(EDIT: Someone pointed out to me that it's spelled "CUI" Bono. So, let's just pretend that is what the title says.)
Let's say you don't like the Oracle text of a card. Maybe you're angry about how Soldevi Excavations has errata to change it from a triggered ability to a replacement effect. Maybe you are upset that Oboro Envoy doesn't permanently reduce the power of creatures. Or maybe you want to lend you voice to the cyclic complaining about Lotus Vale not being Black Lotus.
Well, you can always e-mail Matt Tabak, the guru of Oracle text at Wizards. Or you can start a thread on the mothership forums that he sometimes reads. When you do that, are you going to have any impact? Are you going to help turn back the tide and actually convince someone who matters to change policy, as happened in 2014 with Reconnaissance? Or are you just going to bore your audience to tears retreading the same old ground Mr. Tabak has heard a million times before?
If you want to have an impact, you need to know your audience. To that end, I have collected some resources and reviewed e-mails from Mr. Tabak to members of TheManaDrain with the goal towards coming up with a description of how Oracle policy works that actually explains observed behavior. By understanding how decisions appear to actually get made on errata policy, we have an opportunity to better interact with the key players and help shape that policy.
Say hello to the third rail of Magic errata discussions.
DISCLAIMER
My analysis is meant to be descriptive, not critical. I am specifically not trying to comment about which errata policy is or would be the best policy. I want only to examine how Wizards actually does make decisions. This is IMPORTANT because if you do not like a rules change or the Oracle text of a card, you need to be up to speed on what evidence we have about how the people who matter actually make decisions. Otherwise, you just ram your had against the wall repeatedly into the same old arguments they have heard before and you accomplish nothing.
Win the game for 3 mana whaaat?
THE OLD SCHOOL
In the not-to-distant past, errata policy revolved around three “schools:” (1) original intent, (2) original text, and (3) original ruled functionality. Each philosophy gave a prescription for when and how you issue errata. Here's a very general definition of each:
(1) Original Intent
Whoever is in charge divines what someone - maybe design, maybe development, maybe themselves - thought the card was supposed to do, and erratas it so that it keeps doing that. Used heavily in early Magic history to fight non-obvious interactions, mistakes, or infinite combos (i.e. Relic Bind, Basalt Monolith), largely maligned nowadays as being arbitrary because its impossible to know who had what intent or apply it to cards or rules changes that had not even been conceived of at the time. Essentially leads to post-printing development of the card.
(NOTE: There is a related and often-abused term called Power Level Errata. You should be careful about tossing the term around because sometimes people take it to mean errata that the Rules Manager admits is not even original intent, but is necessary to fix a "broken" interaction. As used in the past, Power Level Errata has more to do with the stated justification for a change than it does with the function of the change. Wizards never justifies errata this way anymore. So, be careful not to use this term if you're trying to express a change that merely has the EFFECT of reducing the power level of a card. You'll be misunderstood.)
(2) Original Text
The card does what the printed text says it does, interpreted under modern rules. Nothing is preserved over rules changes. Runs into problems with cards printed with different text over time and with cards that use archaic or ambiguous terms. Wizards has expressed some preference for this idea, http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127, and Mr. Tabak has mentioned on a few occasions that he would ideally like cards to simply do what they say.
(3) Original Ruled Functionality
The card does what it was first ruled to do, interpreted under modern rules. Nothing is preserved over rules changes. Has the advantage of being objective to apply, provided you can identify which cards actually need to get any errata at all, and provided you can FIND the original ruling. Not talked about much as such by anyone at Wizards anymore as far as I can tell, but I understand this was a critically important policy pushed by some important Vintage names, such as Steve Menedian.
It is worth dwelling a little longer on a critical similarity about Text and Function approaches - you do not errata cards just to make them work the same over rules changes. In both cases, you take the original text/function and then allow the card to do that today regardless of whether the rules around that text/functionality have changed. As Mr. Tabak explains:
"My general philosophy is that I’m okay with rules changing out from underneath cards and changing their functionality. Heck, just look at the Magic 2010 rules changes. It wouldn't be reasonable to try and make all previous cards work exactly the same way they did before those rules changes. Take heart, Master of Arms fans—it's still a combo with Royal Assassin!"
A victory for the enemies of Serra's Blessing everywhere!
