[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11812.html

This was the hardest article I've ever had to write - and one of the most important.  That's why its free.

Check it out.

Stephen

[Machinus]

Thank you Steve. I have thought about and worried over some of these discrepancies, and I am happy they have been given the legal treatment for WotC and the SCG membership to think about.

I only have one small disagreement with your article; I think the gravity of precedent is such that they should not reverse the decision at this point. The secondary market has already responded to this blow, and it would be even more unfair to deal a second one.

[LotusHead]

Great article, and was neccessary.  Thanks for taking the time to do it.

My favorite parts.

This is wrong. There is no objective reality to the functionality of Time Vault – no “true� way that Time Vault works. There is only the text on the card. All there is, is an arbitrary decision that Mana Vault and Time Vault work in a particular way based upon a reasonable interpretation, and that another reasonable interpretation is not the way that Time Vault will work.

Mana Vault does have a "If left untapped" clause that makes you take damage "during upkeep" (or draw step) that is never mentioned.  This makes the Mana Vault have a "at the beginning of my turn, pay up or pay the price (damage).  

Basalt Monotlith and Time Vault have no (Ironically...) time considerations  in their wording and seem to not need to be dealt with only during upkeep, or even only once per turn.

Another gem:

In summary, the secondary market is speculative by definition, and I will continue to make my decisions based on common sense, player intuition, printed wordings, and the integrity of both the individual cards and the game as a whole. If I started to make my decisions based on cards' secondary market value, *then* players would have a reason not to trust me.

For the first time that I can remember, he is saying that the secondary market is of no-concern to Wizards. “Wizards is 100% hands-off when it comes the secondary market.� Does that mean that the no-reprint policy is no longer in effect? That would be a logical conclusion from such a statement.

I wish power was reprinted (for Vintage Players in Vintage Tournies).  Say, P9 Proxy Packs by Hasbro: Sanctioned Proxy Packs! Good for T1 Sanctioned Play! Collect them All!!!

[Tin_Mox5831]

I spent a lot of time typing this, then my internet crapped out, so some of these points may have been brought up by now. 

Scenario number two is that we accept the ruling and move on. Evolve, if you will, to the changing world of Magic.

I can see the point that you're trying to convey, but the logic is flawed. This decision is not the evolution of Vintage and Legacy, but rather a huge step backwards. As Stephen already stated, the growth of the Eternal formats happens at such a slow rate that any narrowing of strategies/cardpool is extremely detrimental. The fact of the matter is that this decision was made in such a heavy-handed way that the player base is forced to take every WotC decision with a grain of mistrust. As I've said before, I didn't lose anything from this move other than my feeling of security that the important decisions will be made the right way. This, however, was the biggest loss the players experienced. Most of us work, so we can recoup the money over time. Those affected by the move in terms of deckbuilding have other options. On the other hand, we don't have anywhere to turn if the people who are entrusted with the responsibility of being the stewards of the game cannot be depended upon to follow precedent and make their decisions in a calculated manner. It should be crystal clear at this point who is right here. While many players have made extremely calculated, fair, and logical arguments, Wizards' representatives have made such haphazard and inconsistent statements that their argument's foundation crumbled under the weight of itself. The steps taken to reach their conclusion are erratic at best. If the new errata is meant to simplify the card's intended use and make the card easier for the "future" players to understand, then someone from Wizards needs to show me where in the hell the words "Time Counter" appear on the printed card. This errata was said to make the card work as intended, thus reducing confusion and extraneous judge calls. The errata fixes neither problem and the issue of distrust between players in a tourney setting has not been improved in any way. I can't figure out why the solution is so clear and evident to us players, yet those who earn their living maintaining the game cannot see it. If the phrase, "Skip a turn." is moved to the card's effect rather than it's cost, the intended use of the card is evident to even an inexperienced player, while requiring only the slightest change in punctuation and eliminating a page-long errata that serves to only confuse players more than the original wording. If the power level of the card is truly unrelated to the errata, then I defy Wizards to show me one good reason why their solution is better than this one. Look at the results:

                Wizards' Ruling

A) Time Vault is at least as confusing to a new player as ever.
B) Players will still distrust one another, leading to unneeded judge calls, causing time constraints in a tourney setting.
C) Time Vault is an absolutely useless card. The tempo you give up is absolutely staggering.
D) A disturbing precedent has been set which will discourage new players from picking up powerful, obscure cards.
E) The Vintage and Legacy communities have been treated like idiots, as anyone who uses logic can pick apart Wizards' arguments.


             Suggested Ruling

A) The card will work as close to the printed version as possible, making it much easier to understand.
B) Time Vault will remain a viable, highly-played, yet balanced card. Pithing Needle keeps the power level of FlameVault in check very well.
C) Wizards could retain some amount of the players' trust, although I'm sure it will be diminished somewhat.

