[Article] Errata Havoc

[Yare]

http://mtgsalvation.com/630-errata-havoc.html

Errata has been a hot button issue of late with the recent new (or old) errata that has been given to Flash. In light of this, I thought that I might take a hard look at errata and the policies that relate (or ought to relate) to the issuance thereof.

Feel free to post your thoughts.  I think this is a very interesting topic.

[Vegeta2711]

Meh article. Far too wordy, many of these topics have already been covered in-depth and really nothing new or said. You could've saved about 2,000-2,500 words by just jumping straight into what you wanted to say and your opinion instead of adding this lengthy backstory behind blah blah, this happened because of this, which people already knew or can already read in other places.

[LotusHead]

Interesting article. Relic Bind and Basalt Monolith was my first combo ever. 

To Mods, 3 keys on my keyboard don't work today. sorry.

Edited to include the appropriate letters and also as a test of my ability to edit threads. Thanks for your cooperation.

[Yare]

Meh article. Far too wordy, many of these topics have already been covered in-depth and really nothing new or said. You could've saved about 2,000-2,500 words by just jumping straight into what you wanted to say and your opinion instead of adding this lengthy backstory behind blah blah, this happened because of this, which people already knew or can already read in other places.

Well, the article wasn't aimed at the TMD crowd necessarily.  The kids on MTGS probably needed the background info.


Sorry about your keyboard, LotusHead.

[PhilipJFry]

In the article, it seemd that you made the argument that we should keep cards as close to original wording as much as possible.  I am not sure I agree with this statement in the case of previously done reprints.  Balance judge promo aside, I believe the effort has been made to keep Oracle text in line with the most recent printing of any card.  I believe this is the right thing to do.

WOTC cannot go back and change past in-print decisions.  In the future, the policy should be to keep all card text functional within the rules and uniform from edition to edition.  However, in the case of past reprintings, there are plenty of reasons to put the card into oracle with the most recent wording.  Chief among these is acheiving the goal that the largest possible number of cards have Oracle text that as closely as possible matches their printed text.  In nearly every case, there will be more inprint versions of a card from the latter printing, with the changed text, than there will be from a former printing, with the original text.  Additionally, using most recent printing text is the precedent.  I don't think that the case of Balanace can be used to claim precedent, as that card was specificallly printed with the Oracle text at that time, before the removal of all unnecessary errata.  It is a card with limited availability.  Nearly anyone who has one will also be aware of changes the card saw between 4th Edition, the prinitng of the judge promo, and the modern day.  it is simply a special case, not one to be used to establish precedent.

This is my one personal objection to the article.  I thought the rest of it set out in an easy to understand way the reasons that are justifiable for errata, the reasons that are not justifiable for errata, and how these might be applied in the future.

[Smmenen]

Brilliant article David.    Really.   


EDIT:

A couple of notes:

1) My article Deus Ex Errata was written long before Wizards reversed course and announced that they'd remove power errata.
Thus, I haven't written about Time Vault or Errata since.   The chronology in your article suggests that my article discussing Time Vault came after the supposed removal of power errata.

2) I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't adhere to later printings. 
You say: "The fact of the matter is that the original exists, regardless of how many times one reprints it."  While you don't state it explicitly, the implication is that different versions of cards should be oracalized differently.   So how should we treat the Impulse versions that don't say Shuffle?

Here is another card: Alpha Nether Shadow.   Go read it.   Should people playing with Nether Shadow have to pay for it to return it? 

I mean, if we accept your conclusion that we shouldn't errata previous versions to go in line with changed versions, then you are asking us to have different versions of cards with the same name.    Re: Nether Shadow

3) Phyrexian Dreadnaught  - isn't that another card that should be fixed to restore its original text?   

4) Part of the problem is that we need to keep wizards honest.   Cards like Oboro Envoy are very disturbing to me.  When they announced that they are going to do something, they should be consistent about doing it.   Issuing power errata on Oboro Envoy is problematic to me. 

