Flash Oracle Text Returned to original wording!

[ReAnimator]

Props to Illissius for finding and posting this in the legacy forums

here-> http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32817.0

If this stays how it is now, would this enable Rector, to make a bit of a come back?

As worded this turns Bargain into a 1U instant that you have to pitch a rector to.

Is a 2 card combo good enough?
Is there enough of an incentive to play a combo deck with 8 slots devoted to the combo?
It should in theory be easy enough to assemble this between brainstorms and tutors, and just having it in your oppening hand will happen a not insignificant amount of the time. It should be easy enough to do this on turn 2/3 with some regularity.
Is it worth it to have other silver bullet enchantments in here for when you are comboing off? (like a small trix package)
Is white even worth having in the deck?
Does being able to bait with flash at end of turn, significantly increase the viability of this deck vs older versions that had to try to resolve stuff during the mainphase.

If someone who has more experience with oldschool Rector has any insights that would be great, I never played it back in the day so i really don't have that much experience with the archetype.

Here is a very rough sample decklist right off the top of my head for disscussion purposes only (please no "you forgot X and Y in your list" posts )

Theoretical Flash Rector

4 Academy Rector
4 Flash
4 Cabal Therapy (not necessary but good if you have a ritual and no flash)
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of will

4 Dark Ritual

1 DT
1 VT
1 Will
1 Imperial seal / Missdirection

1 Tendrills
1 Walk
1 Ancestral
1 Mystical

1 Bargain
1 Necro
1 Chain of Vapour
1 Hurkyl's Recal

2 Lat-Nam's Legacy (or one Illusions and one donate)

1 LED
1 Lotus
5 Mox
1 Chrome mox
1 Sol
1 Crypt
1 Vault
1 Tolarian Academy

2 Flooded strand
2 Poluted delta
3 Underground sea
1 Tundra
1 Island
1 Swamp

SB
? Orim's chants if white is worth running.


If people do think this is a workable idea, then we can work on making a tuned decklist.

[zeus-online]

Not sure if this will break type1, but i definetly think 1U Win The Game might be worth looking into.

In the old lists the disruption package was Duress/Therapy with no fows - With the low amount of blue cards this could turn out to be the right call.

/Zeus

[desolutionist]

I built this the other day.  It is just too inconsistent and worse than regular Long.

[Prometheus]

Check this out!

[Mean and Green]

4 Flash
4 Protean Hulk
4 Disciple of the Vault
4 Shield Sphere
1 Arcbound Ravager

1 Street Wraith
4 Merchant Scroll
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Imperial Seal
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
4 Summoner's Pact

4 Force of Will
4 Misdirection
4 Pact of Negotiation

1 Elvish spirit Guide
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Saphhire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Chrome Mox
1 Black Lotus
1 Lotus Petal
11 Lands

Looks fairly consistant to me, although I couldn't test it. It has lots of counters.

[ErkBek]

4 Flash
4 Protean Hulk
4 Disciple of the Vault
4 Shield Sphere
1 Arcbound Ravager

1 Street Wraith
4 Personal Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Imperial Seal
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
4 Summoner's Pact

4 Force of Will
4 Misdirection
4 Pact of Negotiation

1 Elvish spirit Guide
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Saphhire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Chrome Mox
1 Black Lotus
1 Lotus Petal
11 Lands

I'm surprised, this deck actually looks really solid. You do realize that personal tutor only finds sorceries right? It seems like it'd be better as merchant scroll then right? I also love how the deck can combo at instant speed too.

[Prometheus]

Oh..   I thought Personal Tutor was a sorceryspeed Mystical...

Then I will of course play Scrolls. What a pitty..

[Tobi]

Nice idea. Bit what if you already have one of the creatures (Diciple/Sphere/Ravager) in your hand and/or graveyard?

[Harlequin]

The deck already would be running Black for tutors.  So I if they end up in your hand you can just hardcast them.  I really love this deck (I'd probably run 2 Ravagers though). 