A NEW SCHOOL - CUI BONO
Now, Wizards currently does not really subscribe to any of these policies as such. Anyone who has read the regular complaints from people about errata on cards in the Weatherlight - Tempest era knows that Wizards does not adopt any one of these three "schools" and apply them consistently. In fact, Mr. Tabak has explained on numerous occasions that consistency is "a" goal, but not "the" goal. He will justify errata under different schools at different times, perhaps glibly, in making his point.
Just because Wizards is not blindly applying a single, simple philosophy for errata policy does not, however, suggest that they are acting in an arbitrary fashion. Rather, their decision making is simply more complicated. I believe I have at least a reasonable interpretation of what that more complicated policy is. Mr. Tabak has expressed what may be a fourth "school" of errata. Since Mr. Tabak has expressed this policy as asking, "Whose interests are served by this policy," I propose calling it the "Cui Bono" school, in reference to Cicero’s famous motive argument. The phrase translates to, “who benefits,” or, “to whose benefit?”
This is a hybrid approach: For each card, decide on a case by case basis what kind of errata to issue, and what policy to use for it, based on what will most benefit the players of Magic. Mr. Tabak seems to have a default preference for text, or where text fails, an original function approach, but is not above resorting to original intent or even power level errata where necessary to serve the interests of the game. This approach drives some players batty because this standard is not easily expressed in a simple, universal rule, and treats different cards differently.
The recent dispute over Reconnaissance was a clear example of this. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/magic-2015-update-bulletin-2014-07-17). Mr. Tabak originally changed the Oracle text of the card to take away its ability to untap a creature post-combat damage. It had functioned that way for a long time, and lots of players wrote in to complain. Players on The Drain did some digging to call the original ruled functionality of the card into question. Hearing the voices, Mr. Tabak reversed course and restored Reconnaissance to its former, albeit minor, glory. In doing so, he explained he was making the change specifically because the errata was hurting more players than it was helping. (There is at least one prominent member of the Vintage community who interprets Mr. Tabak's decision as being based solely on the original function evidence provided, so read the linked article for yourself and draw your own conclusions.)
A "Cui Bono" policy also explains why cards like Abeyance and Lotus Vale still have errata that preserves their functionality over rules changes, even though strict application of schools 2 or 3 would reject that. Without the change, Abeyance is nearly Time Walk and Vale is nearly Lotus. Wizards probably does not think reprinting the most powerful cards in Magic’s history is a good idea. Who can blame them? Mr. Tabak has actually explained it that way to me, saying "If we remove the errata on those cards and then ban them in all formats, whose interests have we served?" or something to that effect.
So busted. Read it again. Don't worry, I'll wait. What, you still don't think it's broken?
A THEORY THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE
You can describe the Cui Bono approach in an algorithm. While I doubt Wizards consciously does anything like this, as far as I can tell, this process actually describes the observed errata behavior by Wizards and predicts Oracle text very well:
(1) Does the card text "compute" as printed - and is it free from ambiguity / multiple printings / archaic terms? If yes, load that into A.
If not, can we find the original function when it was printed? Load that into A instead.
(2) Interpret A under the current Rules without making changes to preserve its functionality over rules changes. (Explains Winter Orb, f.e.)
(3) Does A lead to a card being comparable to or greater in power level than the most broken cards ever printed in the history or Magic as a result of rules changes? If yes, then change A to incorporate both original function and preserve the card’s function over rules changes. (Explains Lotus Vale, Mox Diamond, f.e.)
(4) Does A lead to Oracle text that hurts the game of Magic, as a whole? If so, consider alternatives: B - Wizards' best estimation of original intent and C - The way most people expect the card to function. Weigh the alternatives A, B, and C, giving more weight to A, and choose Oracle text that does the most benefit for the most players. (Explains Thought Lash, f.e.)
(5) Finally, if Wizards simply screwed up and printed something that was not actually part of the card design, so we know for sure what it was supposed to be, then just fix it. (Explains Oboro, Walking Atlas, etc)
Note that this also explains why Time Vault is the way it is. It is ambiguous, so you need to use Original Ruled Functionality, and even though Wizards might want to change it in step 4, they are stuck because Richard Garfield’s original intent was that it could work with Twiddle and the player base was divided over its function.
