Dear Wizards, please fix Mox Diamond

[Anusien]

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)

Yes, because the "You may play the card" ability is on Uba Mask, not on the ability that removed the card from the game.

[meadbert]

Right, so actually if you Weld out one Uba for another Uba then they still cannot play their card because the Uba Mask that they RFGed their draw to is no longer in play.  The Uba Mask that you RFGed your card to must be in play.  It is not good enough for any Uba Mask to be in play.

This get really complicated if you have multiple Uba Masks in play and if there are many draws going on at once.  This use to happen all the time when I played with Uba Land.

For instance if you have 2 Uba Masks in play and activate Memory Jar I actually have no idea which player chooses to RFG cards to various Uba at which point.  This can actually be relevant because if you have an activate Welder (or any way to remove an Uba) and you see your oppenent RFG Drain to one Uba you can Weld it out.  (Force is irrelevant unless they can hardcast it since they will presumably have no hand)

My interpretation of the rules is that each each draw is distinct and they occur "at the same time."  The active play must make RFG decisions first.  This seems to mean that starting with you, each of you chooses an Uba to RFG the next card to and then draws.  This means there are 14 iterations if you have two Ubas out and Twister/Wheel/Jar was just used.  I have probably asked a half dozen judges about this and I seem to get different answers every time.

[Matt]

Right, so actually if you Weld out one Uba for another Uba then they still cannot play their card because the Uba Mask that they RFGed their draw to is no longer in play.  The Uba Mask that you RFGed your card to must be in play.  It is not good enough for any Uba Mask to be in play.

No.

1. The new Uba Mask will still grant the ability "Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn",
2. those cards will still  have been removed from the game this turn, and
3. they will still have Mask counters on them,

so they can still be played. You have to invalidate one of those three things for the cards to be unplayable. If you weld the only Mask into a non-Mask card, you'll invalidate #1.
If the turn ends, #2 is invalidated.
If you uh...play Pull From Eternity, get the RFG card, and pitch it to FOW, the card will still have been RFG this turn but #3 will be invalidated.

[BC]

1. The new Uba Mask will still grant the ability "Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn",
2. those cards will still  have been removed from the game this turn, and
3. they will still have Mask counters on them,

so they can still be played. You have to invalidate one of those three things for the cards to be unplayable.

This is also how I understand the new wording.  So Uba Mask is neutered in its most advanced function, but under most circumstances it will still do what it has always done.  Kinda sucks, but I'll live.

[zeus-online]

"Slightly" harder to lock someone with mask....kinda sucks, although i've never played uba stax...

/Zeus

[Anusien]

Matt is correct:

[18:12] <Lee|work> basically it's that
[18:12] <Lee|work> the cards aren't removed "with Uba Mask"
[18:12] <Lee|work> they're removed with whatever was causing them to go to the graveyard in the first place
[18:12] <Lee|work> so referring to them as "cards removed with Uba Mask" doesn't work
[18:12] <Lee|work> so we used mask counters instead
[18:12] <Lee|work> same with shaared fate and fate counters
[18:13] <Lee|work> seemed like the easiest solution

[DarkfnTemplar]

Man, I was so planning on playing mono red vroman stax for worlds too....
looks like im stuck with icky again....

[meadbert]

Regarding Uba Mask:  Wow!  That really sucks!

Does anyone know why on Earth Uba Mask was errated?

[Anusien]

From TFA:

Shared Fate and Uba Mask
If some part of an effect is replaced due to a replacement effect, the source of the effect is unchanged. It doesn't switch over to where the replacement effect came from. This led us to errata Void Maw a while back. Void Maw said "If another creature would be put into a graveyard from play, remove it from the game instead." Then it referred to cards removed from the game "with" Void Maw. But let's say Void Maw is in play and you Terror an Atog. Void Maw doesn't remove that Atog from the game . . . Terror removes it from the game! Void Maw just changed what Terror's effect was. That meant that no cards would be removed from the game "with" Void Maw, and its third ability would never work. It got errata so it could use counters to track the cards removed from the game this way.

Shared Fate and Uba Mask need errata for the same reason. This will change how they work if there are multiples out and one leaves play (for example), but their basic functionality is preserved as closely as possible.

New Shared Fate Oracle wording:
If a player would draw a card, that player removes the top card of an opponent's library from the game face down with a fate counter on it instead.
Each player may look at and play each card with a fate counter on it he or she removed from the game.

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.

[meadbert]

I see so"

"Each player may remove cards that he or she removed from the game WITH UBA MASK this turn."

The problem was that Uba Mask was not technicallly doing the removing.  The source of the removing remained whatever the source of the draw was, so if you Brainstormed then Brainstorm removed 3 cards from the game and Uba Mask removed none.  The old literal interpretation would have basically meant that all draws became RFGs and you could never play an Ubaed card unless Uba Mask itself somehow caused you to draw.

Would there be a way to fix this without the counters and that keeps Uba Lock around?

