Power Level Errata: They're removing it!

[Polynomial P]

(I don't know why Twiddle wasn't reprinted in revised).

Oh, but I do. I have in front of me the Duelist supplement from May 1994 which explains ALL the changes. Shall we proceed?

Some cards that appeared in the Limited and Unlimited editions have been replaced in the Revised Edition with cards from Arabian Nights and Antiquities, the first two Magic: The Gathering expansion sets. There are several reasons for these substitutions. According to Magic's creator, Richard Garfield, and the original design team, cards being replaced fall into three broad categories: There are the "mystifiers"--cards that were too confusing for most players, or led to too many paradoxes, or defied too many of the basic Magic rules. Then there are the "spoilers", the cards whose effects were out of proportion. These cards had a tendency to throw entire games out of whack, and were only fun when they were on your side. It is no coincidence that many of these cards appear on the Duelists' Convocation Restricted or Banned list. Finally there are the "retirees", cards which are simply being phased out. Richard always intended for the card set to be fluid and for some of the old cards to be replaced by new ones. So some of the cards were selected for "retirement." This is not to say they will never be back, or similar cards won't show up in future expansions.

Original Card    Category    Replacement Card
Time Vault    spoiler    Aladdin's Ring

And a few more detailed explanations:

5. Time Vault. "Not in and of itself," explains Dave Pettey. "It just limits what you can do without creating 'spoiler' combinations from 'non-spoiler' cards. It's different from the 'real spoilers' like Ancestral Recall."

This is actually a very telling post Ben. The fact that Time Vault is included in the spoiler group and not in the mystifier group suggests that players knew how to use the card and that the functionality of the card was too powerful (aka limited future card design) to be reprinted. At no point does your post suggest that the card was not being used as intended.

The new oracle wording is tidy and represents one opinion of what the printed wording could mean. It is unfortunate that the new oracle text does not restore either the original functionality of the card or the interpretation of the printed text for the past 14 years.

[Matt]

Hence, you are saying that as of the printing of 4th edition version of the card, Mana Vault may or may not have changed to what essentially is its wording is today, but that because it was reprinted at a later time (namely 4th edition), we know how Mana Vault was supposed to work.

This is close. I would say: "Mana Vault may or may not have changed to what essentially is its wording is today, but that because it was reprinted at a later time (namely 4th edition), we know how Mana Vault will work from now on." That is, BECAUSE it was reprinted*, the newest printing is the one that has the most impact on how players unfamiliar with the card will percieve its abilities (which is the actual motivation behind the push to have Oracle match printed cards in the first place).

How it was originally intended to work doesn't matter, because we have a new card that overwrites the A/B/U cards, and we DO know how that one is supposed to work. How Beta MV worked is irrelevant because they are entirely suboridnate to 4th and 5th Edition MV, which we do know how to work. If they ever print MV again (an unlikely prospect), the 4th and 5th edition printings will become essentially proxies of the new printing.

In some sense, ALL cards are proxies of the version of that card found in the Oracle. An Alpha Orcish Oriflamme or Japanese Cursed Scroll (two cards with misprinted costs) should never be construed as anything other than what their Oracle entry says.

This is much clearer when looking at Relic Bind. Because the 4th edition printing has the clause about enchanting only an opponent's artifact, Wizards will almost certainly never revert to the original wording found on Legends Relic Bind. In a sense, the newer printing "locks in" the wording (though this is not an ironclad rule, it's pretty close).


*special promos like FNM foils and Beatdown box set don't count, they have to be reprinted in a major release.

This is actually a very telling post Ben. The fact that Time Vault is included in the spoiler group and not in the mystifier group suggests that players knew how to use the card and that the functionality of the card was too powerful (aka limited future card design) to be reprinted. At no point does your post suggest that the card was not being used as intended.

Yes, it is; that article makes it clear that while the card itsefl was not being abused at the time, R&D recognized that it was still abuseable.

The new oracle wording is tidy and represents one opinion of what the printed wording could mean.

This is true but it is not merely one opinion; it is (one of) the most likely opinion(s) that someone new to the game would form. That gives it special consideration over most other alternatives. Not all possible wordings are equally valid.

Today Magic cards are written with precise, almost programming-like language, but remember, Magic did not have this formal language structure associated with it until around the time of fourth edition. Time Vault is written with "natural" language; the early sets were littered with stuff like cards referring to creature being "killed," or the Floral Spuzzem nonsense.

[Yare]

"Mana Vault may or may not have changed to what essentially is its wording is today, but that because it was reprinted at a later time (namely 4th edition), we know how Mana Vault will work from now on." That is, BECAUSE it was reprinted*, the newest printing is the one that has the most impact on how players unfamiliar with the card will percieve its abilities (which is the actual motivation behind the push to have Oracle match printed cards in the first place).