So, that is my thesis. We are in an organic period of Oracle text, where Cui Bono dominates and the other schools are trotted out only as needed to justify whatever decision has been made about an individual card. Any argument about errata policy that hopes to persuade the current staff should be founded on who benefits from the decision and not so much on logical consistency. An argument that applies the algorithm I have outlined above will probably make sense to Mr. Tabak, though certainly there will be room for disagreement in the value judgments involved.
FURTHER READING
Here are some resources that everyone who wants to quibble about errata policy should read before opening their yapper (courtesy of Wiley at TheManaDrain for most of these):
Mr. Tabak has actually explained it that way to me, saying "If we remove the errata on those cards and then ban them in all formats, whose interests have we served?" or something to that effect.
And yet, flash happened. Errata'd, then banned/restricted in all formats.
Time vault as well. There was a time that it was possible to have 4x time vault, back during the time it had time counters (ie in order to untap, you had to skip a turn then put a counter on it; in order to gain a turn, you had to remove the counter). Then wizards decided to errata to original functionality than restrict it instead. I'd argue that the counter version made it impossible to combo with via voltaic key, and even safe enough to be used in other formats, like legacy or EDH,
There are limits to what Wizards will do, and that's why I proposed the algorithm above. The errata on flash was admittedly "Power Level Errata" in the classic sense - not justified by original intent, function, or community understanding.
Q: Flash and Protean Hulk now make a combo that's one heck of an elephant in the Legacy room, and I fear for GP–Columbus. Are there any plans to fix this at the last second before the Grand Prix?
-Kevin, Iowa USA
....
We will be sticking to the normal Banned & Restricted list update schedule; as a rule, we do not ban cards at other times. You can read Randy Buehler's old article Extended Thoughts for more insights into the B&R policy and our avoidance of "emergency bans."
For those who aren't aware, Flash was given power-level errata in 2000. We removed that power-level errata, as is our policy, when it was found during the most recent Oracle update. We will not be reissuing errata for the card Flash or any other cards changed during the Future Sight Oracle update.
All the attention paid to the recent functionality change of Flash has caused us to reevaluate how we disseminate such information, however, so we are working on a much more public and visible method of highlighting Oracle and Comprehensive Rules changes going forward.
As a result, even the Cui Bono algorithm wouldn't allow them to fix Flash. It's like Time Vault; they just don't have a good justification under any theory to fix it except classical "Power Level Errata," so it lives on. Remember, "Power Level Errata" classically means that the errata was justified to change the card's function specifically to avoid a power level concern.
Time vault as well. There was a time that it was possible to have 4x time vault, back during the time it had time counters (ie in order to untap, you had to skip a turn then put a counter on it; in order to gain a turn, you had to remove the counter). Then wizards decided to errata to original functionality than restrict it instead. I'd argue that the counter version made it impossible to combo with via voltaic key, and even safe enough to be used in other formats, like legacy or EDH,
Again, remember that just because Mr. Tabak's motivation is to do the most good for the most players does not mean he is willing to engage in post-printing card development. He has shown us very distinct limits to what he is willing to do, based on both impact on the community and non-power level reasons to errata cards.
In the case of Time Walk, the card as printed is horribly ambiguous. Basically, it was not clear whether the untap phrase applied to untapping normally during the untap step, or to any effect which would untap the card. As a result, the card went through many tortured interpretations over the years. There was very little community agreement about how it should function. Eventually, the Vintage community (and Mr. Menedian in particular, I believe) were able to get Richard Garfield to comment that, as originally designed, the card was intended to and functioned as a combo with Twiddle. In other words, the untap phrase was meant to apply only to untapping during the untap step.
Using my proposed process:
Steps 1 and 2: The card was ambiguous, so the default way of issuing errata would be original function, which means it works with Twiddle (and now Key).
Step 3: As you say, Wizards might be reluctant to enable a 3 colorless mana infinite turn combo, and so there is a good reason to try to see what can be done about the card. But, in Step 3, the original function was NOT interrupted by a rules change, so we can't change it for that reason. We don't have the easy out that exists for Vale, for example.
