Dear Wizards, please fix Mox Diamond

[Polynomial P]

In April of 2006, the Oracle wording on several cards were changed by Wizards of the Coast in order to remove power level errata and to make the card function as originally intended. Among the first cards to have received new Oracle text was Time Vault, which sparked a heated debate and much controversy. Over the next few Oracle updates several other cards received erratum to remove previous power level errata or to make the card function as originally intended. While we, as a community, may not agree with 100% of the changes, this campaign has largely been successful.

Phyrexian Dreadnought and Flash have been two cards that are part of this success story. Now that the Oracle wording matches (closely) with the printed card text and the original intent of the cards, they both are seeing some play in Vintage and Legacy (Dreadnought still sees play in Legacy while Flash was banned). Dreadnought has certainly not dominated Vintage, but rather has been a crucial part of several Tier 2 Vintage strategies. Flash is also getting a lot of attention right now and its power is dependent on cards around it (Protean Hulk, Pact of Negation, Virulent Slivers, Reveillark). But both of these cards now function as originally intended, which is more important than whether they see play or dominate.

Numerous other cards have had their Oracle text changed to coincide with their printed text and with their original intent. These include the Saga block untap creatures, Basalt Monolith, Drop of Honey, and even Goblin Snowman. While most of these cards have had no impact on Vintage and Legacy, the policy of keeping the cards Oracle text in line with the printed text is good for Magic. For more information on this policy check out Aaron Forsythe’s column here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af127

But wait! Did you notice that in this column he mentions that Phyrexian Dreadnought? Aaron says Phyrexian Dreadnought was not changed because “had their functionality disrupted by a rules change. The intent of these cards was always that the costs had to be paid before the cards could be used, and we want to maintain that.” Clearly, paying the cost of Dreadnought before the card could be used was part of the original intent. However, it is clear that under the original intent and the outdated rules, Phyrexian Dreadnought would enter into play upon which it would be sacrificed unless the cost was paid (or somehow ignored thanks to Illusionary Mask or Stifle). Ultimately, Wizards correctly rescinded this opinion of Dreadnought.

From a later Ask Wizards: (August 6, 2007)

Q: With the recent restoration of Phyrexian Dreadnought when can we expect similar worded cards, such as Mox Diamond and Lotus Vale, to also be restored?
–John, Lynchburg, VA, USA

This is a question we've received a lot ever since the return of Flash to its original functionality, and even more since the Tenth Edition update bulletin and the announcement that Phyrexian Dreadnought would be similarly restored. It seems at first glance that the printed wordings of Flash and Phyrexian Dreadnought represent the same case as the printed wordings of Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and similar cards with comes-into-play drawbacks. Let's look at the printed wordings:
Phyrexian Dreadnought
Card text: Trample<br> When Phyrexian Dreadnought comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures with total power of 12 or more, or bury Phyrexian Dreadnought.
Lotus Vale
Card text: When Lotus Vale comes into play, sacrifice two
untapped lands or bury Lotus Vale.
TAP: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
 Hmmm. Those look the same to me—so similar that I asked Rules Manager Mark Gottlieb (who is way too busy keeping the rules from disintegrating to answer Ask Wizards questions) what the difference was. He didn't deign to answer—he speaks mostly in cryptic riddles these days—but he did email me the URL of the Weatherlight FAQ. Now we're getting somewhere. This historical document dates back to the set's release (though not, one supposes, in its online form). Maybe I can find a passing reference to it, or... ah, this should do:
Can I tap Lotus Vale for mana before I sacrifice the two lands?
No. You must deal with a card's coming-into-play cost before you may activate any of its abilities.
There you have it. Under pre-Sixth Edition rules, comes-into-play costs—much like phase costs such as echo—had to be paid before any of a permanent's abilities could be used. Lotus Vale and company could never be tapped for mana without paying the proper costs, and so their current Oracle wordings reflect only the changing rules, not changing functionality. By contrast, Phyrexian Dreadnought doesn't have any activated abilities, and Flash doesn't give you the chance to use them—the creature comes into play and leaves play (if you don't pay) all during the spell's resolution.
So don't expect to see errata for Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, or Scorched Ruins. We might revisit them to get them even closer to intended functionality—you'll notice an interaction change with Ankh of Mishra, for instance—but all evidence indicates that they currently work the way they always did in the majority of cases.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0807

Notice that another card is lumped into the same category: Mox Diamond. I strongly believe that the current Oracle wording on Mox Diamond needs to be changed. For reference, the printed card text:

Card text: When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Play this ability as a mana source.

