The main reason I could see the card not being allowed (apart from all of the Oracle technicality issues that have been brought up so far) is that the card doesn't really work well from a rules perspective. The search ability can only be activated if the card is in your library. Okay, we have rules support for activating an ability of an object that is in a hidden zone.
602.2a The player announces that he or she is activating the ability. If an activated ability is being activated from a hidden zone, the card that has that ability is revealed.
But how do you do that when the zone is your library? Players aren't entitled to go looking through their library whenever they feel like it, but you would have to do this (as part of the process of activating the ability) to be able to reveal it. If we grant that 602.2a lets you dig through your library once you've announced that you're activating the ability in order to find the card and reveal it - which is a bit of a stretch on its own - then we run into other problems (what if the opponent counters the ability? Do we leave the current order of the library as is even though its owner has just looked through it?) and it would almost certainly be a judge call every time this came up, if only to make sure that this was being done properly. If the library turns out not to have a 1996WC in it - perhaps because it got milled and the player didn't notice - they're committing a GRV infraction for trying to activate an ability that they can't and a Looking at Extra Cards infraction for looking through their library when nothing is allowing them to.
It would be reasonable to ban this card purely in the interest of not introducing problematic tournament logistics. Shahrazad is precedent for this.
1996WC is in the same vein as Proposal, in that it was a printing done for a special purpose. It wasn't a released card. It's essentially the same as a certificate, but it happens to look like a Magic card. You people are vastly over-complicating this.
In the time between the bump and the previous post before that, they've actually refined the criteria that make cards eligible in Vintage and Legacy. Explanation here.
Vintage decks may consist of cards from all Magic card sets, plus the following cards: Sewers of Estark, Mana Crypt, Windseeker Centaur, and Nalathni Dragon.
Cards from expansions and special sets (like From the Vault, Magic: The Gathering — Commander, Duel Decks, Conspiracy, etc.) are legal in the Vintage format on the date of release of the expansion or special set.
Likewise for Legacy, except Mana Crypt is banned in that format so they don't include it in the list of additions. This new phrasing makes clear that one-off promotional items that have never been part of any "set", such as 1996 World Champion, Proposal, and Shichifukujin Dragon, are not among the pool of allowed cards.
I feel like I wasted several minutes of my life reading the first page of this thread. This is classic, arguing over the legality of 1996 World Champion in vintage. Just the idea is preposterous. There is one copy of the card. I feel like if WotC made the 1996 World Champion card legal in vintage and legacy people would be outraged at it because it has a print run of 1/it is the most scarce card on the planet besides proposal, which is also a print run of just 1 if I recall correctly. Not to mention Artscrafter mentioning the rules nightmares that would be associated with the card hell they even talked about the rules implications before they made the card over 20 years ago, but let it slide because they knew it would *never* be used in tournament play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
I feel like I wasted several minutes of my life reading the first page of this thread. This is classic, arguing over the legality of 1996 World Champion in vintage. Just the idea is preposterous. There is one copy of the card. I feel like if WotC made the 1996 World Champion card legal in vintage and legacy people would be outraged at it because it has a print run of 1/it is the most scarce card on the planet besides proposal, which is also a print run of just 1 if I recall correctly. Not to mention Artscrafter mentioning the rules nightmares that would be associated with the card hell they even talked about the rules implications before they made the card over 20 years ago, but let it slide because they knew it would *never* be used in tournament play.
I do agree that this thread is overwhelming. The intent of the idea of the card was supposed to be for the world champion to play the card as some super special magic card, and only that player was allowed (that's why it was never officially banned). But the card was also encased in a trophy (I'd seen the picture) therefore it was impossible for anybody to play the card. But on the other hand, I can see the owner of the trophy showing it to the judge and the judge allowing a proxy (unless there is something I'm missing with the rules).
I do think the likely hood that somebody will show up with the real 1996 world champion trophy and ask the judge to proxy... well, I think I have better odds winning the lottery without buying a ticket. It's way-way below zero percent chance. It's stupid.
Since there is only one card and tournament proxy rules do say you need to show the original... well I don't see it happening in a tournament.
Casual is a different story... you can proxy the card and play the card. You can do tricks with the card. Your playing casual. Friends think it's a made up card and you can tell them the story of the card. Is 1996 world champion that awesome? I don't think it is unless your playing drudge and I sort of doubt that because LED's is a million times better
wow it's been years since I posted something on vintage
That was my whole point Soldier - Vintage tournaments normally play with proxies so if the real 1996 WC Promo is technically or theoretically allowed then proxy tournaments could see the card played. (And promo cards were allowed under the old rules so long as they had a normal card-back, which I believe distinguishes 1996WC from stuff like Proposal)
Thankfully they've improved the ruling and it's all moot.
