Remember Reconnaissance? If not, you're not alone. It was a quirky enchantment from the days when the Weatherlight still sailed the seas of the multiverse. It is an interesting and powerful card that lets you remove creatures from combat after blocking. And, in addition, since players get priority in the "end of combat" step, you can activate it to remove your creatures from combat and untap them after damage was dealt. In other words, it also gave you pseudo-vigilance. All for a single white mana.
Now, this is a fun and powerful card, but it was hardly tearing up tournament tables. It sees niche play in eternal formats and EDH that want the effect. You know, White Weenie decks, maybe Maverick from time to time, that kind of thing. It was fun, it was playable, and it was good.
Enter stealth errata.
Sometime recently, the Oracle text of Reconnaissance was changed. The first person who noticed it (as far as I can tell) was Duck over on the Drain (thanks, Duck):
The card has been nerfed. There's no two-bones about it. An entirely new line has been added to the card that prevents it from being used in the end of combat step, and therefore, prevents it from granting psuedo-vigilance. Curiously, other cards with nearly identical timing issues or functionality from the same set, or older, did not get this treatment. This includes Maze of Ith, which is practically the only card on this list that regularly does see tournament play and where the psuedo-vigilance ability is regularly used to great effect.
Why would you single out Recon for errata but ignore the rest? Well, it's an enchantment... and we're in an enchantment matters block. It untaps creatures... and inspired is a current mechanic. It's flavored to be a battlefield tactics spell... and we're approaching a block that appears to be Mongol-themed. I'm starting to think odds are very good that this card is getting a reprint in the new block or the Speed v. Cunning deck.
In my mind, that's a very bad thing because
2. This represents a continuing shift towards power level errata
In past discussions (mostly concerning Lotus Vale, the poster child for justifiable power level errata) Matt Tebek has explained that he views consistency as a tool, but not necessarily the goal, of Oracle text. That is, he is willing to treat different cards differently if he believes it is good for the game to do so. The way he has phrased that in e-mails to me is that he asks, "whose interests are served" by an errata. With Lotus Vale and its ilk, allowing the cards to function as printed would just get the cards banned everyone except Vintage, so there's a good argument to be made that the errata serves more interests than it hurts.
But this is the second time where we've seen Wizards errata cards that had interesting interactions that virtually no one played or cared about. Remember Thought Lash? For ages, it has been possible to win the game by failing to pay the upkeep and then Donating it to the opponent somehow. (Quicken and Donate, for example). But, when they printed Zedruu, the Greathearted, suddenly someone decided that Thought Lash's original text was too powerful and so the card got nerfed to remove this interaction. Check out the current errata, in all of its glory, to see what they did.
At least, with Thought Lash, you could make the argument that Commander players were served by removing a degenerate combo. (Albeit one that cost eleven mana over three colors... but I digress) They were the only people playing it anyway. Even that argument fails for Recon. This card was very rarely played even where legal and even with its original text.
Assuming it has been fixed in light of a new reprint, issuing this errata serves literally no one. If the card as printed was too powerful, Wizards can print a fixed version. Heaven knows they have not been shy about fixing more recent cards. See: Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light. That would have served preciesely the same interests among newer players. The only consequence of issuing errata in light of a reprint is to trash the card in eternal formats.
And the worst part? Once they reprint a card with the "fixed" text, Wizards tends to stick with it regardless of what happens next. See: Relic Bind, Mox Diamond.
In short: this errata takes away from the community and gives nothing back.
3. We should be (psuedo?) vigilant about this type of behavior
This is a card game, it's not serious business and all of that. Still, to the extent that you enjoy Magic, you should pay attention to this kind of errata policy. It signals a possible return to the dark days where Wizards freely errated any card that had an unexpectedly powerful interaction, such as Palinchron, Parallax Wave, etc. Part of the game is finding and being excited about unexpected interactions. It is what makes old cards interesting. It is what makes it worth having a large collection.
If Wizards is willing to errata old cards that are not causing any trouble for anyone to change decades of functionality... then many old cards are not safe.
Obviously, it's not like Tebek is going on a tear through all the old sets and ruining Magic. No, the sky is not falling. However, these recent changes suggest a willingness to go in a direction that is bad for Magic, particularly if this becomes the status quo.
