On the Errata of Null Rod and Abeyance

[The Atog Lord]

Polynomial P wrote and interesting thread about Mox Diamond and its power level errata. Power Level errata is, of course, near and dear to my heart. Therefore, I wanted to make a post about an issue that I've been considering recently: Null Rod and Abeyance.

Let's look at the Original and Oracle wordings of these two cards, both of which have seen and do see constructed play.

Null Rod's Original Wording:
Players cannot play any artifact abilities requiring an activation cost.

Null Rod's Oracle Wording:
Activated abilities of artifacts can't be played.

Abeyance's Original Wording:
Until end of turn, target player cannot play instants, interrupts, sorceries, or abilities requiring an activation cost.
Draw a card.

Abeyance's Oracle Wording:
Until end of turn, target player can't play instants, sorceries, or activated abilities that aren't mana abilities.
Draw a card.

Do you spot the inconsistency? Both Abeyance and Null Rod, as printed, prevent Moxen from working for the turn.
However, under current errata, only Null Rod does stop Moxen.
Therefore, it is quite clear that we have a problem; due to errata, the two cards which clearly have the same effect on a Mox from their written text in fact affect Moxen quite differently.

One might argue that Abeyance was changed because it is too powerful as printed. In that case, let it be reverted. It would certainly still be far less powerful than Flash, which was allowed to return to its former wording.

Or, one might argue that at the time of its printing, activated abilities were understood to exclude mana abilities. I don't believe that this is the case, but even if it were, then Null Rod should also be changed to exclude mana abilities.

There is no scenario under which the impact of Abeyance and Null Rod should be any different on a Seat of the Synod. The fact that there is at the moment a different indicates a hole in the errata system used by Wizards. Wizards has made laudable steps to fix the broken history of its errata, and making these two cards sync up would be a further step in that direction.

[Polynomial P]

So should Abeyance prevent someone from tapping a forest?

The reason I singled out Mox Diamond is that it was easy to determine the original functionality of the card, which is very much in line with what I perceived as original intent. Original intent, however, is far more subjective as evidenced by the vehement debates over Time Vault. I am afraid that while the original functionality of Abeyance was that it prevented the use of anything that required an activation cost, that may not be the original intent of the card. Wizards currently has been siding with 'original intent' over 'original function' in several instances, including Time Vault, Abeyance, and Waylay.

Additionally, many of the cards that have received errata were affected by the 6th edition rules changes.

[Shock Wave]

It seems to me that the whole mess with the errata system stems from Wizard's refusal to issue power level errata or errata in general. I understand that Wizards currently does extensive research to prevent the printing of cards that will require errata in the future, but that does not include cards that feel through the cracks many years ago and that clearly require errata for one reason or another. Null Rod and Abeyance are two perfect examples. Under their original wording, they do not have the effects which they are clearly meant to apply, unless I am totally misunderstanding and moxen were supposed to function as normal with a Null Rod in play.

There is clear inconsistency in the manner by which Wizards chooses to address the issue of errata. Certain cards are addressed, while others are either conveniently or unintentionally overlooked.

To my mind, what makes the most sense is the abolishment of the errata policy. It's time that Wizards acknowledges that the card design process is not flawless and that issuing card errata, for power level or other reasons, is not the end of the world. Issuing card errata allows R&D to be human and make mistakes. I don't think that is an unreasonable margin for error.

[Matt]

Moxen had nothing to do with Abeyance. The problem was that Abeyance turned off lands, which was never intended - the playtesters hadn't realized that lands would be affected. It was never the intent that Abeyance turn off mana abilities at all, while Null Rod was always intended to do so.

Also, R&D has no problem issuing errata, only power level errata. For example, Impulse has received errata (no shuffle), as have Waylay, Thawing Glaciers, Relic Bind, Psychic Battle, and some silly red enchantment, the name of which escapes me.