And the current Oracle Text:

Oracle text: As an additional cost to play Mox Diamond, discard a land card.
T Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

Clearly the two do not match. The problem is complicated by the 6th Edition rules update, which took place after Mox Diamond was printed. Today, if Mox Diamond was played as originally worded, you could play Mox Diamond, tap it for mana, then sacrifice it. However, before the 6th Edition rules change Mox Diamond would not function that way. This ruling is from the Weatherlight Rules FAQ and applies to Lotus Vale, but the ruling would be the same for Mox Diamond:

22) Can I tap Lotus Vale for mana before I sacrifice the two lands?
No. You must deal with a card's coming-into-play cost before you may activate any of its abilities.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/expert/Weatherlight/Weatherlight_FAQ.asp

Importantly, Mox Diamond, with its current Oracle wording does not function as originally intended. Allow me to present several scenarios where Mox Diamond’s current Oracle wording fails to adequately represent the original function of the card.

A) Mox Diamond is countered by a spell or ability.
Original function: If Mox Diamond was countered, the person who played Mox Diamond would not have to discard a land.
Current function: Since discarding a land is an additional cost to play Mox Diamond, the player would have discarded a land before Mox Diamond is countered.
Relevance: This is very important as keeping a 1-land Mox Diamond hand is currently very dangerous. Should the Mox Diamond be countered it would likely change the outcome of the game based on how Mox Diamond is currently worded.

B) Playing Mox Diamond with no lands in hand.
Original function: Mox Diamond could be played.
Current function: Mox Diamond cannot be played.
Relevance: There are several possible scenarios where this could be a factor. Increasing storm count, playing a spell for Recycle/Null Profusion, or playing a spell into Erayo would be allowed by the original intent of Mox Diamond.

C) Getting Mox Diamond into the graveyard.
Original function: Mox Diamond could be played and the optional trigger could strategically not be paid. This would force the player to sacrifice Mox Diamond.
Current function: Mox Diamond cannot be optionally sacrificed.
Relevance: There are times where having cards in your graveyard can be strategically advantageous. Getting to Threshold or having an Artifact in the graveyard for everyone’s favorite Lhurgoyf may change the outcome of a game, all based on the wording of Mox Diamond. The original intent of Mox Diamond would allow for an option where the player could choose to sacrifice Mox Diamond.

D) Playing an Artifact to get a “when an artifact comes into play” trigger whether or not a land was discarded.
Original function: Mox Diamond could be played to satisfy an artifact-dependent trigger without discarding a land.
Current function: Mox Diamond can not be played to satisfy an artifact-dependent trigger unless a land is discarded.
Relevance: Several cards have triggers that are affected by artifacts coming into play. Arcbound Crusher, Cloudstone Curio, and Summoning Station are just a few cards that Mox Diamond could interact with under the old Oracle text. Under the original intent of the card, these triggers would occur whether or not a land was discarded.

E) Playing an artifact to get a “when an artifact goes to the graveyard from play” trigger
Original function: Mox Diamond could be played and then sacrificed on its own to satisfy a “goes to the graveyard” trigger.
Current function: Mox Diamond can not be strategically played and then sacrificed on its own.
Relevance: Under the original intent of Mox Diamond, it could be played and sacrificed to cause an opponent to lose 1 life with a Disciple of the Vault in play. The current wording does not allow for this line of play.

F) Using Goblin Welder to get Mox Diamond into play
Original Function: If Mox Diamond was put into play with Goblin Welder, the player would have to discard a land to keep Mox Diamond in play.
Current Function: If Mox Diamond is put into play with Goblin Welder, the player does not have to discard a land to keep Mox Diamond in play.
Relevance: Under these circumstances, Mox Diamond is more powerful than it was originally intended to be.

Clearly, there are numerous important examples where the current Oracle wording of Mox Diamond does not do it justice. Now, it wouldn’t be fair for me to complain about Mox Diamond without offering some solutions.

Solution A)
Suggested Oracle text: When Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land card and put a mox counter on Mox Diamond or Sacrifice Mox Diamond.

T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Use this ability only if Mox Diamond has a mox counter on it.

Why this works: This would restore the original function of every single scenario of Mox Diamond I could come up with.