Edit: I agree and have always acknowledged that it was impractical from a rules standpoint. I agree and have always acknowledged that it was not intended to see tournament play. I agree and have always acknowledged that a head judge if they like could forbid its use. I agree that the scarcity of the card was a major concern and probably enough to justify forbidding the card. However, none of those things reflect (now or previously) the underlying legality of the card.
That was my whole point Soldier - Vintage tournaments normally play with proxies so if the real 1996 WC Promo is technically or theoretically allowed then proxy tournaments could see the card played. (And promo cards were allowed under the old rules so long as they had a normal card-back, which I believe distinguishes 1996WC from stuff like Proposal)
Thankfully they've improved the ruling and it's all moot.
Edit: I agree and have always acknowledged that it was impractical from a rules standpoint. I agree and have always acknowledged that it was not intended to see tournament play. I agree and have always acknowledged that a head judge if they like could forbid its use. I agree that the scarcity of the card was a major concern and probably enough to justify forbidding the card. However, none of those things reflect (now or previously) the underlying legality of the card.
Interesting points that might cause a problem for running it even as a proxy:
There is no Gatherer page; magiccards.info is one of the only places that even shows it, and they have "This card is not legal in any format" on that page.
The card was technically printed by Carta Mundi rather than Wizards of the Coast.
No Gatherer page is not a problem. The rules are quite clear that something omitted from Gatherer still ought to function properly. (A discussion which we've already had in the thread.)
Magiccards.info has zero rules standing.
If 1996WC is illegal because it was technically printed by another company (at WotC's request and designs, and distributed by WotC) then virtually every magic card ever made is illegal. WotC does not run printing presses for their current products such as Oath of the Gatewatch or Shadows over Innistrad. This standard is clearly unworkable unless your goal is to invalidate the overwhelming majority of Magic cards ever printed.
Most importantly, this is all moot. WotC decided the rules were insufficiently clear and re-shaped them to eliminate 1996WC and clear up various other issues with promo cards. I take this as a vindication of my position. If 1996WC were simply illegal before because it wasn't on Gatherer or something like that, there would be no need to re-write the rules to exclude it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the author of the "Resource Advantage in Magic" series over on EternalCentral.com
No Gatherer page is not a problem. The rules are quite clear that something omitted from Gatherer still ought to function properly. (A discussion which we've already had in the thread.)
Magiccards.info has zero rules standing.
If 1996WC is illegal because it was technically printed by another company (at WotC's request and designs, and distributed by WotC) then virtually every magic card ever made is illegal. WotC does not run printing presses for their current products such as Oath of the Gatewatch or Shadows over Innistrad. This standard is clearly unworkable unless your goal is to invalidate the overwhelming majority of Magic cards ever printed.
Most importantly, this is all moot. WotC decided the rules were insufficiently clear and re-shaped them to eliminate 1996WC and clear up various other issues with promo cards. I take this as a vindication of my position. If 1996WC were simply illegal before because it wasn't on Gatherer or something like that, there would be no need to re-write the rules to exclude it.
Something omitted from Gatherer does not have oracle text. Heck, one could argue because of the only copy's presence in the trophy that it doesn't have a Magic back. Not to mention, the killer point, that the current Magic Tournament Rules say:
Vintage decks may consist of cards from all Magic card sets, plus the following cards: Sewers of Estark, Mana Crypt, Windseeker Centaur, and Nalathni Dragon.
Even if it was legal, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. If you want validation that you could conceivably run 1996 World Champion in a proxy Vintage tournament, well, good luck finding a judge who will let you.
Yes, the rules were recently changed to omit 1996WC; I've acknowledged this three times now. I take this as proof that it should have been banned before - otherwise there would be no need to change the rules. Perhaps you missed that this thread was necro'd in the past few days after the rules change? The original discussion predated that rules change by quite a bit.
The card has a normal magic back. It was distributed in a clear trophy and you can see the normal magic back in some photos.