[Yare]

In the article, it seemd that you made the argument that we should keep cards as close to original wording as much as possible.  I am not sure I agree with this statement in the case of previously done reprints.  Balance judge promo aside, I believe the effort has been made to keep Oracle text in line with the most recent printing of any card.  I believe this is the right thing to do.

WOTC cannot go back and change past in-print decisions.  In the future, the policy should be to keep all card text functional within the rules and uniform from edition to edition.  However, in the case of past reprintings, there are plenty of reasons to put the card into oracle with the most recent wording.  Chief among these is acheiving the goal that the largest possible number of cards have Oracle text that as closely as possible matches their printed text.  In nearly every case, there will be more inprint versions of a card from the latter printing, with the changed text, than there will be from a former printing, with the original text.  Additionally, using most recent printing text is the precedent.  I don't think that the case of Balanace can be used to claim precedent, as that card was specificallly printed with the Oracle text at that time, before the removal of all unnecessary errata.  It is a card with limited availability.  Nearly anyone who has one will also be aware of changes the card saw between 4th Edition, the prinitng of the judge promo, and the modern day.  it is simply a special case, not one to be used to establish precedent.

This is my one personal objection to the article.  I thought the rest of it set out in an easy to understand way the reasons that are justifiable for errata, the reasons that are not justifiable for errata, and how these might be applied in the future.

See my comments below about Steve's mention of Nether Shadow.

Brilliant article David.    Really.

Thanks!   

A couple of notes:

1) My article Deus Ex Errata was written long before Wizards reversed course and announced that they'd remove power errata.
Thus, I haven't written about Time Vault or Errata since.   The chronology in your article suggests that my article discussing Time Vault came after the supposed removal of power errata.

Probably true.  It's been a while since the whole Time Vault/Flame Fusillade debate, so I guess I got it mixed up.

2) I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't adhere to later printings. 
You say: "The fact of the matter is that the original exists, regardless of how many times one reprints it."  While you don't state it explicitly, the implication is that different versions of cards should be oracalized differently.   So how should we treat the Impulse versions that don't say Shuffle?

Here is another card: Alpha Nether Shadow.   Go read it.   Should people playing with Nether Shadow have to pay for it to return it? 

I mean, if we accept your conclusion that we shouldn't errata previous versions to go in line with changed versions, then you are asking us to have different versions of cards with the same name.

Well, if you go with my policy, then people should be paying for Nether Shadow.  That being said, I definitely see the logic of just letting a sleeping dog lie.  It comes back to the precedent issue, which if I recall correctly I admit to have merit in that the benefits could outweigh the detriments.  However, if you were to stick to a strict reversion policy, then Nether Shadow should be changed.  Flying Carpet is another card that has just had text deleted (as I learned over on the MTGS thread).  I guess I just have trouble reconciling this with the Sindbad/Niall Silvain argument in that you justify Sindbad's change just because Wizards chose to reprint him even now after the end of the "errata" war (although the plan to reprint could have been done prior to the debate, since printings are planned years in advance).  Of course, Sindbad has been reprinted once in the last like eight years while Nether Shadow has been reprinted numerous times, reinforcing the "new" text.  Basically, it just sucks because Wizards chose to do this.  Even if Wizards lets the changed cards stay changed (and I could live with even reprinting them with the changed text), they need to stop reprinting cards with NEW altered text and creating new precedent.

3) Phyrexian Dreadnaught  - isn't that another card that should be fixed to restore its original text?

My understanding is that under the rules of the time Dreadnaught was printed, you could not respond to the CIP trigger.  That being said, it still doesn't have proper functionality because it doesn't combo with Pandemonium.  This could be fixed by adding some sort of split second ability to the trigger.  The same could even be done for Interdict by saying something like "abilities of permanents whose abilities are targeted by Interdict can't be played" or something.

4) Part of the problem is that we need to keep wizards honest.   Cards like Oboro Envoy are very disturbing to me.  When they announced that they are going to do something, they should be consistent about doing it.   Issuing power errata on Oboro Envoy is problematic to me. 

Exactly.  As you said before, the integrity of the game demands it.

Thanks for your comments.

