A Response to Mr Gottlieb

[Yare]

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

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

Pithing Needle.

Can you honestly say you want the Needle to have the text you can find in the autocard above?

Please note that the printed wording of Pithing Needle does not work.

[Volcanon]

I dont see why they didnt eratta Gob King to be:

Creature - Goblin King

[MadMageQc]

The Phyrexian Dreadnought/Lotus Vale/Scorched Ruins/Mox Diamond issue is a complicated one. You have to remember that those were printed in the dark age when there was no stack. Back then, you could not respond to triggered abilities, even with mana abilities.

It is worth noting (if my memory serves me correctly) that errata was issued very shortly after the set was released (whether it was emergency errata or not, I do not know) in order to prevent exactly such an abuse.

Wrong, or unclear at best if by "the set" you mean Sixth Edition. Errata was not issued for the Vale, the Ruins, and the Diamond until the stack was created, because it simply wasn't needed. You couldn't use their mana before the sacrifice/discard happened. The current wording was made to restore their functionnality. That is what this quote

Lotus Vale / Mox Diamond / Phyrexian Dreadnought – More cards that had their functionality disrupted by a rules change. The intent of these cards was always that the costs had to be paid before the cards could be used, and we want to maintain that.

is actually refering to.

If my memory serves me correctly, you were ok with that kind of errata.

Even if Phyrexian Dreadnought is mentionned in that old quote, its case is special, and I agree with MaGo that it should be treated differently from the three other cards, because it doesn't have an activated mana ability. Its original functionnality allowed it to trigger comes-into-play abilities of other permanents like the one of Pandemonium before you paid the cost, and restoring printed text allows that without much danger. 2x Pandemonium + Dreadnought and 2X Dreadnought + Pandemonium are perfectly fair combos for Legacy. The three others could also trigger such abilities, but sadly, we can't allow such a jump in their power level. It is a functionnality errata that has a power level use, but it is still a functionnality errata, and for that reason I think maintaining it is the right thing to do. It's not the same thing as for a pure power level errata.

The fact is that these four cards CANNOT have their original functionnality fully restored, because they were affected too drastically by the massive rules change of Sixth Edition. Restoring Dreadnought's original text is not restoring its full original functionnality, but it is an elegant and acceptable thing to do in my opinion, while giving the three other cards their original text is not.

I already know what you'll say : even if it's not a "pure" power level errata they received, we should do it for the lands and the Diamond too since their printed text can be used under current rules. Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that like last time. Your opinion on the matter seems to be what I call the "the supremacy of ink" : the card text should dictate the true rules text as much as possible within the rules. Mine is the "supremacy of common aknowlegement" wich allows the meaning of a symbolic object (in this case, a card) to deviate because people who use it all agree to do so for a logical reason. It's a lot like the value of paper money; a 1900's mint five dollar bill is worth a lot more than five dollars despite what's printed on it. Not a perfect example, but it's how I see it. Like I said, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

[Jaxal1]

Just to echo Horsehoe Hermit: Pithing Needle came into play errataed. It's printed Saviors text does not work. It's new text is much, much closer to the original text than the old oracle text, which was two separate abilities, one to deal with cards in play and others to deal with cards not in play.

What I want to know is what is going on with creature types. Their philosphy on what creature types should exist and where seems to change faster than they can justify updates via reprints (The 'Lords' changes in the last few core sets, the 'Giant-Cyclops' issue between Ekundu Cyclops and Tar Pit Warrior, etc.) It's difficult to ever discern what their policy is at a given time, because we can only see such a narrow cross-section at a time. Maybe it's just that I play online, with auto-updating cards, but I'd almost rather see a comprehesive update done all at once than the bit-by-bit inconsistent updating. Wolves-of-the-Hunt, for instance, can be done away with. No one will be confused that it's a wolf, even without a reprinted version.

[Yare]

First, GREAT post. I love it, truly. Anything that comes off as jerkdom is meant to be argumentative, not insulting.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

The Phyrexian Dreadnought/Lotus Vale/Scorched Ruins/Mox Diamond issue is a complicated one. You have to remember that those were printed in the dark age when there was no stack. Back then, you could not respond to triggered abilities, even with mana abilities.