Care to elaborate on the Thought Lash thing? I see they moved the exile a card bit from the ability to a cost for the ability, but that wouldn't have any effect on who exiles the cards. I don't see a way, even with the original text to win the game by donating it. If you activate the ability 100 times, donating the thought lash doesn't transfer those activations to your opponent. The only thing the change does is stop you from preventing more damage than you have cards in deck.
I suppose it prevents you from stalling out the game indefinitely when combined with Academy Ruins, Skull of Orm, and Phyrexian Walker, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're talking about...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Thought Lash? Well, first off, I brain farted when initially typing my post. I fixed it right away, but you read the version before I fixed it, I think!
As printed, the person who loses when the cumulative upkeep is not paid is "you," which means the controller of Thought Lash at the time. So what you'd do is put the cumulative upkeep trigger on the stack. Then Donate the Thought Lash. Now, you let the trigger resolve and you decide not to pay the upkeep. That causes the current controller of Lash ("you," remember) to exile their library.
Kind of niche application made more interesting with Zedruu, but certainly no more broken than winning with Frenetic Efreet + Chance Encounter.
While I don't think this change was necessary (if wizards thought the way reconnaissance worked was confusing or counter-intuitive, they should have just made a functional reprint with the new language), I also think this change doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It is the second so-called "power level" errata apart from cards like lotus vale and mox diamond whose erratas serve to make them function as they were supposed to when they were printed. It's weird that they would bother with something like this, but I am also not really concerned with the fact that over the last 5 years, they have done functional errata that made two fringe cards most people had never heard of slightly worse.
Yeah, like I said, the sky is not falling or anything. I do disagree on the impact, though; it made two fringe cards basically garbage. From my perspective, losing an old an interesting interaction once every few years for no very good reason is something to be at least aware of it not concerned about.
Next thing you know, they'll "fix" Maze of Ith and then you'll hear Maverick players in Legacy squawking.
Rules are constantly worked on, so if a card changes, they search for any similiar card that doesnt have a reprint in some form or product and update the cards (and even the reprints if necessary).
Course that changes some "powerlevel" in some way, as any update does that isnt just words.
In the end, doesnt see any problem with this, as its mainly meaningless cards, if someone "really" bothers to play with them and have some wacky interaction, they "probably" checked the oracle anyway.
It's not a rules change. Matt Tebek actually responded to me about this by e-mail, and indicated he simply noticed the card was doing something that was at odds with it's reminder text and the original way it worked when printed (I am not sure I agree on that second point) so he fixed it. He hadn't noticed that other cards, like Maze of Ith, had the same templating. He's planning on discussing this change with the M15 update.
I've sent him some correspondence trying to persuade him to roll back this change, but it's all up to him at the end of the day. He did suggest there was some possibility - uncertain as to how likely - that Maze and similar cards would end up getting the same errata.
I would be careful when complaining about "functional errata" of pre-sixth edition cards. A lot of Magic's rules were nebulous before then and templating was much looser. For example...
As printed, the person who loses when the cumulative upkeep is not paid is "you," which means the controller of Thought Lash at the time. So what you'd do is put the cumulative upkeep trigger on the stack. Then Donate the Thought Lash. Now, you let the trigger resolve and you decide not to pay the upkeep. That causes the current controller of Lash ("you," remember) to exile their library.
As printed, Thought Lash has the library exiling effect as part of the cumulative upkeep cost. While this is obviously unworkable, it implies that the "you" is the person paying the cumulative upkeep. The current Oracle text takes this stand.
I actually use Reconnaissance in my peasant cube, where it's a powerful card. I can see how the reminder text could imply that the card wasn't functioning as originally intended, but I'm thinking that if the card's functionality hasn't actually changed due to rule updates since its printing, I'm just going to ignore this errata.
It's not a rules change. Matt Tebek actually responded to me about this by e-mail, and indicated he simply noticed the card was doing something that was at odds with it's reminder text and the original way it worked when printed (I am not sure I agree on that second point) so he fixed it. He hadn't noticed that other cards, like Maze of Ith, had the same templating. He's planning on discussing this change with the M15 update.