As you can clearly see, there is not one thing wrong with the player-suggested solution. If Wizards stands by this errata, they accomplished nothing but making an interesting and obscure card utterly worthless and upsetting some of their best customers. If Wizards can show me one person who will actually benefit from their move, I'd be very surprised. The fact of the matter is that even if their logic is on course, (Which it clearly isn't.) nobody benefits from it. Their actions in this matter are absurd and something needs to be done before this decision begins to affect them where it hurts, which is apparently the wallet. That's why Trinisphere was restricted. It was "unfun" to play against, so players ranted and raved until WotC made a move out of fear. They can't afford to lose a portion of their player base over an "unfun" card, so what could possibly make them think that making a fun card into kindling and costing players hundreds of dollars won't piss them off at least as much?

By the way, great job Stephen. Your use of proper language and context should warrant some second thoughts on the part of WotC.

[TR]

This is a horrible line of reasoning.

"I do it because they tell me to do it...I accept it because they tell me to accept it"

You present an opinion, which is fine, but your feedback is worthless if you don't address the arguments in the article.

Actually, I would like to point out, and this should fit in very well with the legal tone of Stephens article, that when the equivalent of the Supreme Court hands down a verdict you do, in fact, comply. Standing on a soap box and arguing ever so eloquently over the details of the trial (which itself happend behind closed doors), isn't really that helpfull, even when it's a very good read. Demeaning someones post because they don't join in the nitpickery of same article is even less so.

About the article itself I'll say that it is a very well written, as always, cry of outrage, which could have been somewhat shorter and less repetitive to make it more effective. It is well argued and thorough and, most of all, it is correct. What, in my opinion, moves it from being a valid protest into the realm of foamy mouthed soapbox ranting are the rather unrealistic demands in the conclusions. Real progress is made by people who take change and make it work in their favor instead of stubbornly demanding some reversal of events. This point cannot be stressed enough.

Right now the Vintage and Legacy community is outraged and I'm very sure that people at WotC are noticing, so instead of pleading for a reversal of the errata, why not ask for realistically achievable measures to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? A more open and active inclusion of players and their opinions in the errata process for example. Imagine if Stephen had gotten a chance to voice his opinions in a meeting where it would have mattered.

Right now WotC may very well be thinking about how to remedy the situation, for all we know, but if we give them no real options or rational demands, they are just going to write us off for the rabid mouthed loonies we appear to be. Once again, real progress is made through moderation and compromise.

[Smmenen]

I spent 20 pages in word meticulously deconstructing Gottleib's arguments.  How does my conclusion move it from valid protest to foamy mouthed insanity?

What if i argued, instead, that the Time Counter should be removed immediately?  Would that be "moving forward"? 

I probably should have argued for that.  It's consistent with what I've said.

[Necrologia]

I really don't see what's wrong with asking for Time Vault to be errata'd again. The poor card has been through the ringer so many times I doubt it'd even notice one more rehashing of its card text. Stephen's argued that the errata was a mistake, why then is there something fundamentally wrong with asking for them to undo the damage?

[Gabethebabe]

This was the hardest article I've ever had to write - and one of the most important.

I agree that this was a hard article to write, it is quite obvious that this took you hours/days of work and it is nice to see that someone is devoting so much time for a game that I like. But please: keep your feet on the ground, Steve. Let other people decide whether an article is important. Or good. Or trash, for that matter.

Your article is based on a flawed assumption. That you have a vote, that WE have a vote in what Wizards does (well, sometimes we have a vote, but only when WotC says so and only within the limits they provide). This is not a legal case where some objective judge listens to the arguments of two opposing sites. This is not a democracy. This is a million/billion dollar company issueing a rules change for THEIR game.

Like Monopoly started with 1-200 bills and later shifted to 100-20.000 bills. They just changed that, because they thought is was good. WotC is making this change, because they think it is good.

They even take time explaining this change, while that isn´t necessary. You, Steve, now take all their words and statements and put them under a microscope as if you were a 500$/hour lawyer. Surely you will impress a dude or two with it on TMD. Wizards will probably read it and you know what they will think: "Yeah right. I´ll just wait a couple of weeks and this flies over, like it always does".

Your collection has decreased in value because of this? Well, hasn´t your collection tripled in value the last two years? So what is this flyspeck going to do to your financial position? Besides, for every dude that lost money buying Vaults, there is a dude that won selling them. Magic is a CCG with high valued cards and every single buy that you make has a speculative character. You win some, you lose some. Don´t whine when you lose.