<quote about Yare's memory of the errata>

Wrong, or unclear at best if by "the set" you mean Sixth Edition. Errata was not issued for the Vale, the Ruins, and the Diamond until the stack was created, because it simply wasn't needed. You couldn't use their mana before the sacrifice/discard happened. The current wording was made to restore their functionnality. That is what this quote

<insert quote here>

is actually refering to.

serves me correctly, you were ok with that kind of errata.

That's why I said "if memory serves me correctly." Evidently, it did not.

Even if Phyrexian Dreadnought is mentionned in that old quote, its case is special, and I agree with MaGo that it should be treated differently from the three other cards, because it doesn't have an activated mana ability. Its original functionnality allowed it to trigger comes-into-play abilities of other permanents like the one of Pandemonium before you paid the cost, and restoring printed text allows that without much danger. 2x Pandemonium + Dreadnought and 2X Dreadnought + Pandemonium are perfectly fair combos for Legacy. The three others could also trigger such abilities, but sadly, we can't allow such a jump in their power level. It is a functionnality errata that has a power level use, but it is still a functionnality errata, and for that reason I think maintaining it is the right thing to do. It's not the same thing as for a pure power level errata.

The fact is that these four cards CANNOT have their original functionnality fully restored, because they were affected too drastically by the massive rules change of Sixth Edition. Restoring Dreadnought's original text is not restoring its full original functionnality, but it is an elegant and acceptable thing to do in my opinion, while giving the three other cards their original text is not.

So by "elegant and acceptable" do you mean "for the sake of the game" or something to that effect? Basically, this is how it is so we should let it go or what? I'm not sure I understand the subtleties of this statement.

I already know what you'll say : even if it's not a "pure" power level errata they received, we should do it for the lands and the Diamond too since their printed text can be used under current rules. Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that like last time. Your opinion on the matter seems to be what I call the "the supremacy of ink" : the card text should dictate the true rules text as much as possible within the rules. Mine is the "supremacy of common aknowlegement" wich allows the meaning of a symbolic object (in this case, a card) to deviate because people who use it all agree to do so for a logical reason. It's a lot like the value of paper money; a 1900's mint five dollar bill is worth a lot more than five dollars despite what's printed on it. Not a perfect example, but it's how I see it. Like I said, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

I advocate the "supremacy of ink" as long as it is tempered by the rules of the game that existed at the time. So, we can't just read Dreadnought and Lotus Vale as being truly the same if the rules said otherwise. I mean, if the rules said distinctively that the mana abilities couldn't be played but the Dreadnought was ok for responses, then I'm all for different functionality. Additionally, as you point out, functionality may just not be possible under the current rules. I will say this though: Gottlieb specifically avoided this issue in his article, which is glaring in my opinion. This needed to be addressed. The simple answer may very well be that he did not know. Frankly, I would love to tear apart an old rules book and really look hard at all the subtleties. Suffice it to say that I found your position very reasonable. I just think an explanation is in order, at the very least, for why Vale and Dreadnought do not jive.

Again, great post. Thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by Jaxal1

Just to echo Horsehoe Hermit: Pithing Needle came into play errataed. It's printed Saviors text does not work. It's new text is much, much closer to the original text than the old oracle text, which was two separate abilities, one to deal with cards in play and others to deal with cards not in play.

Ok, ok. I'll concede the point about the original text of Pithing Needle not being functional to a T. However, the language clearly states and implies "card" not "source". Gottlieb himself admits that this is a functional change.

This is the errata I am the most concerned about; the other little things that I whine about are more incidental. I mean, do I REALLY care all that much that Goblin King isn't a King? No, of course not. It's just these little things have to be addressed in order to get the big dogs.

Rewriting the past to make it look how it would look were it printed today should not be a goal of Wizards. That's the long and short of pretty much everything I write and am arguing. Yes, cards need to be reconciled with the new rules. But cards don't need to be changed just because it makes it "clean" or some other word when the rules can handle it as it is. The game does not understand "fair" or "clean" or "elegant". It only understands winning and losing, given the constraints it is played under.