Why this would not work: There are a couple of problems. First, the mox counter, or a counter of some type is not a great way to restore original function, since counters have never been used on Mox Diamond. While there was a precedent for using a counter on a card with no card text referncing a counter (Time Vault) this was generally looked upon as a bad idea. Additionally, this would open up a new can of worms. Given the wording I proposed, Mox Diamond would come into play and the owner could respond to the trigger by sacrificing Mox Diamond or targeting it with some other instant speed spell or ability. To my knowledge, this could not be done in pre-6th edition rules.

Solution B) (posted by MattTheGreat on starcitygames.com)
Suggested Oracle Text:  As Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.
Tap: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

Why this works: This gets the function of Mox Diamond correct and doesn’t require any reference to mox counters or anything else. It even prevents sacrificing the Mox Diamond as a cost for some other effect.

Why this might not work: The wording is a bit tricky and players’ understanding of “as ~this~ comes into play” is probably not as good as other terminology. Does this come into play? Does it then trigger ‘leaves play’/’goes to graveyard from play’ triggers? I think that most of these issues could be addressed with Oracle text reminder or a FAQ.

Additionally, the rules team over at Wizards is very innovative and could likely have a solution that we, as players, can not envision.

In conclusion, Mox Diamond is a card that does not function as originally intended and with a little thought and prudence could function as originally intended. Wizards current policy is to have the Oracle wording of cards match with the printed text when possible and to maintain the original intent of the card. It is clear that the printed text of Mox Diamond is outdated, but a reasonable Oracle wording could be found to restore the original intent of Mox Diamond. 

[ReAnimator]

This was great and really well thought out, well done.
I'll sign a petition if you get one of those going. I know there are online petition services.

FREE MOX DIAMOND!

[vartemis]

I think the closest we could get to the proper wording is:

Mox Diamond
Artifact
Mox Diamond comes into play tapped.
When Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land card and untap Mox Diamond, or sacrifice Mox Diamond.
: Add 1 mana of any color to your mana pool.  Play this ability as a mana source.

This prevents it from coming into play and becoming a second Lotus Petal, and it prevents if from being welded in and circumventing its extra cost.  It may not work the way you want it to, but it works as close to the original intent.

[Polynomial P]

I thought about the replacement effect wording but ultimately discarded it because it fails the on Scenarios D and E. However, that wording would cause Mox Diamond to function closer  to its original intent than it currently does.

Edit: This was a response to have mox diamond worded as "If ~this~ would come into play, discard a land or sacrifice Mox Diamond"

[The Atog Lord]

This is very well thought out. I agree that Mox Diamond could be made to function as it is worded moreso than it is now.

[vartemis]

I thought about the replacement effect wording but ultimately discarded it because it fails the on Scenarios D and E. However, that wording would cause Mox Diamond to function closer  to its original intent than it currently does.

Whoops, I was editing my post when you replied.  Check out the new wording.

j

[Polynomial P]

That is another possible wording that fulfills all the outlined scenarios but has the problem that it can be sacrificed to instant speed spells and abilities. Thank you for your replies though, as it shows there are possible solutions out there to get Mox Diamond to work ~closer~ to its original function than what it does now. Personally, I hope that this discussion will spark some interest among the Wizards rules team and they might be able to find a solution that escapes us.

Thanks for the comments.

[Zombie Shakespeare]

One needs to keep in mind that WOTC didn't have the templating for all the cards down to the exacting detail that they do these days. Even though many of these cards original printed wordings resemble the templating used today with the post-6th edition rules that was not what was intended when these cards were printed. Their errata is there to keep the cards' original intent from the pre-6th edition days.

Errata is a necessary evil. While we'd like all cards to function as printed some cards just cannot be allowed to do so for clarity, power levels or just the for sanity of the judges that have to deal with them. I've never heard a peep over Flying Carpet being functionally changed after 5th edition. Should Winter Orb function as printed as well?

[Polynomial P]

One needs to keep in mind that WOTC didn't have the templating for all the cards down to the exacting detail that they do these days. Even though many of these cards original printed wordings resemble the templating used today with the post-6th edition rules that was not what was intended when these cards were printed. Their errata is there to keep the cards' original intent from the pre-6th edition days.

I acknowledge this but I may not have been clear enough on this point. When possible the printed text and oracle text should match up. However, original intent and function will always trump the printed text.

