I asked Gavin Verhey at the Team Panda Standard tournament in Bellevue before KTK came out about why Wizards won't repeal the reserved list, and he said he thinks it's because they're afraid of the potential lawsuits. I told him that I just want newer versions of reserved list cards like dual lands (since I had six blue duals back then) and he said that if the people who wanted to keep the reserved list around felt the same way, they could get rid of it. Reprinting them would also erase any doubts of counterfeits since they would be in the M15 frame. I asked Sean Gibbons on the Magic twitch channel if we could get a reserved list replacement program, where you could pay a fee and turn in any condition reserved list card for an updated version in the m15 border with new art and it could be your choice of foil or non-foil. The old versions would be destroyed. He said it was an interesting idea but he said he would talk to other members in R&D about it. I asked him how it went but he hasn't replied yet.
Could you ask him about legendary duals? I.e. original duals with "legendary" supertype added on to it. They would be strictly worse than original duals so they would not be breaking the reserve list.
Tacking on a supertype like Legendary or Snow still leaves the card functionally itentical according to the definition set out by the reprint policy.
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
I asked Gavin Verhey at the Team Panda Standard tournament in Bellevue before KTK came out about why Wizards won't repeal the reserved list, and he said he thinks it's because they're afraid of the potential lawsuits. I told him that I just want newer versions of reserved list cards like dual lands (since I had six blue duals back then) and he said that if the people who wanted to keep the reserved list around felt the same way, they could get rid of it. Reprinting them would also erase any doubts of counterfeits since they would be in the M15 frame. I asked Sean Gibbons on the Magic twitch channel if we could get a reserved list replacement program, where you could pay a fee and turn in any condition reserved list card for an updated version in the m15 border with new art and it could be your choice of foil or non-foil. The old versions would be destroyed. He said it was an interesting idea but he said he would talk to other members in R&D about it. I asked him how it went but he hasn't replied yet.
Could you ask him about legendary duals? I.e. original duals with "legendary" supertype added on to it. They would be strictly worse than original duals so they would not be breaking the reserve list.
Tacking on a supertype like Legendary or Snow still leaves the card functionally itentical according to the definition set out by the reprint policy.
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
It violates the LETTER of the RL, and that should be all that matters. I hate the RL and hope it gets abolished, but at least it's codified and written down. The "spirit of the reserved list" is nonsense, and should be ignored completely. The reprint policy is the reprint policy, and adding unwritten riders, terms, and conditions to it just makes things more confusing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
The "spirit of the reserved list" is nonsense, and should be ignored completely. The reprint policy is the reprint policy, and adding unwritten riders, terms, and conditions to it just makes things more confusing.
The problem with ignoring it, is that WotC invokes it. You can ignore it if you want, but the rest of us have to live with it.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
The "spirit of the reserved list" is nonsense, and should be ignored completely. The reprint policy is the reprint policy, and adding unwritten riders, terms, and conditions to it just makes things more confusing.
The problem with ignoring it, is that WotC invokes it. You can ignore it if you want, but the rest of us have to live with it.
Spitten truth in an otherwise nonsensical thread. keep it up Charon, maybe one day it'll make a difference and legendary/snow dual suggestions will end.
The "spirit of the reserved list" is nonsense, and should be ignored completely. The reprint policy is the reprint policy, and adding unwritten riders, terms, and conditions to it just makes things more confusing.
The problem with ignoring it, is that WotC invokes it. You can ignore it if you want, but the rest of us have to live with it.
Spitten truth in an otherwise nonsensical thread. keep it up Charon, maybe one day it'll make a difference and legendary/snow dual suggestions will end.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
I would have thought that if the only fear was legal action, then there would be no need to talk about a "spirit" of the reserved list. Then things like "reverberate" would be fine, as well as dual lands with "Protection from tribal" or other trinket text.
The fact that Wizards care about the "spirit" rather than only the "letter" of the RL, to me points toward this being a business/customer relations decision, without any legal ramifications.