What I want to know is what is going on with creature types. Their philosphy on what creature types should exist and where seems to change faster than they can justify updates via reprints (The 'Lords' changes in the last few core sets, the 'Giant-Cyclops' issue between Ekundu Cyclops and Tar Pit Warrior, etc.) It's difficult to ever discern what their policy is at a given time, because we can only see such a narrow cross-section at a time. Maybe it's just that I play online, with auto-updating cards, but I'd almost rather see a comprehesive update done all at once than the bit-by-bit inconsistent updating. Wolves-of-the-Hunt, for instance, can be done away with. No one will be confused that it's a wolf, even without a reprinted version.

Added after your edit: exactly, I agree completely. If you're gonna do it, let's get it over with at the very least.

Thanks for the post.

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Interesting article.

I feel better about emergency errata, which is what Pithing Needle originally got (right?), than I do about errata issued upon a card's reprinting. It seems obvious to me that a change to a card just printed, while (hopefully) embarrassing to WotC, reflects what R&D wants the card to say.
It would be nice if R&D forced themselves to live with mistakes on cards, because then they might start to make less of them. But that probably won't become policy.




This is half rules question, half inquiry:
1) Under current rules, could Phyrexian Dreadnought / Lotus Vale / Scorched Ruins / Mox Diamond correctly be given errata to say "As ~this~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you [sacrifice any number of creatures with total power 12 or greater / sacrifice two untapped lands / sacrifice two untapped lands / discard a land card]."?

2) If so, and if such errata would make the functionality of each equivalent to how each worked when printed, would you support such changes? (I know the cards may have each worked differently then...) Would they be relevant?

[QmunkE]

I find it amusing that you used Fire Whip in your Eron the Relentless example - if Fire Whip hadn't received errata it would work with Eron as originally printed, since tapping the creature was a cost of an ability on the enchantment, not on the creature!

[sawbladex]

I have to say, they wouldn't have printed Pithing Needle without changing its oracle text from the orginal.

Anything that cuts down on the wordage in Magic is a good thing.

[alias1]

I loved the article, and it's cool how the discussion pages on mtgsalvation articles about errata bring all the oracle's attendants out of the woodwork for some serious discussion.

I think one major thing hangs over (almost) this entire issue, colouring it in the background: Sixth Edition. It messed things up, and everyone has to get over it. It ruined every creature's original functionality with regard to tapped blockers dealing combat damage (they didn't). It ruined many things that will go (mostly) ignored, and many things that will fixed many times before anyone's happy. In the end, let's not forget our common enemy, and that's whoever forgot to make a time machine and bring Sixth Edition insight to Alpha. (Let's not attack each other for the problems VI created.)

As for Pithing Needle, while I hold the ink in high esteem for post-Sixth cards (no comment at this point on earlier ones) such as it, I hold elegance in high enough esteem to agree with Gottlieb's admittedly very subjective judgment call. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but it's very beautiful from a rules perspective, reflecting similarly satisfying changes such as Gob King and his ilk now saying "Goblin creatures."

Thallid Ice Cream Man: the approach to the rules question is similar to getting Ravenous Rats'd when you have no cards in hand. You can't discard a card that doesn't exist. Similarly, the wording you suggest would allow you to circumvent the abilities of the two lands as long as all your lands were tapped, for example. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to not have 12 power on the board with Dreadnought in play, and similarly awkward is calling a judge over to verify that in fact you have no land to discard to your Mox, though this hassle allows you to similarly avoid your payment. (Such situations where a judge is technically required to inspect a player's hand do exist, though I see them as unfortunate but probably unavoidable blemishes produced by the sea of interactions between 8800+ cards.)

[Catweazle]

for those of you that do not visit the wotc site but are interested in the matter (todays ask wizard question):


Q: What exactly is the reasoning behind getting rid of the lord creature type? Shouldn't Goblin King and his lordly friends follow the regular race/class creature type model? Even if the Lord creature type doesn't interact with anything, there are plenty of other creature types that don't, but aren't being removed.
–"Me," Simi Valley, CA, USA
A: From Brady Dommermuth, Magic Creative Director:
Creature types are the most complicated and persistent problem I deal with. Technically speaking, a creature's subtypes are the only elements of a card where flavor and mechanics can't be separated. You could change a card's name, illustration, and flavor text, and the card's function would be unaffected. But changing its subtypes affects gameplay, which means lots of consideration and sometimes lots of argument.