My argument is that the current Oracle wording does not reflect the original intent or function of Mox Diamond and therefore the current Oracle wording needs to be changed to reflect the original intent and function.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I don't understand why your option B isn't the clear appropriate course of action?  As a player in a format where modern templating is regularly at war with older cards, it's sort of our responsibility to at least understand that templating.

[Norm4eva]

There are a whole slew of cards that inherently become better or worse before 6th Edition rules changes.  Forget Mox Diamond for a second.  Didn't every Instant in the game gain functionality once clunky Interrupts and batches were replaced by the stack?  You couldn't win a counter war with Brainstorm into Counterspell before 6th Ed; not only would the batch have to resolve but you couldn't even play that Brainstorm after the Interrupt.  Should every Instant printed before 6th Edition receive "power down" errata?
This stuff really kills me sometimes.  It's like... you get to change certain rules "for the better", but within that subset you get anomalies like Mox Diamond and Waylay and other random jank that also get a boost in power.  Only their boost is somehow ridiculous, whereas 3000ish Instants in the game are good to go in regard to becoming far more functional.
I guess what I'm saying is, original intent went out the window after 6th, both for intentional rules changes and unintended interactions, and trying to reclaim any of it is an exercise in futility.

[ErkBek]

Great article Jacob. I'd like to see Diamond with the wording proposed by MattTheGreat. It's simple, easy to follow, and restores the function.

FREE MOX DIAMOND!

[xycsoscyx]

I guess what I'm saying is, original intent went out the window after 6th, both for intentional rules changes and unintended interactions, and trying to reclaim any of it is an exercise in futility.

This mostly just goes back to the two sides of the argument, do you restore functionality based on printed text (which simplifies things for new players and alleviates the need to look things up for every card), or do you keep original intent, despite how different that may be to what's actually printed on the card.  Personally, I only want to see Mox Diamond changed because I think keeping the printed wording is more important (in most, but not all cases).  The printed wording doesn't require discarding a land as an additional cost (making it more disruptive to counter it), despite the fact that changing it to fit the printed wording would make it more powerful.

[Troy_Costisick]

I guess what I'm saying is, original intent went out the window after 6th, both for intentional rules changes and unintended interactions, and trying to reclaim any of it is an exercise in futility.

A beter example is how the functionality of Avoid Fate changed.  Before 6th edition is was basically useless.  While it will never be considered a power card, its uses have grown greatly since its wording was changed and are no where near its origonal intent.

Peace,

-Troy

[Polynomial P]

There are a whole slew of cards that inherently become better or worse before 6th Edition rules changes.  Forget Mox Diamond for a second.  Didn't every Instant in the game gain functionality once clunky Interrupts and batches were replaced by the stack?  You couldn't win a counter war with Brainstorm into Counterspell before 6th Ed; not only would the batch have to resolve but you couldn't even play that Brainstorm after the Interrupt.  Should every Instant printed before 6th Edition receive "power down" errata?

I would argue no. Many of the blue instants have been printed before and after the 6th edition rules change and WotC has stated that they care about the most current wordings. The numerous examples of blue instants maintaining their printed wording before and after the 6th edition rules change sets a precedent that the additional power gained by the 6th edition rules change is acceptable. Should WotC go through all instants before that the rules change on a card to card basis and errata them to reflect the rules change? Yes. And they have. Check the wordings on Sirocco and Mystical tutor to name a few. 

This stuff really kills me sometimes.  It's like... you get to change certain rules "for the better", but within that subset you get anomalies like Mox Diamond and Waylay and other random jank that also get a boost in power.  Only their boost is somehow ridiculous, whereas 3000ish Instants in the game are good to go in regard to becoming far more functional.

The 6th edition rules change was a necessary evil at the time, but in the end has been an acceptable change. It was really a massive undertaking and so of course there were some anomalies that didn't quite fit into the rules correctly. Given that WotC has gone back and fixed some of the mistakes, through errata or reprinting of cards with new text, it leaves the possibility to later address some of those anomalies.

I guess what I'm saying is, original intent went out the window after 6th, both for intentional rules changes and unintended interactions, and trying to reclaim any of it is an exercise in futility.

