Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Vintage Community read more

People have been predicting the end of Legacy for years, and the end of Vintage since well before there was Legacy. These times are not unique, despite evidently being unique to you.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@blindtherapy

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.

Actually, the reason that this was updated is because the Unmask discard is not optional, and Unmask allows you to target yourself. Do you see why this is a problem?

Suppose you and I are playing, and on turn 1, I cast Unmask, targeting you. In response, you cast Misdirection, changing the target of my Unmask to me. Do you see it now?

Under the original Unmask wording, which instructed me to "look at target player's hand," what would stop me from looking at my own hand, saying "nope, there are no nonlands in here for me to discard, so I guess Unmask whiffs," and therefore not have to discard anything? Unless you had, say, a Telepathy on the battlefield, you would have no way to verify what I was claiming were true.

I clearly recall that several years ago, an effort was made to update the Oracle of all cards where, in some cases, one player would have no choice but to take his opponent's word. It was evidently decided by the powers that be that needing to sometimes call a judge to ensure your opponent was being honest was less preferable to just changing stuff like Unmask from a "look" to a "reveal."

Around this same time, other cards like Cauldron Dance got an Oracle update to solve a similar problem. Compare the Invasion version of Cauldron Dance to the Commander 2017 printing. Do you see the difference? Do you get why the change? Neat, huh?

Bonus tidbit- despite WOTC's best effort to Oracle away the above-described problem for all cards in the game, I know one case where this is still an issue. If you want to know where, try taking a look at the Oracle text of Ice Cauldron sometime.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@nedleeds said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

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.

One quick note- even if Serendib Djinn's wording were changed to something like "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy a land you control...", then it would still not combo with Consecrate Land. Or rather, it would, but probably not in the way that you are thinking.

I gather what you wish to do is choose your Consecrated land each turn and expect this to satisfy the trigger, meanwhile going about the rest of your game with other lands on the battlefield. Right? This would not work under the current rules.

This is because Consecrate Land gives the enchanted land Indestructible, and so it would therefore be an illegal choice when resolving this ability.

What you could do, though, is destroy all of your other lands leaving only Consecrate-enchanted lands on the battlefield under you control. This would at least allow you to escape the other "When you control no lands..." trigger condition. But, again, I don't think this is what you were going for.

There are various ways to change the wording of the ability to something that would combo with Consecrate Land, but I feel any such wording would be even further away from the original text than the current Oracle seems to be.

FYI, the hypothetical wording above would still combo with Pyramids, though.

Thanks.

Abe

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Serracollector said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

You could pop Mox Diamond like a lotus petal when it first came out, and Im 99% sure Lotus Vayle and Scorched Ruins were the same way. You could tap them as a mana effect, which was faster than any effect at the time, and then sac them and not sac the other lands, which would essentially add a Lotus and 4 colorless lotus to the card pool. I never did this with these cards, but I have done it in the past with Lake of the Dead and Kjeldoran Outpost.

While you are correct that you could do this with KJ Outpost, you are incorrect that it was ever possible to do this with Diamond, Vale, or Ruins. These cards came out under different rules sets (4th Edition for Outpost, 5th Edition for the other 3), and so they worked differently at the time. I'm going to quote myself from Reddit to explain this further:

Alliances came out when 4th edition rules were in effect, which included something called a "damage prevention/redirection subphase" that would occur every time something was about to take damage or go to the graveyard. The types of spells and abilities legal during this subphase were limited to thing like Regeneration abilities, damage prevention abilities ala Healing Salve, and damage redirection abilities like with Simulacrum. Many of these cards work differently now, so you’d probably have to look at a 4th edition version of each one in Gatherer rather than referring to their current Oracle text to understand.

Furthermore, though, interrupts or abilities that could be played as an interrupt (such as tapping any of the Alliances lands for mana) were also legal during this subphase. After all, a player would need access to mana to power Regeneration (tapping lands for mana was played as an interrupt), and Healing Salve could still be countered by Counterspell, which was an interrupt at the time. So, there was a bit of a loophole, here.

