Reverting cards to original functionality



  • @vaughnbros Thanks for the link. It was quite informative and I understand most of the arguments given, even though it makes me very sad to see that my assumption about Relic Bind is true :(

    @Smmenen I really like your articles and luckily there are plenty off them. Do you have some kind of library where all your articles are stored?

    Something different that I stumbled upon is the weird inconsistency in wording of destroy/ discard/ sacrifice/ place in graveyard in the early sets. Even the card Sacrifice itself stats in ABU "destroy". The only card in Arabian Nights to use the instance of sacrifice is Diamond Valley, but then it got plenty of use in Antiquities again.



  • Zodiac Dragon and Serendib Djinn should both be changed back to the more powerful versions. I've reached out to the Portal 3 designer and D'Angelo (the former judge who's random ruling on Zodiac Dragon is the only reason it is the way it currently is) on linked in. So far I have heard nothing back.

    I plan on posting a thread on Zodiac Dragon when I have the most information possible and a clearly outlines argument for why it should be a vintage relevant card.



  • @gkraigher
    I was doing some research on Zodiac Dragon, because at first I thought that the rules change would make it useless anyway, but for the Serra Avatar reprint they did actually change the wording to refer to "anywhere" - considering that both Serra Avatar and Zodiac Dragon came to existence at the same point in time I now agree that this is bogus powerlevel errata. It's an obscure and expensive card, give it some joy. If it breaks anything, it can always be banned or restricted... as very few people actually own a copy, no one would care.



  • @wintage said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    considering that both Serra Avatar and Zodiac Dragon came to existence at the same point in time

    To make it even more ridiculous, Serra Avatar actually predates Zodiac Dragon by seven months. (Saga = October 98; P3K = May 99)



  • @gkraigher I think Smemmen and I both gave pretty solid arguments and laid a good foundation in the other thread we had this discussion on why Zodiac Dragon should not be changed. However even I have to admit that its not as cut and dry of an issue as I thought it was.

    I wouldn't think of using Serra Avatar as a comparison because as we noted, there were different rules and different terms used for Portal than for regular magic. However there are other cards with similar wording within Portal sets that received no errata. I still think it works today as they originally intended, but I'll be curious to see if you can get any answers from people who were actually involved in the early stages of the card - you know the people who would know better than me. ;)

    Good luck in your crusade. This is one case where I kind of hope to be proven wrong.



  • I'll paste my thoughts on Serendib Djinn from the other thread here.

    @nedleeds said in Turbo Xerox and Monastery Mentor:

    @cambriel said in Turbo Xerox and Monastery Mentor:

    @nedleeds said in Turbo Xerox and Monastery Mentor:

    VintageGreg, I love you like the intoxicated brother who lives in Detroit I never knew but I can't understand why Zodiac Dragon is the trench you want to die in. Unless you have like 1,000 in your secret stash. I am all for cards to be used as the creator intended, I would have gone to war for Winter Orb for days on end. I think there are just other older cards ahead in the line, most notably Serendib Djinn. How the xerox turned B&R death battle turned power level errata left turn in this thread happened is confusing, maybe we need a "Card that you feel should be restored: Make your case" thread.

    Had to actually go read Serendib Djinn, and yeah I have no idea how they haven't fixed that. It's basically the same thing as The Abyss, and they never bothered to errata that to read sacrifice.

    I guess the fact that a 4 mana Mahamoti isn't playable, plus there being so few copies around means it slipped under the radar. There's not much argument that it's a radical departure from the power of the card as printed.

    alt text

    Again we are way afield, we probably need a 'Cards as Printed Rescue Thread'. Serendib Djinns wording doesn't use the word sacrifice, which is used in Arabian Nights. Notably on Diamond Valley. Additionally the Creator built a (bad) combo in the set with Pyramids. Serendib states "destroy" with respect to the land (twice).

    alt text

    For many years it was a tier D deck in conjunction with Consecrate Land. You got a slight discount on Fat Moti at the steep cost of potentially stone raining yourself every turn or having Armageddon simultaneously Terroring your Djinn.

    Antiquities further hammers this concept home with the many Sacrifice cards in that set. Djinn is clearly intended by the Creator to destroy the land. All hail the Creator.

    This is another case of MTGO programmers being lazy and thus altering the wording on a card when they cludged the various Masters Editions sets together (see Winter Orb).

    alt text



  • Well I butchered that paste. Circa 1994 U/w Fliers with Armageddon was a fringe deck. It had natural game against other control decks because it could Power Sink into Armageddon. The Djinn could also outclass most other fliers of the day like Serra and Sengir. If Consecrate land did some splash damage against your matchup the deck was passable. Arabian Nights has 2 cards that cemented what The Creator had in mind with the Djinn. Pyramids and Diamond Valley.