So now there you are, the mouse roaring to the lion. Asking them to undo their change. That is just plain silly. They will not undo this change because you (or a couple of guys more that like vintage) say so. That´s like saying to the Borg that assimilating is against the Geneva convention and shouldn´t be done. The change was made. Period. Live with it. If Wizards would undo that, how would their integrity look then? It is just impossible. You Steve, are a very intelligent guy, You should know that.

Steve, I like your technical articles a lot and I respect you as a player and a writer.
But in this article you look like Don Quichote, fighting windmills. Well, I´m not going to be the fellow that follows on that donkey.

[EnialisLiadon]

This article was beyond words--eloquent, logical, enlightening, clear and just an all-around good read.  I wasn't sure what to make of the errata announcement--I was mainly just thinking of WotC screwing people who bought them over.  However, this article opened my eyes to the bigger picture--WotC dismantling the trust between itself and its player base.

@TR:  I would argue that being told of errata in advance would be fair treatment.  We get a month or so before restrictions and bannings take place--what should make errata different?

[The Atog Lord]

Steve,

I'm glad you wrote this article, and moreover glad that you made it available to everyone. This is an issue which deserves more attention than a simple "Ask Wizards." Your article is well-written and insightful.

[PucktheCat]

Steve, you're a lawyer.  Since when does obscure evidence about original intent have any ability to overturn an established interpretation?  The speech/press clauses of the First Amendment were probably never meant to protect subversive advocacy, but that fact wouldn't get you very far in court.  The interpretations of Mana Vault and Basalt Monolith were set by Revised and haven't changed substantially since.  This is a commonly understood and accepted interpretation, and there is no reason to overturn it.  It is settled law.  Once you accept that principle, there is only one reasonable interpretation of Time Vault.  In legal terms, the Mana Vault principle is a canon of construction.  Once that canon is brought to bear the statute is clear on its face.

The decision to errata Time Vault made no one happy. Some people didn't care, and some people were neutral, but the way this went down left a bad taste in the mouth of even those who felt that the Time Vault combo should not exist. This was a lose-lose decision.

The people the decision was designed to make happy are future players who, by definition, aren't likely to be on the boards bitching about this stuff on internet message boards.

[Moxlotus]

I also find it interesting to note that those who are saying it was pointess of Steve to write the article have not been able to form counter arguments to his main points.

I find it interesting that counter arguments are needed. The logic was laid out, and whether or not you agree with it, it stands. The Time Vault combo is dead. Wizards took two seconds out of their time to give the "outraged" community a valid explanation, but they're already gone. Here we stand in the dust and aftermath of that decision... What now? Do we continue to bicker about what happened, knowing it won't do a damn thing? Or do we accept what has happened and just move forward? I say we turn the other cheek and continue forward. The rest can continue polishing the brass on the Titanic, but as for myself, I'm done with the ever so pointless argument. Goodnight, and good luck.

Hasbro is a publically traded company.  It is reasonable to assume that they let the public know its policies--especially regarding their product.  When mistakes are made or even if there isn't a mistake, but the reasoning behind the decision is foudn to have glaring holes--it is reasonable to assume, for their owners and customers' sake, that the mistake be addressed.

It is settled law.

And settled laws can, and are, overturned.

The people the decision was designed to make happy are future players who, by definition, aren't likely to be on the boards bitching about this stuff on internet message boards.

Which is terrible reasoning since they STILL have to go to the oracle wording to look up Time Counters,  not to mention the fact that there are many more complicated interactiosn in Vintage than time Vault/Fusillade.

[Evenpence]

I don't see anything in Steve's article that I disagree with.  Not only did no person benefit from this errata - Time Vault itself didn't benefit from it's errata either.  The time counter is still there, completely functionally different from what the Card's Text implies.

Imagine a new player walking into a Vintage tournament, and playing against an opponent who untaps his Time Vault during his upkeep and puts a counter on it.  "What's that there for?"  "That's a Time Counter."  "Let me read the card again."  "JUDGE."

This is a great article written, and hopefully Wizards IS more than a dominating monarchy, and that they actually listen to their players like me.  I've always gotten the impression that they DO want to please me, the average player, and I would hate for my impression to change.

Thank you Steve, for this wonderful article.  Keep up the good work.

[dicemanx]

The people the decision was designed to make happy are future players who, by definition, aren't likely to be on the boards bitching about this stuff on internet message boards.

OK, we appreciate this. However, we challenge this assertion wholeheartedly.

How exactly are the future players supposed to be "happy" about this decision? Buehler explained - it has to do with lining up the oracle text with the written text as perfectly as possible.

However, this goal won't actually be achieved. Players will still not be able to decipher what Time vault does precisely based on the written text, so they will need the oracle text regardless. They might even be slightly miffed if they see a "time counter" used for the card. Now the last time I checked, I have yet to encounter a single person who is "unhappy" because the oracle text doesn't match the written text as precisely as possible on any of the more "ancient" cards.   