I would have thought that if the only fear was legal action, then there would be no need to talk about a "spirit" of the reserved list. Then things like "reverberate" would be fine, as well as dual lands with "Protection from tribal" or other trinket text.
The fact that Wizards care about the "spirit" rather than only the "letter" of the RL, to me points toward this being a business/customer relations decision, without any legal ramifications.
Nail on head. The whole "aww, wish we could help, but our hands are tied :(" is complete bull*****.
What about a fetchable cycle of "urborg" lands since people want new lands so much. Like land - swamp: all lands are islands in addition to their other types
People should understand that WotC will never ever print again unflawed dual-lands, legal in GP and PT formats.
I would say unlikely is much more correct - nothing is impossible, and surely when it comes to the future neither you nor I can actually say for sure what will happen in the near, or distant, futures.
People should understand that WotC will never ever print again unflawed dual-lands, legal in GP and PT formats.
Maybe not, but that doesn't stop them from printing cards that are only Legacy, Vintage and EDH legal. Look at TNN.
Do I hold out any real hope that the RL will ever go away? Of course not. I know that eventually Vintage and Legacy will either die completely or be so expensive that only a very few will be able to play it, like the ones in the formats right now. But new players? When Useas go for $3,000 a pop, no, that's when Legacy dies.
The word supertype, i.e. Legendary as seen on Isamaru, Hound of Konda, did not exist at the time of the creation of the Reserved List. Legend was at the time just another subtype, i.e. as seen on Commander Eesha. Therefore, having the legendary supertype would not be functionally identical and would not be breaking the reserve list.
WotC have defined functional identity in away which is independent of Supertypes, but tis is something they could easily change, as it makes zero sense to consider two cards functionally identical when one is Legendary (not to say they have any appetite to do so).
Creatures with the type "Legend" were ret-coned to Legendary creatures for Kamigawa, but prior to that there were already Legendary Lands and Artifacts. I'm not sure when 'supertype' became an official term in the rules. Maybe when the new frame came out and 'Basic' was added to the type line of lands?
Spitten truth in an otherwise nonsensical thread. keep it up Charon, maybe one day it'll make a difference and legendary/snow dual suggestions will end.
Never! For WotC to abandon the Reserved list altogether is a lot to ask. Their policy to respect its "spirit" could be abandoned with far less fuss and repercussions (or they could simply redefine 'spirit' in a way that allows these reprints). WotC currently has no desire to print more Legacy playable dual lands - but I expect this will change eventually. Snow or Legendary duals (or something similar) would be the best way to circumvent the (letter of) the list if and when they so desire.
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
Legendary duals are stricly worse than the originals. Think how shocklands came to be printed. It is functionally the same with the drawback, "this comes into play tapped unless you pay 2 life." That makes shocklands strictly worse than original duals. Likewise, a legendary dual land also has the drawback, "when this comes into play, sacrifice it if you control more than one copy of this land". The first drawback actually led to a cycle of shocklands, why couldn't the second drawback do the same?
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
Legendary duals are stricly worse than the originals. Think how shocklands came to be printed. It is functionally the same with the drawback, "this comes into play tapped unless you pay 2 life." That makes shocklands strictly worse than original duals. Likewise, a legendary dual land also has the drawback, "when this comes into play, sacrifice it if you control more than one copy of this land". The first drawback actually led to a cycle of shocklands, why couldn't the second drawback do the same?
Pretty sure it violates in the sense that you could substitute one dual for one legend dual and it's almost the same. Many decks don't even play a full set of duals so this is a pretty big difference. Not to mention there ARE cards that care about legendary permanents so this COULD be better in a way. I just don't think they should do this.
I do get that all of your baselines for it being acceptable is functionally identical, but I think the game would be better served by creating better land hate against non-basics to keep duals under control. Decks requiring a reduced number of duals is probably the best hope for the future, not actually reprinting duals themselves.