Step 4: If Wizards really wants to to errata the card, now we look at some other options; community understanding or original intent. Well, intent is no good because Dr. Garfield has explained that Vault was originally intended to work with untap effects. So that gets us nowhere. What about community understanding? Well, in the past, there was really NO general understanding. The card had been errataed to death for so long with weird fixes that there was really nothing but controversy here. There was no intuitive or accepted use to fall back on. So, Wizards' hands are tied unless they want to flat out issue Power-Level Errata, which they (wisely) decline to do.
Note that the case for changing Vault is even weaker now, because the Vintage community has accepted the current (original) version of Vault as part of a very healthy metagame. So, at the moment, the community understanding weighs heavily against further tinkering.
So, I have an update. I e-mailed Matt with my nerdy analysis of what he seems to be doing when he makes decisions about Oracle text, asking for his reaction to the Theory of Matt. Here's his response:
"This is fascinating stuff. Who knew there was such thinking behind what I do? ;-P
There are many motivations behind Oracle decisions, and people sometimes overlook an important one: don’t rock the boat. This is the mistake I made with Reconnaissance. I still think Reconnaissance shouldn’t be used to untap attacking creatures after they’ve dealt damage. I think it’s pretty clear that wasn’t the intent of the card. However, Oracle (and Magic) are not purely scholarly pursuits. People’s fun is on the line, and at the end of the day, fun is our stock in trade.
Matt"
This suggests two things to me:
(1) The idea of doing the most good for the most players is very alive and well, and the idea of not rocking the boat strongly prefers leaving things the way they are. Recon was changed not because of original function, but because people had come to expect it to work a certain way. The era of Power-level-errta-B-gone type sweeping changes is over.
(2) Mr. Tabak is quite willing to enforce to what he understands as the original intent of a card, absent other considerations.
And, of course:
(3) He thinks it is at least a little silly that someone put this much work into analyzing his behavior as Oracle manager! Quite so.
"Q. Is the bonus from Riding the Dilu Horse permanent?
A. No, because the card should read, "Any one creature gets +2/+2 and gains horsemanship until end of turn."
So it's pretty clear from this Q&A that the intent of the card was for it to end at the end of turn, but for whatever reason, possibly printing error or something, it had no "until end of turn" clause so the effect would stay permanent. However, despite that, the current oracle for the card sates the effect is permanent. So they errata'd the card to follow the card text, despite it being against intent.
The big issue I'm having with all of this is the sheer inconsistency with all this
Are you the same person who crusades against this every year or so?
Look, is it inconsistent? Sure. Could erratas be implemented in a more uniform system? Sure. Could communication on why they errata in certain ways be more clear? Sure.
But, at the end of the day, this is an issue <.00001% of the magic community cares about. It effects only a few cards and only in the most fringe way possible. This just isn't something worth spending your time on.
Let's say you don't like the Oracle text of a card. Maybe you're angry about how Soldevi Excavations has errata to change it from a triggered ability to a replacement effect. Maybe you are upset that Oboro Envoy doesn't permanently reduce the power of creatures. Or maybe you want to lend you voice to the cyclic complaining about Lotus Vale not being Black Lotus.
Well, you can always e-mail Matt Tabak, the guru of Oracle text at Wizards. Or you can start a thread on the mothership forums that he sometimes reads. When you do that, are you going to have any impact? Are you going to help turn back the tide and actually convince someone who matters to change policy, as happened in 2014 with Reconnaissance? Or are you just going to bore your audience to tears retreading the same old ground Mr. Tabak has heard a million times before?
If you want to have an impact, you need to know your audience. To that end, I have collected some resources and reviewed e-mails from Mr. Tabak to members of TheManaDrain with the goal towards coming up with a description of how Oracle policy works that actually explains observed behavior. By understanding how decisions appear to actually get made on errata policy, we have an opportunity to better interact with the key players and help shape that policy.
Say hello to the third rail of Magic errata discussions.
DISCLAIMER
My analysis is meant to be descriptive, not critical. I am specifically not trying to comment about which errata policy is or would be the best policy. I want only to examine how Wizards actually does make decisions. This is IMPORTANT because if you do not like a rules change or the Oracle text of a card, you need to be up to speed on what evidence we have about how the people who matter actually make decisions. Otherwise, you just ram your had against the wall repeatedly into the same old arguments they have heard before and you accomplish nothing.
Win the game for 3 mana whaaat?