Magic R&D discussed the Lord type at length back when Tenth Edition creature types needed to be settled toward the end of last year. No other type took more discussion and debate, in fact. In the end, we decided that the Lord type was too problematic to support. Here are some points that arose in the debate:

• There's simply not enough room on the type line to always give creatures each type they should have. In situations in which a creature card has too many types to print and we have to omit one, if Lord is one of the proposed types, it's usually the one that's least painful to omit. If you have to omit it sometimes, that creates inconsistency in its usage over time. Inconsistency is okay when it comes to flavor issues, but as mentioned above, creature types affect game play, and inconsistency in game play is terrible.
• For some players, "lord" is a gendered term that can be used only for male figures (lord and lady, for example). That means either all Lords must be male (which creates a sexist outcome), or we have female Lords, which some believe is incorrect language usage.
• Many consider Lord to be a "class" type like Wizard or Soldier. Others believe it's not really a class but a status, like Minion (this ties into the issue below of whether you use Lord as a mechanical or flavor-based term). Because there's limited space on the type line, creatures typically have only one class. Should a wizard lord be a Wizard or a Lord? If Lord is considered a status term rather than a class, the decision becomes much easier.
• If a card has a supported creature type in its name, it should have that type. There are a few exceptions—Giant Spider doesn't have the Giant type—but generally speaking if it's called a Goblin, it should have the Goblin type. If it's called an Elf, it should have the Elf type, and so on. That's just common sense. Trying to apply this common-sense rule for Lord, however, lands us in a world of trouble (see below).
• Some players use Lord to mean, "I give one or more abilities and/or a power/toughness bonus to a given class of creatures for as long as I'm in play." Other players use Lord to mean, "I give +1/+1 to a particular race of creatures." Others use it to mean, "My flavor is that I command others." Still others use it to mean, "I don't just command others; I'm at the very top." But all these usages are wildly inconsistent on existing cards (see below).