I've sent him some correspondence trying to persuade him to roll back this change, but it's all up to him at the end of the day. He did suggest there was some possibility - uncertain as to how likely - that Maze and similar cards would end up getting the same errata.
I suppose I'll be waiting on the explanation in the M15 update then.
Next thing you know, they'll "fix" Maze of Ith and then you'll hear Maverick players in Legacy squawking.
Flash was harmless before it received errata. Then it became the most powerful deck ever in the history of legacy, and the most powerful deck in magic that saw significant tournament play, period. And that was pretty much a stealth errata as well. In contrast, the change to reconnaisance is hardly even a blip. Even a change in Maze of Ith won't make as big of an impact as flash has, and they'd rather ban flash than roll back changes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
When did duck notice it because I was on mtg judge chat a little while back wondering why every single reconnaissance thread had said pseudo vigilance and yet the errata was clear as day. I was going through all the erratas searching for when the change was made because google was finding nothing.
The change is annoying because I was making a white multiplayer deck and now its not as good. This feels like errata that would be put on a card for when damage used to be on the stack. They have been slowly removing instances of it too.
I personally also love quirky cards like Reconnaissance and try to use them in Commander decks. I have couple of Japanese and one Korean copy just for that purpose. The card had also been gaining some minimal value slowly, as more and more copies have been taken up by players who like to test the corners of magic rules.
It would make me pretty sad if this type of 'mistakes' would be completely errated over, but I also like that the rules do function. So there should be some sort of balance. If Maze of Ith get's errated to stop the pseudo-vigilance option, it would make me pretty sad, as I find the gameplay options it opens with certain decks and specially with Knight of the Relinquary. Knowing that these interactions are out there was one of the reasons I started judging long time ago.
I do like that the game rules can be the cause of some hilarious rulings, like "Your opponent is not an object." Goblin Game, or the old judge quiz question: "How can one put a pillow into ones deck legally. (in standard and with rules of 2004)"* or the old ruling that cards on the stack in main game during a subgame are removed from the subgame and thus legal targets for wishes. Some of these had to go, but maybe the more innocent cards like Reconnaissance could have their place still.
This was easy, make an token and use a pillow to represent it (you need a large table), then use Proteus Staff on the token. The pillow is put on the bottom of your deck and will only be removed after state based effects get checked after the Staff finished resolving. For a while you have a pillow as a part of your deck. Usually players did shortcut this just removing the token from the game.
I see no reason for this errata? It's not like the card was broken. Sure damage on the stack is gone, but its not like first or double strike broke the card.
Regarding Thought Lash - If you look at the original card, it's pretty clear that the current wording is more accurate than the previous wording. While the loss of the Zedruu interaction is unfortunate, it definitely makes more sense this way.
Regarding Reconnaisance - This is a major departure. Interestingly enough, this card has seem a decent amount of play recently in Derevi, Empyrial Tactician decks, especially those that run Stasis. With Recon, you can bash with Derevi (and other creatures), untap your land(s), and then untap Derevi (and other creatures). Now, you can't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Don't forget the Lifelink errata on Rain of Gore, a card that is quite the sideboard roleplayer in Modern Burn. This particular errata is so completely baffling, at odds with the rules and blatantly power-level trashing, it's not even funny.
I take that you mean the errata that is not an errata and is fully supported by the rules.
Lifelink no longer direct grants life. It is the damage source that does so. And if that source is not an ability or a spell, i.e combat damage then there is nothing happening for Rain of gore to trigger off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Don't forget the Lifelink errata on Rain of Gore, a card that is quite the sideboard roleplayer in Modern Burn. This particular errata is so completely baffling, at odds with the rules and blatantly power-level trashing, it's not even funny.
I take that you mean the errata that is not an errata and is fully supported by the rules.
Lifelink no longer direct grants life. It is the damage source that does so. And if that source is not an ability or a spell, i.e combat damage then there is nothing happening for Rain of gore to trigger off.
And Reconnaissance granting pseudo-vigilance was also 100% supported by the rules. But the rules manager arbitrarily decided that it was "too confusing" and "didn't fit the original intent of the card."