THE OLD SCHOOL
In the not-to-distant past, errata policy revolved around three “schools:” (1) original intent, (2) original text, and (3) original ruled functionality. Each philosophy gave a prescription for when and how you issue errata. Here's a very general definition of each:
(1) Original Intent
Whoever is in charge divines what someone - maybe design, maybe development, maybe themselves - thought the card was supposed to do, and erratas it so that it keeps doing that. Used heavily in early Magic history to fight non-obvious interactions, mistakes, or infinite combos (i.e. Relic Bind, Basalt Monolith), largely maligned nowadays as being arbitrary because its impossible to know who had what intent or apply it to cards or rules changes that had not even been conceived of at the time. Essentially leads to post-printing development of the card.
(NOTE: There is a related and often-abused term called Power Level Errata. You should be careful about tossing the term around because sometimes people take it to mean errata that the Rules Manager admits is not even original intent, but is necessary to fix a "broken" interaction. As used in the past, Power Level Errata has more to do with the stated justification for a change than it does with the function of the change. Wizards never justifies errata this way anymore. So, be careful not to use this term if you're trying to express a change that merely has the EFFECT of reducing the power level of a card. You'll be misunderstood.)
(2) Original Text
The card does what the printed text says it does, interpreted under modern rules. Nothing is preserved over rules changes. Runs into problems with cards printed with different text over time and with cards that use archaic or ambiguous terms. Wizards has expressed some preference for this idea, http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127, and Mr. Tabak has mentioned on a few occasions that he would ideally like cards to simply do what they say.
(3) Original Ruled Functionality
The card does what it was first ruled to do, interpreted under modern rules. Nothing is preserved over rules changes. Has the advantage of being objective to apply, provided you can identify which cards actually need to get any errata at all, and provided you can FIND the original ruling. Not talked about much as such by anyone at Wizards anymore as far as I can tell, but I understand this was a critically important policy pushed by some important Vintage names, such as Steve Menedian.
It is worth dwelling a little longer on a critical similarity about Text and Function approaches - you do not errata cards just to make them work the same over rules changes. In both cases, you take the original text/function and then allow the card to do that today regardless of whether the rules around that text/functionality have changed. As Mr. Tabak explains:
"My general philosophy is that I’m okay with rules changing out from underneath cards and changing their functionality. Heck, just look at the Magic 2010 rules changes. It wouldn't be reasonable to try and make all previous cards work exactly the same way they did before those rules changes. Take heart, Master of Arms fans—it's still a combo with Royal Assassin!"
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/141a&page=2
A victory for the enemies of Serra's Blessing everywhere!
A NEW SCHOOL - CUI BONO
Now, Wizards currently does not really subscribe to any of these policies as such. Anyone who has read the regular complaints from people about errata on cards in the Weatherlight - Tempest era knows that Wizards does not adopt any one of these three "schools" and apply them consistently. In fact, Mr. Tabak has explained on numerous occasions that consistency is "a" goal, but not "the" goal. He will justify errata under different schools at different times, perhaps glibly, in making his point.
Just because Wizards is not blindly applying a single, simple philosophy for errata policy does not, however, suggest that they are acting in an arbitrary fashion. Rather, their decision making is simply more complicated. I believe I have at least a reasonable interpretation of what that more complicated policy is. Mr. Tabak has expressed what may be a fourth "school" of errata. Since Mr. Tabak has expressed this policy as asking, "Whose interests are served by this policy," I propose calling it the "Cui Bono" school, in reference to Cicero’s famous motive argument. The phrase translates to, “who benefits,” or, “to whose benefit?”
This is a hybrid approach: For each card, decide on a case by case basis what kind of errata to issue, and what policy to use for it, based on what will most benefit the players of Magic. Mr. Tabak seems to have a default preference for text, or where text fails, an original function approach, but is not above resorting to original intent or even power level errata where necessary to serve the interests of the game. This approach drives some players batty because this standard is not easily expressed in a simple, universal rule, and treats different cards differently.
