Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other

[Matt]

I feel like publicly declining to use the interpretation in a situation that was perfect for it gave people the notion that the interpretation wasn't valid. I certainly bought it, and many others did as well.

More fool you, then.

[ELD]

I definitely think it would be wrong to interpret Wizards using restraint as a sign that they will not reprint reserved cards as premiums list in FTVs or other products.  I see no reason to think that, and the Masticore certainly points to Wizards using their best judgement in this matter.  I can't understand why people call it a loophole, when it's so flagrantly obvious.  It's not like a 400 page bill rushed through Congress that no one even reads.  It's a couple lines of text, clearly saying premium versions are fair game. 

That would be like saying, in rock paper scissors, that using Paper is abusing a loophole.  They get you because Paper beats Rock.  You'd think that you'd be fine if you always pick Rock, because Rock is awesome, but then wham!  LOOPHOLED!  (Rock should totally rip through paper)

[Smmenen]

@Anusien, this is not a new interpretation, it's a new implementation. The loophole has always been there; only now they're starting to really make use of it. Publicly declining to use an option is not the same thing as the option not being available.

It's actually both.   The new implementation (one might say application) of an existing policy confirms one possible interpretation of that policy. 


 

I definitely think it would be wrong to interpret Wizards using restraint as a sign that they will not reprint reserved cards as premiums list in FTVs or other products.

I can't speak freely/specifically because of a NDA, while what you say is technically true, this does actually represent something different, and everyone knows it. 

[Matt]

@Anusien, this is not a new interpretation, it's a new implementation. The loophole has always been there; only now they're starting to really make use of it. Publicly declining to use an option is not the same thing as the option not being available.

It's actually both.   The new implementation (one might say application) of an existing policy confirms one possible interpretation of that policy.  

Do tell, what other possible way is there to interpret the sentence, "All policies described in this document apply only to non-premium, tournament-legal Magic cards"? It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!

[Smmenen]

You are looking too narrowly.   Rules are understood not just by what they say, but through their practice/application.  If you don't believe me, look at the First Amendment, which actually contains a loophole for the Executive branch through its wording "Congress shall make no law.."   Yet, the dominant interpretation is that *the federal government* may not abridge the freedom of speech (subject to strict scrutiny review..)

In this case, the practice had been that the only exceptions to the reserved list where cards that were released as prizes, such as judges foils.  

No card on the reserved list had been printed as a product for sale.   Thus, the new implementation, which you identified, also confirms one possible interpretation of what is meant by 'premium' cards.  

[ELD]

I'm not buying that at all.  Premium just means foil.  It's how they say foil. 

The first amendment doesn't say the Executive Branch can't make any laws, because they are not allowed to make laws.  Their powers are enumerated, and making laws is not one of them.  The Constitution is not a list of what Government can't do, but what they can.  If it's not listed, they're not allowed to do it. 

In the case of the Reserve List, it's a matter of a private entity putting a voluntary limit on what they're allowed to do.  WoTC is allowed to do whatever they want with their product.  By putting this policy in place, they assure people that they will not just print cards into worthless cardboard.  It's the exact opposite of the Constitution.  One gives powers to an entity, the other limits powers of an entity. 

I also don't see this as a real issue for the way they've managed reprints of the reserved list.  The market that moves M:TG cards is so efficient, that anyone who wanted judge cards could easily get them.  By putting premium versions of reserved cards in mass market, or limited edition products, they're just giving people who would never buy singles a chance to get their hands on these cards. 

I don't believe they will print a From The Vault: Power.  This does not mean that I think the Reserved List stops them from doing it.  I do believe they are allowed to under their policy.  I just think they have the good sense not to. 

[Killane]

I'm not buying that at all.  Premium just means foil.  It's how they say foil. 

The first amendment doesn't say the Executive Branch can't make any laws, because they are not allowed to make laws.  Their powers are enumerated, and making laws is not one of them.  The Constitution is not a list of what Government can't do, but what they can.  If it's not listed, they're not allowed to do it. 

In the case of the Reserve List, it's a matter of a private entity putting a voluntary limit on what they're allowed to do.  WoTC is allowed to do whatever they want with their product.  By putting this policy in place, they assure people that they will not just print cards into worthless cardboard.  It's the exact opposite of the Constitution.  One gives powers to an entity, the other limits powers of an entity. 

I also don't see this as a real issue for the way they've managed reprints of the reserved list.  The market that moves M:TG cards is so efficient, that anyone who wanted judge cards could easily get them.  By putting premium versions of reserved cards in mass market, or limited edition products, they're just giving people who would never buy singles a chance to get their hands on these cards. 