    Antiquities also further clarified the still uncodified (?) concept of 'Sacrifice' (despite alpha having a card bearing the name). I'd need to research but I think Revised cemented the concept in the rule book. Djinn was played as a Destroy after Revised.

    alt text

    vs.

    alt text

    Here is antiquities where the reminder text is present.

    alt text

    Remember this gem?

    alt text

    Djinn was played as a destroy effect for years, it's a terrible card in modern magic either way but would be an interesting player in 93/94 if you could combo with Consecrate Land.



  • I miss my Illusionary Mask. I want that to go back to the original functionality!



  • Just for my own curiosity, but what use would there be for Zodiac Dragon or Djinn even if they did have printed functionality? I don't see them getting played either way. Or is there some deck that I am missing? (I get the Dragon+Bazaar synergy, but that is not good enough to be worth putting in a dredge deck IMO).


  • TMD Supporter

    @mourningpalace Zodiac Dragon, specifically, would be an infinite combo with cards like Wild Mongrel, Noose Constrictor, etc. It's also a better Squee for cards like Bazaar of Baghdad (as you said) and Survival of the Fittest. It provides endless discard fodder to enable cards like Hollow One. I could keep going but if it gets errata'd I really want Oshawa Stompy to come back with a vengeance.



  • @hierarchnoble Yeah, I get all that. Just does not seem good enough to me to see vintage play, but I could be wrong. Is there a haste creature that this combo's with? Or something with evasion or trample?



  • @thewhitedragon69 said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    I miss my Illusionary Mask. I want that to go back to the original functionality!

    Eh, the masks printed text says 'Summon'. For those that want the 'uncounterable' Mask back I think I disagree with the creators intent. He used the word Summon to mean cast quite a bit. Mask essentially was a fake card. Its Unllusionary Mask and honestly it requires hidden information, possibly a judge at a sanctioned event.

    Do I think it would be cool as a quasi Aether Vial yeah ... would it break vintage, maybe, probably not the artifact hate is savage you can revoke it, etc.. Plus we have Cavern of Souls. On the Dreadnought side we've got Orb now.


  • TMD Supporter

    @mourningpalace said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    @hierarchnoble Yeah, I get all that. Just does not seem good enough to me to see vintage play, but I could be wrong. Is there a haste creature that this combo's with? Or something with evasion or trample?

    I dunno. A two card combo into an 1000/1000 creature seems pretty good to me, especially when it could be dropped 1st turn, and easily found (Survival of Fittest).



  • @joshuabrooks Without haste, trample, or some sort of evasion, it is far easier to deal with. Plus the dragon's ability is a trigger when it hits the graveyard the way I read it, so the creature could just be bolted or swords in response to the the first activation. Its good, don't get me wrong. Just not sure if its worth all the effort to try and campaign for this change. Plus dragons are so rare and expensive now, I don't see this being a thing.

    I don't get the Djinn thing at all. Card seems terrible by today's standards.


  • TMD Supporter

    @mourningpalace A Survival of the Fittest deck seems easily equipped to include Anger and Brawn in its creature package, which also creates interesting scenarios with Hollow One or Vengevine beatdown. Still, this is all just B&R-style "what if?" anyway, so it isn't going to be perfected until it exists.



  • @hierarchnoble Anger and Brawn are interesting. Sounds like fun to play around with.


  • TMD Supporter

    @hierarchnoble said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    @mourningpalace A Survival of the Fittest deck seems easily equipped to include Anger and Brawn in its creature package, which also creates interesting scenarios with Hollow One or Vengevine beatdown. Still, this is all just B&R-style "what if?" anyway, so it isn't going to be perfected until it exists.

    Let's not leave Wonder out in the cold!



  • @mourningpalace

    I fully agree with you. Zodiac Dragon with Noose constrictor and Wild Mongrel would be fair. It would also be green/red fair and the last time I checked there weren't many green/red decks in the format.

    It would be as fast as many combo decks and fall very flat vs cards like hangarback walker and zombie tokens.

    It seems a lot more fair than Vault key and time Vault.

    Generally speaking, it would lead to more archetypes in the format, which is exactly what Vintage needs right now.



  • @gkraigher it might be on-line. But given the existing rarity and price, I doubt dragon would do much in paper. It's $300 with absolutely no use or playability. Imagine what it would jump to if it was playable. I don't think a lot of people will pay that much for a fair deck that might not even be a thing. But I agree it would be nice to see it happen.



  • @mourningpalace

    It's not on the reserve list. I would encourage an immediate promo copy of the card to go along with its errata.

    I think it would be so powerful it should be banned in legacy and restricted in Vintage.

    Basically I am calling for it to be a restricted vintage card only. Remain effectively banned in legacy and edh like it already is--even though it isn't.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.