Up until 5th edition rules went into effect (with the release of Mirage), it was possible to play a Lake of the Dead, announce that you will be sacrificing the Lake for the Dead for its "comes into play ability," enter the resulting damage prevention/redirection subphase, and then use Lake of the Dead's “add BBBB” ability (an ability playable as an interrupt) before sacrificing the Lake itself.

The upshot of all of this is that, for example, you could have BBBB available on turn 2 if you played a Swamp on turn 1, the Lake on turn 2, and were willing to lose both of your lands. Alternatively, you could have 1R or 1U available on the first turn by playing either Balduvian Trading Post or Soldevi Excavations as long as you were willing to be a land behind for the rest of the game.

This was specifically disallowed with 5th edition rules. 5th edition rules included a rule that required players to deal with a permanent's "comes into play ability" before any of that permanent's abilities could be legally played, no matter whether that ability was played as an interrupt, "mana source," or otherwise, So, once 5th edition rules went into effect, it was no longer possible to use the “Lake trick.” This is the rule that prevented Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins and the like from being broken as all hell at the time Weatherlight came out. Once in a while, I run into a player that says “oh, I remember back when you could get 3 mana on the first turn from Lotus Vale.” Those players are wrong; presumably, they are either mis-remembering or just didn’t understand the rules very well at the time.

6th edition rules, which came out some while after any of the above-mentioned cards first saw print, simplified things by getting rid of the above-mentioned rule and just slapping Lake, Trading Post, Lotus Vale, etc., with the errata similar to what they still have today.

TL;DR: It was never possible to use Lotus Vale for mana before dealing with its “comes into play” ability. It was, however, briefly possible to use Lake of the Dead (and the rest of the Alliances cycle) for mana before dealing with their “comes into play ability.”

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Serracollector said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

@gkraigher Yes. Im even for original ruling on Abeyance, Lotus Vayle, Mox Diamond, and Scorched Ruins. Vayle and Ruins and prolly Abeyance would need restricted, but I love Vintage for the fact that we have broken mana that lets us do fun things earlier. Sorry to derail into a power level errata thing. Not my intention.

And I dont believe it would be a goldfish meta. With FoW, MBT, Spheres and Rods and Stony Silences still a plenty, and Flusterstorm, AND Git Probe STAYING restricted, almost all combo decks are glass cannons. Control and MUD would still have its place.

Um, what "original ruling" on Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins and Mox Diamond are you talking about? While you are right that Abeyance used to work differently, I can say with great confidence that the other three cards you've listed have never worked the way you seem to think they did.

If you want them to work closer to their so-called "printed" text, that's one thing. But don't say "original ruling," since their original functionality has been entirely preserved by the current Oracle text.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Templar said:

Sadly, I couldn't attend this year, but I watched as much of the stream as I could. The most suspicious thing about Mr. Bogaard's sloppy play was this: Not once did I see him make a mistake that was to his detriment.

What about the match where he missed his Mana Drain trigger? Was that not to his detriment?

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Vnayin

But I think the biggest thing I disagree with is your accepting of "honest mistakes." Honest mistakes are still mistakes and should be punished accordingly if we want to actually call this a competition.

What makes you think we didn't punish these accordingly? I've already described handing out warnings and other penalties for everything mentioned in this thread.

Or, again, is your concern with the MIPG (I thought you said it wasn't)? If so, I recommend we take that discussion elsewhere.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@spook said:

@Katzby you should test how often you unawarely cut to a bent foil in a deck with four or five bent foils.

If you think you are introducing bias, take a fixed deck and ask people to cut it multiple times recording the results. It will happen way more than 1/12. When I actively judged this was what I would show people when I have them game losses for marked cards and had them replace the odd foils. It was close to 1/2 or 1/3 of the time that the foils would be left on top

Okay. What about having four bent foils, none of which seem to have much to do with each other? Wasn't your concern about the foil Strip Mine? As a reminder, this card was not actually bent.

Again, I was not and am still not concerned with whatever advantage you feel this gave Joseph. Again, if you think that's my mistake, I'll gladly own it.