In other words, what is more likely is that WotC has scrambled to find people to "buy into" their flimsy arguments in the hope of tiding over this issue of errata, because this errata wasn't as well thought out as they would have us believe. That's fine, we're thinking it through more thoroughly now in the public forums - how they wish to use this dissemination is up to them, but we're hopeful they will see it from our perspective. We are supposed to be working together (players and WotC) to reach the goals of maximizing profits for them and maximizing happiness at our end and in the process ensure the longevity of this game. 

[PucktheCat]

And settled laws can, and are, overturned.

Settled law, however, is not.

Alright, that's kind of a bitchy and pedantic answer, so I'll be abit more complete.  While courts will overturn statutes and recent decisions, they are very reluctant to overturn established precedent.  That's why the Senate kept asking Judge (now Justice) Alito whether Roe v. Wade was settled law.  Because if Roe is settled law it becomes much harder to overturn.

WotC isn't going to decide that Mana Vault can be untapped any time during your turn, after ten years of the opposite reading, without some compelling reason to do so.  That's the only point I was making.  Settled law is just a metaphor that I thought would help Steve get the jist of my point.

Which is terrible reasoning since they STILL have to go to the oracle wording to look up Time Counters,  not to mention the fact that there are many more complicated interactiosn in Vintage than time Vault/Fusillade.

I don't think there are many (or any?) cards that deviate more from their written wording than Time Vault did.  Power level errata is a separate issue.  Its existence is admittedly in conflict with WotC's stated policy of making cards work like they look like they should.  If you want to advocate for the elimination of power level errata feel free to do so.  There is a whole thread for it in the Community forum.

However, this goal won't actually be achieved. Players will still not be able to decipher what Time vault does precisely based on the written text, so they will need the oracle text regardless. They might even be slightly miffed if they see a "time counter" used for the card.   

Again, power level errata is a separate issue.  If you want to get rid of it you have to deal with a lot of issues that don't come up with templating errata.  That's not to say it can't be done, just that it isn't an open and shut case like templating errata.

Now the last time I checked, I have yet to encounter a single person who is "unhappy" because the oracle text doesn't match the written text as precisely as possible on any of the more "ancient" cards.

Really?  There was a whole movement around this issue - that's why Wizards dropped power level errata in the first place.  Anecdotally, I have certainly heard stories about players being confused and frustrated by Time Vault.

Edit:

In other words, what is more likely is that WotC has scrambled to find people to "buy into" their flimsy arguments in the hope of tiding over this issue of errata, because this errata wasn't as well thought out as they would have us believe.

They very well may not have thought through it in as much detail as we have on the boards, but that is because it is such a simple, one sided issue.  If a card has bad templating errata you update the errata.  Its only when the boards make a federal case out of it (almost literally ) that we have to expend thousands of words examining the minutiae of the decision.

[Moxlotus]

Settled law, however, is not.

Alright, that's kind of a bitchy and pedantic answer, so I'll be abit more complete.  While courts will overturn statutes and recent decisions, they are very reluctant to overturn established precedent.  That's why the Senate kept asking Judge (now Justice) Alito whether Roe v. Wade was settled law.  Because if Roe is settled law it becomes much harder to overturn.

WotC isn't going to decide that Mana Vault can be untapped any time during your turn, after ten years of the opposite reading, without some compelling reason to do so.  That's the only point I was making.  Settled law is just a metaphor that I thought would help Steve get the jist of my point.

But the fact of the matter is settled law can be overturned.  As Steve mentioned, Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law for decades before it was overturned--but it was overturned.  It doesn't matter if someone considers Roe or anything settled law or not, because if any issue goes before the SCOTUS, it can be overturned.  It's not likely, and sometimes very unlikely, but it is possible.  Just because something is settled, doesn't mean it can't change.  As shown by WotC, they have had policies and then reversed them--like power level errata.  They can change decisioins whenever they want.

[dicemanx]

However, this goal won't actually be achieved. Players will still not be able to decipher what Time vault does precisely based on the written text, so they will need the oracle text regardless. They might even be slightly miffed if they see a "time counter" used for the card.   

Again, power level errata is a separate issue.  If you want to get rid of it you have to deal with a lot of issues that don't come up with templating errata.  That's not to say it can't be done, just that it isn't an open and shut case like templating errata.

You are confusing your arguments.

This decision, according to Buehler, is based on future player happiness of having oracle text line up as closely as it can to the actual card text. This goal will not be achieved because those players will still have to look at oracle wordings regardless. The use of the time counter is even contrary to this goal!

Now the last time I checked, I have yet to encounter a single person who is "unhappy" because the oracle text doesn't match the written text as precisely as possible on any of the more "ancient" cards.