Rain of Gore was very much intended to affect lifelink. (And it did for years)
It's also very confusing to anyone who isn't a rules guru to understand why life gained due to lifelink (which is very much an ability) doesn't count as an ability you control causing you to gain life. I get why it is the way it is right now... But the vast majority of players never will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks: Standard - Rally, Modern - Kikichord, Legacy - Elves
Commmander - Eight-and-a-Half Tails; Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker; Prime Speaker Zegana; Alesha, Who Smiles at Death; Daxos the Returned; Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest; Patron of the Moonfolk; Animar, Soul of Elements
This seems like a silly thread, considering Reconnaissance now works exactly as originally printed. The whole point of "Reconaissance" is that the creature can look, but not attack, as it is on a scouting mission. I would be very upset to hear that previously the rules allowed the creature to deal damage, and as such feel that errata to restore the (obvious) original intent of the card is justified.
Is it really a big deal? Just play Serra's Blessing. It now works as intended. All the other cards should also receive same errata, too. Activating Maze of Ith post combat damage never made sense to me. If we want cards to work "exactly" as printed then Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond should, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Is it really a big deal? Just play Serra's Blessing. It now works as intended. All the other cards should also receive same errata, too. Activating Maze of Ith post combat damage never made sense to me. If we want cards to work "exactly" as printed then Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond should, too.
Lotus Vale does work the way it did back when it was printed (which seems to be what you are in favor of).
Is it really a big deal? Just play Serra's Blessing. It now works as intended. All the other cards should also receive same errata, too. Activating Maze of Ith post combat damage never made sense to me. If we want cards to work "exactly" as printed then Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond should, too.
Lotus Vale does work the way it did back when it was printed (which seems to be what you are in favor of).
Yes, I am in favor of cards working the way they were intended too, as designed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Farenheights, you don't errata cards based on the designer's intent (otherwise known as "original intent") because you cannot determine what that intent is. Whose intent? What could they have possibly intended with respect to future rules changes they didnt know about? Whole teams of people design this stuff. Recon is kind of / sort of a special case because the intent is preserved in the reminder text. Cute, huh? Kind of like the committee comments to a state statute or court rule. Strange precedent, since I can't think of any other case where they enforced the reminder text that way... but interesting.
Since original intent is so problematic, they work off of Originally Ruled Functionality (ORF) when they really want to. When the rules change and allow a new function, sometimes Wizards addresses the card to preserve its function across rules changes, and sometimes they do not. When they choose to is frankly opaque to me.
With respect to Recon, take a look at the ManaDrain thread I linked. People there are discussing the ORF at a much higher level. It's not clear to me that there was ever any ruled functionality when the card was printed; the first judge rulings I can find address the card after Sixth Edition rules. From Sixth to last week, it worked a particular way. Now it doesn't anymore.
Matt has promised an article in the next week or so explaining his analysis, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Is it really a big deal? Just play Serra's Blessing. It now works as intended. All the other cards should also receive same errata, too. Activating Maze of Ith post combat damage never made sense to me. If we want cards to work "exactly" as printed then Lotus Vale and Mox Diamond should, too.
Lotus Vale does work the way it did back when it was printed (which seems to be what you are in favor of).
No it didn't. You never got priority to tap it before you were forced to sacrifice it if you didn't sac the three lands. I think it was the 5th edition rules changes (maybe? I don't remember but I know that a wizard's employee has written about it before) that allowed you t get priority on a triggered effect like this and allow you to get mana from lotus vale or mox diamond as a one-shot deal without saccing or discarding. It didn't last long and was errataed pretty quickly. Lotus vale was never meant to be an uncounterable black lotus. All that making it work "as printed" (but not how it originally worked, and not how it was designed to work) would do would ensure that it got banned in every format it was legal in.
Edit - It was the 6th edition rules changes, which added the stack and changed how ETB triggers worked. Before the stack existed, you didn't get priority between putting lotus vale into play and choosing if you wanted to sac it or lands, so you couldn't use it for mana without saccing the lands.
Edit 2 - Just re-read your post and realized you were saying exactly the same thing I was. I have no idea how I read your post as saying that vale worked as a land black lotus when printed.