As we have discussed in the thread previously, a card missing from the Gatherer/Oracle database is not blank. The rules specifically say that you can't "abuse" missing information in those databases (i.e. cards still function and when new promotional cards are released they work before they hit Gatherer). Secondly, even if it were blank that would not address the legality of the card. A card with no rules text could still prove useful for some obscure combo, so declaring it to be blank does not solve the problem for you. There is no additional mechanism to say "blank cards are illegal".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the author of the "Resource Advantage in Magic" series over on EternalCentral.com
It's legal in Commander. If you can't prove it's not legal for Vintage, which it should be.
dbzccg by score had its own problem with a champion's only card being mass proxied and faked by players. The Almighty Light Cage. Their solution is way better than any solution Wotc has ever come up with, they errat'd it to allow only the winner of the tournament it came from to use it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
It's legal in Commander. If you can't prove it's not legal for Vintage, which it should be.
dbzccg by score had its own problem with a champion's only card being mass proxied and faked by players. The Almighty Light Cage. Their solution is way better than any solution Wotc has ever come up with, they errat'd it to allow only the winner of the tournament it came from to use it.
See current Magic Tournament Rules:
Vintage decks may consist of cards from all Magic card sets, plus the following cards: Sewers of Estark, Mana Crypt, Windseeker Centaur, and Nalathni Dragon.
Yes, the rules were recently changed to omit 1996WC; I've acknowledged this three times now. I take this as proof that it should have been banned before - otherwise there would be no need to change the rules. Perhaps you missed that this thread was necro'd in the past few days after the rules change? The original discussion predated that rules change by quite a bit.
The card has a normal magic back. It was distributed in a clear trophy and you can see the normal magic back in some photos.
As we have discussed in the thread previously, a card missing from the Gatherer/Oracle database is not blank. The rules specifically say that you can't "abuse" missing information in those databases (i.e. cards still function and when new promotional cards are released they work before they hit Gatherer). Secondly, even if it were blank that would not address the legality of the card. A card with no rules text could still prove useful for some obscure combo, so declaring it to be blank does not solve the problem for you. There is no additional mechanism to say "blank cards are illegal".
Okay, sounds like the only particular legality issue is the Magic Tournament Rules. If you wanted to run it in a casual game, or maybe even an unsanctioned game at a store, you might be allowed to do so with permission from friends/judges. I would always ask permission before using it, in this sort of case...
I kind-of like the idea of a deck that just tries to drop 1996WC ASAP and beat face, though it would probably be weak to a lot of different kinds of removal.
Most importantly, this is all moot. WotC decided the rules were insufficiently clear and re-shaped them to eliminate 1996WC and clear up various other issues with promo cards. I take this as a vindication of my position. If 1996WC were simply illegal before because it wasn't on Gatherer or something like that, there would be no need to re-write the rules to exclude it.
While it's interesting that they tidied up the rules, it's always been moot. The card was never released. Simply having a card available does not mean "released." A prime example of this is pre-release events, where an entire set is publicly available, but no card is "released," and are not legal until the actual release date.
Thus, 1996 World Champion can have been given to a player, without ever being "released" by WotC. Physical ownership =/= release.
Even in the time they were printed, WotC publicly stated that Nalathni, Sewers, Mana Crypt, etc were legal, while 1996 was not, and never was. This to me shows that they "released" the promo cards, but 1996 never was released.
==
I'm amused that a 2 year old thread was dug up on this subject.
The old tournament rules did not use the word "released" when describing a card's legality. (see section 3.3 and 6.5) Players added that in from other portions of those same rules. If 1996WC is an "authorized card" (which they give a tedious definition of, meaning a playing card with a Magic back, not a token, black or white border, etc) which is "from" (not released but merely from) a "supplement" or "promotional printing" it was previously Vintage-legal. This is why you saw so many of the questions in the thread about the physical card such as "Does it have a normal Magic back?"
I think it was and is plain that 1996WC is an "authorized card" (i.e. fits the phsyical characteristics) "from" a promotional printing or supplement.
The word released was added in from other sub-sections regarding when cards become legal. The argument boils down to something like "this card is not released yet, but it could be someday, so it's not legal yet" which is plainly nonsense.
The current rules leave section 3.3 totally alone (so 1996WC is still plausibly an authorized Magic card) but redefine Vintage legality to include only specifically named promotional cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the author of the "Resource Advantage in Magic" series over on EternalCentral.com
The back of the card is different. That alone makes it illegal (you don't need to play with sleeves). Also, it would be a marked card if you only had 2 WC cards and the rest have normal backs. Everyone could tell which is which. That being said, I'd love to use my playset of FoWs, Vampiric Tutors, fetch lands, scroll rack, city of brass, etc.
The back of those cards are different. They also have a gold border. They are not "Authorized Game Cards" by any measure.
The 1996 World Champion card has a normal back (based on photos). It has a black border. It is a different type of card entirely than those you've identified.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the author of the "Resource Advantage in Magic" series over on EternalCentral.com
No, I'm talking about section 3.3 which describes which cards are "Authorized Game Cards"
6.5 is the format definition for Vintage, and that's the section that was changed to exclude promos other than the 4 listed.
