Reverting cards to original functionality



  • @mediumsteve I mean no offense but let me tell you a tale.

    alt text


  • TMD Supporter

    I agree that coming into a conversation that is about something you think is boring and silly, and telling the participants that is annoying in the abstract. That said, the purpose of this site is to discuss the magic format vintage...

    So to be fair it more like you came to a dance party, sat down in the middle and started playing boardgames about dancing, and then got mad when someone asked you if you could move out of the middle of the dance floor.

    I think there would be no problem if this was in the "off-topic" forum. Maybe we could ask @Brassman, to move this thread over, and appease everyone. That way it is easier for those that don't care to turn off notifications for the sub-forum, and for you guys who care about this you have a good place to have the discussion?

    I know for me I really want new folks to come into TMD and see a welcoming focus on vintage strategy, and ideas, and less time spent on intense and angry disagreement, especially about things that aren't actually related to the format.


  • TMD Supporter

    B&R discussion is political talk for Magic players that don't want to talk about politics. Since we just had an update the B&R discussion is at a standstill, and errata can be the next best thing since some examples spur a B&R update if they happen.



  • @garbageaggro

    Its more like what is described in the cartoon. He came up to a room at the Vintage party labeled: "Errata Discussion" and decided to come in even though he didn't want to be in the room.

    This isn't "off-topic" errata (and non-errata) have significantly impacted Vintage in the past, and will continue to significantly impact Vintage. We just saw the announcement that all Planeswalkers will now be subject to the Legend rule instead of the previously separate Planeswalker rule. This is essentially an errata, and just occurred. The topic is highly relevant.



  • @maximumcdawg

    There are more than just documented rulings. There is documented competitive game play, and documented reasons for restrictions/bans.

    Again mentioning, Rukh Egg there is documented functionality based on the reason for its initial place on the restricted/banned lists.



  • Wishes are one thing. But Ring of Ma'ruf is another. Here is the wording of the card:

    • 5: Instead of drawing a card from the top of your library, select one of your cards from outside the game. This card can be any card you have that you're not using in your deck or that for some reason has left the game. Ring of Ma'rûf is removed from the game entirely after use.

    So, this tells us that the Ring is explicitly able to fetch a card "that for some reason has left the game." It immediately follows this with "Ring of Ma'rûf is removed from the game entirely after use."

    Taken together, it is very very clear that wherever the Ring is going, another Ring should be able to pull it back. Any reasonable reading would indicate this.

    While there are arguments for the Wishes not being able to grab Exiled cards, the Ring has a few different factors in its favor. First, it has not been printed with a different wording -- and as a Reserve List card, it cannot be printed with a different wording. Second, the Wishes do not explicitly mention that you can get back a card that has been removed; the Ring explicitly grants this. And if there is any remote power level concern, keep in mind that the Ring costs ten mana and eats up your draw step, too.

    So, taken together, I think that there's a strong argument for Ring of Ma-ruf being able to retrieve cards from the Exile zone.


  • TMD Supporter

    Should Wastes be reverted back to its printed functionality of not tapping for mana? As printed it lacks the subtype that the other basics have, and many important duals have, that allow it to generate mana.



  • @the-atog-lord That's a good Original Text argument. Can we find Original RULED Functionality, too? And, then, can we persuade Matt Tabak that more players benefit if we revert the card to original text than if we do nothing?

    I'm not being facetious; I think these are exactly the steps we need to go through to actually fat cards fixed.

    @hierarchnoble said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    Should Wastes should be reverted back to its printed functionality of not tapping for mana? As printed it lacks the subtype that the other basics have, and many important duals have, that allow it to generate mana.

    C'mon man. That's never been the cards ruled functionality. What are you trying to say?

    EDIT: Perhaps you're trying to talk about original text. That's different from original ruled functionality. I was thrown when you called it "printed functionality" because that isn't clearly one or the other.

    Anyway, if you are trying to say that we cannot play with cards as printed without interpreting the terms of art on the card under the Comp.Rules... yeah? That's true, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Wastes would never have the function you're suggesting, using its original text, unless you also changed the Comprehensive Rules around it. For example, you could remove the rule defining that basic land types. Sure. At that point, you couldnt use the original text because it would no longer compute. Just like "Mono Artifacts," you would need to redefine or errata the cards to remove the offending nonsense words.


  • TMD Supporter

    @maximumcdawg said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    @hierarchnoble said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    Should Wastes be reverted back to its printed functionality of not tapping for mana? As printed it lacks the subtype that the other basics have, and many important duals have, that allow it to generate mana.

    C'mon man. That's never been the cards ruled functionality. What are you trying to say?

    EDIT: Perhaps you're trying to talk about original text. That's different from original ruled functionality. I was thrown when you called it "printed functionality" because that isn't clearly one or the other.

    I'm using printed functionality to mean what the card does based on what words and word-like symbols (mana symbols, tap, etc.) are printed where. Errata is, after all, changing the rules-laden words on a card, generally ignoring stuff like artist credits and flavor text, to something else. Errata, to make it clearer, is arguing about printed versus ruled functionality.

    Anyway, if you are trying to say that we cannot play with cards as printed without interpreting the terms of art on the card under the Comp.Rules... yeah? That's true, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Wastes would never have the function you're suggesting, using its original text, unless you also changed the Comprehensive Rules around it. For example, you could remove the rule defining that basic land types. Sure. At that point, you couldnt use the original text because it would no longer compute. Just like "Mono Artifacts," you would need to redefine or errata the cards to remove the offending nonsense words.

