[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Moxlotus]

But there is something separating Great Whale form TV now.  They have not reissued an errata on Great Whale.  They have on TV.  When you errata a card you start with the original card text (and its evident in this case since they said the original text is so important).  Then you errata, disregarding all previous errata because it is all worthless.  The only thing that matters is what's on the card.  Time counter is not on the card.  The new errata has a time counter.  Power level errata has been issued.

You, or at least Moxlotus, seem to want to say that the decision to errata Time Vault some how makes the old power level errata, which was unchanged, "new" power level errata.

Yes-that is exactly what I am saying for reasons above.

But if you choose to define hypocrisy as broadly as you do above you rob the term of its moral content by trivializing it.  In other words, you can call WotC and the school-misser hypocrites, but that doesn't make what they did wrong.

What you are missing is that hypocrisy is existing.  To you it may be justified, but it is still there.   

[policehq]

I hope this is a legitimate and fair question:

Did WotC promise not to errata based on power levels? Or is the only quote we have to work with being Buehler saying "we don't want to do that anymore."

Don't want to and promising not to are different things.

To be fair, though, defending them on their use of the words "not want to" against "promise not to" still leaves us with a little hesitancy about buying and using older cards.

Right now I'm fine with the errata. There is logic behind it, and there are good results from it. There is logic behind power level errata, even, as seen in the fact that all Vintage decks aren't Time Vault and Voltaic Key, with Time Vault hitting $300 or more in value. The financial part of that is trivial, but, for diversity's sake (which some of you argue for), power level errata serves its purpose.

Still, if someone shows me a promise, or even them saying they won't, I'd back you up 100% because Gottlieb did mention a new player being able to look at the card's face and determine what it does, but noone would ever consider a time counter.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

Most take "we don't want to do that anymore" as "we aren't going to do that anymore"

[policehq]

Most take "we don't want to do that anymore" as "we aren't going to do that anymore"

That argument is probably the weakest I've seen in this thread. Ironic.

Seriously, open challenge: Anybody show me WotC saying "we won't" or "we promise we won't" regarding power-level errata.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

I fail to see how that is a weak point.  It's a perfectly reasonable interpretation.  You didn't even have anything to counter it.  Regardless if it is or is not a weak point, the fact is that a new player still can't tell how the card works by reading the text and they have failed to meet one of their objectives with the errata.

[Jacob Orlove]

Forsythe has been pretty explicit on the no power level errata in various articles:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af27
"we have a policy of not issuing errata on cards to fix their power level (just ask all the Type 1 players that have felt the sting of the Worldgorger Dragon combo). We printed them, they're good, and they will remain good. Should things get way out of hand again, our solution is to ban something."

and
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/133
(quoting the whole thing because it's all relevant here):

Worldgorger Dragon. Illusions of Grandeur. Phyrexian Dreadnought.

Every so often, combos pop up that abuse certain cards in ways that clearly go against their "designed purpose." Worldgorger Dragon was not designed to be part of an infinite mana engine. Illusions of Grandeur was not created to be the kill card in one of the most pervasive combo decks of all time. Phyrexian Dreadnought was not made so that it could come into play on turn one.

For the most part, such combos are at the core of what we, as Magic players, should be trying to find. What fun would it be to play every card the way the R&D team envisioned? We should be trying to break things! Some of the most interesting decks use cards in ways that others--even people here at WotC--never envisioned. I assure you that Squee, Goblin Nabob was not meant to be part of an abusive card-drawing engine, and that Squirrel Nest was not meant the namesake of a turn-three kill, but once players get their hands on the cards, crazy things happen. That's what makes Magic cool.

The flipside of breaking things is that sometimes real damage is done. Tournaments suffer when combos start getting way out of whack, and at that point we have to step in and change things. Sometimes a card gets restricted or banned, and sometimes errata is issued. Neither is pretty.

Remember the original interaction between Recurring Nightmare and Great Whale? Or Iridescent Drake and Abduction? Or Parallax Wave and Opalescence? Not good. Not good at all. But does that mean errata was the right answer?