Really?  There was a whole movement around this issue - that's why Wizards dropped power level errata in the first place.  Anecdotally, I have certainly heard stories about players being confused and frustrated by Time Vault.

We are ALL confused and frustrated by Time Vault.

The resolution we all want is some sort of clear oracle text. We had clear oracle text before - how the card worked according to the oracle text pre-errata was crystal clear. They didn't change that oracle text because it was unclear - they changed it because of two things:

1) It didn't match the presupposed "clear" written intent of the card - false, because there is no clear written intent
2) The card couldn't have a "debt cost" - trivial - the cost can be moved to being an effect instead, exactly as it is on Meditate and Chronatog

How do you suppose Time Vault got its previous oracle text (ability to be untapped at any time) by the way? Did someone momentarily lose their mind in some drunken stupor and go against written text? Or perhaps there is, in fact, more than one way to interpret written text?

In other words, what is more likely is that WotC has scrambled to find people to "buy into" their flimsy arguments in the hope of tiding over this issue of errata, because this errata wasn't as well thought out as they would have us believe.

They very well may not have thought through it in as much detail as we have on the boards, but that is because it is such a simple, one sided issue.  If a card has bad templating errata you update the errata.  Its only when the boards make a federal case out of it (almost literally ) that we have to expend thousands of words examining the minutiae of the decision.

If a card has bad templating, errata it. Absolutely. But let's not pretend that there is only one way to do it to achieve the goals of fixing debt cost and match written intent. And respectfully, you are welcome in not wasting time in examining the "minutiae of the decision". We are not dragging anyone into this tedious task. We can totally understand if people remain ambivalent on the issue.

[Yare]

However, this is custom, and not text. We should not confuse the two. At the time Mana Vault and Time Vault were printed, no such custom had yet developed.

I originally had issues with the idea that people were saying that Time Vault could untap at any time.  My interpretation of the rules at that time, however, was BUILT upon this custom.  Consequently, I no longer hold that view.  Thank you for clearing up this aspect of the argument.

Original Intent + Time Counter = Illogical.  I completely agree with this sentiment.

Regarding the secondary market, you're right on there as well.  The statement about the secondary market inherently impliest that the reserved list essentially has ceased to existed.  I expressed the same in my letter to Gottlieb.  Well done on this point.

Clearly, I think you did a fantastic job of summing up this issue.  While I thought it may have been a little lengthy at some points, the overall ideas rang with truth throughout.  Thank you for this article.  You have quite a law career ahead of you.

Steve's logic continues to be unshakeable.

QFT

[PucktheCat]

This decision, according to Buehler, is based on future player happiness of having oracle text line up as closely as it can to the actual card text. This goal will not be achieved because those players will still have to look at oracle wordings regardless. The use of the time counter is even contrary to this goal!

You seem to be missing the entire point here.  Of course the time counter does not match the wording.  Power level errata, by its very definition, does not match the wording.  That's an intractable problem.  Bad templating errata, however, is very fixable.

If a card has bad templating, errata it. Absolutely. But don't pretend that there is only one way to do it to achieve the goals of fixing debt cost and match written intent.

I'm not pretending.  I really think that only one wording matches the original wording:*

Time Vault
2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may untap Time Vault. If you do, you skip your next turn.
T: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability only if there's a time counter on Time Vault.

I understand the post-modern argument that there is no single meaning that can be ascribed to any language.  I'm not sure if that's the argument you are making here, but if it is it can be disposed of quickly.  That argument proves far too much here.  If we assume that no single meaning is ascertainable in general, we should probably pack it up and play Yahtzee, because this game won't work.

I will therefore assume you are making the same point that Steve is, which is that even if we limit ourselves to "reasonable" interpretations, there are still multiple ways the card the card could be interpreted.  I really think Steve's argument is disposed of entirely by pointing out that Mana Vault has been interpreted in the exact same way since at least Revised, and probably earlier.  Regardless of whether the Alpha/Beta/Unlimited printings were clear, a decision was made about how these cards should be interpreted, and that decision has remained a consistent rule.  Basalt Monolith is a pure sideshow, because the Revised wording shows clearly that the Alpha wording was the correct one.

And respectfully, you are welcome in not wasting time in examining the "minutiae of the decision". We are not dragging anyone into this tedious task.

Oh, I don't mind.  I enjoy this sort of thing.  But I think WotC has a legitimate interest in having a policy decide these things, because if they examine every decision they make they way we have this one they would still be playtesting Alpha.

One other point from Steve's article:

Competitive Magic Magnifies Ambiguities and Demands Clarification

Steve makes the point that Magic's competitive nature requires very clear rules to work, because the incentives to distort meaning for your own goals.  This is definately true, which is exactly why we have templating errata in the first place.  The way courts deal with this is by adopting consistent rules for interpretation and treating differences and similarities in statute very closely.  In this case, I think that any court would find the identical wording of Time Vault and Mana Vault, as well the clear interpretation of that wording by subsequent sets, disposes of this issue.  The amplification of ambiguities in Magic is just one more reason for a uniform, consistent approach.