I personally won't worry about the reserved list getting revoked until I see reprints of other eternal staples. They could reprint Force of Will or Wasteland, but they haven't even done that yet. Until they do, I won't get too excited about any reserved list talk as they seem unwilling to do even that.
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
Legendary duals are stricly worse than the originals. Think how shocklands came to be printed. It is functionally the same with the drawback, "this comes into play tapped unless you pay 2 life." That makes shocklands strictly worse than original duals. Likewise, a legendary dual land also has the drawback, "when this comes into play, sacrifice it if you control more than one copy of this land". The first drawback actually led to a cycle of shocklands, why couldn't the second drawback do the same?
Pretty sure it violates in the sense that you could substitute one dual for one legend dual and it's almost the same.
IMO, this only - to me - reaffirms my belief that the "spirit of the RL" is a crock - and adds arbitrary definition... essentially, the "spirit of the RL" justification (so you know I'm targeting the common argument, and not you specifically) is saying is that if it comes [some arbitrary %] close to a card, or can be used with [some arbitrary % of closeness] as a substitute, then assume it violates the list," which basically removes that definitive nature of the RL, murddies the water instead of keeping things clear and concise.
In addition to what I said above about the Urborg.
What about
Land - Swamp Island
Whenever you tap this land for mana, you lose 1 life.
Not much better than a shock land - maybe worse. Most legacy decks can't run this lest they die horribly to Burn (and other aggro decks). Personally I like this:
Land - Forest Swamp
You may have only x copies of ~ in your deck.
Where x = 1, 2, or 3. This is a similar mechanic as used in Relentless Rats, only the reverse. But the problem isn't in how to circumvent the list - the problem is WotC's willingness to do so!
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
Legendary duals are stricly worse than the originals. Think how shocklands came to be printed. It is functionally the same with the drawback, "this comes into play tapped unless you pay 2 life." That makes shocklands strictly worse than original duals. Likewise, a legendary dual land also has the drawback, "when this comes into play, sacrifice it if you control more than one copy of this land". The first drawback actually led to a cycle of shocklands, why couldn't the second drawback do the same?
Because, and this is what i was trying to say: Legendary is a supertype. Adding or subtracting a supertype doesn't make any difference according to the written policy. Same with Snow. They can't print Snow versions of the ABUR duals, and they can't print Legendary versions of the ABUR duals, because those are a direct violation of the policy as it is written. You don't even need to use the whole "spirit of the reserved list" garbage, they're against the letter of the reprint policy.
So far, they've made the "spirit of the reserved list" argument exactly once, when they printed reverberate and decided afterwards that it was too close to fork, and that while it was technically not a "functional reprint" according to their policy, it violated some unwritten, nebulous "spirit" of the policy. This is where I think they went very wrong: they have a policy in place. I don't like that policy, and I hope they change it, but as long as they have a policy in place, they should abide by that policy. Which is why I said they shouldn't be adding unwritten rules to it: if you want to say it violates the spirit of the RL, then for kitten's sake write it down. When you have an official "this is how we handle things," then you don't NEED to be making calls about the "spirit" of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Fetchable underground river that has a city of brass clause tacked on instead of the tapping for colorless painfree is way, way worse than a shockland let alone an ABUR dual land.
Willing to print ABU caliber dual lands into a PT format? Yes, yes they would be. Original ravnica saw WotC trying to reprint ABUR dual lands in it but the reserved list sure wrecked that. There have been standard where the mana has been almost perfect like shocklands + M10 allied/enemy lands being one example. Manafixing doesn't break a format powerful nonland cards do as I don't expect WotC is going to print a land that wrecks standard ever again a la tolarian academy.
If you want to see chaos ensue, tack relentless rats' wording onto original dual lands/you can run as many as you like/14 Relentless Underground Sea's in your deck. Just a thought exercise but the price tag would be absurd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
[I think it's fair to say that they simply didn't think to include super-type, as it's relevant about as often as subtypes are and clearly makes a functional difference in how the card plays. I've never seen a real, official definition of "functional reprint" anyway. It would be easy for them to say "we changed how we define functional reprint". More importantly, there are ways to add an ability to them without making them identical, even by that definition. Heck, "each time you tap this land for mana, add a counter to it. If it has more than 504 counters on it, sac this land." Tadah, not functionally identical by that definition... but functionally identical.