Why does it matter what was originally intended? The rules of the game change. If something works within the rules now, then why should it be forced to work with the old rules?
Next thing you know, they'll "fix" Maze of Ith and then you'll hear Maverick players in Legacy squawking.
Flash was harmless before it received errata. Then it became the most powerful deck ever in the history of legacy, and the most powerful deck in magic that saw significant tournament play, period. And that was pretty much a stealth errata as well. In contrast, the change to reconnaisance is hardly even a blip. Even a change in Maze of Ith won't make as big of an impact as flash has, and they'd rather ban flash than roll back changes.
With respect to Recon, take a look at the ManaDrain thread I linked. People there are discussing the ORF at a much higher level. It's not clear to me that there was ever any ruled functionality when the card was printed; the first judge rulings I can find address the card after Sixth Edition rules. From Sixth to last week, it worked a particular way. Now it doesn't anymore.
Matt has promised an article in the next week or so explaining his analysis, so we'll just have to wait and see.
I'd love to read that thread, but I can't. It's not available to people who don't have accounts at that site, and furthermore, new accounts can't be created on that site.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks: Standard - Rally, Modern - Kikichord, Legacy - Elves
Commmander - Eight-and-a-Half Tails; Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker; Prime Speaker Zegana; Alesha, Who Smiles at Death; Daxos the Returned; Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest; Patron of the Moonfolk; Animar, Soul of Elements
Why does it matter what was originally intended? The rules of the game change. If something works within the rules now, then why should it be forced to work with the old rules?
I would argue the exact opposite. If the card worked under previous rules and the rules changed, why should the functionality of the card change when the rules shift around rather than changing the card to maintain intended functionality?
Now, this is a fun and powerful card, but it was hardly tearing up tournament tables. It sees niche play in eternal formats and EDH that want the effect. You know, White Weenie decks, maybe Maverick from time to time, that kind of thing. It was fun, it was playable, and it was good.
Enter stealth errata.
Sometime recently, the Oracle text of Reconnaissance was changed. The first person who noticed it (as far as I can tell) was Duck over on the Drain (thanks, Duck):
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=46342.msg643263#msg643263
The card has been nerfed. There's no two-bones about it. An entirely new line has been added to the card that prevents it from being used in the end of combat step, and therefore, prevents it from granting psuedo-vigilance. Curiously, other cards with nearly identical timing issues or functionality from the same set, or older, did not get this treatment. This includes Maze of Ith, which is practically the only card on this list that regularly does see tournament play and where the psuedo-vigilance ability is regularly used to great effect.
Okay, so why should anyone care about this?
1. This may signal a possible reprint
Why would you single out Recon for errata but ignore the rest? Well, it's an enchantment... and we're in an enchantment matters block. It untaps creatures... and inspired is a current mechanic. It's flavored to be a battlefield tactics spell... and we're approaching a block that appears to be Mongol-themed. I'm starting to think odds are very good that this card is getting a reprint in the new block or the Speed v. Cunning deck.
In my mind, that's a very bad thing because
2. This represents a continuing shift towards power level errata
In past discussions (mostly concerning Lotus Vale, the poster child for justifiable power level errata) Matt Tebek has explained that he views consistency as a tool, but not necessarily the goal, of Oracle text. That is, he is willing to treat different cards differently if he believes it is good for the game to do so. The way he has phrased that in e-mails to me is that he asks, "whose interests are served" by an errata. With Lotus Vale and its ilk, allowing the cards to function as printed would just get the cards banned everyone except Vintage, so there's a good argument to be made that the errata serves more interests than it hurts.
But this is the second time where we've seen Wizards errata cards that had interesting interactions that virtually no one played or cared about. Remember Thought Lash? For ages, it has been possible to win the game by failing to pay the upkeep and then Donating it to the opponent somehow. (Quicken and Donate, for example). But, when they printed Zedruu, the Greathearted, suddenly someone decided that Thought Lash's original text was too powerful and so the card got nerfed to remove this interaction. Check out the current errata, in all of its glory, to see what they did.