Mox Diamond functions differently than was originally intended, and has a ready fix (make it work like the Ravnica duals with an "as" clause). Abeyance currently does exactly what it was always meant to do, so it's not a problem.

If you want to bitch about an inconsistent policy of theirs, the major, gaping inconsistency is that they hate to do power-level errata because then the cards won't do what's printed, yet they have no problem completely fucking with the creature types on old cards, even when they're not reprinting them. THAT is a problem for anyone who plays without Oracle/Gatherer handy.

[Apollyon]

The issue with all cards before Mercadian Masques is that some of them were created within the frameworks of pre-6th rules, which worked much differently in some situations than the current rules work. Artifacts no longer "turn off", which sorta made sense, except for the fact that it became really messy with cards like Mana Vault and Grim Monolith. CIP triggers are handled differently. Cards up until around Revised and Legends had issues with templating, or more accurately, the lack thereof.

Magic has been fairly good about errata and using a consistent policy. My one errata issue is with changing the creature types on cards without reprinting them.

PS: Overgrown Tomb and Steam Vents both have errata.

[ErkBek]

Moxen had nothing to do with Abeyance. The problem was that Abeyance turned off lands, which was never intended - the playtesters hadn't realized that lands would be affected. It was never the intent that Abeyance turn off mana abilities at all, while Null Rod was always intended to do so.

Right, cause if it did shut off lands too, you wouldn't be able to play creature spells either because you have no mana.

[LordHomerCat]

Well, ya, Abeyance did turn off lands in addition to moxes, but it did it according to the rules at the time.  It's not like Abeyance was printed and couldn't turn off lands at the time, then the rules changed and it became a straight Time Walk, and so they errataed it to its original function again.  At the time, it turned everything off, so I would have to agree with Rich that, if the object is to return cards to how they were written and how they functioned originally, regardless of how broken, in Flash's case, then Abeyance should go back to its Time Walk status.

As far as I know, there was never the whole 6th ED rules mess to worry about with abeyance, it was just a case of the designers not realizing how the card would be abused.

[Norm4eva]

Original intent doesn't mean shit.
Rancor was supposed to be 2G.  A breakdown in communication at R&D got it printed as G.  Should Rancor receive errata?
Mark Rosewater is on record as saying, "We didn't know Tarmogoyf was going to be Tarmogoyf."  Clearly they did not intend on printing a 1G card that contends with Morphling, Exalted Angel and Goblin Welder as the Best Creature Ever Printed.  Maybe Tarmogoyf deserves errata to restore it to its original intention, of being, you know, pretty good.
I'm sure no one intended for Tooth and Nail to be a serious win condition.  The list goes on.
Point being, where do you draw the line at original intent versus found functionality, and who exactly is qualified to be the decider on these issues when the current policy has glaring inconsistencies?

[Ephraim]

Original intent doesn't mean shit.
Rancor was supposed to be 2G.  A breakdown in communication at R&D got it printed as G.  Should Rancor receive errata?
Mark Rosewater is on record as saying, "We didn't know Tarmogoyf was going to be Tarmogoyf."  Clearly they did not intend on printing a 1G card that contends with Morphling, Exalted Angel and Goblin Welder as the Best Creature Ever Printed.  Maybe Tarmogoyf deserves errata to restore it to its original intention, of being, you know, pretty good.
I'm sure no one intended for Tooth and Nail to be a serious win condition.  The list goes on.
Point being, where do you draw the line at original intent versus found functionality, and who exactly is qualified to be the decider on these issues when the current policy has glaring inconsistencies?

I think that this argument is a bait and switch.  I've never gotten the impression from WotC that "original intent" had any meaning besides "originally intended FUNCTIONALITY."  That's a very different idea than originally intended power level.  Tarmogoyf is better than they expected, but it functions exactly as they intended it to.  Where do you draw the line?  At the point where you start examining anything besides the rules and the text on the card and how that results in a mechanical functionality.