What do you mean you've "never seen a real, official definition of "functional reprint" anyway"?? It's in the post you JUST quoted. Literally on the same page as the list of cards. They say they won't do functional reprints, then they go on to explicitly define a functional reprint. There is absolutely no ambiguity. You're right that they can make other tweaks to the card to make them not functionally identical, but I've already said that, so I don't know why you bothered quoting me to begin with.
They simply said "a card is considered...". Once. Half a decade ago. I'd hardly call that an official definition, especially when it's obviously arbitrary and incomplete (there's literally no reason to include subtypes and not supertypes). It's not like it's something in the official rules. It's just something they wrote in a post once, a post that isn't even particularly detailed and certainly isn't legally binding, I might add.
I'd be more inclined to agree if the "definition" made any sense. Why would you define something as "functionally identical" if it doesn't function identically?
By now, you're pretty clearly just arguing because you made a simple mistake by not knowing what "functionally identical" meant in terms of the reserved list. Unwilling to give up ground, you're now trying to say that the explicit description of "functionally identical" is not what the reserved list means by "functionally identical" one sentence prior. To further muddle the dialogue, you're throwing in a lot of tangential things that have no relation to what I said like "isn't legally binding" and *shock* the reserved list doesn't make sense. It's okay, people make mistakes. All I said was that if you actually read the reserved list, snow duals violate the reserved list, and now you know it too, no matter how much you try to pretend they don't.
Or not. Functionally identical means identical in function. Snow duals are not. There are countless simply explanations for why supertype was left off of their not even vaguely official "definition" of the term. Perhaps it's an oversight. Perhaps it's because they didn't want people making the reserved list legendaries non-legendary in the future. Perhaps it's because supertypes effectively give cards new rules text, which was already sort of covered by all of the other things mentioned in every other case. Perhaps they meant exactly what they wrote. You don't have any actual idea, you're simply guessing. You're allowed to be wrong. It's okay.
The rest of the post is hardly tangential. It's not a legal contract, so intent has far more relevance to the discussion than the exact words written in the reserved list article. The entire thread is about whether or not it should be done away with, so the fact that it's completely inconsistent and entirely arbitrary is a pretty legitimate argument against it.
Ha. Now, after reading the last page or two, it has become abundantly clear that there's a very obvious explanation - supertype was clearly just being lumped into type because there was no specific term for it.
Obvious explanation or not, the fact is that they haven't changed the definition they use for functionally identical to include supertypes. What's abundantly clear is that they have decided to not open that particular loophole. Although, if they REALLY wanted to, they could make these and not violate any policies. This is a much grayer area than just tacking a new supertype onto the ABUR lands, and very likely a violation of the "spirit of the reserved list" although I can't be sure because, well, they don't actually define that term anywhere in their official policies.
Urza's Bayou
Land Swamp Forest Urza's
T: add G
T: add B
There you go: strict upgrade without being strictly better (because just adding a type opens it up to possible hate cards, and doesn't make it any better than the original lands.)
Tundragate
Land: Island Plains Gate
T: Add U
T: Add W
Bonus to this one is it's fetchable with Maze's End as well as the more normal options. Not that anyone runs Maze's End.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
[I think it's fair to say that they simply didn't think to include super-type, as it's relevant about as often as subtypes are and clearly makes a functional difference in how the card plays. I've never seen a real, official definition of "functional reprint" anyway. It would be easy for them to say "we changed how we define functional reprint". More importantly, there are ways to add an ability to them without making them identical, even by that definition. Heck, "each time you tap this land for mana, add a counter to it. If it has more than 504 counters on it, sac this land." Tadah, not functionally identical by that definition... but functionally identical.