[Smmenen]

2) I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't adhere to later printings. 
You say: "The fact of the matter is that the original exists, regardless of how many times one reprints it."  While you don't state it explicitly, the implication is that different versions of cards should be oracalized differently.   So how should we treat the Impulse versions that don't say Shuffle?

Here is another card: Alpha Nether Shadow.   Go read it.   Should people playing with Nether Shadow have to pay for it to return it? 

I mean, if we accept your conclusion that we shouldn't errata previous versions to go in line with changed versions, then you are asking us to have different versions of cards with the same name.

Well, if you go with my policy, then people should be paying for Nether Shadow.  That being said, I definitely see the logic of just letting a sleeping dog lie.

While I agree that Wizards shouldn't print old cards with different text, I don't really see this as a letting sleeping dog lie type problem.    That is, it isn't that we shouldn't forgive and forget so much as you are suggesting that we have different cards with the same name.   I think that is quite problematic for a host of reasons.  You are potentially doubling the number of different cards in magic by doing that.   

[Yare]

2) I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't adhere to later printings. 
You say: "The fact of the matter is that the original exists, regardless of how many times one reprints it."  While you don't state it explicitly, the implication is that different versions of cards should be oracalized differently.   So how should we treat the Impulse versions that don't say Shuffle?

Here is another card: Alpha Nether Shadow.   Go read it.   Should people playing with Nether Shadow have to pay for it to return it? 

I mean, if we accept your conclusion that we shouldn't errata previous versions to go in line with changed versions, then you are asking us to have different versions of cards with the same name.

Well, if you go with my policy, then people should be paying for Nether Shadow.  That being said, I definitely see the logic of just letting a sleeping dog lie.

While I agree that Wizards shouldn't print old cards with different text, I don't really see this as a letting sleeping dog lie type problem.    That is, it isn't that we shouldn't forgive and forget so much as you are suggesting that we have different cards with the same name.   I think that is quite problematic for a host of reasons.    You are potentially doubling the number of different cards in magic by doing that.   

I think you're suggesting that I intend to have two different versions of Nether Shadow out there, say "Nether Shadow 1" and "Nether Shadow 2."  I don't mean that.  I'm saying that if you stick to original text, every version of Nether Shadow ought to say "pay the casting cost to put him back in play."  If I have misconstrued what you meant, please indicate such.  I would never advocate having cards with the same name doing different things.

[Smmenen]

Is there a principled basis for choosing among different templates (specifically, for choosing the earliest templates)?    Alpha and Beta were mere months apart, but Beta had a much larger print run.    Lots of errors were corrected in Beta (go read through some of the Alpha cards on SCG's database, they are hilarious).    I mean, if a card has been printed, say, in nine sets, and has the "original" templating (ala Nether Shadow) only once, it's very hard to make a reasonable argument that we should ignore the umpteen million printed wordings of the card in favor of the 2,000 Alpha copies potentially in existence.   

It seems to me that once you have a card in existence with two different wordings (ala Impulse and Nether Shadow and so many others), the arguments to "revert" (your words) lose most of their practical and philosophical potency. 

EDIT: I hope that the movement to stop making power errata means that Wizards will stop changing older cards with new printings or otherwise.   If and where they do, we do need to call them out on it.  But that doesn't change the question that reversion with regard to existing cards seems very problematic. 

[Yare]

Is there a principled basis for choosing among different templates (specifically, for choosing the earliest templates)?    Alpha and Beta were mere months apart, but Beta had a much larger print run.    Lots of errors were corrected in Beta (go read through some of the Alpha cards on SCG's database, they are hilarious).    I mean, if a card has been printed, say, in nine sets, and has the "original" templating (ala Nether Shadow) only once, it's very hard to make a reasonable argument that we should ignore the umpteen million printed wordings of the card in favor of the 2,000 Alpha copies potentially in existence.   

It seems to me that once you have a card in existence with two different wordings (ala Impulse and Nether Shadow and so many others), the arguments to "revert" (your words) lose most of their practical and philosophical potency. 

EDIT: I hope that the movement to stop making power errata means that Wizards will stop changing older cards with new printings or otherwise.   If and where they do, we do need to call them out on it.  But that doesn't change the question that reversion with regard to existing cards seems very problematic. 