I could not disagree with you more. Clearly, Mark Gottlieb has stated that original intent is an important determining factor for whether or not cards get erratum. Trying to reclaim original intent, original functionality, and/or printed wordings have been a motivating factor for a series of recent Oracle updates and therefore spurring a discussion on this topic is not an exercise in futility. Furthermore, since this forum primarily caters to Vintage and Legacy, we cannot just throw out all pre-6th edition cards and their wordings.

Currently, Mox Diamond's Oracle wording does not match its printed text. It does not match its original intent. It does not match its original functionality. Because it does not match any of these, I feel that its Oracle wording is inadequate and should be changed to reflect one of those. Reflecting any one of those is better than reflecting none of them.

[Smmenen]

I'd like to commend you for a very well written and thoughtful article on this issue.  Given how modest the solution you call for is, your article is a little bit esoteric/pedantic, but nonetheless important for the principle of the matter.

Your introduction drew parallel comparisons between Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond, but you stopped discussing Vale.  Do you think that Vale should also get similar errata?  There are CIP triggers caused by lands such as Ankh, which was mentioned in your article.

On the other hand, the point made by Norm4eva was not quite addressed.   It was not that he was suggesting that all of the instants should be changed or whatever, but that to a certain extent, this whole enterprise is flawed.   Getting functionality back to pre-6E rules is, on some level, a fools errand.   You used to be able to Mana Drain and your opponent could not respond with Lightning Bolt.  On some level, that makes Mana Drain a weaker card relative to Lighting Bolt in terms of functionality compared to what it once was. 

Your answer, below, I don't think really answers that claim, although it raises another subset of interesting points:

Clearly, Mark Gottlieb has stated that original intent is an important determining factor for whether or not cards get erratum. Trying to reclaim original intent, original functionality, and/or printed wordings have been a motivating factor for a series of recent Oracle updates and therefore spurring a discussion on this topic is not an exercise in futility. Furthermore, since this forum primarily caters to Vintage and Legacy, we cannot just throw out all pre-6th edition cards and their wordings.

Currently, Mox Diamond's Oracle wording does not match its printed text. It does not match its original intent. It does not match its original functionality. Because it does not match any of these, I feel that its Oracle wording is inadequate and should be changed to reflect one of those. Reflecting any one of those is better than reflecting none of them.

To some extent and in some cases the three factors you described, original intent, original functionality, and printed wordings are in tension. 

The whole Time Vault debacle began not with an intent to restore the original functionality or even the entire printing wording and certainly not the original intent, but to match only a part of the printed wording/original functionality with the wording of another card: Mana Vault.   

More importantly, the whole basis for this shift in policy was not really to restore original functionality, since that is an arcane and pedantic goal, but to ensure that new players looking at old cards would be able to piece together just what the hell they did.   
This was the rationale that Buehler came here and articulated on these forums.   

That rationale seems to contradict this:

However, original intent and function will always trump the printed text.

My criticisms are not intended to provoke an argument because I thought that your article was well written and I pretty much agree with what you say, but I think that there are bigger, more fundamental philosophical, almost epistemological and metaphysical issues lurking behind these debates that need to be illuminated as well. 

[Smmenen]

My teammate Kevin Cron has pointed out something that I didn't think of when I was reading your article.

I copy his post in its entirety:

Kevin: Polynomial P has written an interesting article on the mana drain about this:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=35600.0

Thoughts?

It's a well written summary.

I have a real problem with part of Aaron's summary:

Under pre-Sixth Edition rules, comes-into-play costs—much like phase costs such as echo—had to be paid before any of a permanent's abilities could be used. Lotus Vale and company could never be tapped for mana without paying the proper costs, and so their current Oracle wordings reflect only the changing rules, not changing functionality. By contrast, Phyrexian Dreadnought doesn't have any activated abilities

(emphasis mine)

I have a real problem with people/companies/governments/religions/gameshows citing so-called principles and then only applying them where convenient.

Aaron's logic is obviously unwound when other cards grant Dreadnought said abilities.  If you have Citanul Heirophants in play and Anger in your graveyard, Dreadnought has an ability that you can use during the window between it coming into play and being sacrificed.

Clearly, they have inconsistently applied their historical interpretation of the pre-6th CiP rules.  This completely clear to me and should be to everyone else.

All of that said, the best part of Polynomial P's article is this sentence: 

Now, it wouldn’t be fair for me to complain about Mox Diamond without offering some solutions.