At least, with Thought Lash, you could make the argument that Commander players were served by removing a degenerate combo. (Albeit one that cost eleven mana over three colors... but I digress) They were the only people playing it anyway. Even that argument fails for Recon. This card was very rarely played even where legal and even with its original text.
Assuming it has been fixed in light of a new reprint, issuing this errata serves literally no one. If the card as printed was too powerful, Wizards can print a fixed version. Heaven knows they have not been shy about fixing more recent cards. See: Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light. That would have served preciesely the same interests among newer players. The only consequence of issuing errata in light of a reprint is to trash the card in eternal formats.
And the worst part? Once they reprint a card with the "fixed" text, Wizards tends to stick with it regardless of what happens next. See: Relic Bind, Mox Diamond.
In short: this errata takes away from the community and gives nothing back.
3. We should be (psuedo?) vigilant about this type of behavior
This is a card game, it's not serious business and all of that. Still, to the extent that you enjoy Magic, you should pay attention to this kind of errata policy. It signals a possible return to the dark days where Wizards freely errated any card that had an unexpectedly powerful interaction, such as Palinchron, Parallax Wave, etc. Part of the game is finding and being excited about unexpected interactions. It is what makes old cards interesting. It is what makes it worth having a large collection.
If Wizards is willing to errata old cards that are not causing any trouble for anyone to change decades of functionality... then many old cards are not safe.
Obviously, it's not like Tebek is going on a tear through all the old sets and ruining Magic. No, the sky is not falling. However, these recent changes suggest a willingness to go in a direction that is bad for Magic, particularly if this becomes the status quo.
I suppose it prevents you from stalling out the game indefinitely when combined with Academy Ruins, Skull of Orm, and Phyrexian Walker, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're talking about...
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
As printed, the person who loses when the cumulative upkeep is not paid is "you," which means the controller of Thought Lash at the time. So what you'd do is put the cumulative upkeep trigger on the stack. Then Donate the Thought Lash. Now, you let the trigger resolve and you decide not to pay the upkeep. That causes the current controller of Lash ("you," remember) to exile their library.
Kind of niche application made more interesting with Zedruu, but certainly no more broken than winning with Frenetic Efreet + Chance Encounter.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Next thing you know, they'll "fix" Maze of Ith and then you'll hear Maverick players in Legacy squawking.
Course that changes some "powerlevel" in some way, as any update does that isnt just words.
In the end, doesnt see any problem with this, as its mainly meaningless cards, if someone "really" bothers to play with them and have some wacky interaction, they "probably" checked the oracle anyway.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I've sent him some correspondence trying to persuade him to roll back this change, but it's all up to him at the end of the day. He did suggest there was some possibility - uncertain as to how likely - that Maze and similar cards would end up getting the same errata.
As printed, Thought Lash has the library exiling effect as part of the cumulative upkeep cost. While this is obviously unworkable, it implies that the "you" is the person paying the cumulative upkeep. The current Oracle text takes this stand.
I suppose I'll be waiting on the explanation in the M15 update then.
Flash was harmless before it received errata. Then it became the most powerful deck ever in the history of legacy, and the most powerful deck in magic that saw significant tournament play, period. And that was pretty much a stealth errata as well. In contrast, the change to reconnaisance is hardly even a blip. Even a change in Maze of Ith won't make as big of an impact as flash has, and they'd rather ban flash than roll back changes.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The change is annoying because I was making a white multiplayer deck and now its not as good. This feels like errata that would be put on a card for when damage used to be on the stack. They have been slowly removing instances of it too.
Lets take for instance Blind Fury, first card in the article. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/284b&page=2
It would make me pretty sad if this type of 'mistakes' would be completely errated over, but I also like that the rules do function. So there should be some sort of balance. If Maze of Ith get's errated to stop the pseudo-vigilance option, it would make me pretty sad, as I find the gameplay options it opens with certain decks and specially with Knight of the Relinquary. Knowing that these interactions are out there was one of the reasons I started judging long time ago.
I do like that the game rules can be the cause of some hilarious rulings, like "Your opponent is not an object." Goblin Game, or the old judge quiz question: "How can one put a pillow into ones deck legally. (in standard and with rules of 2004)"* or the old ruling that cards on the stack in main game during a subgame are removed from the subgame and thus legal targets for wishes. Some of these had to go, but maybe the more innocent cards like Reconnaissance could have their place still.