Yeah, I'm aware of cards like Unsummon where enchantments gets "CARD ed."  The basis, I would say for reverting (or whatever term you want to use) to old versions lies not so much in alpha and beta specifically, but in the original printing of any card.  If you pick a line at some point where you say "welll, this was printed originally recently enough, so we're going to use the original wording for this card," then where you draw the line becomes difficult.  This, I believe, sets up the choice between either the original printing or the most recent printing (which is the topic we were discussing originally).  Given this choice, I think you owe the OWNER of the original card a greater duty than the owner of the new card.  I emphasize owner because there is an expectation to the owner of a card that it do the same thing it did the day it was printed, not some modernized version printed years later.  Obviously, this can potentially screw over new owners of the card who get the new version of the card with the expectation that the card keep its new wording.  I would suggest a very rough comparison to the Reserve List here.  Wizards basically should not just errata cards arbitrarily and then try to justify it by reprinting it.

I'll give two hypotheticals, though I don't believe either of these will actually happen:

1. What if Wizards reprints Oboro Envoy with the "until end of turn" errata?

2. What if Time Vault were reprinted (yes, it's on the Reserve List) as a judge promo that includes the new errata?  What if it were reprinted in the next expansion?

Does Oboro Envoy become ok now that we have printed corrected versions?  What about Time Vault?  The answer, to me, would seem to be no.  This is why I suggest that the original version must reign.  That being said, like I said above, disturbing things from how they are now may not be worthwhile.  I could see an exception being made for cards that are useless now, but would be useful if errataed (say, Zodiac Dragon).  That way players who hung onto their cards don't get "screwed," which is probably the biggest concern with actual implementation (rather than philosophical truth).

Another "fair" implementation might be letting newly reprinted cards stand as is, but not reprinting cards further with what is effectively new text.

[Smmenen]

Given this choice, I think you owe the OWNER of the original card a greater duty than the owner of the new card. 

But why?  I should have phrased my question differently.  I didn't simply mean what principled basis can you offer for choosing among different templates, but what *neutral principle* can you offer for doing so.    I don't see a reason to value the original card owner's template more than the subsequent card holder's template.   You say you think we owe the original card owner a greater duty - but I don't see a neutral reason or really principled reason for that.   People come in and out of magic all the time.   If anything, it seems to me that we owe the newer players a greater duty since they have less general knowledge of the game and older players know the risks more. 

It seems to me that once they go ahead and reprint a card with different text, the "reverse errata" discussion ends.   This is because we can't have Alpha Nether Shadow and then Beta, Unlimited, Revised, and Fourth Nether Shadows - aka Nether Shadow 1 and Nether Shadow 2 or, worse, have the Alpha text control all Nether Shadows when many, many more people have seen the later printings.   

[Harlequin]

Orboro Envoy is an interesting example.  It's basically a Typo/Misprint.  I think that the errata is used to make an ability that has no meaning in the game, have meaning.  I'll get into that more in a second.  But for example I've heard that Racor was a misprint, and it should have costed (I may have my facts wrong on this though..)  But that type of a misprint actually has meaning in the game because spells can easily cost .  Its not like they misprinted it to {tacos} for example.

As far as I know, a creature cannot "Get" a P/T change without having a durration.  So you can "Get -X/-0 until end of turn" or "Put a -X/0 counter on ..." or possibly even "Has it's power reduced by X" But "Get -X/0, _____" has no real meaning as far as templating and standard wording goes.

It would be like if they printed a card that said: "Target Player darws a card" Would you expect that card do nothing?  as far as I know you cannot "Darw" a card.  What if it said "Target creature draws a card"  would you expect that to do nothing? 

Look at a card like Bless.  The original printing just said:
":+1/+1" 

That's all that appeared in the text box.  No durration, no referance to what gets +1/+1, or even that it has to be a creature ... can I get my Library +1/+1, how about my soda can?   

Now this is not a Typo, its just clearifying an ability by using standard wording.  I think that Orboro Envoy falls under that catagory of errata.