    Cards like Zodiac Dragon are argued about because of how their printed wording compares to other cards printed in the same set/block. In BFZ, the basic lands are printed with full art using basic land types to carry the baggage of what they tap for, not the watermark-esque mana symbol. Unfortunately Wastes was only printed with the symbol, and since it doesn't have a basic land type or any other words to say what it taps for, it doesn't tap for anything as printed.



  • Cards like Zodiac Dragon have no "terms of art" tbat require the Comp. Rules to interperet, though. That's why Wastes seems like a bad analogy; it has a type with very specific rules baggage.

    Even a strict textualist approach needs to acknowledge that you can't apply original text when these terms of art change. Interrupts can't just keep that text and be unplayable under modern rules. I have a ton of sympathy for letting cards functionality change if the rules change, but even then you can't blindly apply archaic terms like bury, remove from the game, comes into play, etc.

    Does that make sense?



  • @maximumcdawg are there any cases where "comes into play" is not the same thing as "enters the battlefield"?


  • TMD Supporter

    @maximumcdawg said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    Cards like Zodiac Dragon have no "terms of art" tbat require the Comp. Rules to interperet, though. That's why Wastes seems like a bad analogy; it has a type with very specific rules baggage.

    Even a strict textualist approach needs to acknowledge that you can't apply original text when these terms of art change. Interrupts can't just keep that text and be unplayable under modern rules. I have a ton of sympathy for letting cards functionality change if the rules change, but even then you can't blindly apply archaic terms like bury, remove from the game, comes into play, etc.

    Does that make sense?

    No, because the only types it has is Basic (play a limitless number) and Land (lots of rules covered in under 305 in the comprehensive rules). Stomping Ground is a Land - Forest Mountain, where the Forest type lets it tap for green and the Mountain type lets it tap for red.

    A card that does nothing as printed.

    Nowhere on that card does a word either tell me, be it literally or though associated rules, that it taps for colorless mana. It had to be errata'd, and was immediately upon release of Oath of the Gatewatch.



  • @hierarchnoble

    You are correct in assessing that Wastes shouldn't tap for mana based on Original Printed Functionality. What you are looking for is the ruling the in Gatherer:

    The mana ability of Wastes doesn’t appear on the printed cards, but it is in its official Oracle >text. (A card’s Oracle text (in English) can be found using the Gatherer card database at >Gatherer.Wizards.com.) The printed cards display a large colorless mana symbol in a design >that’s similar to other basic land cards.

    To be fair though, as I pointed out in my last post there is more than just Original Printed Functionality. There is also Original Tournament Functionality. I don't believe any judge initially ruled in a tournament that Wastes should not tap for mana.

    I think what you said earlier is also a pretty big issue with a large number of the still existing errata. That is:

    Cards like Zodiac Dragon are argued about because of how their printed wording compares to >other cards printed in the same set/block.

    Although, I'd highlight Phryexian Dreadnaught as the poster child of this. Dreadnaught was later given a different errata from all of the other cards to avoid combos with Illusionary Mask / Aether Vial / ect. It was very clearly a power level errata making the card do something different.



  • @vaughnbros The term "original printed functionality" seems really misleading. Text is text, function is function. Here, as you point out, there has never been a time when Waste actually functioned to do nothing -- even if you agree that the card does not literally contain the text "Tap: Add <> to your mana pool."

    What you mean by "printed functionality" seems to be, rather, how the card text should be literally interpreted a specific set of the comp rules. When you add "original" to that, I suspect what you mean is how the card should be literally interpreted under the rules at the time it was printed, right?

    Thats why the better categories are original printed text and original ruled functionality. It avoids all the "shoulds" and gives something objective to look at.

    @hierarchnoble Anyway, with Wastes, I honestly thought it had a basic land type - Waste. So disregard my argument about having an archaic term; I was wrong.

    Instead, what appears to be happening with Wastes is essentially that they printed a promo version - the text box equivalent of "full art" - without ever having first printed the actual non-promo version. It's like Island. They originally printed the text, and then stopped and starting doing more interesting looking watermarks on the text boxes instead as a shorthand.

    But, just like no one suspects that a full art promo Cryptic Command does nothing, even if they can't remember what it does, no one suspects a watermarked basic land does nothing, either. It's just a strange case where they never bothered to print the original version and went straight to the "promo" is all.

    @BlindTherapy Not that I know of. It's a straight substitution in terms. The point is that the phrase "comes into play" as exactly those words is meaningless under the modern rules. So, you CANNOT apply the original printed text. I don't think this kind of thing invalidates text as a goal, but it's absolutely a limitation on it.


  • TMD Supporter

    @maximumcdawg said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    @hierarchnoble Anyway, with Wastes, I honestly thought it had a basic land type - Waste. So disregard my argument about having an archaic term; I was wrong.

    Thank you. This was all I was really looking to get out of this conversation.



  • So apparently unmask was errataed from "look at target player's hand" to "target player reveals their hand" since at least 2014. Probably not going to change back since they just reprinted this.



  • @blindtherapy You mean since 2001 :p

    alt text
    alt text

    alt text
    alt text

    alt text
    alt text


  • Administrators

    @maximumcdawg said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

    And, then, can we persuade Matt Tabak that more players benefit if we revert the card to original text than if we do nothing?

    Pretty unlikely. He does not care about this.



  • @chubbyrain

    The question is why though. There are multiple cards that still say "Look" and not "Reveal". This is yet another inconsistency. I really question what is going on in the Errata department. Seems like they just do whatever they feel like doing.



  • @vaughnbros My point was to Sully that this wasn't a recent thing or something that was limited to Unmask. Regarding the difference between look and reveal, there is a functional difference in multiplayer games. That was the explanation for reveal becoming a keyword. I don't really care enough to go through and see if that was consistently implemented...


Log in to reply
 

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