[Article] Oscar Tan's Sordid Love Life? Revealed!

[jpmeyer]

I was really going to title this article "This is Type 1. Playing Fair Sucks," but I thought that this one was catchier. Anyway, this week, I?ll be going over one of everyone's favorite buzzwords in Type 1, "collateral damage," and give you the inside scoop on Oscar "Cinnamon Buns" Tan.

[Toad]

:lol:

[Zherbus]

I'm glad I was one of the omitted Paragons. Jp has no dirt on this brotha!

[Binary]

I haven't been a part of MeanDeck long enough for JP to have dirt on me. Guess I'd better watch what I say on the list.  

[Nameless]

That was actually pretty funny.  But, need I remind you of the A-Team, JP?  I mean come on...

*A-Team theme song!*

Point is, JP has dirt on every brutha!  (Even if he has to make it up from scratch.)  

[jpmeyer]

Your last sentence is perhaps the most important one.

[rvs]

best.title.ever.

It was a good article JP, keep producing those, and tell SCG to pay you big bucks. You deserve it.

[Ric_Flair]

Can we post comments on the non-humorous part of the article?


I am posting the following assuming that we can:

I thoroughly enjoyed the piece.  The notion that broken cards are more broken in broken decks, is something that we all know, but it is about time someone articulated that point.  Funny thing is that Long merely avoided LED's drawback, while Madness did something with it and LED was STILL better in Long.

I am also pleased to see that someone took seriously the idea of collateral damage.  I, for one, have a radical view on the issue (i.e. Ban Will if it will stop Long but save Madness), but I can see where people disagree.  I am even becoming less militant about the Will issue.  Eventually things will change, but until they do, I want to see how much I can break Will.  

So I will get down to the beef.

The part that rubs people the wrong way though, is the fact that while collateral damage is always minimized as much as possible, it's almost impossible to eliminate it without drastic steps that Wizards simply will not take, such as changing the rules or errata'ing cards (and while I know that there are exceptions to this rule, they really aren't precedents).

Exceptions to the rule are what create a precedent.  Let's look back at the three highest profile erratas for power reasons:  Abeyance, Magma Mine, and Waylay.

Abeyance:  If any card clearly demonstrates original intent this is it.  As it was originally used, Abeyance did not allow an opponent to tap things for any reason.  Basically your opponent drew a card and that was it.  In essence Abeyance was an unrestricted, white Timewalk.  The card they drew was countered by the cantrip card you drew for Abeyance.  Now at the time, WotC was still printing ridiculous cards.  Tolarian Academy was still coming, but even when Weatherlight was printed, WotC knew that an unrestricted white Timewalk for 1W was too good.  This was certainly not what they intended the card to do.  EVER.  So they errated it to do what it does today.  And everyone is happy.

Magma Mine:  This has nothing to do with original intent.  It more has to do with a precendent related to problems arising from tinkering with the rules.  Time Vault created all sorts of problems.  So they made a special phase before each player's turn in which the decision to use the Vault could be made.  This phase occurred every turn regardless of format or even if Vault was in play.  It was hidden for about two weeks before someone realized that they could combine Magma Mine and Wall of Roots to generate infinite mana, then infinite damage and a dead opponent.  So a change in the rules because of a problem gave rise to another problem.  

Waylay:  Another rules/timing trick.  Now things had settled down even more since Weatherlight.  And then Waylay appeared on the scene.  Players could cast this spell and make what became essentially three 2/2 attackers with haste.  Now the clear purpose of Waylay was to make blockers, the definition of the word: to lie in wait for or attack from ambush.  Hasty attackers don't exactly comport with something that is lying in wait.  Surprise blocker, however, do.  So they errated this guy and solved another problem.  

So here we have three examples, "exceptions," if you will, to the rule.  But as everyone knows, exceptions create trends, which creates precedent.  This is the way the law works.  If there are enough exceptions it becomes a precedent and the law changes.  Now WotC just decided to ignore their history.  The problem is, that the solutions above were so elegant and worked so well that people at the time were instantly satisified (except for speculators that were selling Abeyance for $30 a piece), and now when similar problems arise, we that remember are taunted by the past success.  So like Abeyance indicates a clear "original intent" so to should Dragon and Illusions of Granduer.  And like Magma Mine demonstrated too many overlapping corrections, so to does Illusionary Mask.  I know that WotC won't change their mind, but it seems silly to ignore past success.  