[Aardshark]

Given this choice, I think you owe the OWNER of the original card a greater duty than the owner of the new card. 

But why?  I should have phrased my question differently.  I didn't simply mean what principled basis can you offer for choosing among different templates, but what *neutral principle* can you offer for doing so.    I don't see a reason to value the original card owner's template more than the subsequent card holder's template.   You say you think we owe the original card owner a greater duty - but I don't see a neutral reason or really principled reason for that.   People come in and out of magic all the time.   If anything, it seems to me that we owe the newer players a greater duty since they have less general knowledge of the game and older players know the risks more. 

Smmenen, I believe you and Yare have different underlying concerns in objecting to errata are subtly different.  Yare's concerned with property rights, and seems to view erratas as analogous to a regulatory taking by the government:

Time Vault, as it was originally printed, does not exist. Instead, Wizards stole all of the copies from all of the owners of Time Vault and gave them “Time Depository” instead, something vaguely resembling Time Vault.

See also Yare's last post generally (no need to quote it).

Yare want cards to retain their original meaning because he does not want WOTC to be able to errata cards through reprinting with new wording.  He's even willing to admit an exception where players have relied on the errata'd meaning in acquiring expensive cards (thus he seems to object to removal of the longstanding time vault errata not because the new errata is inaccurate to the card's true meaning, but because it devalued the property of time vault owners who had invested in the card.

Yare's is a defensible, libertarian position (and is consistent with his strict textualist approach): WOTC should not take action via errata that devalues cards owned by players. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are as concerned with preserving property rights, but rather the purity and internal consistency of the game.  I think your criticism of WOTC's B&R actions is that they are not true to the game, and are at times intellectually dishonest (a case in point being the "removal" of the time vault errata, which I suspect you see as a power level errata in disguise).

This subtle difference explains yours and Yare's inconsistent positions.

You want the most recent wording to control because recent cards are the most prevelent.  More players will get to play with cards that do what they say. Also allowing the most recent wording to control will make the most sence to new players--the cards they are most likely to see will do what they say--which will in turn decrease their frustration and encourage them to continue playing the game.  In sum: allowing the most recent wording to control maximizes utility of the magic playing population. 

Yare prefers the original text to control because he wants to preserve the property rights of those who already own the cards, from a "first in time, first in right" perspective.  The original owners had their cards first--therefore they have "priority" to have their cards do what they say.  Also, he wants to strip WOTC of the ability to errata cards through reprinting in a new template (unless absolutely necessary for functionaity).  He argues that if new wording controls, WOTC can simply reprint cards they want to errata with new wording (he doesn't distinguish between cards reprinted in the past and those reprinted going forward).  This, Yare believes, will maximize the probability that old cards do what they say, and preserve the investment & property interests of old players.   

I personally believe Yare's premise is flawed. I do not think investment/card value should play any role is WOTC's rule making policy at all.  Therefore, I'd prefer a policy whereby the text of the most common version of a card that is in print controls. 

[Yare]

Aardshark's framing of my position is essentially correct in answering Steve's concern.  He is also correct in that while I don't like previous reprints errataing cards, I strongly oppose NEW reprints that further perpetuate this policy.  I can definitely understand saying, right now, today, that the most recent printing reigns (for all of the reasons elaborated upon above).  However, I do not want that to imply that it is ok for WotC to continue to do this.

Regarding Oboro Envoy's text having meaning within the game, a creature getting -3/-0 permanently is not an occurrence the game cannot handle.  The issue, I think, is that there isn't a counter to go with it, which is typically what the game has done to suggest such. A perfect example of a card that does the exact same thing without a counter is Memnarch. 

Under the "darw" example, that would be a dysfunctional card that would need to be given the quick "draw" fix.  Regarding Blessing, I mention that cards must be viewed in light of the rules that reigned when the card was printed.  I specifically addressed this point when I mentioned alpha Firebreathing.

Dysfunctional (errata) = does not function under the game or is far beyond any possible intent of the card (see: Reign of Chaos)
Functional (don't errata) = cards that will function in the game as printed: Impulse, Rancor, etc.