Sometimes in the past, a card was given errata to make it do what it was supposed to do, the card remained good enough to be played anyway, and everyone was happy. The changes to Parallax Wave, Thawing Glaciers, and Palinchron worked out like that in the long run. But what was more often the case was that cards were errataed from "This card is insane" to "This card is unplayable," which no one enjoyed. Great Whale, Karmic Guide, Waylay, Iridescent Drake, and Time Vault are among the cards relegated to the unplayable pile as a result of changed wordings.

We don't want to do that anymore. Clearly, the issuing of errata helps the greater good of that particular play environment, but it has lasting ramifications outside of it. I cannot tell you the number of emails I get from casual players asking about the interactions of some of the cards listed above, and it really sucks to have to say, "Your deck doesn't work the way you want it to because we changed the wording on that card." For players not plugged into the tournament scene, the idea of errata borders on repulsive.

So, should Phyrexian Dreadnought have some clumsy clause about turning face up jammed onto it? Some of you think so.

Should Illusions of Grandeur be made to say "If you lose control of Illusions of Grandeur, you lose 20 life?" Some of you think so.

Should Worldgorger Dragon be given the classic "if you played it from your hand" text? Some of you, including Roy Spires, think so. Spires writes:

[Worldgorger] Dragon MUST receive errata; it is currently the single most important thing to the health of the T1 environment. The "infinite loops" it generates are abusable even in the sense that they let you draw the game whenever you want. A deck that abuses the most basic rules of Magic should not exist. Not to many people enjoy having 3 draws in a row followed by an unbeatable turn-1 win, which is exactly what the Dragon is capable of doing if the Dragon player chooses to do so.

But we no longer think that way. When we get complaints like this, especially in Type 1, our courses of action are, in order:

   1. Wait it out and hope the metagame can adjust. This is where we are now on most of these cards. Emails like this one from Timothy Frank give us hope:

      Dragon- As long as you don't restrict Tormod's Crypt, ANY deck can handle this combo. Also, Swords [to Plowshares] or any other instant removal works to take away all the opponent's permanents. I see Dragon as a deck that could be hated out of an environment very easily.

   2. See if the problem can't be solved by a restriction. When Trix was a problem in Type 1, it was cleared up by restricting the most egregious card in the deck--Necropotence. You may not agree with the choice of targets, but you can't argue that it didn't do what the DCI wanted. Perhaps restricting Worldgorger Dragon, or another component of the deck, would have a similar effect. And more on Necro later.
   3. Ban something. Note that nothing is currently banned in Type 1 for power reasons. More on this later as well. However, troublesome cards can be banned in other formats, and sometimes are.

Issuing errata isn't even really a consideration anymore, as we feel that doing so is more damaging than it's worth. Casual players really, really hate errata. (In fact, the Casual Players Alliance was formed because of the errata issued to Waylay in August of 1999. True story.) Our policy has changed in recent years. We don't want to errata cards, and will only do so under certain circumstances. We'll issue errata on cards that work in ways that most players find confusing. We'll issue errata on cards that don't work inside the rules of the game. But we won't issue errata on cards to "correct" power levels, especially older cards that people are used to playing with. If they turn out to be problems, restrict or ban them.

[AngryPheldagrif]

We don't want to errata cards, and will only do so under certain circumstances. We'll issue errata on cards that work in ways that most players find confusing. We'll issue errata on cards that don't work inside the rules of the game.

So in other words he's being entirely consistent with what he's said?

No, of course not. I'm either taking it out of context or you will in order to refute me. God forbid that something the man says could be 'up for interpretation' and Wizards has decided to follow it a way you don't like. You know, the whole point of them being the authority is that they get to choose which interpretation to follow, probably because they were the ones who said it in the first place. Clearly, however, you know what they meant much better than they do.

[policehq]

Yeah, I agree.

Power level wasn't a promise or policy. Still, even if it were, it has its place. It proved to save Vintage ten years ago.

Sometimes a card gets restricted or banned, and sometimes errata is issued.