The next beef:

While majoring in lit and film, I've learned that intent really shouldn't matter, because people don't necessarily do everything they set out to do, and can't necessarily comprehend everything that they're doing.

Unfortunately, for most people, it is intent that makes the difference.  In the law, innocence and guilt in the criminal and civil context is often determined by imputations of intent.  Every 1L knows that a crime has two parts: actus reus and mens rea.  Without the act, there is no crime.  Without the intent, there is no crime.  Intent, then, is crucial.  It is important in the law because there are practical concerns about guilt.  We can never KNOW for sure that someone meant to do something.  But we need someway to protect society and stop criminals by assigning guilt in a reliable and consistent way.  Hence we imput guilt.   In film and literature, where the difference of interpretation is half the fun, there is no practical concern or pressing matter, so intent is secondary.  So the question becomes which is Magic more like?  I would have to say, having looked at the Floor Rules and Comprehensive Rules recently that Magic is more like the law, and practical concerns rule the day.  Any time there is a definitive objective, I believe this to be the case.  Thus, intent for designing cards does matter.  And as I tried to show above (see the Abeyance comments) we can, to a certain degree imput intent in a way that helps determine when to errated something and how to change it.  

I know that people disagree with me and I am not going to make a stink, I just think the other side needs to be adequately presented.  Good job, JP.

[jpmeyer]

I'm having trouble thinking of any precedents of rules errata that have occured once 6th Edition rules were ironed out (since in the first few months cards were constantly being errata'ed and re-errata'ed to get them to work the way that they were supposed to) that were purely to nerf cards rather than to fix cards that had trouble existing within the rules and whatnot (Grip of Chaos/Parallax Wave.)  Technically, you should have to shuffle after casting Impulse.  You also should have to wait an additional turn before you get your cards from Necro.  And so on.  The Magic rules before 6th Edition really were a complete mess, and I personally didn't even know how bad they were until I had read what the changes were going to be since I just assumed a lot of the crazy stuff wasn't there, so looking at how cards had to be fixed back then is a completely different matter.

I am not looking at rules, which obviously are much more related to law than art.  I used an artistic rather than legal bent since we are looking at an end product, something that is corporal rather than an action.  I'm talking about the design of cards and decks here, more like asking the question "How are cards being used?" rather than "What should we do about it?"  Because of the creative aspect of Magic, like you said "difference in interpretation is half the fun."  When you worry about intent, you end up stifling creativity and more or less require cards and decks to be built for you.

[Ric_Flair]

JP,

I understand now, why you focused on what you did.  It makes sense, and certainly focusing on intent does stifle creativity.  Let me ask this question:  Are there any cards in their current form that so betray their "intended purpose" that you believe they deserve errata?  Or are no cards deserving of errata?

[Zherbus]

I think Worldgorger Dragon probably should be errata'd, but I really don't think its needed at all so why bother? Actually, the fact that Dragon was broken in half like that is a huge bonus in that it accidentally helped our triangle of combo-control-aggro, much like how the incarnations helped put aggro back on the map (though, those weren't at all an accident). Come to think of it, isn't that what all combo decks are; R&D accidents like Urza's Saga, Storm spells, Dragon, and as far as I know Mirage ProsperBloom?

[jpmeyer]

While I wouldn't errata the Dragon (since that opens up way too many cans of worms,) I wish that the Animate Dead-style spells had much cleaner wordings, but I'm also giving WotC the benefit of the doubt here since my head hurts trying to think of ones that still work properly.  Like I'm sure there's a reason why this says "When this comes into play" as opposed to "as this comes into play" and so on.  And I'm not even sure changing it to "as this comes into play" would fix it.  Etc.

The last cards in Type 1 that I thought needed errata was 2-3 years ago when Black Vise and The Rack did a maximum of 4 and 2 damage, respectively, and when Fastbond needed to be errata'ed because it was still using obsolete terminology (which is why it did extra damage if you did stuff like sac a fetchland.)