What do you mean you've "never seen a real, official definition of "functional reprint" anyway"?? It's in the post you JUST quoted. Literally on the same page as the list of cards. They say they won't do functional reprints, then they go on to explicitly define a functional reprint. There is absolutely no ambiguity. You're right that they can make other tweaks to the card to make them not functionally identical, but I've already said that, so I don't know why you bothered quoting me to begin with.
They simply said "a card is considered...". Once. Half a decade ago. I'd hardly call that an official definition, especially when it's obviously arbitrary and incomplete (there's literally no reason to include subtypes and not supertypes). It's not like it's something in the official rules. It's just something they wrote in a post once, a post that isn't even particularly detailed and certainly isn't legally binding, I might add.
I'd be more inclined to agree if the "definition" made any sense. Why would you define something as "functionally identical" if it doesn't function identically?
By now, you're pretty clearly just arguing because you made a simple mistake by not knowing what "functionally identical" meant in terms of the reserved list. Unwilling to give up ground, you're now trying to say that the explicit description of "functionally identical" is not what the reserved list means by "functionally identical" one sentence prior. To further muddle the dialogue, you're throwing in a lot of tangential things that have no relation to what I said like "isn't legally binding" and *shock* the reserved list doesn't make sense. It's okay, people make mistakes. All I said was that if you actually read the reserved list, snow duals violate the reserved list, and now you know it too, no matter how much you try to pretend they don't.
Or not. Functionally identical means identical in function. Snow duals are not. There are countless simply explanations for why supertype was left off of their not even vaguely official "definition" of the term. Perhaps it's an oversight. Perhaps it's because they didn't want people making the reserved list legendaries non-legendary in the future. Perhaps it's because supertypes effectively give cards new rules text, which was already sort of covered by all of the other things mentioned in every other case. Perhaps they meant exactly what they wrote. You don't have any actual idea, you're simply guessing. You're allowed to be wrong. It's okay.
You really don't get it? The reasoning doesn't matter if they follow the letter of the reserved list. If they had a policy that said:
Tramplers will never be printed again. A card is considered a trampler if it has the ability flying.
You know what that would mean? It would mean that they won't print a creature with the ability flying. Because even if it doesn't make sense, if they follow the reserved list, they follow that very clear description following "functionally identical."
The rest of the post is hardly tangential. It's not a legal contract, so intent has far more relevance to the discussion than the exact words written in the reserved list article. The entire thread is about whether or not it should be done away with, so the fact that it's completely inconsistent and entirely arbitrary is a pretty legitimate argument against it.
It is very much a "look over there!" because I never said the reserved list made sense or was a legal contract. I'm saying that according to it, snow duals can't be printed. And there is no way to argue against that other then to try to convince someone that an explicit description in the reserved list itself is not what the reserved list cares about.
Ha. Now, after reading the last page or two, it has become abundantly clear that there's a very obvious explanation - supertype was clearly just being lumped into type because there was no specific term for it.
Again, the reason is irrelevant. GIVEN that they follow the list, what matters is that they never changed the definition. Reasons to keep or break the list is an entirely different conversation.
It would be nice if they just modified the list to permit cards under a threshold to be reprinted. (Ex $20 cards)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Because, and this is what i was trying to say: Legendary is a supertype. Adding or subtracting a supertype doesn't make any difference according to the written policy.
I suspect that wording is simply out of date, and they haven't bothered to update it because they (currently) have no will to print such cards anyway. If and when that will changes, the definition could easily be corrected.
Willing to print ABU caliber dual lands into a PT format? Yes, yes they would be. Original ravnica saw WotC trying to reprint ABUR dual lands in it but the reserved list sure wrecked that.
On the other hand, in those days they were also willing to print playable land destruction, rituals, efficient spot removal, 4cc wraths, etc.
I'm not sure I even believed that story. If they really wanted to reprint the duals, why make shocks deal two damage instead of one (or some even more trivial drawback)?