The recent dispute over Reconnaissance was a clear example of this. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/magic-2015-update-bulletin-2014-07-17). Mr. Tabak originally changed the Oracle text of the card to take away its ability to untap a creature post-combat damage. It had functioned that way for a long time, and lots of players wrote in to complain. Players on The Drain did some digging to call the original ruled functionality of the card into question. Hearing the voices, Mr. Tabak reversed course and restored Reconnaissance to its former, albeit minor, glory. In doing so, he explained he was making the change specifically because the errata was hurting more players than it was helping. (There is at least one prominent member of the Vintage community who interprets Mr. Tabak's decision as being based solely on the original function evidence provided, so read the linked article for yourself and draw your own conclusions.)
A "Cui Bono" policy also explains why cards like Abeyance and Lotus Vale still have errata that preserves their functionality over rules changes, even though strict application of schools 2 or 3 would reject that. Without the change, Abeyance is nearly Time Walk and Vale is nearly Lotus. Wizards probably does not think reprinting the most powerful cards in Magic’s history is a good idea. Who can blame them? Mr. Tabak has actually explained it that way to me, saying "If we remove the errata on those cards and then ban them in all formats, whose interests have we served?" or something to that effect.
So busted. Read it again. Don't worry, I'll wait. What, you still don't think it's broken?
A THEORY THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE
You can describe the Cui Bono approach in an algorithm. While I doubt Wizards consciously does anything like this, as far as I can tell, this process actually describes the observed errata behavior by Wizards and predicts Oracle text very well:
(1) Does the card text "compute" as printed - and is it free from ambiguity / multiple printings / archaic terms? If yes, load that into A.
If not, can we find the original function when it was printed? Load that into A instead.
(2) Interpret A under the current Rules without making changes to preserve its functionality over rules changes. (Explains Winter Orb, f.e.)
(3) Does A lead to a card being comparable to or greater in power level than the most broken cards ever printed in the history or Magic as a result of rules changes? If yes, then change A to incorporate both original function and preserve the card’s function over rules changes. (Explains Lotus Vale, Mox Diamond, f.e.)
(4) Does A lead to Oracle text that hurts the game of Magic, as a whole? If so, consider alternatives: B - Wizards' best estimation of original intent and C - The way most people expect the card to function. Weigh the alternatives A, B, and C, giving more weight to A, and choose Oracle text that does the most benefit for the most players. (Explains Thought Lash, f.e.)
(5) Finally, if Wizards simply screwed up and printed something that was not actually part of the card design, so we know for sure what it was supposed to be, then just fix it. (Explains Oboro, Walking Atlas, etc)
Note that this also explains why Time Vault is the way it is. It is ambiguous, so you need to use Original Ruled Functionality, and even though Wizards might want to change it in step 4, they are stuck because Richard Garfield’s original intent was that it could work with Twiddle and the player base was divided over its function.
So, that is my thesis. We are in an organic period of Oracle text, where Cui Bono dominates and the other schools are trotted out only as needed to justify whatever decision has been made about an individual card. Any argument about errata policy that hopes to persuade the current staff should be founded on who benefits from the decision and not so much on logical consistency. An argument that applies the algorithm I have outlined above will probably make sense to Mr. Tabak, though certainly there will be room for disagreement in the value judgments involved.
FURTHER READING
Here are some resources that everyone who wants to quibble about errata policy should read before opening their yapper (courtesy of Wiley at TheManaDrain for most of these):
Taking You To the Beginning, At Last
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/345
Power-Level-Errata-B-Gone
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127
Shadowmoor Update Bulletin
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/453a
Bruce Banner and Barry Allen Walk into a Bar...
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/bd279
September 2008 Update Bulletin
http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/092408
Magic 2010 Rules Changes
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a
Ask Wizards 2007
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0807
Compiled Functional Errata
http://community.wizards.com/forum/vintage/threads/2148236
An example of the results of crusading against errata policy without carefully considering Wizard's observed behavior:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-theory-and-templating/threads/4194236
And yet, flash happened. Errata'd, then banned/restricted in all formats.
Time vault as well. There was a time that it was possible to have 4x time vault, back during the time it had time counters (ie in order to untap, you had to skip a turn then put a counter on it; in order to gain a turn, you had to remove the counter). Then wizards decided to errata to original functionality than restrict it instead. I'd argue that the counter version made it impossible to combo with via voltaic key, and even safe enough to be used in other formats, like legacy or EDH,
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
From http://www.starcitygames.com/article/14145_Unlocking-Legacy---Flash.html:
As a result, even the Cui Bono algorithm wouldn't allow them to fix Flash. It's like Time Vault; they just don't have a good justification under any theory to fix it except classical "Power Level Errata," so it lives on. Remember, "Power Level Errata" classically means that the errata was justified to change the card's function specifically to avoid a power level concern.
