Errata Havoc

[Yare]

This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Errata Havoc. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.

[SilveryCord]

~Edit:Snip what I said about Impulse, I didn't read the Oracle text of it correctly.~

I think you're overestimating the value of minute interactions versus the value of simplicity. But, it was a very well written article.

[pooispoois]

An interesting fact that I would like to point out is that, for example, all Portuguese versions of Impulse have the current text, even the Mirage ones.

I also agree there is a lot of ill-advised errata. For example, for years Interdict was nerfed by unnecessarily removing the "abilities of that permanent can't be played again this turn". Even if it didn't work as before when it became an Instant, there were still plenty of cases where it applied (like sorcery speed abilities; this became rather common with the advent of Equipment, for example). They removed it supposely to make the card "clearer", but the kind of people that check the Oracle probably also understand that you can respond by activating the targeted ability multiple times. Errata like that and Relic Bind is completely out of the range of what could be called "reasonable errata". As to the type changes, while I'm not against it per se, I do feel annoyed that everytime someone casts Extinction in multiplayer naming Humans, we must check the Oracle wording for every creature in the table.

[MagicRage]

Finally, this policy is being applied very inconsistently. Niall Silvain is still a Niall-Silvain, yet Sindbad is a Human

Bad example. The reason Sindbad got errata'd is because he was Timeshifted and thus reprinted. If Niall Silvain were to be reprinted, it would get a new creature type too.

Though I'm not sure I agree with the policy of only errating when reprinted. I understand the idea is to not overwhelm everyone with hundreds of changes at once and to increase the visibility of the change. But really how many people are going to learn about the change because it was "reprinted" when Mirage was released to MTGO? Also, the cards that argueably need the creature type errata the most (Legendary Creatures that no longer have types and the old wacky one-off creature types like Niall Silvain) are for the most part never going to be reprinted. And I'm sure there are some players with Vampire tribal decks steamed that Shauku, Endbringer is now a Vampire but they're still waiting on Baron Sengir (just to use one example). I suppose part of the idea is that if you go "Is this guy a Human now or still just a Soldier?" then the answer is "Has it been reprinted anywhere, including MTGO?" If the answer is no then the answer about it being Human is the same.

FWIW, there is some segment of the MTG playing populace - like myself - who are Tribal nuts and/or strong Vorthoses and/or certain kinds of Melvins and really care what type a creature is.

Regardless of whether they stick to "errata only when reprinted" or switch to "just errata it all and be done with it", I would like to see them place some emphasis on reprints to highlight errata that has taken place (assuming the card isn't too powerful to be reprinted, etc). For example, Master of Arms should really be in 10th.

Furthermore, hopefully in the wake of the Flash thing, Wizards will make a point of spotlighting all future errata - including creature types - in a Feature Article or Magic Arcana or Forsythe's weekly column to make sure the information is distributed. For added bonus, they should also encourage this information to be published in all three of the major MTG magazines (Beckett's MTG magazine, Scrye, & Inquestion). Between magicthegathering.com (and any fan/store sites that note the notices) and the three magazines, word should get to just about everyone who plays MTG. And really, if you're 4 guys playing on your kitchen table that don't read any of the websites or magazines or know anybody who does either, does it really even matter if you know that Island Fish Jasconius finally got errated to just be a Fish instead of an Island-Fish (it hasn't yet and I know that)?

Regarding Relic Bind, I think the flavor would indicate it should only be attached to an opponent's artifact and the oversight was not intentional. Someone in Wizards may very well tell me I'm wrong; it's just my person feeling about it.

Ultimately, I think if we’re going to fix cards, then let’s get them all fixed rather than just fixing a few of them at a time.

That's a nice thought, but with the exception of Creature Type errata, this isn't really possible.

Why was Flash not errated till May 1st? Probably because nobody at Wizards was really aware that it didn't work the way it was supposed to and should be un-erratted. MaGo or someone said on magicthegathering.com at some point that they keep a running list of old cards in need of errata and periodically meet to discuss how to fix those for the next Oracle update (which occurs the 1st of every month after a new set comes out I believe). Until someone notices the card has a problem, it doesn't get added to the list. Until they have a chance for a meeting, the card doesn't get discussed. Until they reach a solution, it doesn't get added to the list of changes for the next Oracle update. Until the next Oracle update, it doesn't get officially changed.

One solution for this would be to have one of the columnists (Forsythe or maybe a Special Column by MaGo) request readers to send in a list of all card they feel need errata. This could be a way to speed up the clean-up and make sure everything (or almost everything) is brought to their attention.

[Woapalanne]

Originally Posted by pooispoois

As to the type changes, while I'm not against it per se, I do feel annoyed that everytime someone casts Extinction in multiplayer naming Humans, we must check the Oracle wording for every creature in the table.