[Matt]

PS: Overgrown Tomb and Steam Vents both have errata.

Do they? What is it? I see nothing on Gatherer.

Well, ya, Abeyance did turn off lands in addition to moxes, but it did it according to the rules at the time.  It's not like Abeyance was printed and couldn't turn off lands at the time, then the rules changed and it became a straight Time Walk, and so they errataed it to its original function again.  At the time, it turned everything off, so I would have to agree with Rich that, if the object is to return cards to how they were written and how they functioned originally, regardless of how broken, in Flash's case, then Abeyance should go back to its Time Walk status.

Do you also feel that Impulse (the Beatdown-edition reprint notwithstanding) should shuffle your library?

I hope not, because that would be silly.

The mistake on Abeyance is like the mistake on Impulse or on Psychic Battle. It isn't the same kind of thing as Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, or Waylay (all of which worked just fine prior to 6th edition, and only became problematic under the new ruleset), and it sure as shit isn't the same kind of "mistake" as Tarmogoyf or Skullclamp.

[Norm4eva]

Intended power level is obviously one of the primary concerns of theirs.  Why else do Waylay tokens have substance, why did Time Vault get a plethora of odd iterations even after the big "check it out, no more power level errata" announcement (and still not match the wording of Mana Vault which is practically word-for-word identical under the 'plain english' of old magic cards), Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, etc?
I posted about this on another thread but I'll sum up.  Wizards entirely understood that the nature of Instants/Interrupts/Activated abilities/etc etc... was going to change with the 6th Ed rules, in fact they were counting on it as a means of making the game execution simpler.  I have a problem when people start talking "original (quality)" and forgetting that every Instant printed before 6th Ed no longer works as it used to.  You couldn't win an Instant war, let alone a counter war, with draw spells - in order to draw cards, you had to let the batch resolve.  You couldn't StP in response to Counterspell; Counterspell was an Interrupt.  You couldn't use cards with activated abilities before CiP costs were paid; that list, as well, drags on and on.  The game fundamentally changed, very consciously, and I feel for the better - but without a great deal of that "original, intended functionality".  Yet somehow, we have these interactions between cards and the rules that just won't fly.  You can't let Mox Diamond be a bad Lotus Petal, even as a one-of in Vintage.  We can't have these Waylay tokens running around, RUINING THE METAGAME with their Ball Lightning goodness.  Blah, blah, insert example of someone's pet card here.  You get the point.  I fail to see why Waylay requires substance errata but Shock requires no "This cannot be played with a Blue instant on the stack" errata; if power level is NOT a concern, and original intent has already been tossed in favor of a more flexible, in my view more functional system, where do you draw the line, indeed?  It's clearly NOT at the borders of the cardboard, and the rules?  Changed.  Purposefully.  Allowed to apply to 95% of all other cards, just... not these guys over here, the known offenders which require special attention.
The Tarmogoyf example was over the top, but it's an illustration of extrapolation.  There's nothing written on Mox Diamond that says, "By the way, even though we knew we were changing the rules, this card was meant to work THIS way."  There's no reason to assume Waylay was meant to be a defensive card given its original rules text - shit, the word Waylay even means to ambush.  No, these cards DON'T work the same way as they did under the old rules, but you know what?  Neither do a slew of cards with activated abilities, or Instants, or the handling of triggered abilities.  This sort of thing is entirely about power level.  This is about squeaky wheels getting greased.
@ Matt: the errata is silly.  They leave out the word instead.  "If you don't, CARDNAME comes into play untapped instead."

[Matt]

Mox Diamond is a special case because there is errata available which COULD make it work both as it originally functioned and as intended (which, prior to 6th edition, the same thing). I'm confident that it's only a matter of time before they correct that oversight.

As far as the Ravnica duals go...actually, according to Gatherer, Overgrown Tomb and Steam Vents are the only duals that DON'T have errata. The Gatherer/Oracle wording for all of them leaves off "instead", so it's those other duals who have 'extra' words, not OT that has one too few.