Note: I am going to SCG Roanoke so I won't be around for a day or two to respond.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I work for a printing and publishing company, so maybe I'm a bit more sympathetic to this than others, but I don't think we should hold Wizards to any of the typo cards.  Impulse and Oboro Envoy are just copy editing mistakes; Rancor could have happened in proofing or copy editing.  Wizards prints hundreds of thousands of cards every year, and in numerous languages now as well.  When you think about it, they have a pretty good track record after around Legends when they got their method down and standardized a lot of the rules templating.  Unless something superbad happens, it's not really feasible for Wizards to recall all of one card and replace it.  They can either ignore it and let players use it anyway (like Rancor), or they can issue an errata using the power of the Internet, which is fast, cheap, and readily accessible.  The erratas for Impulse and Envoy are like the corrections section of a newspaper; Wizards is pointing out their error and asking you to forgive them.  As such, I'm okay with those erratae—they're infrequent and intuitive enough for me to say, okay, and go on playing.

Time Vault is another case entirely, but I'd rather not get into that.

Interesting article, though, and good luck in Roanoke!

[silvernail]

I do not believe Rancor was errornously printed at  , I beleive Randy or Maro said at one point that Rancor was undercosted and instead they should have costed it at  . So Rancor was a design error not an errata or printing error.

[Norm4eva]

This is a problem that extends beyond the English language as well.  Ever read a Scorched Rusalka en francais? (says "...target creature or player" where it should say "target player")  There's an instance where the same card has two different wordings issued at the same time.  I know the default for things like this is the English oracle text, but where does that leave little 12 year-old Anatole thinking he's got an uber Mogg Fanatic?  Tant pis, Anatole!  Fait vous arretez!

[GrandpaBelcher]

I do not believe Rancor was errornously printed at  , I beleive Randy or Maro said at one point that Rancor was undercosted and instead they should have costed it at  . So Rancor was a design error not an errata or printing error.

Could be...

Q: "Rumor has it that Rancor was really a card that was supposed to cost  2G and ended up as G. Misprint or not? Or just a last-minute change?"
-- Mark Anthony Cassar, Cospicua, Malta

A: From Bill Rose, head of Research & Development:
"The short answer is: I don't know. No one will ever know.

"As I recall, Rancor originally was 2G, and it didn't have the 'deathback' mechanic, meaning it wouldn't return to your hand. In an effort to make some tournament-quality creature enchantments, Rancor's cost was lowered to G. Then the deathback mechanic was added. After that, the Magic developers disagree on what happened. There was a debate about Rancor's cost. The group who wanted Rancor costed at G argued at it would be good, but not broken. The G group believes they won and Rancor was published as the development team wanted. The 2G group believes they won, but that the lead developer forgot to change the file sent to typesetting.

"Given the choice between G and 2G, I would cost Rancor at G. But given a time machine, I would cost it at 1G."

[Guvante]

4) Part of the problem is that we need to keep wizards honest.   Cards like Oboro Envoy are very disturbing to me.  When they announced that they are going to do something, they should be consistent about doing it.   Issuing power errata on Oboro Envoy is problematic to me. 

I for one totally and completly agree with the way they changed Oboro Envoy

Much like how the original printing of Grip of Chaos was much unlike what the average player would think the ability would do, most players do not even notice the lack of "until end of turn" on Oboro Envoy, I know I for one didn't.

Most people have been ingrained with -X/0 to target creature means "until end of turn" intrisinctly.

Therefore I would think of the change to not be a power level errata, but a clarification to make the card functioning as the player thinks the card should function as printed not as the card functions as printed.

In fact this is probably where the problems with Phyrexian Dreadnought come into play, since the original card could not be stifled or anything along those lines, since the rules were much different then, no such thing as a stack etc. But looking at the card today, your average player says "Oh, its a triggered ability", so because of this, they decided to make it into a triggered ability again, even though the card now functions differently then it did when originally printed.