I don't believe they will print a From The Vault: Power.  This does not mean that I think the Reserved List stops them from doing it.  I do believe they are allowed to under their policy.  I just think they have the good sense not to. 

Is it good sense? I can tell you I'd buy it, but I would pay way way more for the "real thing". Beta and even unlimited power would still be a status symbol, but sanctioned vintage and no-proxy vintage would be several orders of magnitude closer to reality.

Even better- Jan 2012 Dual Decks- Long vs Tezz  MSRP $2,500.00

[Smmenen]

I'm not buying that at all.  Premium just means foil.  It's how they say foil.  

The first amendment doesn't say the Executive Branch can't make any laws, because they are not allowed to make laws.  

Oh really?

Premium just means foil.  It's how they say foil.  

Let me be more specific: There were specific assurances from various people at Wizards that they would not print cards on the reserved list for retail sale.   Tom Lapile and Ken Nagle both stated this in various fora and, Nagle, I believe, in a Wizards community forum a couple years ago.  

This is understood by Wizards as a major policy shift.  That's why, as Ben Bleiweiss reported today, that they flew me out there to give them feedback on this move, and the reserved list generally.  

Without question, they are framing it as doing what they were always allowed to do.   But that doesn't mean that's how they understand it, or expected others to understand it.

[Matt]

You are looking too narrowly.   Rules are understood not just by what they say, but through their practice/application.  If you don't believe me, look at the First Amendment, which actually contains a loophole for the Executive branch through its wording "Congress shall make no law.."   Yet, the dominant interpretation is that *the federal government* may not abridge the freedom of speech (subject to strict scrutiny review..)

In this case, the practice had been that the only exceptions to the reserved list where cards that were released as prizes, such as judges foils.  

No card on the reserved list had been printed as a product for sale.   Thus, the new implementation, which you identified, also confirms one possible interpretation of what is meant by 'premium' cards.  

The existence and voluntary enforcement of other, private, internal policies limiting what can and can't be reprinted has no bearing on whether the single public policy has been changed or violated.

The practice of what is reprinted and how can be (and is) governed by several overlapping sets of rules, and a change in one internal rule is not a change in the official public rule.

When I (and most people) use the term "the reprint policy," I do not mean the sum of everything that Wizards believes about the theory and practice of reprints. I mean the single, specific 2002 policy that they have agreed to abide by. That policy has not changed in the slightest. If Wizards previously had privately & internally decided not to use the premium exception except as rewards/prizes, that self-imposed rule is not and never was part of The Official Reprint Policy, and a change in that decision is NOT a change or violation of the reprint policy.

No one is saying that Wizards' attitudes are not changing, and no one is saying that a policy has not been changed. But the Official Reprint Policy, which is the only reprint policy Wizards has agreed to abide by in perpetuity, has not changed.

Also, as ELD says, the word 'premium' is not open for interpretation. It is the official term for what are more commonly known as foil cards.

Let me be more specific: There were specific assurances from various people at Wizards that they would not print cards on the reserved list for retail sale.   Tom Lapile and Ken Nagle both stated this in various fora and, Nagle, I believe, in a Wizards community forum a couple years ago.  

Citation needed, as they say.

[Smmenen]

You are looking too narrowly.   Rules are understood not just by what they say, but through their practice/application.  If you don't believe me, look at the First Amendment, which actually contains a loophole for the Executive branch through its wording "Congress shall make no law.."   Yet, the dominant interpretation is that *the federal government* may not abridge the freedom of speech (subject to strict scrutiny review..)

In this case, the practice had been that the only exceptions to the reserved list where cards that were released as prizes, such as judges foils.  

No card on the reserved list had been printed as a product for sale.   Thus, the new implementation, which you identified, also confirms one possible interpretation of what is meant by 'premium' cards.  

The existence and voluntary enforcement of other, private, internal policies limiting what can and can't be reprinted has no bearing on whether the single public policy has been changed or violated.

The practice of what is reprinted and how can be (and is) governed by several overlapping sets of rules, and a change in one internal rule is not a change in the official public rule.

When I (and most people) use the term "the reprint policy," I do not mean the sum of everything that Wizards believes about the theory and practice of reprints. I mean the single, specific 2002 policy that they have agreed to abide by. That policy has not changed in the slightest. If Wizards previously had privately & internally decided not to use the premium exception except as rewards/prizes, that self-imposed rule is not and never was part of The Official Reprint Policy, and a change in that decision is NOT a change or violation of the reprint policy.