[dicemanx]

So like Abeyance indicates a clear "original intent" so to should Dragon and Illusions of Granduer. And like Magma Mine demonstrated too many overlapping corrections, so to does Illusionary Mask. I know that WotC won't change their mind, but it seems silly to ignore past success.

I still am completely mystified why you continue to crusade against certain cards that go against their "intended" use. In my opinion you have yet to present a single compelling reason, other than stating that

1) We have precendents, where problem cards were handled "elegantly"
2) "Magic is more like the law, and practical concerns rule the day", suggesting that the intended function of the card is some sacred cow that needs to be protected. If, God forbid, an alternate use of the card is discovered we must rush to the rescue with errata, because the alternate function is either:

A) "Too broken"
B) Too confusing or rules intensive, so we must protect the unwashed masses from such confusion since if they are not a highly educated individual (such as a lawyer perhaps), they have no hope of understanding or comprehending the rules surrounding the card.
 


Funny, I just don't see any urgency is rushing out to errata cards like WGD, Illusions of Grandeur, or Illusionary Mask. They are not wrecking the environment, and if we neutered them we would have three less cool decks to play with. So why bother?

[Matt]

If anything, it's the Animate cards that would get errata'd, for two reasons.
First, they've already been errata'd about a million times, so the anti-errata argument of "the cards wont do what they say they do" doesn't really hold.
Secondly, as JP pointed out on old TMD, Dragon does exactly what it's supposed to do. Animate Dead is where the tricky interactions happen -- specifically the "when ~this~ leaves play, bury that creature" part, which is what I'd errata if I wanted to ruin the combo. I'd just wipe that part off, so a Disenchant wouldn't kill the creature. Yes, it's changing the functionality, but they had no apparant qualms about doing this with Flying Carpet.

[Azhrei]

I still think the best Paragons thing ever was my nWo style invasion of Beyond Dominia fantasy.

So many people thought I was on drugs.

[MuzzonoAmi]

Matt- The reason they didn't have any qualms about changing Flying Carpet was because taht only affected the 'flavor' of the card since it's totally unplayable. Obviously, destroying the carpet your Llanowar Elves are flying on will cause them to fall from the sky to the ground, and since WoTC hates flavor (especially amusing flavor) they can cut it out.

[Ric_Flair]

I still am completely mystified why you continue to crusade against certain cards that go against their "intended" use. In my opinion you have yet to present a single compelling reason

I don't want to rehash this argument but I do want to defend my position.  The letter I wrote goes into more detail.  

Compelling Reasons to Errata Cards

1.  To eliminate "rules lawyering" wins.  

People have a natural antipathy for overly technical proceedings.  Do you like doing your taxes?  Do you think that Bush's appointment of Pickering via the backdoor was fair?  What about the Bush win in 2000?  What about instant replay in football?  All of these are clear examples of overly technical processes.  Something about these jargonistic ways operating offend a very basic sense of fairness in people.  They also dilute the power and compelling nature of what is going on.  Games are especially sensitive to this.  If a game is overly complex it may appeal to a few, but most go do something else.  A game with clear, intuitive rules is always more accessible and more fun than another game.  Chess is more successful than Risk because the rules are clearer and simpler.  Winning especially has to be clear and simple in order for it to be compelling.  No one liked the election because in the end it was confusingly decided.  People crave decisiveness.  Errataing cards to correct for mistakes in the game because of rules quirks would do just that.

2. Lower the Barrier to Entry

This is my bent:  I want this game to survive and the more people that play the better chance it has at surviving.  The primary way to get new people in is to lower the barrier of entry.  Cost is one barrier to entry.  Complexity is another.  So while some see it as a dumbing down of the game, I see errataing overly complicated cards, cards that were not intended to complicated, as a way of stemming the tide of an already complex game.  Look if people want to get on their high horse and think that they are better, smarter, or whatever because they can understand the WGD loop and newbies can't they are dumb.  First, Magic, believe it or not is not that complicated.  It is not a trophey worthy experience to understand timing rules.  BIG FUCKING DEAL.  Second, if you want complex, go read Heidegger in German...that's complicated.  Go read the tax code.  That's complicated.  But Magic, as a form of entertainment, should ultimately exist in way in which fun trumps complexity.  