Here are some pre–Tenth Edition lists to give you an idea of the scope of the problem. These lists may not be 100% complete (especially the "command others" list), and they don't include Mistform Ultimus, but they should illustrate the issue nonetheless:
These cards have "lord" in their titles and have the Lord type:
Chaos Lord
Dralnu, Lich Lord
Keldon Warlord
Kobold Overlord
Lord of Atlantis
Lord of the Undead
These cards don't have "lord" in their titles, nor do they have the Lord type, but they represent creatures in positions of command or rulership:
Ambush Commander
Arcbound Overseer
Archangel
Aven Brigadier
Barbarian General
Cabal Patriarch
Cao Ren, Wei Commander
Captain Sisay
Centaur Chieftain
Chieftain en-Dal
Coffin Queen
Commander Eesha
Dwarven Lieutenant
Fascist Art Director
Flowstone Overseer
Garza Zol, Plague Queen
General Jarkeld
Goblin General
Goblin Marshal
Goblin Ringleader
Goblin Taskmaster
Goblin Warchief
Gorilla Chieftain
Huang Zhong, Shu General
Icatian Lieutenant
Jhovall Queen
Kavu Monarch
Kavu Primarch
King Suleiman
Kjeldoran Skycaptain
Kobold Drill Sergeant
Krosan Warchief
Lady Zhurong, Warrior Queen
Latulla, Keldon Overseer
Lieutenant Kirtar
Loxodon Hierarch
Lu Meng, Wu General
Lu Xun, Scholar General
Major Teroh
Mistform Warchief
Mogg War Marshal
Ogre Taskmaster
Radiant, Archangel
Raven Guild Master
Razia, Boros Archangel
Orc General
Orcish Captain
Pianna, Nomad Captain
Pixie Queen
Princess Lucrezia
Ramosian Captain
Ramosian Commander
Ramosian Lieutenant
Ramosian Sergeant
Ramosian Sky Marshal
Revenant Patriarch
Riptide Director
Rogue Skycaptain
Ronin Houndmaster
Rootwater Matriarch
Savra, Queen of the Golgari
Seasoned Marshal
Shu General
Siege-Gang Commander
Sima Yi, Wei Field Marshal
Skirk Drill Sergeant
Sliver Queen
Sol'Kanar the Swamp King
Sorceress Queen
Squee, Goblin Nabob
Stern Marshal
Stronghold Overseer
Stronghold Taskmaster
Takeno, Samurai General
Vedalken Mastermind
Whip Sergeant
Wirewood Hivemaster
Wu Admiral
Yellow Scarves General
Zhalfirin Commander
Zhang He, Wei General
Zhao Zilong, Tiger General
Zhou Yu, Chief Commander
These cards have "lord" in their titles but don't have the Lord type:
Balduvian Warlord
Cao Cao, Lord of Wei
Cateran Overlord
Dauthi Warlord
Eladamri, Lord of Leaves
Godo, Bandit Warlord
Konda, Lord of Eiganjo
Kuro, Pitlord
Liu Bei, Lord of Shu
Lord Magnus
Lord of the Pit
Lord of Tresserhorn
Phyrexian Plaguelord
Renegade Warlord
Sliver Overlord
Sun Quan, Lord of Wu
Szadek, Lord of Secrets
These cards have the Lord type, but don't have "lord" in their titles:
Ancestor's Prophet
Assquatch
Benalish Commander
Caller of the Hunt
Catapult Master
Chorus of the Conclave
Crovax, Ascendant Hero
Darien, King of Kjeldor
Elvish Champion
Ghost Council of Orzhova
Goblin King
Gravespawn Sovereign
Jedit Ojanen of Efrava
Lovisa Coldeyes
Skirk Fire Marshal
Supreme Inquisitor
Tivadar of Thorn
Voice of the Woods
Zombie Master
These cards don't have "lord" in their titles, nor do they have the Lord type, but they "buff" creatures of a particular kind in the same way "Lords" do:
Ascendant Evincar
Auriok Steelshaper
Aven Brigadier
Balthor the Defiled
Blade Sliver
Brass Herald
Celestial Crusader
Chainer, Dementia Master
Daru Warchief
Field Marshal
Ixidor, Reality Sculptor
Kangee, Aerie Keeper
Kobold Taskmaster
Meng Huo, Barbarian King
Might Sliver
Nut Collector
Plated Sliver
Raksha Golden Cub
Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro
Seshiro the Anointed
Sinew Sliver
Sliver Legion
Sosuke, Son of Seshiro
Steamflogger Boss
Thelonite Hermit
Thrull Champion
Tolsimir Wolfblood
Undead Warchief
Verdeloth the Ancient
So now that you've seen these lists, do you have an answer for which of the creatures above should have the Lord type and which shouldn't? Chances are reasonably good that you don't. But let's say you do—that you're absolutely confident that your answer is the right one. Find someone else who also has "the answer." See if theirs is identical to yours. If it's not, what do you do? I'm guessing that when readers try to work out this problem for themselves, they'll encounter the same divisions of opinion that we did here at Wizards.
After many, many hours of disagreement and discussion over where and how Lord should be used, we had an hour-long group meeting about the issue. The next day I sent the following email to the other members of Magic R&D:

"Tenth Edition creature types need to be locked in today. I appreciate everyone talking through the issues around the Lord type yesterday; it's a big headache and lots of people had lots of valid points.
I'm intending to go with the 'cut the Gordian knot' option: eliminate the Lord type. Every other option just has too many pitfalls, such as "Lord of the Pit" getting the Lord type and "Kuro, Pitlord" not getting it, or having to decide arbitrarily whether the Lord type begins at the Major General or Lieutenant General level of command.
In the end, I wasn't compelled by the counterarguments to the "players will call them lords anyway" position. Eliminating the Lord type more or less counts on the fact that players will continue to use Lord when chatting about Goblin King, for example, and that when it comes to the gray areas that we can't fully resolve on cards, players' emergent consensus will compensate.
I wouldn't seriously consider eliminating the Lord type unless I truly believed Lord will live on as player slang, in the same way that "fatty" or "weenie" do. I fully endorse inclusion of "lord" in any glossaries we publish (in starter-level materials, online, wherever). In my mind the "lord" entry would look something like this:

"Lord." Player slang that refers to a creature that gives a bonus to all creatures with a particular creature type or characteristic. For example, Goblin King is a "lord" because it gives all Goblins +1/+1.

Thanks to everyone for your help and feedback. If you think I'm making a terrible, terrible mistake that you simply can't abide, come talk to me ASAP."