I follow what you intend to say.  I also was not aware of the Relic Bind issue; frankly, that card could potentially be pivotal in this discussion.  Thank you for pointing it out.

So was Mana Vault effectively reborn with 4th edition in a definitive form, regardless of how vague its original form may or may not have been?

A number of questions balled into one: How does Time Vault not being reprinted fit into all this Mana Vault stuff?  Or does it?

[CHA1N5]

The new oracle wording is tidy and represents one opinion of what the printed wording could mean.

This is true but it is not merely one opinion; it is (one of) the most likely opinion(s) that someone new to the game would form.

I could not disagree with this more.

Please cite another example of a card that replaces untapping. 

Please explain how an effect that is now entirely unique in the game of Magic is somehow (one of) the most likely interpretations for the card.

Please hold an unlimited Time Vault in front of new players, ask for their interpretation, and don't stop until someone comes up with "it clearly replaces its own untapping".  If your assertion is correct, it should take you only a handful of tries.

[Matt]

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new wording does.

The actual mechanics (using a replacement ability) of implementing that in a non-natural language (again, Magic grammar is closer to programming code than English) are irrelevant as long as they implement the desired effect.

[Yare]

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new woridng does.

So the reprinting of Mana Vault with its 4th Edition text got it off the "must <do x>" proverbial train that Time Vault still resides upon? 

[Matt]

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new woridng does.

So the reprinting of Mana Vault with its 4th Edition text got it off the "must <do x>" proverbial train that Time Vault still resides upon? 

Essentially yes. The caveat is that the train didn't exist at the time, but the reprinting keeps us from lumping them together. At the time it made no difference but now years later MV can say "Phew, glad I missed that."

[Machinus]

Until Richard Garfield himself comes down from heaven and tells us exactly what he wanted the card to do, discussing intent on Time Vault is a waste of time.

Do the posters in this thread really think their opinions on time vault matter in some way? Not even Gottlieb's opinion on this card matters, but it just so happens that he can update oracle and we can't.

Wizards has made their intentions regarding Time Vault very clear, and it's time to move on.

[Matt]

Until Richard Garfield himself comes down from heaven and tells us exactly what he wanted the card to do, discussing intent on Time Vault is a waste of time.

Do the posters in this thread really think their opinions on time vault matter in some way? Not even Gottlieb's opinion on this card matters, but it just so happens that he can update oracle and we can't.

Wizards has made their intentions regarding Time Vault very clear, and it's time to move on.

That's what I said the FIRST time but apparantly Smmenen proved me wrong.

[The Atog Lord]

Why does Brass Man not have untap-replacing text?

Is it because it was worded differently? But it has the same sort of text as Time Vault.

Is it because untapping Brass Man doesn't lead to anything Dangerous (Sorry, Andy)? Then, the errata on Time Vault is errata based on power level; in other words, Power Level errata.

[Jacob Orlove]

Is it because it was worded differently? But it has the same sort of text as Time Vault.

Well, for one thing, Brassy was reprinted in 4th, giving it entirely new text. Additionally, though, the original brass man text does not match TV at all.

Compare:

Time Vault does not untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.
Brass Man does not untap as normal; you must pay 1 during untap phase to untap it.

Brass Man's text clearly refers to an untap trigger (which converts to an upkeep trigger under more modern rules). TV has no such wording.

[parallax]

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new wording does.

Then why would anyone have ever believed that Time Vault + Animate Artifact + Instill Energy gave you infinite turns? The fact that the card was originally used in this way (before any of its errata) suggests that the most "natural" interpretation of the card would allow that.

[CHA1N5]

Is it because it was worded differently? But it has the same sort of text as Time Vault.

Well, for one thing, Brassy was reprinted in 4th, giving it entirely new text. Additionally, though, the original brass man text does not match TV at all.

Compare:

Time Vault does not untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.
Brass Man does not untap as normal; you must pay 1 during untap phase to untap it.

Brass Man's text clearly refers to an untap trigger (which converts to an upkeep trigger under more modern rules). TV has no such wording.

... and Time Vault's untapping restriction clearly refers to the specific phase in which it cannot.  Why should the restriction suddenly apply to all other cases?

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new wording does.

The actual mechanics (using a replacement ability) of implementing that in a non-natural language (again, Magic grammar is closer to programming code than English) are irrelevant as long as they implement the desired effect.

I'm sorry, Matt, but I continue to feel 180-degrees from what you do:
- the word "must" has no meaning in the context of Magic terminology.  You are translating; and you are doing so with your own interpretation, not one with any basis in the written Magic rules
- "I bet a large fraction of people" agree with me and not you.  Such statements have no meaning.
- The actual mechanics are irrelevant????  What *is* relevant; the font?     The details of the mechanical translation are entirely the heart of the issue.  If they weren't, the current change wouldn't have been made in the first place.