They simply said "a card is considered...". Once. Half a decade ago. I'd hardly call that an official definition, especially when it's obviously arbitrary and incomplete (there's literally no reason to include subtypes and not supertypes). It's not like it's something in the official rules. It's just something they wrote in a post once, a post that isn't even particularly detailed and certainly isn't legally binding, I might add.
Doesn't matter. They defined something in a certain manner. That aspect is descriptive. That is all that needs to be descriptive.
I'd be more inclined to agree if the "definition" made any sense. Why would you define something as "functionally identical" if it doesn't function identically?
Your opinion on their definition is completely irrelevant, you are not asked to agree to their term, you are asked to understand it. They gave a definition, just because you don't like the definition it does not follow that you may go on to say you have never seen it.
As a further note, he's completely right about what you're doing now.
Or not. Functionally identical means identical in function. Snow duals are not. There are countless simply explanations for why supertype was left off of their not even vaguely official "definition" of the term.
Wrong. Functionally identical in terms of the game means what the game designers say it means. Flying in fact means something floating in the air of its own capacity. Not that it cannot be intercepted by non-fliers.
It is an official definition, reexamined just 5 years ago, after the naming of Supertypes such as legendary. However, super types already existed in artifacts, in the form of Mono and Poly artifacts.
Perhaps it's an oversight. Perhaps it's because they didn't want people making the reserved list legendaries non-legendary in the future. Perhaps it's because supertypes effectively give cards new rules text, which was already sort of covered by all of the other things mentioned in every other case. Perhaps they meant exactly what they wrote. You don't have any actual idea, you're simply guessing. You're allowed to be wrong. It's okay.
"It doesn't matter if when they wrote up they meant down, it only matters that they wrote up" -Scalia.
We are not guessing, we see a policy and examine how things mesh with the policy. You think we shouldn't abide by the policy because we don't know their motivations perfectly. I assume you also advise people to jail walk because we cannot know for sure why it is illegal.
The rest of the post is hardly tangential. It's not a legal contract, so intent has far more relevance to the discussion than the exact words written in the reserved list
Not really. They say they'll do X. You don't know their motivation for doing X. That knowledge doesn't impact them doing X. Also, it's motivation, not intent silly.
article. The entire thread is about whether or not it should be done away with, so the fact that it's completely inconsistent and entirely arbitrary is a pretty legitimate argument against it.
Against the document perhaps. Although at this point you're attempting to shift the discussion, because again, he is right about what you're doing.
Ha. Now, after reading the last page or two, it has become abundantly clear that there's a very obvious explanation - supertype was clearly just being lumped into type because there was no specific term for it.
Now you are the one guessing.
Supertypes existed on artifacts at the time. Supertypes existed on cards when the list was updated, an update which was specifically about the definition of reprints and functional reprints. Surely the definition was mentioned. That explanation is silly.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to mention that it totally violates the spirit of the reserved list.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
It violates the LETTER of the RL, and that should be all that matters. I hate the RL and hope it gets abolished, but at least it's codified and written down. The "spirit of the reserved list" is nonsense, and should be ignored completely. The reprint policy is the reprint policy, and adding unwritten riders, terms, and conditions to it just makes things more confusing.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
The problem with ignoring it, is that WotC invokes it. You can ignore it if you want, but the rest of us have to live with it.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Spitten truth in an otherwise nonsensical thread. keep it up Charon, maybe one day it'll make a difference and legendary/snow dual suggestions will end.
If only. Hope springs eternal.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
The fact that Wizards care about the "spirit" rather than only the "letter" of the RL, to me points toward this being a business/customer relations decision, without any legal ramifications.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
I would say unlikely is much more correct - nothing is impossible, and surely when it comes to the future neither you nor I can actually say for sure what will happen in the near, or distant, futures.
Maybe not, but that doesn't stop them from printing cards that are only Legacy, Vintage and EDH legal. Look at TNN.