This was easy, make an token and use a pillow to represent it (you need a large table), then use Proteus Staff on the token. The pillow is put on the bottom of your deck and will only be removed after state based effects get checked after the Staff finished resolving. For a while you have a pillow as a part of your deck. Usually players did shortcut this just removing the token from the game.
Set to default
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Regarding Reconnaisance - This is a major departure. Interestingly enough, this card has seem a decent amount of play recently in Derevi, Empyrial Tactician decks, especially those that run Stasis. With Recon, you can bash with Derevi (and other creatures), untap your land(s), and then untap Derevi (and other creatures). Now, you can't.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I take that you mean the errata that is not an errata and is fully supported by the rules.
Lifelink no longer direct grants life. It is the damage source that does so. And if that source is not an ability or a spell, i.e combat damage then there is nothing happening for Rain of gore to trigger off.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
And Reconnaissance granting pseudo-vigilance was also 100% supported by the rules. But the rules manager arbitrarily decided that it was "too confusing" and "didn't fit the original intent of the card."
Rain of Gore was very much intended to affect lifelink. (And it did for years)
It's also very confusing to anyone who isn't a rules guru to understand why life gained due to lifelink (which is very much an ability) doesn't count as an ability you control causing you to gain life. I get why it is the way it is right now... But the vast majority of players never will.
Commmander - Eight-and-a-Half Tails; Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker; Prime Speaker Zegana; Alesha, Who Smiles at Death; Daxos the Returned; Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest; Patron of the Moonfolk; Animar, Soul of Elements
"A Plague on All Your Houses!" - Thespian's Stage Pox
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Lotus Vale does work the way it did back when it was printed (which seems to be what you are in favor of).
Draft my cube! (630 cards)
Yes, I am in favor of cards working the way they were intended too, as designed.
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Since original intent is so problematic, they work off of Originally Ruled Functionality (ORF) when they really want to. When the rules change and allow a new function, sometimes Wizards addresses the card to preserve its function across rules changes, and sometimes they do not. When they choose to is frankly opaque to me.
With respect to Recon, take a look at the ManaDrain thread I linked. People there are discussing the ORF at a much higher level. It's not clear to me that there was ever any ruled functionality when the card was printed; the first judge rulings I can find address the card after Sixth Edition rules. From Sixth to last week, it worked a particular way. Now it doesn't anymore.
Matt has promised an article in the next week or so explaining his analysis, so we'll just have to wait and see.
No it didn't. You never got priority to tap it before you were forced to sacrifice it if you didn't sac the three lands. I think it was the 5th edition rules changes (maybe? I don't remember but I know that a wizard's employee has written about it before) that allowed you t get priority on a triggered effect like this and allow you to get mana from lotus vale or mox diamond as a one-shot deal without saccing or discarding. It didn't last long and was errataed pretty quickly. Lotus vale was never meant to be an uncounterable black lotus. All that making it work "as printed" (but not how it originally worked, and not how it was designed to work) would do would ensure that it got banned in every format it was legal in.
Edit - It was the 6th edition rules changes, which added the stack and changed how ETB triggers worked. Before the stack existed, you didn't get priority between putting lotus vale into play and choosing if you wanted to sac it or lands, so you couldn't use it for mana without saccing the lands.
Edit 2 - Just re-read your post and realized you were saying exactly the same thing I was. I have no idea how I read your post as saying that vale worked as a land black lotus when printed.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Same goes for Time Vault.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I'd love to read that thread, but I can't. It's not available to people who don't have accounts at that site, and furthermore, new accounts can't be created on that site.
Commmander - Eight-and-a-Half Tails; Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker; Prime Speaker Zegana; Alesha, Who Smiles at Death; Daxos the Returned; Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest; Patron of the Moonfolk; Animar, Soul of Elements
I would argue the exact opposite. If the card worked under previous rules and the rules changed, why should the functionality of the card change when the rules shift around rather than changing the card to maintain intended functionality?
Draft my cube! (630 cards)