Trust me when I say that Kokusho will never be given the type "Human".

Joking aside, that issue is precisely why Wizards hasn't issued mass-errata to every old card.

[Yare]

Originally Posted by SilveryCord

I think you're overestimating the value of minute interactions versus the value of simplicity. But, it was a very well written article.

I would argue that leaving Impulse without errata would have been more simple. I'm glad you liked the article.

Originally Posted by pooispoois

An interesting fact that I would like to point out is that, for example, all Portuguese versions of Impulse have the current text, even the Mirage ones.

I also agree there is a lot of ill-advised errata...

The point about foreign Impulses is an interesting one. Unfortunately, Magic Library does not have the release dates for those sets. However, the sets were presumably released after the English release (this might not be the case). The foreign cards had probably already been physically printed, though not released. This does create quite a quandary. Fixing one set to match the other sets would seem like the reasonable decision. However, the other issue is that the Magic rules specify (somewhere) that the English version and translations of cards are the definitive version, regardless of what other versions might say. So, you could make an argument for that. If anyone has further thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.

Originally Posted by MagicRage

Bad example. The reason Sindbad got errata'd is because he was Timeshifted and thus reprinted. If Niall Silvain were to be reprinted, it would get a new creature type too.

The point is that if Sindbad gets errata, Niall Silvain should too. As I explained in the article, reprinting is not an acceptable reason for errata.

Regardless of whether they stick to "errata only when reprinted" or switch to "just errata it all and be done with it", I would like to see them place some emphasis on reprints to highlight errata that has taken place (assuming the card isn't too powerful to be reprinted, etc). For example, Master of Arms should really be in 10th.

A database would be helpful, I agree.

Regarding Relic Bind, I think the flavor would indicate it should only be attached to an opponent's artifact and the oversight was not intentional. Someone in Wizards may very well tell me I'm wrong; it's just my person feeling about it.

It was probably a mistake, yes. But intent is irrelevant.

Why was Flash not errated till May 1st? Probably because nobody at Wizards was really aware that it didn't work the way it was supposed to and should be un-erratted.

TheManaDrain probably has a near definitive list of cards that need to be "unerrataed." I couldn't point you to one at this moment, though.

Thanks for your comments, all!

[technik4]

The point is that if Sindbad gets errata, Niall Silvain should too. As I explained in the article, reprinting is not an acceptable reason for errata.

I read (and agreed with most of) your article, but I still don't understand this point.

1. Wizards releases a wonky set with reprints (or reprints a card that has never before been in the Core Set).
2. As they re-release it, they update its creature type and convert its old wording to the latest Oracle wording.
3. Wizards does not update the Oracle wording on cards it is not reprinting (or re-releasing) in some manner.

I just don't see how their method could be improved, short of a massive oracle updating which would be a headache and largely pointless. Do you disagree with adding/changing creature types to cards that are being re-released?

Concerning creature type updates, people that play on MTGO probably appreciate another viashino for their tribal decks, and casual people don't really need to concern themselves with every update (re: Zirilan of the Claw).

[WhammWhamme]

I didn't see a convincing argument. What is the _point_ of going with your plans over the current ones?

Why should original wording trump everything? Why should mistakes made when typesetting cards make cards do something other than the actual "original intent"?

They're doing what they feel makes for the best game possible. Why do these changes make things better?

This isn't a court of law. Precedent is not binding.

[Talain]

In most (in fact, nearly all) cases you should be able to tell just by looking at the card. One can see that the character depicted in Master of Arms is clearly a human. Instead of having to check to make sure the card wasn't reprinted or if it had its type changed, you would know it how had the types "Human Soldier". I mean, it clearly can't be a Viashino. (In the case of something that is of human shape and obviously some type of humanoid, but is completely covered in armor so that you can't see just what is actually underneath that armor, i.e., Black Knight and no other race is given, assume Human).

It gets a bit trickier in the case of creatures who have only their race as their creature type (i.e. Llanowar Elves being updated from being an Elf to being an Elf Druid), as you often can't make a clear distinction as to what a creature's class type should be based on the artwork.

I would specifically break down creature types into race and class types, and make it a rule that every creature must have at least a race type.

And finally get rid of old, deprecated types like Ali-From-Cairo and Island-Fish. Ali From Cairo very clearly depicts a human. No one could possibly miss it. Island Fish Jasconius is an enormous fish. Impossible to mistake for anything else. (As for something like Niall Silvain, I have absolutely no idea what the hell it's supposed to be.)

The fact is, so few cards would actually cause any degree of confusion at all if they were to go ahead with something like this.

[UmbrellaExile]

This is easily one of the stronger articles I've read in a while. Not as humorous, no, but 'twas not the intent. Errata is a very interesting thing, and is usually used, in the form of most other card games, to simply fix something that isn't working the way it was originally intended. Card games generally tend to ban, restrict, or let their errors play out, and it's interesting how as a card game gets larger, the tools employed tend to get bent out of proportion.