I believe that he has ignored another simple solution: unerrata Mox Diamond in EXACTLY the same way that they have done for Dreadnought.  Printed wording FTW.  Then ban it in Legacy and give us a new Lotus Petal/Mox hybrid in T1.


This solution follows the Dreadnought/Flash precedent.  Problem is, it should also apply to Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins.   Shahrazad has taught us that they are willing to ban more cards,  so just unerrata Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins; restrict them all and watch what happens.


Either that, or write us a response for this errata question that is HONEST.

Kevin's point about Dreadnaught having NOT been restored to original functionality is really well put.   If we were to accept your proposed errata for Time Vault - at least the one proposed by MattTheGreat, then doesn't that mean that Dreadnaught needs to be re-errated, yet again?

I mean, it follows as a matter of basic logic.

[Polynomial P]

Thanks for the comments Steve.

I'd like to commend you for a very well written and thoughtful article on this issue.  Given how modest the solution you call for is, your article is a little bit esoteric/pedantic, but nonetheless important for the principle of the matter.

Your introduction drew parallel comparisons between Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond, but you stopped discussing Vale.  Do you think that Vale should also get similar errata?  There are CIP triggers caused by lands such as Ankh, which was mentioned in your article.

I chose to focus this article on Mox Diamond because it sees more play than Lotus Vale or Scorched Ruins. That in and of itself is not a reason to push for errata on Mox Diamond over any other card that deserves a new Oracle text, but because, in my opinion, it is perfect card to rally behind. I also wanted to make the argument as coherent, simple, and linear as possible in order to make it clear that there is an easy fix for Mox Diamond. Very similar arguments can be made to Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins as well, and I would hope that if a WotC rules team member is persuaded by my arguments to take a second look at Mox Diamond then they would also re-open the case on Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins as well.

On the other hand, the point made by Norm4eva was not quite addressed.   It was not that he was suggesting that all of the instants should be changed or whatever, but that to a certain extent, this whole enterprise is flawed.   Getting functionality back to pre-6E rules is, on some level, a fools errand.   You used to be able to Mana Drain and your opponent could not respond with Lightning Bolt.  On some level, that makes Mana Drain a weaker card relative to Lighting Bolt in terms of functionality compared to what it once was. 

Maybe norm4eva's claims carry more weight than I had originally gave him credit for. But since we are using many cards from pre-6th edition how are we supposed to interpret them? I dont claim to have the answer to that, but I think that they should be interpreted consistently. I think we have had a pretty consistent method of interpreting how instants from pre-6th function and have had a consistent interpretation of how the interrupts function as well. However, take a look at the printed text of Mox diamond, Lotus Vale, and Pyrexian Dreadnought:

 -When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.
 -When Lotus Vale comes into play, sacrifice two untapped lands or bury Lotus Vale.
 -When Phyrexian Dreadnought comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures with total power of 12 or more, or bury Phyrexian Dreadnought.

If you look at the current Oracle wordings on Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, and Phyrexian dreadnought we now have 3 different interpretations. One is an additional cost to play, one is a replacement effect, and one is a triggered ability. So maybe trying to get back the original function of pre-6th cards is a fool's undertaking, but having a consistent translation of how pre-6th edition cards work under post-6th edition rules is incredibly important because it allows a new player with knowledge of how one card functions to extrapolate that ruling to how other cards, with very similar printed text, function.


Maybe that is what wizards was trying to accomplish with the time vault errata. I think that is what Wizards *should* do with Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and Phyrexian Dreadnought.

However, original intent and function will always trump the printed text.

I somewhat regret making that remark. But, let me try to articulate what I was thinking. Printed text is the easiest part of a card to try to understand. At times that printed text is just plain wrong, due to templating errors (Impulse), misprints (Japanese Cursed Scroll), or rendered obsolete (Interrupts). So, how are we to interpret cards that fall under this category? I would say that original function is important because we know how cards used to function before changes in rules. Clearly, that is not always the deciding factor, as evidenced by the way that counterspells now work. Using original intent to determine how a card currently functions is even less useful than printed text or original function because that introduces a level of subjectivity to the equation. Did the designers want Abeyance to shut off lands or not? How are we to know that? How can we even refute the claim that they did not want Abeyance to shut off lands?

So what matters? Original intent? Original function? Printed text?