At the end of the day, errata is all about the preceptions about the cards, so there will never be a final, always correct answer. *shrug*

[Yare]

In fact this is probably where the problems with Phyrexian Dreadnought come into play, since the original card could not be stifled or anything along those lines, since the rules were much different then, no such thing as a stack etc. But looking at the card today, your average player says "Oh, its a triggered ability", so because of this, they decided to make it into a triggered ability again, even though the card now functions differently then it did when originally printed.

So, you're saying that the functionality of a card should change as the perceptions of what people think a card should do change?

[Purple Hat]

In fact this is probably where the problems with Phyrexian Dreadnought come into play, since the original card could not be stifled or anything along those lines, since the rules were much different then, no such thing as a stack etc. But looking at the card today, your average player says "Oh, its a triggered ability", so because of this, they decided to make it into a triggered ability again, even though the card now functions differently then it did when originally printed.

So, you're saying that the functionality of a card should change as the perceptions of what people think a card should do change?

it's not that.  it's that the card should work the way every other card with that type of ability works.  there should be some level of consistency.  there are many cards that confer +x/+y or -x/-y until end of turn.  there are many cards that give +x/+y or -x/-y counters.  without this eratta there would be 1 and only 1 card that gave -x/-y or +x/+y indefinitely without a counter.  players should be able to read cards and tell what they do, but assuming that the players will have only read that one card ever seems a bit silly.  the problem isn't that players have some warped perceptions of what the card should do, the problem is that most players can look at the card and see that there was a mistake, and most players will agree what that mistake was.  would it be ok with you if there was a rules change that caused this rather than eratta?

[yespuhyren]

Excellent Article.  Definitely a fun read!  Just to do some of Steve's work that he was referring to.













You 100% sure originals made sense and shoudln't have been updated in future versions?  I think revamping on mistakes is definitely important in how Magic evolved

[Yare]

it's not that.  it's that the card should work the way every other card with that type of ability works.  there should be some level of consistency.  there are many cards that confer +x/+y or -x/-y until end of turn.  there are many cards that give +x/+y or -x/-y counters.  without this eratta there would be 1 and only 1 card that gave -x/-y or +x/+y indefinitely without a counter.  players should be able to read cards and tell what they do, but assuming that the players will have only read that one card ever seems a bit silly.  the problem isn't that players have some warped perceptions of what the card should do, the problem is that most players can look at the card and see that there was a mistake, and most players will agree what that mistake was.  would it be ok with you if there was a rules change that caused this rather than eratta?

What sort of rules change are you implying?  "If a card reads that a creature gets -X/-0 but makes no mention of a duration or counters, then the duration for that effect is until end of turn."  Again, the card functions as it is printed.

Regarding the cards listed above by yespuhyren:

Unsummon: not functional as written.  Errata is ok.

Force of Nature: Bordering on functional as written.  Changing G to the green mana symbol is not a change.

Birds of Paradise: I actually was not aware of this one.  I do not believe at any point there was a time when a mana was not defined in some way (meaning, colorless, colored, whatever).  So, the card is not functional as written.  Errata is justified.  I would synonymize this with Thick-skinned Goblin, in that the meaning is unclear as written, so errata is ok.  This is clarification errata.

Cyclopean Tomb: Bordering on not functional as printed.  Put aside things like Evermind and the like, as those rules didn't exist when this card was printed.  The rules allowed the playing of a land once per turn but not an artifact with no casting cost.  Note that not having a casting cost is not synonymous with having a 0 casting cost; the 0 must still be paid.  So, the only way this could get into play was via some effect that put it directly into play or retrieved it from the graveyard, a method that might exist at that time escapes me at the moment.  With this one, you could reasonably errata it or reasonably somehow write rules that handle a card with no casting cost that is not a land.  Errata is probably the correct call here, as the card without a casting cost makes no sense in the environment it was printed in.

Orcish Oriflamme/Orcish Artillery:  Functional errata.  This should not be accepted.  But, as has been talked about at length, the precedent has been established, so it perhaps is ok to let it go so long as it is not used to justify FUTURE errata.  This is one of the most important points that I have been making on here and MTGS.  I talked about this in my Response to Mr. Gottlieb.