Great Whale, Karmic Guide, Waylay, Iridescent Drake, and Time Vault are among the cards relegated to the unplayable pile as a result of changed wordings.

All of this current situation seems like fair game to me. A quote saying that power level errata currently happens, plenty of quotes saying he doesn't want to, and some quotes about confusion and distortion of the rules of the game...

So yeah, he hasn't based his errata very well on the text of the card, but I'm benefiting from that scenario with Illusionary Mask.

-hq

[PucktheCat]

What you are missing is that hypocrisy is existing.  To you it may be justified, but it is still there.

I really don't care if morally justified hypocrisy exists.  I’m not a pacifist - I believe that violence is wrong but, but I also believe that sometimes it is necessary or justified.  I guess you would call that hypocrisy.

What’s more, the entire claim that this is hypocrisy rests on your tortured argument that this is somehow “new� power level errata in spite of the fact that it is exactly the same power level errata that has been on the card for over a decade.

You, or at least Moxlotus, seem to want to say that the decision to errata Time Vault some how makes the old power level errata, which was unchanged, "new" power level errata.

Yes-that is exactly what I am saying for reasons above.

That's a bad way to manage a policy.  Either maintaining old power level errata is a bad idea, in which case it should all be eliminated, or it is a good idea, in which case it should be maintained even if there are other changes made to the card.

If your approach prevails then one of two things will happen.  One option is that WotC will continue to errata such cards.  In that case, power level errata will disappear on some cards and not on others pretty much randomly, because some cards will require other errata but others won't.  The other possibility is that WotC will simply decide that it should never errata cards that have power level errata.  If they do that then real problems in wording will be ignored because they occur on cards with power level errata.  Neither of these is a desireable result.

Why is it good policy for Wizards to decide which power level errata to revoke based on the entirely unrelated factor of whether the card needs templating errata?  Your argument seems to be that it is required by their policy.  As we have seen, that isn't necessarily the case, but even if it were the case, if the policy required such an utterly irrational approach that would be a good argument to change the policy.

[Smmenen]

Once again, you are assuming that Time Vault needed templating errata.

It did not.  The way that Time Vault worked before this was perfectly fine. 

[PucktheCat]

Steve, these are two seperate arguments.  Your argument is that the card should be returned to its pre-errata wording so FlameVault is functional.  My response to your argument can be found two pages ago when it was last seriously defended.  Moxlotus' argument is that WotC should have removed the time counter as part of updating the other errata.  Obviously, that argument assumes that the templating errata is going to be issued, so my response does as well.

[Jacob Orlove]

Power level wasn't a promise or policy. Still, even if it were, it has its place. It proved to save Vintage ten years ago.

Sometimes a card gets restricted or banned, and sometimes errata is issued.

Great Whale, Karmic Guide, Waylay, Iridescent Drake, and Time Vault are among the cards relegated to the unplayable pile as a result of changed wordings.

All of this current situation seems like fair game to me. A quote saying that power level errata currently happens, plenty of quotes saying he doesn't want to, and some quotes about confusion and distortion of the rules of the game...

I don't think you read what I posted. The most recent power level errata, at the time of that article's printing (2003) was four years old. Now, it's been seven years.
Let me get some key quotes from that article, because "no power level errata" is a promise and a policy, not just something they kinda sorta want to avoid:

we have a policy of not issuing errata on cards to fix their power level. We printed them, they're good, and they will remain good. Should things get way out of hand again, our solution is to ban something.

When we get complaints like this, especially in Type 1, our courses of action are, in order:

   1. Wait it out and hope the metagame can adjust. This is where we are now on most of these cards.

   2. See if the problem can't be solved by a restriction.

   3. Ban something. Note that nothing is currently banned in Type 1 for power reasons. More on this later as well. However, troublesome cards can be banned in other formats, and sometimes are.

we won't issue errata on cards to "correct" power levels, especially older cards that people are used to playing with. If they turn out to be problems, restrict or ban them.

I'm not sure how he could be any clearer than that. They will errata cards for other reasons, but NEVER for power level.

