@islandswamp Why don't you enjoy playing?
Posts made by Aaron Patten
RE: Reverting cards to original functionality
In the Olden Days, only creatures could be sacrificed. That's why Diamond Valley says Sacrifice but the Djinn does not.
Serendib Djinn was originally used with pyramids and Consecrate Land so the distinction is relevant.
RE: Reverting cards to original functionality
I will agree that Wizards doesn't have an immense amount of monetizable wealth to be gained for reverting cards back to their original functionality but I suspect that at some point it will happen. Especially for the reserved list cards. They are not going to see a new printing and so can't be errata'd in any physical version. They are also not very commonly played with a few exceptions such as Lion's Eye Diamond. There is therefore no rules simplification to be gained by maintaining a second set of rules text for that single card when the most recent version of the rules can still be applied to its current text and come up with the same mechanics and game play experience that the card originally had when printed. The most obvious cases where the current rules can be successfully applied to the old wording are the Arabian Nights and Antiquities cards mentioned above. They received multiple errata as the various rules changes came into affect over the years and incidentally were functionally changed in the process; However, the current iteration of the rules can be used to parse the original wording and come up with exactly the same functionality that the card originally had in almost every case and with less subjective interpretation. This didn't used to be the case for previous iterations of the rules and so the errata were necessary and even welcome but now that people are playing them again thanks to old school some have noticed how the original intent has been lost on certain (mostly unplayable) cards that were basically overlooked due to lack of high profile play.
Some of the cases involving the interpretation of the word bury that are mentioned above are actually fairly recent and an attempt to phase out older keywords:
I don't personally agree with the changes made to the definition of buried to mean sacrificed. There is no savings in terms of simplification to add an additional meaning to the word buried since it's been understood to mean "destroyed and can't be regenerated" since it was invented in 1994. There's really nothing to be gained by getting rid of it except on cards that they intend to reprint with the word sacrifice (which can't be on reserved list cards anyway). They're not going to errata Wrath of God to say "Sacrifice all creatures." so I can't think of any reason why reserved list cards which used bury would be errata'd in this way.
So far the only reasoning I've found behind the change in wording of bury being divergent between sacrifice and destroy without possibility of regeneration is due to the wording of the card Call of the Wild which states that the card revealed from the top of the library is either placed into play or buried. To me it's obvious that this is essentially a typo on the original card since there was never any concept of destroying a card that is not yet in play (unlike the keyword "discard").
I believe the reason that these cards have deviated in function so far from their original intended purpose and use is that they're just terrible cards in all sanctioned formats and can only really be played in Old School. I don't know about you, the reader of this post, but that's the reason that I'm reading writing in this thread. I was very happy to see the original functionality of Winter Orb restored. I think there's quite a few cards in a similar vein that could be corrected back to their original intended function at no net cost to Wizards of the Coast that would have a tremendous positive impact on various Old School communities; many of which have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own errata on the ground, so to speak. All they would have to do is remove the current errata on these cards and with a few minor grammatical changes they would be restored to their original functionality and still fit the modern rules template.
Does anyone reading this thread know what the best place would be to send a petition about these rules changes? I think I'd actually like to write to Wizards of the Coast about this one since it's kind of just a cheap and easy fix with a few recommendations. I'd also like to suggest that they print old card frame foil masterpieces of eternal staples that have never been printed in the old card frame in celebration of magic's 25th year; but that's another story :)
RE: [IMA] Mana Drain
This will probably be good in Legacy, but I don't see it replacing Steel Sabotage in Vintage or Commander. Two blue is hard to produce what with the lack of good mana bases in this format.
Joking aside, I really hope this signals an unbanning in Legacy.....
Yeah I think that tempo counters would still be very big in that format and drains wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Probably after un-banning:
Survival of the Fittest
RE: Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.
It's mediocre enough over a long event (7+ rounds)
Literally every event that meets your criteria in the last year (and beyond) is a counterexample of your statement. The only events of that nature which even come close to your hypothesis are ones which have Shops in either second or half of the top 8. There's absolutely no truth to your statement that I can find anywhere whatsoever and anyone who can read your post can prove you wrong just by looking for themselves.
RE: Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday
@brass-man Right. I should have also been contributing to the subject matter from a policy standpoint instead of purely pointing out @p3temangus 's implication that Shops is only good because the entire mtgo community is lazy. That does not belong in this thread. Understood. Soon this will all be in one tidy thread and there will be no more confusion. Thanks for all your efforts.