I would probably also run Orinitopter in place of Shield Sphere.  Just because you can get an alternate win out of Ravager saccing counters onto the ornithopter. 

Wow, this deck can go off at instant speed to ... so you can PoN durring your opponents turn (to stop say duress or nullrod) if you have the ability to win after an untap.

I'd also probably cut 1-2 Misdirrections for Chain of Vapors.  Turn 1 Null Rod would be auto-loose if you don't have force of will.

You might also consider running more artifacts.  I'm not sure what I would cut (maybe imperial seal + 1 summon's pact) to run at least Crypt and possibly Vault (or +1 cost dude).  That way with 7 artifacts you could win with a desciple in your hand.

[ErkBek]

I threw the mean green deck together on MWS with some changes. The deck is stupid. I'm not sure if its stupid good, but just really funny. Turn 1 kills with counter backup are fairly common, but other games your deck just sits there and dies. I'll keep messing around with it, but I know inconsistency will be a major problem for the deck since it runs about 10 dead cards and then 12 cards strictly devoted to the 2 card combo.

I also would like to mention how much I dislike the MWS shuffler. Hands with 4x Fow or 4x Green Pact have come up and its really annoying. I just take 7 cards after seeing something like that.

[ReAnimator]

I think in Legacy the Protean hulk lists definitly have some value, but i'm strugling to see how 13+ maindeck slots for the win with more tutors are better than just running the smaller package of the Rector engine (6 cards) with more tutor/card drawing.

[kombat]

Gatherer still lists several rulings for "Flash", and one of them is:

2004-10-04 You choose the creature card, optionally pay its mana cost, then put it into play if you paid the cost or into the graveyard if you didn't. All this happens during the resolution.

Doesn't this directly contradict what we've assumed the new wording permits?  How do you reconcile this ruling with how we think (want) the new Oracle wording to work?

[LordHomerCat]

Look at the date on that ruling.  Then look at how he noticed the Oracle text was changed recently.  Seems like that ruling is out of date. 

[kombat]

Look at the date on that ruling.  Then look at how he noticed the Oracle text was changed recently.  Seems like that ruling is out of date. 

Yes, I know.  But it's still there.  If they've changed the wording to specifically enable an effect, wouldn't they delete old rulings that contradict the new way they want the card to work?  That was my question.  Perhaps since they left the ruling there, this was nothing more than a grammatical update, but the intent is still that the creature never actually enters play.

[PhilipJFry]

I have a question regarding timing that applies to this combo and could free up some deck space...

If the Protean Hulk trigger resolves, and you dump 4 Phyrexian Marauders and 1 Shifting Wall into play along with 4 Disciple of the Vault, when the state-based effects check occurs, the Disciples are in play and will trigger, right?  This would serve to eliminate the need for Ravager.

If I am understanding the timing right, this would be a way to run the combo with less cards in the deck devoted to it. 

[3eowulf]

I have a question regarding timing that applies to this combo and could free up some deck space...

If the Protean Hulk trigger resolves, and you dump 4 Phyrexian Marauders and 1 Shifting Wall into play along with 4 Disciple of the Vault, when the state-based effects check occurs, the Disciples are in play and will trigger, right?  This would serve to eliminate the need for Ravager.

If I am understanding the timing right, this would be a way to run the combo with less cards in the deck devoted to it. 

Yes, it works the way you think. Also in the legacy forum (the source) there's already a deck development that involves this cards as a combo, FoW and PoN as protection and Gemstone Caverns+Spirit Guides for a nice turn0 kill.

[Le Pougnezu]

Here's a strange question :

Flash' oracle text says :
You may put a creature card from your hand into play. If you do, sacrifice it unless you pay its mana cost reduced by up to .

I was thinking of a 2-card win, and thought about Hypnox.

Creature - Big Fat Mind Twist
8/8 
Rules Text (Oracle):  Flying
When Hypnox comes into play, if you played it from your hand, remove all cards in target opponent's hand from the game.
When Hypnox leaves play, return the removed cards to their owner's hand.