[Juggernaut GO]

I just want to know 1 thing from all the people that are dissapointed with the way they erratta'd time vault:

Would you actually want to play in a format where every deck would use  time vault + voltaic/galvanaic key to gain infinite turns?
The combo is so degenerate that everyone would play it, no questions about it.

Every deck would be a race of who could assemble the combo first, and games would be incredibly boring. 

How could you possibly get behind the concept that time vault could work with voltaic key or twiddle, it would decimate the amount of people who play vintage competitively.

[Illissius]

I just want to know 1 thing from all the people that are dissapointed with the way they erratta'd time vault:

Would you actually want to play in a format where every deck would use  time vault + voltaic/galvanaic key to gain infinite turns?
The combo is so degenerate that everyone would play it, no questions about it.

Every deck would be a race of who could assemble the combo first, and games would be incredibly boring. 

How could you possibly get behind the concept that time vault could work with voltaic key or twiddle, it would decimate the amount of people who play vintage competitively.

Of course, the only people who still play Vintage are the ones who weren't already run off by Tinker + Darksteel Colossus, Worldgorger Dragon, and the Storm mechanic. For whom a broken Time Vault would likely be even more fun.

[Erdrick]

It is the most natural because of what the word "must" means. As in, "To untap it, you MUST skip a turn" which I bet a large fraction of people naturally interpret as "the only way to untap it is to skip a turn," which is exactly what its new wording does.

The actual mechanics (using a replacement ability) of implementing that in a non-natural language (again, Magic grammar is closer to programming code than English) are irrelevant as long as they implement the desired effect.

Since casual Staxs and Stasis decks are some of my favorites, my biggest beef is with when you get to untap it.  You focused on the word MUST, I would like to point out the lack of the word NEXT.  I always thought of the untapping more as a replacement effect for the turn, than the skipping a turn as a replacement effect for the untapping.  Ask anybody who used it for it's supposed "original intent", and they will tell you that they untapped it during their opponent's end of turn (just before their turn started).

[CHA1N5]

Would you actually want to play in a format where every deck would use  time vault + voltaic/galvanaic key to gain infinite turns?

Every deck?  Really?   Null Rod Fish?  FCG?  (Null Rod) Uba Stax?  Meandeck Tendrils?  Ichorid?

Do you really want to play in an environment where every deck plays Yawgmoth's Will?

Yes, it would change the environment drastically... but you know what I want?:  I want the environment to determine that... not people who think they know what's right for the environment.

[Moxlotus]

I just want to know 1 thing from all the people that are dissapointed with the way they erratta'd time vault:

Would you actually want to play in a format where every deck would use  time vault + voltaic/galvanaic key to gain infinite turns?
The combo is so degenerate that everyone would play it, no questions about it.

Every deck would be a race of who could assemble the combo first, and games would be incredibly boring. 

How could you possibly get behind the concept that time vault could work with voltaic key or twiddle, it would decimate the amount of people who play vintage competitively.

I play with Dark Rituals.  Bring it on.

As Cron said, almost every deck in the format is built to abuse Will.  Will is insanely more powerful than a 2 card combo that's shut down by Rod.

[sampling_percus]

I really, really, really, really, really hop they un-errata Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond.

[Matt]

I'm sorry, Matt, but I continue to feel 180-degrees from what you do:
- the word "must" has no meaning in the context of Magic terminology.  You are translating; and you are doing so with your own interpretation, not one with any basis in the written Magic rules

Were you not paying attention? The card was written in a time before ANY Magic terminology. The words on the card were never written with "any basis in the written Magic rules" because no such rules even existed until 4th edition, at the earliest. It's YOU who is trying to apply an inapplicable standard to the card.

Old cards such as Beta cards are written in colloquial English, not Magic terminology. Look at Khabal Ghoul or Alpha Disenchant. Cards in those days did not use Magic terminology, they used natural English words in a natural-language manner. And the English meaning of "must" is clear.

- "I bet a large fraction of people" agree with me and not you.  Such statements have no meaning.

They have no meaning coming from you or me, because we have no way of verifying this beyond my intuition. But Wizards DOES have a lot of direct experience in studying how new players interpret cards, and they agree with me.

- The actual mechanics are irrelevant????  What *is* relevant; the font?   Confused  The details of the mechanical translation are entirely the heart of the issue.  If they weren't, the current change wouldn't have been made in the first place.

You completely misunderstand what I am saying. You tried to say that because a new player wouldn't say the magic word "replacement ability" that the new wording is not the natural translation of the printed wording. And I am saying that that argument is bull, because a new player doesn't have to know the technical words - it doesn't matter that they don't know the difference between a replacement ability and an activated ability and a static ability, what matters is that the card does what they think it does after reading it for the first time.