[BigBarn]

Can't it just say "if you would draw a card, Uba Mask removes the top card of your library from the game instead"?

[Smmenen]

Can't it just say "if you would draw a card, Uba Mask removes the top card of your library from the game instead"?

Yes.  But the problem is that, according to Gottlieb and (the rules), the source of the "RFG" would remain the draw, not the Uba Mask.   

I think this could be solved by simplying changing the rules rather than changing the card.  When a replacement effect changes an effect, I think it should impute multiple source causation rather than still assuming a single source. 

[meadbert]

What about imprint?

Could a draw be replaced with RFG the top card of your library and imprint it on Uba Mask.

Each player may play cards that:
1: they own
2: are imprinted on Uba Mask and
3: were RFGed this turn

EDIT:  As part of the playing process the card would have to be unimprinted from  Uba Mask.

Would this work within the current rules?  This seems to preserve the old behavior better.

[meadbert]

So I did a little bit of research regarding imprint.  Since my only experience with imprint comes from Duplicant and Isochron Scepter I was unaware of its other uses.  I had three main concerns.

1:  Can multiple cards be imprinted at once.
2:  Is there any precedence for cards becoming unimprinted.
3:  Can you imprint cards you do not own.

Spellweaver Helix can imprint two cards at once so that answers #1.
Summoner's Egg is an example where a creature card becomes unimprinted and comes into play.
Duplicant obviously takes care of #3.  Mourner's Shield also can imprint cards you do not own.

With those questioned answers it seems that imprint could be the solution that most closely mirrors the original behavior. 

For any of you rules lawyers out there, would this work?

[vroman]

damnit! my 200+ uba mask collection will crash in value!
although ubastax hasnt been competitive for a long time now, its disapointing to have the deck fundamentally nerfed forever by rules changes.

[meadbert]

although ubastax hasnt been competitive for a long time now, its disapointing to have the deck fundamentally nerfed forever by rules changes.

Uba Stax was great!
Control Slaver doesn't exist.
Other Stax decks are running Metalworker instead of Welders.
Uba Mask hoses Gush and Ponder.
Thoughtseize is not particularly threatening.
Uba Stax had never been better!

If this is the end of Uba Stax then I would like to give you props for a deck very well designed!  I had years of fun playing it and will miss it dearly.

[Smmenen]

I hate to bring it up... but how does it make sense to restore the functionality of Mox Diamond, but to not do the same to Time Vault?   

[xycsoscyx]

They're probably just sick of Time Vault in general and don't want to touch it anymore. 

[vroman]

in order to keep the uba-welder lock viable, they could have made this the rules text:

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.
When Uba Mask leaves play, remove all mask counters from removed from game cards.

[meadbert]

Now there is one inconsistency with that.

If there are Two Ubas in play and I Brainstorm then I can RFG 1 card to the first Uba and 2 cards to the second Uba.  With your wording, welding out either Uba would make all 3 cards unplayable.


I agree that this is still closer to the original intent than the current oracle text though.

Do you all think the imprint idea won't work?

[BC]

When Uba Mask leaves play, remove all mask counters from removed from game cards.

To address meadbert's concern it could say:

"If at any time there are no cards named Uba Mask in play, remove all mask counters from cards that are removed from the game"

[meadbert]

Then the Uba Lock would not work since at no point are there 0 Uba Masks in play.

Before the Welder activation resolves Uba A is in play and after the Welder activation resolves Uba B is in play.

[Yare]

I hate to bring it up... but how does it make sense to restore the functionality of Mox Diamond, but to not do the same to Time Vault?   

Honestly, regardless of whether they believe Time Vault was rightly or wrongly errataed, I think they have just decided to let Time Vault be as it is (for whatever reason). Time Vault will never be changed again.

I would love to be proven wrong, though.

Oh, and I also concur that the rules should be changed regarding Uba Mask rather than errataing the card.  I was not even aware of any issues with Uba Mask until this errata was announced.

[Smmenen]

I hate to bring it up... but how does it make sense to restore the functionality of Mox Diamond, but to not do the same to Time Vault?   

Honestly, regardless of whether they believe Time Vault was rightly or wrongly errataed, I think they have just decided to let Time Vault be as it is (for whatever reason). Time Vault will never be changed again.

What gives you that belief?

It is an astonishing logical inconsistency to restore every other cards functionality, but not Time Vault. 

[coyoteuglly]

The printed text on time vault is

"Tap to gain an additional turn after the current one.  Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase: to untap it, you must skip a turn. Time Vault begins tapped."

While I can't argue that the errata definitely does not preserve the originally functionality of the card.  I do believe that is is the original intent and flavor of the card very well.  You are basically banking a turn in the Vault and withdrawing it later.  I also really don't think that it was done as power level errata.  In a weird backwards kind of way I think they did restore the way Time Vault functions.