No one is saying that Wizards' attitudes are not changing, and no one is saying that a policy has not been changed. But the Official Reprint Policy, which is the only reprint policy Wizards has agreed to abide by in perpetuity, has not changed.

Also, as ELD says, the word 'premium' is not open for interpretation. It is the official term for what are more commonly known as foil cards.

If a policy is understood both by what it says and by how it is applied, as all policies necessarily are, then of course the practice or application of a policy is part of the policy.    Words and laws are always understood through application, not simply their textual meaning, which always varies.   The application or perceived application of a law or policy is necessarily part of it.  

This is hermeneutics.  If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree.  

Let me be more specific: There were specific assurances from various people at Wizards that they would not print cards on the reserved list for retail sale.   Tom Lapile and Ken Nagle both stated this in various fora and, Nagle, I believe, in a Wizards community forum a couple years ago.  

Citation needed, as they say.
[/quote]

One of them is the Meandeck forums, where, I cannot cut and paste what was said.   I no longer know the location of the Nagle comment.   Suffice to say, one could find it if they looked.    

[ELD]

Yeah, we just have to agree to disagree. 

I believe with laws, that the letter of the law is the important thing, and the execution must be limited by the law.  Vague laws giving powers to the government, lead to abuse and an increase in power over time.  Since they've been doing it that way, they claim it's legal.  Take a little bit more power, and if no one calls them on it, it becomes "legal."  This is how the Interstate Commerce Clause has been expanded to literally be applied to any possible thing you could do, even things that are not commerce. 

I guess the difference is restraint.  I expect the government to act without restraint, always exceeding what is allowed when we don't hold them to it.  It continues to grow in power when left unchallenged.  Government cannot produce anything of net value, as it must take from the productive parts of society to have the resources to do anything. 

WoTC is a company that produces great value.  They employ many people productively.  They manufacture games.  They organize events.  They are able to do whatever they want.  They put a limit on what they'll do, as a way of assuring collectors.  They could get rid of it tomorrow, and no one could do anything to stop them.  They also could have printed Mana Drain for the whole time that the List has been around.  They choose to do neither of these, as they are not looking to expand their power, but to provide as much value as they can to society, and trade that value for as much wealth as they can. 

As for the Reserve List, I've always believed they could reprint whatever they want as foils, and that they will not as long as the game is doing well.  If they were going under, they could easily scrap the Reserve List and do whatever they want.  I guess my point is, WoTC is allowed to do whatever they want.  Peoples expectations may or may not reflect this truth, but I'm happy with how they're handled it so far.  I'm also very happy with their recent moves as well. 

It doesn't seem like we disagree on much here.  Basically, I'm saying that they Reserved List Policy has not changed.  You seem to be saying that, by the fact that they're doing it differently than in the past, that it has.  We both see the reality of what is going on.  We just define the ideas in slightly different ways. 

In reality, Wizards can do whatever they want, and this is all about what individuals, and the player base as a whole expects from Wizards.  This shift, if it is handled how I expect it to be handled, will not be harmful to the long term health of the game.

If they plan on using reprints to regulate the secondary market values of cards, keeping them held at a specific price point, then we're playing a whole new ball game. 

[Matt]

If a policy is understood both by what it says and by how it is applied, as all policies necessarily are, then of course the practice or application of a policy is part of the policy.    Words and laws are always understood through application, not simply their textual meaning, which always varies.   The application or perceived application of a law or policy is necessarily part of it.

Do you really not get the concept of having two different, overlapping policies? If I make a promise to you that says that I will give you widgets on your birthday, and on my own I decide to give you only red widgets, I am not breaking or altering my promise to you if my later shipments contain both red and blue widgets. It is a change from the widgets you are used to getting (my implementation of the widget promise), but as the original promise never specified the color of the widgets, my original promise has been kept to the utmost, and there is no possible interpretation of the promise that would change my fidelity to it.

[Smmenen]

Do you really not get the concept of having two different, overlapping policies? If I make a promise to you that says that I will give you widgets on your birthday, and on my own I decide to give you only red widgets, I am not breaking or altering my promise to you if my later shipments contain both red and blue widgets. It is a change from the widgets you are used to getting (my implementation of the widget promise), but as the original promise never specified the color of the widgets, my original promise has been kept to the utmost, and there is no possible interpretation of the promise that would change my fidelity to it.

of course I get your point, I just think that you are wrong (my opinion).    

First, You are being too much of a textualist.   There is a reason that Wizards doesn't simply use text in removing power errata.  They use original functionality, which, in good hermeneutic tradition, is really how that text was applied at the time, not how we interpret the text as text.  See Time Vault.    