And Wizards, who are the authority in the assumptions of new players, say that it is very unlikely that any given new player thinks you can untap Time Vault whenever you want. I agree with this, because I've seen it happen myself that a person who has never seen this "Time Vault" card his opponent just played doesn't believe you can just untap it whenever - look, it says on the card itself that you can't!

People really do respond this way to the card, and THAT is why the interpretation I give is better than alternate interpretations.

I really, really, really, really, really hop they un-errata Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond.

This is not ever going to happen. Those cards did not recieve power level errata, they were merely sixth edition rules updates. It is a coincidence that their original printed wordings happen to use words and phrasings that are still in use post-6th (though their meaning has changed), and that causes your confusion.

[sampling_percus]

This is not ever going to happen. Those cards did not recieve power level errata, they were merely sixth edition rules updates. It is a coincidence that their original printed wordings happen to use words and phrasings that are still in use post-6th (though their meaning has changed), and that causes your confusion.

Should have said a little more. if the aim of all this is to restore cards to their original wording, will wizards look at these 6th edition changes, or will the cards remain the same to retain their original intent.

To be honest i just want a borken lotus vale and mox diamond.

[Illissius]

Also, Lion's Eye Diamond says on the card "Play this ability as a mana source", while Oracle says "Play this ability only any time you could play an instant".

10/4/2004 The ability is a mana ability, so it is played and resolves as a mana ability, but it can only be played at times when you can play an Instant. Yes, this is a bit weird.

The way this would make sense is if in Mirage-era rules, the ability counted as an instant, so they had to clarify that it's actually a mana source; while with modern rules, it's inherently a mana source, but they have to clarify that you can only play it when you could an instant; and so it ends up working the same way while saying seemingly opposite things.
Is this the correct interpretation, or is there other (power-level) errata involved here? (If you could play it when you could a mana source, you could use the mana to play a spell from your hand by announcing it, then sacrificing the Diamond to pay for it.)

[TopSecret]

     Does anyone know when these changes become relevant to tournament play?
I'd like to know if I must fear the Mizzet Transreliquat deck this weekend.

[Jacob Orlove]

(If you could play it when you could a mana source, you could use the mana to play a spell from your hand by announcing it, then sacrificing the Diamond to pay for it.)

It used to be (pre-6th) that you had to get your mana ready before announcing the spell--which meant that Diamond could never be used to cast a card from your hand. The "play at instant speed" errata preserved this functionality post-6th.

[3eowulf]

@ Illisius:
The errata for Lion's Eye Diamond is (as you guessed) because with Mirage-era rules you couldn't play a spell in you hand with it (that is, announce the spell then break the Diamond to pay for it).

Edit: i'm so slow!

@ TopSecret:
Unlike changes to the b/r lists, oracle wording is in effect as the last version available, so if the new wording on Time Vault is official, you should fear the Mizzet thing this weekend. Still the Gatherer is having some problems, so i don't really know what's the Oracle wording of any card right now, being the Gatherer the official and only source for the wording...

[yespuhyren]

Ummm...as far as I understand, the only way to get infinite turns is like a 3/4/5 card combo.  Just using Mizzium and Vault isn't going to do anything

[3eowulf]

Ummm...as far as I understand, the only way to get infinite turns is like a 3/4/5 card combo.  Just using Mizzium and Vault isn't going to do anything

In fact you actually need  each turn to copy the Time Vault with Mizzium Transreliquat.

[yespuhyren]

Ah, good point.  I forgot it doesn't come into play tapped.

[CHA1N5]

a new player doesn't have to know the technical words - it doesn't matter that they don't know the difference between a replacement ability and an activated ability and a static ability,

If you have no regard for the rules, there is really no point in having this particular discussion with you.

[Norm4eva]

I don't buy any of that "works under old rules but not new ones" crap.  If you really think that this was motivation for keeping some cards neutered then you can never play another Instant during an end phase again.  For that matter, make sure that all old artifacts get 'updated' with "Unless -this- is untapped, -card text-".
I get that there's only so much old rule/new rule consistency that can be endured before the game's a fucking mess, but WotC's ability to just suck up a mistake has become increasingly diminished.  This un-errata hasn't really given us much to play with; Time Vault's still poop, Celestial Dawn doesn't really do anything anyway, Intuition eats a penis when True Believer's in play, and hooray the CIP-guys from Saga are back, derf.  If it's really not a power thing, why are they still selective in their un-errata process?  Why doesn't Rancor cost 2G now, what makes casting cost so sacred when 'fixing mistakes' like Impulse?  What makes Waylay and Impulse so different, anyway?