Do I hold out any real hope that the RL will ever go away? Of course not. I know that eventually Vintage and Legacy will either die completely or be so expensive that only a very few will be able to play it, like the ones in the formats right now. But new players? When Useas go for $3,000 a pop, no, that's when Legacy dies.
Hopefully it'll be after I'm long dead and gone.
WotC have defined functional identity in away which is independent of Supertypes, but tis is something they could easily change, as it makes zero sense to consider two cards functionally identical when one is Legendary (not to say they have any appetite to do so).
Creatures with the type "Legend" were ret-coned to Legendary creatures for Kamigawa, but prior to that there were already Legendary Lands and Artifacts. I'm not sure when 'supertype' became an official term in the rules. Maybe when the new frame came out and 'Basic' was added to the type line of lands?
Never! For WotC to abandon the Reserved list altogether is a lot to ask. Their policy to respect its "spirit" could be abandoned with far less fuss and repercussions (or they could simply
redefine 'spirit' in a way that allows these reprints). WotC currently has no desire to print more Legacy playable dual lands - but I expect this will change eventually. Snow or Legendary duals (or something similar) would be the best way to circumvent the (letter of) the list if and when they so desire.https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
What about
Land - Swamp Island
Whenever you tap this land for mana, you lose 1 life.
Pretty sure it violates in the sense that you could substitute one dual for one legend dual and it's almost the same. Many decks don't even play a full set of duals so this is a pretty big difference. Not to mention there ARE cards that care about legendary permanents so this COULD be better in a way. I just don't think they should do this.
I do get that all of your baselines for it being acceptable is functionally identical, but I think the game would be better served by creating better land hate against non-basics to keep duals under control. Decks requiring a reduced number of duals is probably the best hope for the future, not actually reprinting duals themselves.
IMO, this only - to me - reaffirms my belief that the "spirit of the RL" is a crock - and adds arbitrary definition... essentially, the "spirit of the RL" justification (so you know I'm targeting the common argument, and not you specifically) is saying is that if it comes [some arbitrary %] close to a card, or can be used with [some arbitrary % of closeness] as a substitute, then assume it violates the list," which basically removes that definitive nature of the RL, murddies the water instead of keeping things clear and concise.
Not much better than a shock land - maybe worse. Most legacy decks can't run this lest they die horribly to Burn (and other aggro decks). Personally I like this:
Land - Forest Swamp
You may have only x copies of ~ in your deck.
Where x = 1, 2, or 3. This is a similar mechanic as used in Relentless Rats, only the reverse. But the problem isn't in how to circumvent the list - the problem is WotC's willingness to do so!
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Because, and this is what i was trying to say: Legendary is a supertype. Adding or subtracting a supertype doesn't make any difference according to the written policy. Same with Snow. They can't print Snow versions of the ABUR duals, and they can't print Legendary versions of the ABUR duals, because those are a direct violation of the policy as it is written. You don't even need to use the whole "spirit of the reserved list" garbage, they're against the letter of the reprint policy.
So far, they've made the "spirit of the reserved list" argument exactly once, when they printed reverberate and decided afterwards that it was too close to fork, and that while it was technically not a "functional reprint" according to their policy, it violated some unwritten, nebulous "spirit" of the policy. This is where I think they went very wrong: they have a policy in place. I don't like that policy, and I hope they change it, but as long as they have a policy in place, they should abide by that policy. Which is why I said they shouldn't be adding unwritten rules to it: if you want to say it violates the spirit of the RL, then for kitten's sake write it down. When you have an official "this is how we handle things," then you don't NEED to be making calls about the "spirit" of it.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Willing to print ABU caliber dual lands into a PT format? Yes, yes they would be. Original ravnica saw WotC trying to reprint ABUR dual lands in it but the reserved list sure wrecked that. There have been standard where the mana has been almost perfect like shocklands + M10 allied/enemy lands being one example. Manafixing doesn't break a format powerful nonland cards do as I don't expect WotC is going to print a land that wrecks standard ever again a la tolarian academy.