You are getting hung up on what you perceive to be the clear import of the text.  My point is that policies and laws have meaning through application, and acquire norms that are implicit.   In fact, I would argue that laws and policies can truly only b e understood through application as words are inherently unspecific  

Second, People at wizards, over time, affirmed these norms (as I stated above).  Given Negator, that's a big reason that Bleiweiss and I were flown out there to meet with them.

[Smmenen]

Speaking of...

Since this is my Blog , I wanted to reflect for just a minute on power-level errata, and textless cards.

There have been a couple of grounds for reversing power level errata.

(1) The Text

Randy Buehler's argument was simple: we want people to be able to know what a card does just by reading it.   On that ground, we (wizards) will errata cards to match printed text as closely as possible.   This remains a goal of WOTC.   

Some cards have been errated precisely in this way.   Phyrexian Dreadnaught is a standout, IIRC

There are several problems with this approach:

a) One of the problems, however, is that sometimes text is unclear.    Different people can read text, and come to a different interpretation as to what a card means.   That's why as long as magic has been around, there have been judge rulings to clarify one possible interpretation or another.    For example, different people reading Time Vault can come to different meanings.

b) Unforeseen or unforeseeable applications that require judicial interpretation.  This is one of the problems with the US Constitution.   Certain principles have to be applied in settings and contexts that were never foreseeable.   Magic interactions often are unforeseen.   However, the rules of the game and the card text don't always provide a clear answer as to how a particular interaction works.   This is also why text is itself incomplete.

2) Original Functionality

After the initial enthusiasm for power-level errata based on text wore out or created new problems, Wizards subtly shifted to emphasizing original functionality.  This, rather than text, has become the keystone for removal of power level errata.   However, they have also said that they want the text to match printed text as closely as possible.   Original functionality is how a card was understood and ruled to work at the time it was played.

Problems:

a) Sometimes, there isn't an original functionality with respect to a particular interaction

b) sometimes rules changes don't actually permit original functionality.   For example, there are no more interrupts.   You can respond to Mana Drain with Lightning Bolt now.   

What they did NOT attempt to use is original intent or some measure of intentionality.   Original functionality is really tantamount to original understanding. 

Which brings me to a modern question: what about textless cards?  More and more, we are seeing cards without text at all.   Lands have no rules text.   And yet, they seem to be working well.   

[Troy_Costisick]

Are they all that functionally different from playing Japanese Foils in a tournament in Nashville Tennessee where most people don't speak Japanese?

[Smmenen]

good point troy. 

Yare, didn't you write an article on the reserved list?   I need to find a link to an article that does a great job of summarizing the history of the reserved list, so I don't have to

[Yare]

Yare, didn't you write an article on the reserved list?   I need to find a link to an article that does a great job of summarizing the history of the reserved list, so I don't have to

All the articles I've ever written

I guess you're either referring to Errata Havoc or Balancing Vintage: the Banned/Restricted List, neither of which mention the reserved list. I don't recall ever writing on the topic of the reserved list specifically. I'd also note that I would probably modify a few of my thoughts in Errata Havoc, though the general sentiment of the article is probably still accurate. Unfortunately, I think you'll have to look elsewhere on this one. Sorry.

[Smmenen]

Can someone tell me the scrye (or any other price guide) price of Black Lotus in 1995 and 1996?   If anyone knows that, post here or PM me.  Thanks!

[Matt]

Can someone tell me the scrye (or any other price guide) price of Black Lotus in 1995 and 1996?   If anyone knows that, post here or PM me.  Thanks!

I have a couple late-1996 Inquests at home. I'll get their price this evening.

[Matt]

October 1996 Inquest
Beta Black Lotus: 325-375
Unlimited Black Lotus: 200-275
alpha are summed up as "80% of beta" for the entire set

[Smmenen]

I'm a bit skeptical of some of those numbers.

I purchased an unlimited black lotus in, I think, 2001 for $200, which was a little favorable.  But I remember at that time that mox Sapphire was about $125 and Black Lotus $200-240.

My recollection was that in 1995-96 Black Lotus was about $90 and Moxen were like $40-50.   If anything, Black Lotus in 1996 was like $150 and Moxen like $80. 

Anyway, thanks for the numbers...

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I have the July/August 1995 Scrye (Scry #8).  It's the first issue with Ice Age prices.  Here's what it has:

Alpha Black Lotus:  $250, 250, 375
Beta Black Lotus: $210, 250, 250
Unlm Black Lotus:  $197, 215, 232

Moxen were $106-185 depending on condition and set.  If need be, I can scan this and email it to you.

