cards were "supposed to work."

[Yare]

I know I'm inconsistent. Dealing with Oracle is an art, not a science; it's all judgment calls and balancing interests. We have half a dozen different policies guiding our hands. They're not consistent with one another, and different ones take precedence at different times.

I know I'd love to hear the value hierarchy explanation.

[Anusien]

I know I'm inconsistent. Dealing with Oracle is an art, not a science; it's all judgment calls and balancing interests. We have half a dozen different policies guiding our hands. They're not consistent with one another, and different ones take precedence at different times.

I know I'd love to hear the value hierarchy explanation.

I think the whole point is that there isn't a consistent one.  They're just trying to get as close as possible.

[Zieby]

I have a question for the community.

Why is the power errata not removed from Transmute artifact.

They did it with Flash --> and that card is a lot stronger.

For ref:
Name: Transmute Artifact 
   
Cost:   UU
Card Type: Sorcery 

Rules Text (Oracle):  As an additional cost to play Transmute Artifact, sacrifice an artifact.
Search your library for an artifact card. If that card's converted mana cost is less than or equal to the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost, put it into play. If it's greater, you may pay the cost difference. If you do, put it into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard. Then shuffle your library. 

Some people discussed the inconsistency. I believe this is some sort of prove about that.

Greetz Arjan

[Polynomial P]

Good find. Yes, that is something that should be brought to the attention of Wizards. I didnt realize there was such an errata on Transmute artifact until this past week while talking about 5c-250 highlander with Vroman. I recommend that you email Gottlieb or someone at WotC to bring this to their attention.

[Smmenen]

Can a mod please move this thread to Vintage issues?   Thanks.  

It wasn't moved in the first place because it hadn't had a new post in two years. This is some serious necromancy.  Locked.

-Klep