Again, remember that just because Mr. Tabak's motivation is to do the most good for the most players does not mean he is willing to engage in post-printing card development. He has shown us very distinct limits to what he is willing to do, based on both impact on the community and non-power level reasons to errata cards.
In the case of Time Walk, the card as printed is horribly ambiguous. Basically, it was not clear whether the untap phrase applied to untapping normally during the untap step, or to any effect which would untap the card. As a result, the card went through many tortured interpretations over the years. There was very little community agreement about how it should function. Eventually, the Vintage community (and Mr. Menedian in particular, I believe) were able to get Richard Garfield to comment that, as originally designed, the card was intended to and functioned as a combo with Twiddle. In other words, the untap phrase was meant to apply only to untapping during the untap step.
Using my proposed process:
Steps 1 and 2: The card was ambiguous, so the default way of issuing errata would be original function, which means it works with Twiddle (and now Key).
Step 3: As you say, Wizards might be reluctant to enable a 3 colorless mana infinite turn combo, and so there is a good reason to try to see what can be done about the card. But, in Step 3, the original function was NOT interrupted by a rules change, so we can't change it for that reason. We don't have the easy out that exists for Vale, for example.
Step 4: If Wizards really wants to to errata the card, now we look at some other options; community understanding or original intent. Well, intent is no good because Dr. Garfield has explained that Vault was originally intended to work with untap effects. So that gets us nowhere. What about community understanding? Well, in the past, there was really NO general understanding. The card had been errataed to death for so long with weird fixes that there was really nothing but controversy here. There was no intuitive or accepted use to fall back on. So, Wizards' hands are tied unless they want to flat out issue Power-Level Errata, which they (wisely) decline to do.
Note that the case for changing Vault is even weaker now, because the Vintage community has accepted the current (original) version of Vault as part of a very healthy metagame. So, at the moment, the community understanding weighs heavily against further tinkering.
"This is fascinating stuff. Who knew there was such thinking behind what I do? ;-P
There are many motivations behind Oracle decisions, and people sometimes overlook an important one: don’t rock the boat. This is the mistake I made with Reconnaissance. I still think Reconnaissance shouldn’t be used to untap attacking creatures after they’ve dealt damage. I think it’s pretty clear that wasn’t the intent of the card. However, Oracle (and Magic) are not purely scholarly pursuits. People’s fun is on the line, and at the end of the day, fun is our stock in trade.
Matt"
This suggests two things to me:
(1) The idea of doing the most good for the most players is very alive and well, and the idea of not rocking the boat strongly prefers leaving things the way they are. Recon was changed not because of original function, but because people had come to expect it to work a certain way. The era of Power-level-errta-B-gone type sweeping changes is over.
(2) Mr. Tabak is quite willing to enforce to what he understands as the original intent of a card, absent other considerations.
And, of course:
(3) He thinks it is at least a little silly that someone put this much work into analyzing his behavior as Oracle manager! Quite so.
IF you go to Wizards' FAQ on PTK, this link here https://www.wizards.com/magic/p3k/p3k_faq.asp you'll see towards the bottom this question and answer:
"Q. Is the bonus from Riding the Dilu Horse permanent?
A. No, because the card should read, "Any one creature gets +2/+2 and gains horsemanship until end of turn."
So it's pretty clear from this Q&A that the intent of the card was for it to end at the end of turn, but for whatever reason, possibly printing error or something, it had no "until end of turn" clause so the effect would stay permanent. However, despite that, the current oracle for the card sates the effect is permanent. So they errata'd the card to follow the card text, despite it being against intent.
The big issue I'm having with all of this is the sheer inconsistency with all this
Look, is it inconsistent? Sure. Could erratas be implemented in a more uniform system? Sure. Could communication on why they errata in certain ways be more clear? Sure.
But, at the end of the day, this is an issue <.00001% of the magic community cares about. It effects only a few cards and only in the most fringe way possible. This just isn't something worth spending your time on.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588