Sometimes it's just plain silly. Why can't we have the creature type butterfly when it is clearly a butterfly? Named tokens always strike me as silly, unless they're legendary - then they have a reason to be named. But is changing "weird" wording on old cards really needed? The intent is usually clear, and errata for the sake of errata is just an odd phenomena.

No really, if you'd have left Rock Hydra alone and, hell, even reprinted it in Planar Chaos, we probably all would've laughed a little, some of us might've scratched our heads, but for the most part, everyone would still use it the way it was intended to be used. And as for cards like Sindbad - The only possible, yet vague, reasons to make him a human are because he is a human, or on the off chance someone wants to run him in, what, human tribal?

Besides, everytime you cut out a creature type because it's too much of a niche, the Ultimus cry out a little bit. You're cutting off parts of them, wizards, and that's just plain mean.

[Sakura]

On creature type errata's :

I personally agree with doing these, but their are so many creatures it is dificult to do them in a timely matter. Reprinting becomes a valid reason simply because it presents the most opprotune time.

However, I am irritated at the way they handled Sindbad. Why was he made "Creature - Human"? From a flavor perspective he should be "Legendary Creature - Human" While power level wise it is not necessary, it make the most sense. These "character" cards in AN were essentially Legends before we had the Legend rule. I believe if we are updating creature types, why not adjust card subtypes as well? I am a firm believer that Arcane Denial should be Arcane for instance. Would Kamigawa block be hated so much if its mechanics were made less narrow? Changing a few older cards to give them this Subtype wouldn't hurt the game much, and some flavour, make sense in a few instances even, and might even make a new deck or two playable.

I think it would be neat if in 10th if Treetop Village said "Tribal Land - Elf" (or maybe Treefolk?) or Faerie Conclave gained "Tribal Land - Faerie" This would be better than the land actually turning into the creature of that type.

[Xandercoon]

Interestingly, by Wizard's own policy, they will have to reverse the power-level errata on Phyrexian Dreadnought sooner or later.
Doing so will probably result in another Eternal Format farce...with Stifle effects and Fling tricks etc. it would probably beak Legacy again.
In general, I agree with the current errata policy...cards should do whatever is written on them.
However, Time Vault was errata'd because it is literally impossible to make it work exactly as intended under the current rules. There is simply no provision for paying turns as a cost...how can you pay what you haven't got yet (and might never get?)

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

Originally Posted by Woapalanne

Joking aside, that issue is precisely why Wizards hasn't issued mass-errata to every old card.

But they said they had plans to revamp every old creature card with Tenth. Either Buehler or Forsythe said it.

Xandercoon, in the case of Phyrexian Dreadnought, the errata was for original intent. It just happens that the way cards were written crappily back then resulted in this case having an ability that looks perfectly fine today.

I was most intrigued when you said that errata is a way of banning cards, a way more powerful than the B&R list itself, at least in Vintage. Very insightful, and absolutely true.

I'll be back with criticisms.

[Xandercoon]

Originally Posted by Horseshoe_Hermit

Xandercoon, in the case of Phyrexian Dreadnought, the errata was for original intent. It just happens that the way cards were written crappily back then resulted in this case having an ability that looks perfectly fine today.

But you can say the same thing about Flash; there's no difference. The original intent of that was to allow people to play a creature as an instant. It was obviously never intended to be abused in 1st-turn win combo decks, but due to its crappy wording, that's what happened.
Now Dreadnought has the word bury written on it, which has a very specific meaning under the old rules; "destroy and can't be regenerated." Oracle wordings usually revert this to sacrifice in cases like Dreadnought, but the point is, you can never bury something unless it is in play first. The obvious intention of the original card is that the creature comes into play, and that is how the card was played until degenerate use forced Wizards into issuing power-level errata.
Original intent is irrelevant after the fact, as Flash demonstrated.

[Sakura]

Originally Posted by Xandercoon

But you can say the same thing about Flash; there's no difference. The original intent of that was to allow people to play a creature as an instant. It was obviously never intended to be abused in 1st-turn win combo decks, but due to its crappy wording, that's what happened.
Now Dreadnought has the word bury written on it, which has a very specific meaning under the old rules; "destroy and can't be regenerated." Oracle wordings usually revert this to sacrifice in cases like Dreadnought, but the point is, you can never bury something unless it is in play first. The obvious intention of the original card is that the creature comes into play, and that is how the card was played until degenerate use forced Wizards into issuing power-level errata.
Original intent is irrelevant after the fact, as Flash demonstrated.

Not true. there are a few cards that say "Bury" when not refering to a permanant. I will see if I can find an example. Though under your logic, Flash says Bury.