*I left out the time counter because it is power level errata.

[Jacob Orlove]

In this case, I think that any court would find the identical wording of Time Vault and Mana Vault, as well the clear interpretation of that wording by subsequent sets, disposes of this issue.

Then why the change in wording for the Beta Basalt Monolith?

Plus, Mana Vault has upkeep-based damage, which was arguably conflated with the untap ability in later wordings, whereas Monolith and TV have no such clause, and no such conflation.

And to all the people who say arguing about this is a waste of time: even if we don't get any change to Vault itself, there are a few positive steps that we can get Wizards to take, but that they will not spend the time and effort on if we don't show that there's a strong benefit for them.

A long time ago, Vintage players campaigned for more official support from Wizards. We didn't get any GPs or PTS, but we did get a World Championship, one that we would not have had if people had just said "well, Wizards doesn't want to support Vintage, so we should just accept that and move on."

[warble]

Steve,

While I agree that many of your points are valid, your article has one major flaw.  You suggest the following resolution:

"re-errata Time Vault so that the Flame Fusillade combo works"

Unfortunately, this comes at odds with the entire premise that Wizards is responsible for "the world"  As it is a "Wizards world" the concept therefore must exist that your "world" is constructed in a meaningful manner.  The initial justification included the fact that the combo was going to be taken out.  Directly going at odds with a clearly stated corporate decision is just "not going to fly."  Corporations have a purpose, and that purpose leads to long drawn out decisions and processes.  The purpose is to give security and a sense of finality to those who deal with the corporation, and when dealing with material goods it cannot waiver for fear of a market collapse.  Suggesting that wizards overturn their judgement is not a "legal appeal" of the sort that you wish would happen.  It is a corporate process, and one that is more political than you make it out to be.  Soundness of your theorem may exist, but you have not addressed the politics of a corporation expressing indecisiveness.  That is the real problem with your argument.

In order for magic players to feel comfortable with their investments, to continue investing, and to be retained as customers, the ruling cannot be overturned.  It is unfortunate that this comes at the expense of some long-term constituents, but when you look at the market share and the growth of the company that expense is not only justifiable, but in fact miniscule.  I do not want to belittle our community, and as a vintage player I expect the same respect from Wizards as the FNM players and Type 2 players that give multi-millions of dollars to wizards annually.  However, we are a drop in the bucket and waivering politically and showing any weakness is simply not something a large corporation is capable of.  I know this may hurt a lot of feelings, but it is simply the type of action that a corporation takes on a daily basis.

[PucktheCat]

Then why the change in wording for the Beta Basalt Monolith?

Plus, Mana Vault has upkeep-based damage, which was arguably conflated with the untap ability in later wordings, whereas Monolith and TV have no such clause, and no such conflation.

Beta Monolith appears to me to have been a simple error.  Revised returned to the Alpha wording.

Regardless of what caused Mana Vault to become a once-a-turn ability, that interpretation is well established at this point.

And to all the people who say arguing about this is a waste of time: even if we don't get any change to Vault itself, there are a few positive steps that we can get Wizards to take, but that they will not spend the time and effort on if we don't show that there's a strong benefit for them.

That's fine, I have no problem with asking WotC for better explanations and more notice, and all that good stuff.  But that isn't what this article was advocating.

[dicemanx]

This decision, according to Buehler, is based on future player happiness of having oracle text line up as closely as it can to the actual card text. This goal will not be achieved because those players will still have to look at oracle wordings regardless. The use of the time counter is even contrary to this goal!

You seem to be missing the entire point here.  Of course the time counter does not match the wording.  Power level errata, by its very definition, does not match the wording.  That's an intractable problem.  Bad templating errata, however, is very fixable.

So you're saying we should keep the power level errata, but Gottlieb claims that:

Errata is independent of power level
Errata aims at matching the written intent

You don't see a little problem here? Perhaps you are saying "errata was issued for power reasons at some point, and while they don't errata for power reasons anymore, lets keep this errata anyways". Well guess what - we're in turn saying "Time Vault worked a certain way for the past 3 years - this is now its new "intent", and let's keep it". Is there a problem with this request?

I understand the post-modern argument that there is no single meaning that can be ascribed to any language.  I'm not sure if that's the argument you are making here, but if it is it can be disposed of quickly.  That argument proves far too much here.  If we assume that no single meaning is ascertainable in general, we should probably pack it up and play Yahtzee, because this game won't work.

You are distorting the argument.

The textual intent on Time Vault is ambiguous. Do you not agree?