If you want to see chaos ensue, tack relentless rats' wording onto original dual lands/you can run as many as you like/14 Relentless Underground Sea's in your deck. Just a thought exercise but the price tag would be absurd.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Or not. Functionally identical means identical in function. Snow duals are not. There are countless simply explanations for why supertype was left off of their not even vaguely official "definition" of the term. Perhaps it's an oversight. Perhaps it's because they didn't want people making the reserved list legendaries non-legendary in the future. Perhaps it's because supertypes effectively give cards new rules text, which was already sort of covered by all of the other things mentioned in every other case. Perhaps they meant exactly what they wrote. You don't have any actual idea, you're simply guessing. You're allowed to be wrong. It's okay.
The rest of the post is hardly tangential. It's not a legal contract, so intent has far more relevance to the discussion than the exact words written in the reserved list article. The entire thread is about whether or not it should be done away with, so the fact that it's completely inconsistent and entirely arbitrary is a pretty legitimate argument against it.
Ha. Now, after reading the last page or two, it has become abundantly clear that there's a very obvious explanation - supertype was clearly just being lumped into type because there was no specific term for it.
Urza's Bayou
Land Swamp Forest Urza's
T: add G
T: add B
There you go: strict upgrade without being strictly better (because just adding a type opens it up to possible hate cards, and doesn't make it any better than the original lands.)
Tundragate
Land: Island Plains Gate
T: Add U
T: Add W
Bonus to this one is it's fetchable with Maze's End as well as the more normal options. Not that anyone runs Maze's End.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Tramplers will never be printed again. A card is considered a trampler if it has the ability flying.
You know what that would mean? It would mean that they won't print a creature with the ability flying. Because even if it doesn't make sense, if they follow the reserved list, they follow that very clear description following "functionally identical." It is very much a "look over there!" because I never said the reserved list made sense or was a legal contract. I'm saying that according to it, snow duals can't be printed. And there is no way to argue against that other then to try to convince someone that an explicit description in the reserved list itself is not what the reserved list cares about. Again, the reason is irrelevant. GIVEN that they follow the list, what matters is that they never changed the definition. Reasons to keep or break the list is an entirely different conversation.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I suspect that wording is simply out of date, and they haven't bothered to update it because they (currently) have no will to print such cards anyway. If and when that will changes, the definition could easily be corrected.
On the other hand, in those days they were also willing to print playable land destruction, rituals, efficient spot removal, 4cc wraths, etc.
I'm not sure I even believed that story. If they really wanted to reprint the duals, why make shocks deal two damage instead of one (or some even more trivial drawback)?
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Doesn't matter. They defined something in a certain manner. That aspect is descriptive. That is all that needs to be descriptive.
Your opinion on their definition is completely irrelevant, you are not asked to agree to their term, you are asked to understand it. They gave a definition, just because you don't like the definition it does not follow that you may go on to say you have never seen it.
As a further note, he's completely right about what you're doing now.
Wrong. Functionally identical in terms of the game means what the game designers say it means. Flying in fact means something floating in the air of its own capacity. Not that it cannot be intercepted by non-fliers.
It is an official definition, reexamined just 5 years ago, after the naming of Supertypes such as legendary. However, super types already existed in artifacts, in the form of Mono and Poly artifacts.
"It doesn't matter if when they wrote up they meant down, it only matters that they wrote up" -Scalia.
We are not guessing, we see a policy and examine how things mesh with the policy. You think we shouldn't abide by the policy because we don't know their motivations perfectly. I assume you also advise people to jail walk because we cannot know for sure why it is illegal.
Not really. They say they'll do X. You don't know their motivation for doing X. That knowledge doesn't impact them doing X. Also, it's motivation, not intent silly.
Against the document perhaps. Although at this point you're attempting to shift the discussion, because again, he is right about what you're doing.
Now you are the one guessing.
Supertypes existed on artifacts at the time. Supertypes existed on cards when the list was updated, an update which was specifically about the definition of reprints and functional reprints. Surely the definition was mentioned. That explanation is silly.