This is imho a power-limitation due to reanimation effects. They suppressed limitations for palinchron et al. but not for this one yet.

First, you effectively PLAY the Hypnox from your hand, so effects (should) apply.
Is this true?

If it is, then the full resolution of Flash lets you put the Hypnox' effects in reverse order : putting the come-into-play effect on the stack, then responding to it by burying the creature. Since putting the creature into play and burying it are part of a single effect, is it possible to decide the trigger order?
i.e. , is it possible to remove opponent's hand forever for 1U, thus having a strong edge over the game?

[The Atog Lord]

When Hypnox comes into play, if you played it from your hand

You haven't actually played him from your hand. Yes, he came into play from your hand, but you didn't actually play him. So, this combo won't work.

[Katzby]

Here's a strange question :

Flash' oracle text says :
You may put a creature card from your hand into play. If you do, sacrifice it unless you pay its mana cost reduced by up to .

I was thinking of a 2-card win, and thought about Hypnox.

Creature - Big Fat Mind Twist
8/8 
Rules Text (Oracle):  Flying
When Hypnox comes into play, if you played it from your hand, remove all cards in target opponent's hand from the game.
When Hypnox leaves play, return the removed cards to their owner's hand.

This is imho a power-limitation due to reanimation effects. They suppressed limitations for palinchron et al. but not for this one yet.

First, you effectively PLAY the Hypnox from your hand, so effects (should) apply.
Is this true?

If it is, then the full resolution of Flash lets you put the Hypnox' effects in reverse order : putting the come-into-play effect on the stack, then responding to it by burying the creature. Since putting the creature into play and burying it are part of a single effect, is it possible to decide the trigger order?
i.e. , is it possible to remove opponent's hand forever for 1U, thus having a strong edge over the game?

The "power level limitation" was not "surpressed" for Palinchron, etc.  In actuality, some cards like Palinchron, Great Whale, and so forth received power level errata several years ago.  The cards were not actually printed with the "if you played it from your hand clause."  Instead, this was added to the Oracle text for these cards via errata.  Last year, this errata was removed to make the cards actually do what they say that they do.

Hypnox is a completely different case, since all copies of Hypnox ever printed do actually say "if you played it from your hand."  There would never be any reason to change its wording; in fact doing so would make it function differently than what it actually says on the card.  This would have the exact opposite effect of the very goal of removing power-level errata in the first place: to make cards do what they actually say.

This is not meant to be an outcry of frustration, but it continues to amaze me how little the entire magic community, including Vintage players, seem to understand power-level errata, and what exactly went down around this time last year.  The removal of the errata from Flash is probably the most significant removal of any power-level errata ever, and this has some ramifications that extend far beyond Vintage.  We do, after all, have a Legacy GP coming up, and those involved with Magic that still haven't caught on are going to be in for a big surprise.  And they will have a lot of questions about what the heck is going on.  Seriously, prepare yourself.

We are Vintage players.  All things pertaining to the discussion of power-level errata should be our cup of tea, if not at least one of our favorite pet subjects.  After all, it was because of us (and our discussions specifically on TMD) that the decision to remove power-level errata was even made.  Magic is a game of change and accepting new things, but this time, it should be up to the Vintage crowd to educate and explain to the rest of Magic exactly what's going on here.  Wouldn't it be great if we were the ones doing most of the education this time?

If you still need a primer on what this whole power-level errata business is all about, please see this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af127.


Katzby

[Le Pougnezu]

Okay for the "power level" part of my post, I just misunderstood the entire stuff.

I asked this question because of that ambiguous official ruling (I know it's not Oracle-strict, but I somehow thought that it could be interresting).

04/10/2004 The mana cost you pay includes colored mana. It effectively means that you PLAY the other spell as normal but pay 2 less colorless mana in doing so. (cf. gatherer)
It's an old ruling, but it's written as an official ruling.