[Toad]

Regarding the "As" clause on Mox Diamond, I'm not sure this would work. "As" clause are resolved before the permanent is in play, and at that point I don't think you would be able to sacrifice it. This is why you get to name a card with Meddling Mage under Humility, or why Overgrown Tomb CIPT if you do not pay 2 life under Blood Moon despite being a Mountain. Fixing Mox Diamond without using ugly design templates such as token or CIPT/untap effects seems pretty hard.

Actually, I'm not even sure the original intent of WOTC was to let someone cast Mox Diamond without discarding. Before Tempest, additional costs were not widely used. There are a lot of non consistent modern templating for all pre 6E cards. See Worthy Cause and Meditate for example, both have the very same template used on the printed card, and now one has an additional cost and the other one an effect.

All Ravnica Block duals have the "instead" word printed on them.

[Godder]

I played Life in Extended for years, and Worthy Cause had the sacrifice as part of the effect for most of that time. It wasn't until relatively recently that it reverted to being an additional cost.

[Matt]

Firestorm, like Meditate and Worthy Cause, also has the extra cost listed with a colon, FWIW.

Regarding the "As" clause on Mox Diamond, I'm not sure this would work. "As" clause are resolved before the permanent is in play, and at that point I don't think you would be able to sacrifice it.

Why not? Also, even if for some reason the Ravnica Dual Wording doesn't work, why wouldn't the following work:

"As Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't, then Mox Diamond is sacrificed upon coming into play. (You can't tap it for mana if you don't discard a land.)"

Does that work better? I think it's okay to use this unique wording since Mox is a rather unique effect. The reminder text helps too.

All Ravnica Block duals have the "instead" word printed on them.

Well, PRINTED, yes, but not in Oracle/Gatherer. Not sure why they changed it. Also not sure why I didn't see it on Tomb before...?

[Apollyon]

They changed the shocklands because the word "instead" is not necessary. The template for coming into play tapped is "~ comes into play tapped." not "~ comes into play tapped instead."

[jro]

The very simplest example of how WotC treats similarly templated cards differently is comparing the wording of the original Visions Karoo lands to Scorched Ruins and Lotus Vale.  The printed wording on all of them is the same, yet the former are now triggered abilities, while the latter have been changed to replacement effects.  They're clearly cut from the same conceptual cloth.  But the Ruins and the Vale would clearly be too powerful if written as triggered abilities.

I don't much care what WotC does, since I don't play much competitive Magic, but I think it's bad for the health of the game overall if they insist that they have a consistent policy when they simply don't.  (And I'm not entirely sure they do insist that.)

[Harlequin]

I think its very ironic that people will argue these types of card print vrs oracle.  It goes so far past words used, to word order, and sometimes even down to a level that is almost more philosphy and psychology than anything else....

But no one cares that Chaos Harlequin's interaction with E-plague, Coat of Arms, and similar cards is completely and 100% different from the card printed text. 

Why do people think that streamlining creature types is somewhre on the continuem betwen "acceptable" and "beneficial to the format" - while they argue to the hilt about which logical interpretation is "most correct?"

R.I.P. summon Harlequin - 10/1/2007

[The Atog Lord]

I agree with you, Harlequin. I don't like what Wizards has done with creature types at all. However, "fixing" only those reprinted and not those others is also confusing. And for the reprinted ones, now that they've been printed, it is too late to revert them. That battle is over. On these other matters, there is still a chance to fix things.

Still, I'm very sad that Mistform Ultimus is no longer an Atog Lord.

[Anusien]

Still, I'm very sad that Mistform Ultimus is no longer an Atog Lord.

In Silver-Bordered Land, it still is.

It's an Atog King if that helps.

[Mr. Nightmare]

From Gottleib's column today:

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.)

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.

[Matt]

One down, one to go!

Transmute Artifact = Tinker-Flash-Entomb 2008!