******EDIT: It should be noted that these are the three most reasonable criteria to determine what a card does. I can't really think of other things that should matter and please correct me if I am wrong. Printed text, original function, and original intent make sense to me. My particular problem is that Mox Diamond, and by proxy lotus vale and scorched ruins, do not match printed text, original function, or, as far as I can determine, original intent. The current oracle wording might as well say "Deal 3 damage to your opponent" and it would make as much sense to me as what the current oracle wording says. I would go on to argue that the oracle wording on all cards should match at least one of these three criteria.*******


If you wanted an answer you are going to be seriously disappointed. I don't know.

But I think we at least deserve consistency in interpretations. Time Vault now matches up with how Mana Vault and Brass man work. Counterspell and Mana Drain now work in the same way that Cryptic Command and Cancel work. Shouldn't it be the same for Mox Diamond and Phyrexian Dreadnought?

If not...then why not? Wouldn't someone who reads Phyrexian Dreadnought and knows how it currently works try to apply that same understanding to Lotus Vale?






So personally, I do like Matt's wording on Mox Diamond. And I suppose that if WotC does decide to errata Mox Diamond to the wording that Matt suggests, then yes, Dreadnought needs to be erratta-ed yet again. Hopefully, though, the understanding of one of those four cards will be enough to figure out how the other three function and we will have an understanding of how old cards that have that particular printed text translates into post 6th edition rules.

And if WotC de-erratas Mox Diamond into the same wording as Dreadnought. I can accept that. Bottom line is that the Oracle wording on these cards should be the same.

[Troy_Costisick]

And if WotC de-erratas Mox Diamond into the same wording as Dreadnought. I can accept that. Bottom line is that the Oracle wording on these cards should be the same.

I think you'll get most to agree with that sentiment.  For me, personally, I am inclined to agree with what I think Steven and Kevin are saying in that the printed text should be how the card functions in play.  That's the easiest, most consistent, and IMHO fun way for these cards to function.  As for original intent and original function, consider the following cards:

Fork
Ichneumon Druid
Avoid Fate
Ring of Immortals
Burnout
Sirocco

The number of cards they affect and interact with are far greater than what they were before the 6th edition rules changes.  Fork could never counter a counterspell.  Avoid Fate was practically useless.  That all changed.  I wrote Mike Turian a letter specifically about Lotus Vale, Mox Diamond, and Schorched Ruins a couple months ago when Steven wrote his article on the Banned/Restricted list just before the March announcements.  He thanked me and said that I should post it somewhere on the 'net for people to give feedback on.  I haven't gotten around to it yet.  I wasn't sure what site would be best.  But suffice to say, it looks l like it's a topic that's been discussed a great deal here and other places.  I hope this discussion prompts action at WotC RnD this June.

Peace,

Troy

[ashiXIII]

Mox Diamond  0
Artifact
When Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land.
If you do, it gains, "Tap: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."
If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond.

I think this works pretty well.

[Norm4eva]

Steve's reposting of Kevin Cron's opinions are an excellent echo of most of my sentiments about the whole issue.
Hopefully, without getting longwinded about the issue, I will attempt to succinctly sum up my grievances with the subject at hand:

Once upon a time, Wizards knowingly, intentionally, for better or worse, changed the way the game was to be played.  At least two types of cards - interrupts and mana sources - were removed from the game, in favor of a system that I generally believe to be far more intuitive in handling virtually every game action.  Within this set of changes, there were functions which were allowed to prosper - case in point the Mana Drain --> Lightning Bolt as brought up by Steve.  Forget about card innovations or new card types for a moment; even if another new card hadn't been printed since 6th Edition, all those in print would already have a changed dynamic.  It's not just Instant vs Interrupt; it's the stack, it's handling damage prevention, it's handling triggered abilities.  They changed the rules, understanding fully that new interactions were abound.
The problem comes in when we start talking about original intent versus current wording.  Waylay is a fine example of this.  There was a time when it was regarded as a tad degenerate; before the rules change, those token men could not be played in a manner that allowed them to attack the next turn.  Their functionality was changed along with every other Instant in the game; it's not as if Waylay is the only Instant that can be played after "at end of turn" effects have been checked.  Tournament play evidently made the card seem pretty busted, though - I never saw it myself, I wasn't playing at the time - but instead of giving it the Skullclamp treatment they gave it a really clunky, heavily altering errata.  It was sort of a "oh, whoops, we didn't really realize that you could do that now." And it was justified by saying that the intent of the card was to create Instant speed blockers, since that's all you could have done with it prior to 6th.
The intent of card thing gets played on both sides of the field.  When used to issue errata, it's virtually the means and the end of the argument.  When using as a means of defending original wording - as in Worldgorger Dragon - it is often argued that the intent of the card is clearly printed for all to see.
Neither card, by varied definition, is used "as intended" - WGD never swings for the win, and Waylay was used as a White Ball Lightning.  WGD keeps its wording because "it was intended to remove all permanents from play, and that's what it does".  Waylay was issued errata because "it was intended to be an Instant line of defense, as it was before the change", although that is not implied in any way within the pertinent, game-affecting text on the card.  The only reason to issue errata to Waylay is because of relative power level concerns - the thing WotC insists no longer enters into the equation.
Now, the WGD itself is not quite as clean a comparison as others because it was not around before 7th Ed.  But it is an example of how "original intent" can be turned into a tool for either side of the argument, and therefore in my mind is somewhat of a red herring when it comes down to errata arguments.
There seems to me only one system by which we can gauge what the proper course of action in any cases of pre- 6th errata.