Now the retort is that errata make cards more complex because players have to remember things not on the cards.   This is not necessarily true.  First, most new cards do not need errata, so the majority of newbies would not be affected.  Second, those cards in need of errata, like Mask and Animate Dead, already have it.  Changing it would not ADD to things people need to know, it would just CHANGE it.  Third, even in Standard there are things that are errata'ed and things people need to know that are not on the cards.  Errata, if done correctly would not ADD complexity but reduce it.

3. To eliminate "holes" in the game.

Most of the time cards that need errata just do something wrong.  Animate enchantments are corrected by things like Reanimate.  As creative as the game is there are just certain places it does not need to go.  I am not for reigning in creativity in the least.  By saying "Don't go here" I am not limiting the game at all.  They have an infinite space to explore, just some of that space is really problematic.  Infinite loops are not good for the game.  They know this and they try to avoid them.  Errata'ing certain cards would help put up the "Do Not Go Here" signs.

Those are just three reasons.  I don't want to rehash.  Just rebut a bit.[/quote]

[MuzzonoAmi]

Comptetitive Magic, especially competitive Type 1, is highly rules intensive. The Dragon-Animate interaction is highly intuitive to anyone who understands basic TIMING rules. Granted, once the infinite loops start, things get complicated, but even that can be remedied by the basic knowledge I'd expect any person playing the deck to have. I hated the 6th Edition rules. Hell, that's why I quit playing from then until when Torment came out. And guess what, the game was at it's best under 5th Edition rules, from Mirage through Urza's Saga.

[Ric_Flair]

I hated the 6th Edition rules. Hell, that's why I quit playing from then until when Torment came out. And guess what, the game was at it's best under 5th Edition rules, from Mirage through Urza's Saga.

Most people disagree with you.  The largest Magic events in history have been after the 6th ed rules.  Most people playing like the change and obviously it has made it easier for new players to enter, thus the high turn out.  Randy and Mark make it clear time and again that in terms of the bottom line, the 6th Ed rules make the game what it is today.  So, voting with their wallets, simplicity wins.  

I believe, contrary to popular logic, that simplicity and new errata are not antithetical.  That is where the real debate lies.  Almost no one would assert that more complexity is good for the game.  Reminder text, simplified rules, and the like have all produced higher tournament turnouts and more profit.  Magic is more successful with simpler rules.  There is no debating that.  The question is whether errata make the game more complex.  I say no, but reasonable arguments exist on the other side.

[MuzzonoAmi]

But does being more profitable or more popular make it 'better'? I'd have to say no. The 5th Edition rules were the perfect mix of flavor and function, whereas the 6th Edition rules have simply dumbed down the game. Complexity is great for the game, up to a certian point, because by having more loopholes and nuiances, those better aquainted with the rules are more likely to succeed and or catch the metagmae off gaurd. Errata is not the answer to anything rith now. And in all honesty, Mask and the Animate Enchantments works just fine, and you can even look at them from a flavor perspective and see how they work. It makes perfect sense for a creature played under Mask to loose play-entry related abilities.

And as a final note, I really don't give a damn what the majority of players think about the rules.

[Ric_Flair]

Premise 1: You like the game.

I am assuming this because you bother to post.  Otherwise, why come here?

Premise 2:  The game must be profitable to survive.

This is basic capitalism.

Premise 3:  More profit equals longer sustainablity of the game.

Again a basic concept.

Conclusion:  The more people that enter, the more profit the game makes, the longer it will be around, the happier you will be because of it.

Profit does make a difference.  You may not consciously care about it, but if the game went away what difference does flavor make?  Flavor is just that, a secondary element, a flourish, a final stroke.  It is not the end all and be all.  Rules with room for flavor hurt the game and add complexity.  There is no need.  Simplify the game.  Its better for all the fans of Magic.  And unfortunately, there is little factual evidence to suggest otherwise.  You may like complex rules in Magic, but do you like them at the expense of the game itself?  That would be absurd.

[jpmeyer]

Personally, errata seems almost paradoxical in a way with regards to reducing complexity, since you probably need to make cards more wordy or complicated in order to simplify the effect.

And on the other topic for pre-5th Edition rules being more flavorful, I have one thing to say:

Giant Growth can't save a creature from Lightning Bolt.