Peace,

-Troy

[Matt]

I'm a bit skeptical of some of those numbers.

I purchased an unlimited black lotus in, I think, 2001 for $200, which was a little favorable.  But I remember at that time that mox Sapphire was about $125 and Black Lotus $200-240.

My recollection was that in 1995-96 Black Lotus was about $90 and Moxen were like $40-50.   If anything, Black Lotus in 1996 was like $150 and Moxen like $80.  

Anyway, thanks for the numbers...

It doesn't really matter what kind of deal you remember getting, it doesn't change what the page says. I can also get you a picture of the page if you need to see that to believe.

It's also highly probable that there's a big difference between 1995 and 1996 prices, and that the $90 lotus you are remembering is from the former.

I also have Inquest #40, from August 1998. It's the Exodus preview edition, for a timescale reference. There, it has Lotus:
Alpha: $400
Beta: $390
Unlimited: $335

All prices claim to be compiled from a group of about 200 game stores across the country.

[Smmenen]

Well Scrye is also well known for being significantly overpriced.

[Troy_Costisick]

Well Scrye is also well known for being significantly overpriced.

Yeah, they sure were.  I remember going to card shows in 95 and 96 and seeing Moxen for around $80 and Lotuses for $150.  Duals were $8-10.  It's a shame that there's probably not any eBay records going back that far.  That would really show us how much those cards cost back then.

Peace,

-Troy

[Matt]

I didn't start playing until mid/late 1996 (between Alliances and Mirage) but I never saw prices that low.

[Troy_Costisick]

I didn't start playing until mid/late 1996 (between Alliances and Mirage) but I never saw prices that low.

I started playing during The Dark.  My memory may be off for what year it was.  But I could drive when I started going to card shows, so it would probably have been '95. 

[Troy_Costisick]

I'm a bit skeptical of some of those numbers.

I purchased an unlimited black lotus in, I think, 2001 for $200, which was a little favorable.  But I remember at that time that mox Sapphire was about $125 and Black Lotus $200-240.

My recollection was that in 1995-96 Black Lotus was about $90 and Moxen were like $40-50.   If anything, Black Lotus in 1996 was like $150 and Moxen like $80. 

Anyway, thanks for the numbers...

One thing I didn't think about was there were a couple price crashes in Magic cards in the 90's and early 2000's.  The first was right after Homelands.  After the reprints in Chronicles and 4th edition and the concescutive stinker expansion sets of The Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, and Homelands along with not following up the snow theme in Homelands the bottom fell out on Magic prices.  The game probably was in some jeopardy until Alliances was released and saved the it from the brink.  Then, just after Urza's block and beginning with Masks the prices crashed again.  This was when Pokemon was skyrocketing, people quit Magic in droves after being shut out of the game with the over-powered cards in the Urza sets and seeing the complete crap set Masks was.  In fact, if I had to pick one moment in time where Magic almost died, it was right then and there.  With the post-Homelands crash coming in a close second.  So the prices you (and I) remember could have been right around these times when interest in those cards was on the wane.

[Smmenen]

I want to write an article like this again:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/13719_So_Many_Insane_Plays_8212_Deconstructing_Combo_versus_Control.html

People really liked my Tezzeret report, and I think the key is that polls force people to confront how they would handle the decision, to reason toward an answer and then select a course of action.   That was the critique of this article: that it just showed my reasoning, but didn't necessarily help the reader become a better player.

I think an article like this could do several things:

1) It would help the reader get better at Vintage
2) it would help vintage outsiders better appreciate vintage, and want to try it out
3) it would be fun

What matchups would you most like to see this for?   

At the moment, I'm thinking about doing another combo v. control article ala TPS v. Tezzeret.   Thoughts?

[Killane]

I want to write an article like this again:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/13719_So_Many_Insane_Plays_8212_Deconstructing_Combo_versus_Control.html

People really liked my Tezzeret report, and I think the key is that polls force people to confront how they would handle the decision, to reason toward an answer and then select a course of action.   That was the critique of this article: that it just showed my reasoning, but didn't necessarily help the reader become a better player.

I think an article like this could do several things:

1) It would help the reader get better at Vintage
2) it would help vintage outsiders better appreciate vintage, and want to try it out
3) it would be fun

What matchups would you most like to see this for?   

At the moment, I'm thinking about doing another combo v. control article ala TPS v. Tezzeret.   Thoughts?

TPS vs Tezz woudl be Wonderful!