I'm a strict newbie when it comes to official/administrative stuff like up-to-date rulings, are they still operationnal, do they override, which one is the absolute reference?
Okay for the oracle text that reads "put into play". Thanks for the answer.

[Katzby]

Okay for the "power level" part of my post, I just misunderstood the entire stuff.

I asked this question because of that ambiguous official ruling (I know it's not Oracle-strict, but I somehow thought that it could be interresting).

04/10/2004 The mana cost you pay includes colored mana. It effectively means that you PLAY the other spell as normal but pay 2 less colorless mana in doing so. (cf. gatherer)
It's an old ruling, but it's written as an official ruling.

I'm a strict newbie when it comes to official/administrative stuff like up-to-date rulings, are they still operationnal, do they override, which one is the absolute reference?
Okay for the oracle text that reads "put into play". Thanks for the answer.

The rulings in Oracle are interpretations of the card's Oracle text, not vice versa.  Rulings of any kind are not the final or even necessarily the official word on the functionality of any card.  Rulings are simply an interpretation or an extrapolation of a given card's Oracle text.  If the Oracle text of a card changes (as it has with Flash), and an outdated ruling remains in Gatherer (it happens all of the time), the interpretation of how the card works always defaults to the Oracle text.

I guess it might not be obvious to all magic players, but all that you need to know about a card can be gathered from its Oracle text and the comprehensive rules.  Unless a card is doing something that's never been done before in Magic (such as Mindslaver, Time Stop, etc), a ruling, be it from Oracle or not, should never be necessary step in determining how a card works.  Rulings are part of Oracle for the sake of convenience only.

Regardless, the Oracle netrep, Sheldon Menory, has weighed in on this on the judge's list and has assured everybody that the outdated rulings will be removed and/or updated as part of the May 1st update.  Since that's tomorrow, we will all thankfully be able to get past the issue pretty soon.

Katzby

[kombat]

Okay for the oracle text that reads "put into play". Thanks for the answer.

It's interesting (and a little disappointing) that this card doesn't function analogously to the "Flash" mechanic formally codified in Time Spiral.  Creature cards with "Flash" are still "played."  They count towards storm, their "comes into play" effects trigger, and any "if you played this card from your hand" clauses are satisfied.  With "Flash", the Blue Instant however, they don't count towards storm, and they are not "played from your hand."  It would have been nice if Wizards could have harmonized the mechanic with its namesake Instant and have them function identically.

Anyway, it's now May 1st, and this ruling is still listed for "Flash":

04/10/2004 You choose the creature card, optionally pay its mana cost, then put it into play if you paid the cost or into the graveyard if you didn't. All this happens during the resolution.

This still makes it ambiguous as to whether or not the card ever "entered play" if you didn't pay its mana cost.  This ruling appears to directly and unequivocally state that if you don't pay the cost, then the card never "comes into play."  If this is how the interpretation of the card stands, then all this discussion is moot.  The combos don't work.  I think we still need clarification from an official source regarding whether or not this ruling stands, or is superceded by the removal of the errata.

[dicemanx]

04/10/2004 You choose the creature card, optionally pay its mana cost, then put it into play if you paid the cost or into the graveyard if you didn't. All this happens during the resolution.

This still makes it ambiguous as to whether or not the card ever "entered play" if you didn't pay its mana cost.  This ruling appears to directly and unequivocally state that if you don't pay the cost, then the card never "comes into play."  If this is how the interpretation of the card stands, then all this discussion is moot.  The combos don't work.  I think we still need clarification from an official source regarding whether or not this ruling stands, or is superceded by the removal of the errata.

The new text:

You may put a creature card from your hand into play. If you do, sacrifice it unless you pay its mana cost reduced by up to 2 Mana.

The creature unambiguously enters play based on this text, and then gets sacrificed if the additional cost isn't paid. The ruling that you are quoting is no longer applicable.