The current errata is crystal clear. The previous errata was crystal clear. Do you not agree?

The transition from old errata to new errata wasn't done for the sake of clarity - it was done to match some presupposed original textual intent. The removal of debt cost was ancillary, and could have been effected without addressing the textual intent issue. Do you not agree?

I will therefore assume you are making the same point that Steve is, which is that even if we limit ourselves to "reasonable" interpretations, there are still multiple ways the card the card could be interpreted.  I really think Steve's argument is disposed of entirely by pointing out that Mana Vault has been interpreted in the exact same way since at least Revised, and probably earlier.  Regardless of whether the Alpha/Beta/Unlimited printings were clear, a decision was made about how these cards should be interpreted, and that decision has remained a consistent rule.  Basalt Monolith is a pure sideshow, because the Revised wording shows clearly that the Alpha wording was the correct one.

No, you are using a de facto argument (its the way it is, so it must be correct). Because someone made a decision regarding Mana Vault and how it should be worded doesn't give us any insight into the textual intent. There was an interpretation that was made, nothing more. Notice that in doing so, the actual written text on Mana Vault and Time Vault now differs. Notice that a completely OPPOSITE decision was made on how Time Vault "should" function. How convenient that you don't address this. Someone decided that Time Vault should untap any time, and the errata reflected this for many, many years. This decision was based on interpretation, just like the decision to word Mana Vault a certain way was an interpretation.

Now, I don't seem to recall you coming on these boards and lamenting the fact that Time Vault didn't match Mana Vault in templating, or that Time Vault's oracle text didn't match its supposed "intended" written text. I don't blame you. I didn't care either. I still don't care if the oracle text matches the written text as precisely as possible for the older cards, because I know it is a futile exercise. I only care about two things: having a crystal clear oracle wording (we had that already, albeit the debt cost needed a swtich to effect a la Meditate and Chronatog), and having a playable card (we had that already too). I'm adopting a utilitarian approach, because the constructionist approach in this specific case is of no value to me. Look at the effect post errata. We lost a playable card in the format. That's all. We didn't clarify anything, because the oracle text was clear to start with. We didn't make anyone happy with this decision, because most did not care anyways and will continue to not care.   

And respectfully, you are welcome in not wasting time in examining the "minutiae of the decision". We are not dragging anyone into this tedious task.

Oh, I don't mind.  I enjoy this sort of thing.  But I think WotC has a legitimate interest in having a policy decide these things, because if they examine every decision they make they way we have this one they would still be playtesting Alpha.

No need to generalize here. They don't need to scrutinize every decision - they have us to do it for them. They want feedback - they don't design the game in a vacuum, and their decisions are related to our level of happiness with their product. How they act on that feedback is up to them, but I'm sure they are bright enough to weigh the pros and cons and if the decision is better reversed, then so be it. There are no winners or losers here. We're not doing this because we want to show that we are right. We're doing this because we want a playable card back in the format (one of the main reasons anyways).

[Smmenen]

Diceman has said everything that I would say, but I'd add one more element:

Puck said that the DCI should use policy to decide this sort of thing.

What is policy?

Policy is drafted for a prupose.  It's designed to act as a proxy for actual cost/benefit decisionmaking.

To take an extreme example. 

Let's say I have a personal policy against killing people.   Next time I'm in a situation where I could kill someone, I don't go: oh, what are the benefits of murdering this person and what are the costs murdering this person? 

Policies have a purpose.  They serve goals that we find worthy.  Sometimes those policies no longer serve those goals.

Adhering to policy for the sake of adhering to policy is stupid. 

[PucktheCat]

You don't see a little problem here? Perhaps you are saying "errata was issued for power reasons at some point, and while they don't errata for power reasons anymore, lets keep this errata anyways".

That is what I'm saying, although I don't care if they actually do keep the power errata.  I just don't think they should get rid of it without thinking it through like they would an unrestriction.

[Y]ou are using a de facto argument (its the way it is, so it must be correct).

Existing interpretations are an important part of distinguishing between competing arguments in the law, and the same reasons that make it relevant there apply here. 

The textual intent on Time Vault is ambiguous. Do you not agree?

I don't agree.  I have always thought Time Vault should uptap only once a turn.  That may explain why I didn't react to the errata the same way others did.  The old errata seemed strange to me from the first time I saw it.

I'm adopting a utilitarian approach

No clear argument has been advanced as to why your immediate utility should outweigh the overall good of the game.  Without that your approach isn't utilitarian, its just self-interested.

Do you think that Mirror Universe should be errated so it can be used as a kill condition?

Steve: You are right on about policy.  The only place where I disagree is your conclusion.

Let's say I have a personal policy against killing people.   Next time I'm in a situation where I could kill someone, I don't go: oh, what are the benefits of murdering this person and what are the costs murdering this person?