Needless to say, no one came to talk to me any further about the Lord type, and I took that as an indicator that even if the decision wasn't perfect, there was no other decision that we thought was clearly better. I hope this response has at least given you the impression that we don't make these decisions quickly or capriciously.

[Streetz]

Great article, Yare.

I for one am most upset about the loss of Lord as a creature type -- or really the phasing out of it. There goes all of my tribal Lord decks.

[cheddercaveman]

Ok, so let me start by saying I read the article, I found it interesting. What I constantly find interesting is that article writers, players, and anyone who's ever looked at a magic card thinks they know better than the people who create the game and cards. This ranges from the wording on Pithing Needle to how the Combat Phase works and what steps are contained there-in. Don't get me wrong, WotC has made some mistakes which they'll admit to fully. However, does anyone know what one of those mistakes was (in my opinion)? Changing the errata on Flash.

Yes, yes they returned it to what they believed was there initially designed idea, however, in doing so they also almost completely crippled an entire format and they've still completely reshaped vintage all because they felt the card wasn't working quite the way it was intended. Therefore resulting in a ban in legacy (and perhaps in vintage it could become restricted if it remains as insane as it is). However, this was just to point out the implication these changes can make, not to debate the existance of this one card.

Now, lets look at Pithing Needle which seems to be the hot topic in all honesty. Pithing Needle originally stated that it would stop any card's activated abilities with the exception of mana abilities. To me, this means that anything that has a semi-colon after its cost that isnt producing mana as its outcome that is named by Pithing Needle should not be usable. The problem with that is this ... it says "Card". Cards only exist in your library, hand, RFG zone, and graveyard. I think we would all agree that the purpose of this card was that activated abilities of cards in play should not be playable if named with needle. Thus, the first errata which explained to us that a permanent could be needled effectively. To me the original errata does what the new errata does, they just made it easier to read/understand by giving it the errata for Xth.

My point is that most of these changes implying original intent could be argued until we're blue in the face. WotC is the ones who produce, design, test, and sell the product. They make changes with purpose. They make mistakes from time to time, sure. However, lets put a little bit of faith in the people who were making the changes to hope they were for the best. Also, as far as the rules, they are changed for a reason, they are the way they are for a reason, so please don't (not saying this article did) argue that they are wrong just because you don't think thats how magic works. Right or wrong WotC decides how the game of Magic is played and I'm sure they'll look at your feedback and see if they made a mistake, but give the guys working hard so you can have fun a little bit of credit.

[FoxBat]

http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/rul...-summaries.php

http://www.wizards.com/magic/advance...ok/Welcome.asp

Some random things I found. Don't think there was anything quite as comprehensive as the... comprehensive... rules of today, but you should be able to piece it together from those two sources.

I was around back in the dark ages of MTG... quit right around 5E. Kindof astonishing we have vintage players writing articles who aren't from those times, but times change I guess.

P.S. I'm pretty sure hulk/flash combo would work under 5E rules. Though I'm less sure about the Kikki/Gravewhatever nonsense that usuallly follows in T1.

[Finn]

Hey Yare. Good job on the article.

I want to add a couple of thoughts.

1. You are correct that the term "target" was not well-established at the time of Natural Selection. In fact, even the Revised rulebook defined target as "a particular type of card in play" (making Disintegrate a really hard card to understand - "so can I Disinegrate a player?"). So clearly, this spell would have been printed without use of that word under those conditions. Similarly, Tranquility has the word "discard" printed on it, and there were a variety of other ambiguous places to get confused. So it makes sense to give the card a modern wording.

But then there is the recent revert of Drop of Honey to its original printing. That is, they actually removed the targeting effect that had been errataed in so long ago. Given this glaring contradiction, I am convinced of two things. (1) This latest attempt is going to make no long-term headway, and is bound to be reversed again in the future. There is no simple and perfect blanket strategy for these sorts of things. The entire process is inherently subjective. (2) Wizards is no further from arbitrary rulings on cards than they were a decade ago.

2. My long-term solution for Lotus Vale, et.al.
When Lotus Vale comes into play, sacrifice two untapped lands or sacrifice Lotus Vale. You may not tap Lotus Vale for mana until this trigger has resolved.

duh.