[Chiz]

Well, I would recommand people just to wait until the end of the day... Here is from the MTG Rules digest :

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Scott Marshall wrote:

 This came to me directly, but I think the answer may interest others
as well.
 
 Players are asking me what the correct ruling is on the Card Flash.
 According to the oracle text the card reads as such.
 
 Flash
 
 You may put a creature card from your hand into play. If you do,
sacrifice
 it unless you pay its mana cost reduced by up to 2 Mana.
 
 
 However the rulings on the card seem to contradict the oracle text.
 
 * 04.10.2004 You choose the creature card, optionally pay its
mana
 cost, then put it into play if you paid the cost or into the
 graveyard if you didn't. All this happens during the
resolution.
 * 04.10.2004 The "If you don't" text applies to the choice to
pay
 (second sentence) and not to the putting of the card into play
 (third sentence).
 
 
 So the question becomes. According to the oracle text the card
comes into
 play regardless as you cannot sacrifice the creature if it is not in
play.
 However the rulings seem to indicate that the card actually never
comes
 into play. Plus the rulings seem to refer to a previous oracle
text, not
 the current one as the phrase "If you don't" does not exist on the
oracle
 text anymore.
 
 Those two rulings no longer apply as worded; they were based on
errata that
 has been replaced. Mark Gottlieb, our Rules Manager, has put
considerable
 effort into evaluating old errata and reverting to the original
wording of
 many cards, or original intent with current templating. As a result,
the
 Oracle wording on Flash has been updated more recently than those
rulings;
 the next Gatherer update is scheduled for May 1st, and Sheldon (the
Gatherer
 NetRep) is aware of this not-for-long discrepancy.
 
 Thanks! -- Scott Marshall <scott_j_marshall_jr@yahoo.com
 DCIJUDGE-L / MTGRULES-L NetRep, L4, Denver

[hazard]

An interesting note on the legality timetable of this from the Gatherer:

Legal In May 20 Legacy, May 20 Vintage, Legacy, Vintage, Prismatic, Tribal Wars Classic, Singleton, Two-Headed Giant, Mirage Block

I guess that puts it on day two/after the Grand Prix...

[RaleighNCTourneys]

So Brassman is a dirty cheater?

[Grand Inquisitor]

So Brassman is a dirty cheater?

Naw, he was raw-dogging it with Rector beats.  True story.

[dicemanx]

I thought all errata/oracle updates were effective immediately?

[diopter]

I thought all errata/oracle updates were effective immediately?

I thought so too.

Keep in mind also that May 20 Vintage is post-FS vintage, so naturally all currently legal Vintage cards are legal in both formats. That doesn't say anything about the legality or illegality of the Flash current Oracle wording.

[Duncan]

What does the stack order look like when al the creatures come into play? Am I right that when they all come into play the same time, you decide the order so that the disciple comes before all the x/x die?

As an aside, questions like this belong in the rules forum. I'll give a quick answer here, but if you need further clarification, open up a thread there.

Basically, you resolve the entire ability (put all the creatures into play), and then check state-based effects (which kills any 0/0 creatures). At that point, the Disciples are already in play, so they trigger.
-Jacob

[Katzby]

I thought all errata/oracle updates were effective immediately?

I thought so too.

Keep in mind also that May 20 Vintage is post-FS vintage, so naturally all currently legal Vintage cards are legal in both formats. That doesn't say anything about the legality or illegality of the Flash current Oracle wording.

The updated wording is already in effect.  Please do not confuse the legality of a new set with the start date of when the updated Oracle for existing cards goes into effect.  Remember that big hullaballoo over the fact that Time Vault got errata with basically a 2-day notice?  There was no 1-month waiting period for that, so if you are still confused about when a new wording goes into effect, remember that situation.

(On a side note, I guess we should all forget about Vintage players being the educators this time.  The direction of this thread in the last 24 hours unfortunately makes it clear that that's not going to happen.  Let's at least all try to be clear on exactly what's going on with this interaction.)


Katzby