People can whine and bitch and moan about not being able to combo this with Fusillade anymore all they want, as far as I am concerned.  The main reason they are changing Mox Diamond is because it doesn't work the same way as similar cards of it's era.  Gotilleb says it better than I can ever hope to:

Mox Diamond
Mox Diamond was printed with the ability "When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond." If you interpreted that ability under the modern rules system, you could play Mox Diamond, let the ability trigger, tap it for mana, then let the ability resolve and sacrifice it without discarding a land. It's one free mana! But under the rules system in place at the time Mox Diamond was printed, you couldn't do that. When the rules system changed, Mox Diamond got errata so it'd kinda work the same way. But that wording was a pretty significant functional change from how it was printed with regard to any effect that would put Mox Diamond directly into play.

Other cards from Mox Diamond's era, like Kjeldoran Outpost and Lotus Vale, got no-shenanigans wordings that prevented them from coming into play (and thus being tapped for mana) unless you fulfilled their sacrifice costs. Mox Diamond is getting a wording like that, to keep it as true to its era and its printed wording as possible. (It's still not exactly the same as the printed functionality, but it's closer.)

[Smmenen]

What does Flame Fusilade have to do with this?  The original functionality is not comboing Flame Fusilade. 

The Mox Diamond errata, and Polynomial P, demonstrated, needed functionality errata update.

They are going through and restoring functionality. 

It is 100% logically inconsistent to have a policy of restoring functionality on Mox Diamond and every other card they just errated, but not Time Vault. 

[coyoteuglly]

What does Flame Fusilade have to do with this?  The original functionality is not comboing Flame Fusilade. 

The Mox Diamond errata, and Polynomial P, demonstrated, needed functionality errata update.

They are going through and restoring functionality. 

It is 100% logically inconsistent to have a policy of restoring functionality on Mox Diamond and every other card they just errated, but not Time Vault. 

To me the main point they have been trying to drive home (it seems to me at least) is they are removing power level errata not all errata.

[Yare]

I hate to bring it up... but how does it make sense to restore the functionality of Mox Diamond, but to not do the same to Time Vault?   

Honestly, regardless of whether they believe Time Vault was rightly or wrongly errataed, I think they have just decided to let Time Vault be as it is (for whatever reason). Time Vault will never be changed again.

What gives you that belief?

It is an astonishing logical inconsistency to restore every other cards functionality, but not Time Vault. 

Well, I guess I have a couple of theories.  One, as you may recall, is that the Vintage community (and collectors in general) got so upset about it.  I feel like this pushes it more toward the "don't change it" end of the spectrum because it would be an affirmation that they were in fact wrong.  That, and it would ruffle some feathers among people who got rid of their Time Vaults for whatever value they have dropped to.  Two, the rules manager(s) may actually believe that Time Vault functions as it should and therefore would not change it.

I guess I just get the impression that the issue has been definitively decided from the rules manager(s)' point of view, no matter how many articles we write, arguments we suggest, or threads we make.  At this point it's just our view (and the rehashing thereof) against their view, and unfortunately they have the only vote.  This post may read like my "gut sense" (and probably should read that way), but that's just what I perceive, for whatever it's worth.

Oh, and one more thing.  If we want to get on the fix Time Vault train again, I suggest we start another thread to make another decisive push rather than just kind of mentioning it incidentally here.  I mean, why spoil all the fixed Mox Diamond fun by digging up the past here?   I would suggest making some sort of community-wide statement regarding our position on Time Vault.  Then again, you already wrote a treatise on it, and we know how far that got.   I'm willing to give it one more try though.

[Xman]

I think one of the most interesting things about Mox Diamond now is the Welder tricks.  Well, by your opponent at least.  You had better not have it in the 'yard & any artifact you need in play.  By welding it into play, it will force its controller to discard a land or Mox Diamond goes back to the 'yard.  Could pose a problem for whoever is using it.

And speaking of which, what decks actually would use Mox Diamond?  Still has a decent cost to go along with it.

As for the Time Vault argument, if it ever gets errated, then great.  Throw me in the group that says another thread for a serious push works.  Though I do agree with Steve when he says that the errata fix should work for all cards, not all cards sans Time Vault.

[Smmenen]

What does Flame Fusilade have to do with this?  The original functionality is not comboing Flame Fusilade. 

The Mox Diamond errata, and Polynomial P, demonstrated, needed functionality errata update.

They are going through and restoring functionality. 

It is 100% logically inconsistent to have a policy of restoring functionality on Mox Diamond and every other card they just errated, but not Time Vault. 

To me the main point they have been trying to drive home (it seems to me at least) is they are removing power level errata not all errata.

That's not the main point that they have been trying to drive home.  Go read the most recent errata changes.   

The absolute 100% crystal clear goal is restoring functionality.  Given the last year and half of errata, what gave you the impression otherwise (since you say "it seems to me at least")?

@ David:

I think the big difference is that we were fighting a different battle two years ago.   The fight then was to bring Time Vault back to its text.   

Since it is now clear that wizards only cares about functionality, it's a whole new ball game. 

EDIT: "now" incorrectly read "Not" - I fixed my post :p