@smmenen said in Reverting cards to original functionality:
You are wrong. The past is not dead. That's why we won the Time Vault argument.
That's not what I'm saying, and it isn't what you were originally saying either, as far as I could tell. No one should deny the past is a source of precedent. When you said: "The point of Vintage is that it's where the past and present converge and live together. It's where Workshop can be used to cast Walking Ballista and Bazaar can be used with Hollow One[,]" I took you to be saying that you did not want Vintage to be shaken up by a new, broken, powerful card. That you preferred the old broken powerful cards to the exclusion of new ones.
If by "ahistorical" you were just pointing out that there is never a period of time when Lotus Vale ever functioned like the text would suggest under modern rules, then that's true. But, it only matters if you insist on original function as the default approach. I believe you do, and you've justified it by arguing that (provided you can find the first judge ruling) original function is the least ambiguous of all approaches.
That is not an unreasonable suggestion; but neither is preferring text when you can get away with it. Both preferences run into trouble in some corner cases and both preferences have advantages and disadvantages.
EDIT: To recap some of them:
- For the vast majority of cards, this is what we actually do. Function changes when rules change, we simply read the text under modern rules. Nothing is "preserved" over rules changes.
- Old cards can get new and interesting interactions, change in power level, and even break entirely as rules change and new cards get printed.
- No risk of post-printing card development.
- Easier to apply (in MOST cases) because cards simply do what they say.
- Simply does not work for some corner cases. These are cards who do not "compute" under modern rules somehow, due to archaic or ambiguous language.
- You have to decide what to do about cards printed multiple times with different text.
- Provided you can find the original judge's ruling on how a card works, you can get a clear and unambiguous answer about what the card actually did.
- An experienced player knows what the card used to do and can rely on it continuing to do that.
- This is an aberration from how most cards work. Most cards are allowed to change function when rules change, and it's hit or miss which ones get their original function restored and which ones get the rug pulled out. Classic examples include Power Sink (we use text, not function to determine it's modern abilities) and anything relying on mana burn.
- Sometimes you have a hard time finding the original rulings. Judge forums are jealously guarded and Scry magazines are in landfills.
Since neither approach is perfect, we live in a world with a hybrid of both plus a sprinkling of other theories like original intent (gag) tossed in for good measure. But it's debatable which approach should dominate.