Exactly, because a utilitarian analysis is impractical for routine and one-sided decisions, a policy makes sense.  Templating errata is just such a routine and one-sided decision.

[dicemanx]

You don't see a little problem here? Perhaps you are saying "errata was issued for power reasons at some point, and while they don't errata for power reasons anymore, lets keep this errata anyways".

That is what I'm saying, although I don't care if they actually do keep the power errata.  I just don't think they should get rid of it without thinking it through like they would an unrestriction.

So you are asking Gottlieb to go against current policy he set forth himself by keeping the power errata. But when we ask that he return to the previous iteration of the card that is somehow unreasonable? 

[Y]ou are using a de facto argument (its the way it is, so it must be correct).

Existing interpretations are an important part of distinguishing between competing arguments in the law, and the same reasons that make it relevant there apply here. 

OK, but once again, convenient that we are ignoring the oracle text of Time Vault prior to the change this past Monday. So if you want to pursue your de facto argument, I'll pursue my own, and we still won't make any headway.

The textual intent on Time Vault is ambiguous. Do you not agree?

I don't agree.  I have always thought Time Vault should uptap only once a turn.  That may explain why I didn't react to the errata the same way others did.  The old errata seemed strange to me from the first time I saw it.

Well I think it was clearly ambiguous. So new question. Do you think that your take on the situation is the only valid one out of a pool of educated, mature individuals? If I am convinced that something works a certain way, and 20 very bright people think otherwise, I might consider tightening my scrutiny a tad, and make sure that I'm not missing anything.

We're not arguing that your interpretation is incorrect. We're arguing that it's not the only one. Forgive me, but you are either being purposefully stubborn or highly enlightened when it comes to deciphering intent from ambiguous texts.

I'm adopting a utilitarian approach

No clear argument has been advanced as to why your immediate utility should outweigh the overall good of the game.  Without that your approach isn't utilitarian, its just self-interested.

False.

We continue to await any compelling reason why this adds to the "overall good of the game". Why must our benefit necessarily be in opposition to the good of the game? Because you said so? See, you refuse to participate in any sort of cost-benefit analysis. Give us a benefit of this decision. Something concrete please. We have already provided the costs, and the net balance is on the cost side. Buehler tried one possible benefit analysis, but it was challenged, and that challenge has yet to be met. I have a feeling you won't produce one that won't be borne out of stubbornness at this point, otherwise you would have made your case by now. I'm not saying this to be mean, but I, along with Steve, are still waiting to hear compelling reasons on the benefit side. I want to know what we're missing, if anything. No one has stood up to that challenge yet, which further reaffirms that our cost-benefit analysis is so far on target.

Do you think that Mirror Universe should be errated so it can be used as a kill condition?

Mirror Universe was a victim of a rules revision. So were countless other cards. I cannot say if this was a good or bad thing, because the cost-benefit analysis is difficult. Time Vault errata isn't a victim of rules revision - it is a victim of some incessant need to clean up the oracle text based on presupposed textual intent. The justification for the decision is poor, and the cost-benefit analysis flags it to be a poor choice. So we have an actual legitimate case here.

[Methuselahn]

And I thought you were the guy that got cards restricted or banned.   

So this article is the reason that you've been silent on the boards regarding this issue.  This piece is very nice.  Complete, articulate, and convincing.  The only reason why Wizards shouldn't reevaluate this new errata is because they want to save face, which is ridiculous, but probably likely.

Thanks Steve.

[Evenpence]

I, for one, would have an enormous amount of respect for Wizards if they overruled the recent errata back to something that was abusable by either Fusilade or Twiddle.  Obviously I would prefer Fusilade, as Voltaic Key + Time Vault is beyond ridiculous.  I am always in awe of people when they admit defeat, ignorance, or wrongdoing - it shows an enormous amount of courage.

[dicemanx]

I, for one, would have an enormous amount of respect for Wizards if they overruled the recent errata back to something that was abusable by either Fusilade or Twiddle.  Obviously I would prefer Fusilade, as Voltaic Key + Time Vault is beyond ridiculous.  I am always in awe of people when they admit defeat, ignorance, or wrongdoing - it shows an enormous amount of courage.

Yes, and this would stress that there are no egos here to feed, there is no right or worng, there is just trying to work together to make players happy and make WotC $. They make me happy and I buy their product.

[sean1i0]

For what it's worth, I thought that it was a very well written article that did a good job of outlining fallacies in the arguments that wizards has made.  I agree that it was an important article to make, simply because it is important that we as a community make ourselves heard when wizards does something with which we disagree.  I'm not saying that I expect them to do anything, as I honestly don't think that they give that much of a shit about us realistically, but I think that it's a good thing that they know that we do at least sit up and take notice.