[Smmenen]

Steve, these are two seperate arguments.  Your argument is that the card should be returned to its pre-errata wording so FlameVault is functional.  My response to your argument can be found two pages ago when it was last seriously defended.  Moxlotus' argument is that WotC should have removed the time counter as part of updating the other errata.  Obviously, that argument assumes that the templating errata is going to be issued, so my response does as well.

First of all, that is not my argument at all.

My ARGUMENT is that this decision was wrong.  I attack Gottlieb's argument for lots of reasons - his logic is utterly flawed.

In the ARTICLE, at the conclusion section, I suggest that Gottlieb should reverse the decision - but that is not necessarily compelled by the logic I use in attacking Gottlieb.

If you read what I say in this thread, you'll notice that I switched my stance.  I now am of the view that the power errata should be undone.

To reiterate (read this carefully), the ARGUMENT I present (using argument in the logical sense - which is premises supporting a conclusion) strictly relates to refuting the logic that Gottlieb advances in support of his decision.  My article's purpose is to attack the decision, not to compel the conclusion that it should be reversed.  I think that a reversal OR undoing power errata would be equally consistent with my ARGUMENT. 

[PucktheCat]

Wait, so you concede that your argument has no bearing on the actual merits of the decision, only on Gottlieb's statement?

What the hell are we talking about then?  Gottlieb's reasoning for the decision may have been horribly flawed, but that has absolutely no bearing on what should be done with Time Vault.  If that is what your article is about then it is at best useless and at worst deceptive, because your "argument" has no logical connection to your conclusion.

[dicemanx]

Wait, so you concede that your argument has no bearing on the actual merits of the decision, only on Gottlieb's statement?

What the hell are we talking about then?  Gottlieb's reasoning for the decision may have been horribly flawed, but that has absolutely no bearing on what should be done with Time Vault.  If that is what your article is about then it is at best useless and at worst deceptive, because your "argument" has no logical connection to your conclusion.

Maybe the problem lies on your end here? Because we're not entirely sure what you're arguing about, or even why for that matter.

Gottlieb made a decision concerning TV  because of reasoning that he felt was 100% correct. That reasoning was flawed. The article established this. Hence, the decision shouldn't have been made in the first place, because it in fact wasn't necessary. It made people very upset for at least a couple of reasons, and didn't offset that with tangible gain. I thought this was a pretty straightforward argument.

[policehq]

Jacob, can you show me the sources of those quotes?

Thanks,
-hq

[Jacob Orlove]

They were part of the pieces I quoted earlier. The links are in that post.

[Godder]

I don't think you read what I posted. The most recent power level errata, at the time of that article's printing (2003) was four years old. Now, it's been seven years.

Well, not quite - the most recent power level errata were issued for the Parallax cards in 2000. Of course, time might work differently for TMD's time traveller .

And, I still think Time Vault should only untap during an opponent's EOT step .

[Smmenen]

Wait, so you concede that your argument has no bearing on the actual merits of the decision, only on Gottlieb's statement?

What the hell are we talking about then?  Gottlieb's reasoning for the decision may have been horribly flawed, but that has absolutely no bearing on what should be done with Time Vault.  If that is what your article is about then it is at best useless and at worst deceptive, because your "argument" has no logical connection to your conclusion.

Noticed I capitalized the word "argument" in my previous post - I did that so that it would clue you in.  Somehow you missed the hint.

I don't know how many times I can say the same thing and still you don't get it:

My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.

My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.

My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.


My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.


My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.


Do you get it now?

The whole article was an argument explaining why this decision was BAD.

At the end of the article I make a suggestion.

Suggestion =/ argument


Suggestion =/ argument


Suggestion =/ argument


Do you get it now?

The suggestion was that they undo the errata they just issued. 

I'll say it again since I still doubt you got it:

Suggestion =/ argument

My argument strictly related to refuting the logic of the new errata to time vault.

My article was an argument showing why Time Vault should not have been errated.

I don't understand why that is so hard to understand - yet you KEEP conflating my ARGUMENT with my SUGGESTION.

Ugh.

You wonder why this thread is 8 pages when people can't read a sentence and comprehend it.