(a) Understand that WotC knew, in fact intended, that every Instant, mana source, Interrupt, activated/triggered ability, etc... was going to function differently under the new rules.
(b) Use the card, as worded, in the formats it is accessible in.**
(c) When problems arise, determine if they are related to a power level or language.  Has the card simply ceased to work under the new rules?  If the problem is comparable to finding an error in the code of a computer program, and the game or card simply stops working, hit the drawing board.
(d) If the problem is simply one of pure cardboard power, deal with it according to the format.  Sideboard.  Find tech.  If that doesn't work, Vintage restricts.  Legacy bans.


**The obvious glitch in the system is the 'plain english' of older Magic cards.  However I find that to be a separate discussion since in such instances we really do have to, in most cases, begin to discuss original intent and derive meaning from abstract divination.  However, I do not think that this applies to any Magic card which clearly demonstrates the more algorithmic nature of Magic's preferred template.

[Anusien]

[00:05] <LeeSharpe> btw
[00:05] <LeeSharpe> New Oracle wording:
[00:05] <LeeSharpe> If Mox Diamond would come into play, discard a land card instead. If you do, put Mox Diamond into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
[00:05] <LeeSharpe> {oT}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
[00:05] <LeeSharpe> it's on the website

I can't load the site yet or I'd post the link.

[goobafish]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/453a

New Oracle wording:
If Mox Diamond would come into play, discard a land card instead. If you do, put Mox Diamond into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
{oT}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

Also important to note:

New Uba Mask Oracle wording:
If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up with a mask counter on it instead.
Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn.

[ErkBek]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/453a

New Oracle wording:
If Mox Diamond would come into play, discard a land card instead. If you do, put Mox Diamond into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
{oT}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

Awesome. Mox Diamond is now significantly better and back to its original intent. The wording of "discard a land card instead" is a little awkward but that's fine.

[Yare]

I haven't looked at the article that closely, but I think I have to give my seal of approval from what I glanced over.  Thumbs up for this one (pending further revelations).

[Matt]

Well it's not perfect, but it's close enough for me - I hated walking my "one land, one mox" hands into Daze. Also I might want to try it out in storm decks, so my primary two uses I was being denied have been restored.

[pyr0ma5ta]

It would appear that "ask and ye shall receive" is the order of the day on Mox Diamond.  However....

New Uba Mask Oracle wording:
If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up with a mask counter on it instead.
Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn.

The Mask x2 + Welder lock no longer works, and this makes me frowny inside.

[XdeckX]

the new Uba Mask wording makes me a sad panda as well...

[MadManiac21]

It would appear that "ask and ye shall receive" is the order of the day on Mox Diamond.  However....

New Uba Mask Oracle wording:
If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up with a mask counter on it instead.
Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn.

The Mask x2 + Welder lock no longer works, and this makes me frowny inside.

WTF! Bullshit.

I'd gladly trade back the Mox Diamond wording for this.

[BC]

It would appear that "ask and ye shall receive" is the order of the day on Mox Diamond.  However....

New Uba Mask Oracle wording:
If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up with a mask counter on it instead.
Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn.

The Mask x2 + Welder lock no longer works, and this makes me frowny inside.

That does tremendously suck.  Just a clarification, though, if I weld Uba for something non-Uba they can't play their card, right? (as long as there are no Uba in play)