Are you deliberately mis-reading what I posted? I said it was section 3.3, you quoted me saying that, then you posted section 6.5 as proof that what I said was missing from the rules. I'm going to assume it was just a brain fart but it's a pretty bad one.
No, I'm talking about section 3.3 which describes which cards are "Authorized Game Cards"
6.5 is the format definition for Vintage, and that's the section that was changed to exclude promos other than the 4 listed.
Are you deliberately mis-reading what I posted? I said it was section 3.3, you quoted me saying that, then you posted section 6.5 as proof that what I said was missing from the rules. I'm going to assume it was just a brain fart but it's a pretty bad one.
I'm sorry. I thought you were still arguing for potential Vintage legality. My bad.
In terms of non-specific tournament legality, sure, it's an actual card.
Wizards gave it out as a prize. That's more directly "published" than their normal expansions (which go from the printer to distributors to retail to players without WotC touching them)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the author of the "Resource Advantage in Magic" series over on EternalCentral.com
But how do you do that when the zone is your library? Players aren't entitled to go looking through their library whenever they feel like it, but you would have to do this (as part of the process of activating the ability) to be able to reveal it. If we grant that 602.2a lets you dig through your library once you've announced that you're activating the ability in order to find the card and reveal it - which is a bit of a stretch on its own - then we run into other problems (what if the opponent counters the ability? Do we leave the current order of the library as is even though its owner has just looked through it?) and it would almost certainly be a judge call every time this came up, if only to make sure that this was being done properly. If the library turns out not to have a 1996WC in it - perhaps because it got milled and the player didn't notice - they're committing a GRV infraction for trying to activate an ability that they can't and a Looking at Extra Cards infraction for looking through their library when nothing is allowing them to.
It would be reasonable to ban this card purely in the interest of not introducing problematic tournament logistics. Shahrazad is precedent for this.
Likewise for Legacy, except Mana Crypt is banned in that format so they don't include it in the list of additions. This new phrasing makes clear that one-off promotional items that have never been part of any "set", such as 1996 World Champion, Proposal, and Shichifukujin Dragon, are not among the pool of allowed cards.
Currently Playing:
Retired
I do agree that this thread is overwhelming. The intent of the idea of the card was supposed to be for the world champion to play the card as some super special magic card, and only that player was allowed (that's why it was never officially banned). But the card was also encased in a trophy (I'd seen the picture) therefore it was impossible for anybody to play the card. But on the other hand, I can see the owner of the trophy showing it to the judge and the judge allowing a proxy (unless there is something I'm missing with the rules).
I do think the likely hood that somebody will show up with the real 1996 world champion trophy and ask the judge to proxy... well, I think I have better odds winning the lottery without buying a ticket. It's way-way below zero percent chance. It's stupid.
Since there is only one card and tournament proxy rules do say you need to show the original... well I don't see it happening in a tournament.
Casual is a different story... you can proxy the card and play the card. You can do tricks with the card. Your playing casual. Friends think it's a made up card and you can tell them the story of the card. Is 1996 world champion that awesome? I don't think it is unless your playing drudge and I sort of doubt that because LED's is a million times better
wow it's been years since I posted something on vintage
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
Thankfully they've improved the ruling and it's all moot.
Edit: I agree and have always acknowledged that it was impractical from a rules standpoint. I agree and have always acknowledged that it was not intended to see tournament play. I agree and have always acknowledged that a head judge if they like could forbid its use. I agree that the scarcity of the card was a major concern and probably enough to justify forbidding the card. However, none of those things reflect (now or previously) the underlying legality of the card.
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
Interesting points that might cause a problem for running it even as a proxy:
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
Something omitted from Gatherer does not have oracle text. Heck, one could argue because of the only copy's presence in the trophy that it doesn't have a Magic back. Not to mention, the killer point, that the current Magic Tournament Rules say:
Even if it was legal, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. If you want validation that you could conceivably run 1996 World Champion in a proxy Vintage tournament, well, good luck finding a judge who will let you.
The card has a normal magic back. It was distributed in a clear trophy and you can see the normal magic back in some photos.
As we have discussed in the thread previously, a card missing from the Gatherer/Oracle database is not blank. The rules specifically say that you can't "abuse" missing information in those databases (i.e. cards still function and when new promotional cards are released they work before they hit Gatherer). Secondly, even if it were blank that would not address the legality of the card. A card with no rules text could still prove useful for some obscure combo, so declaring it to be blank does not solve the problem for you. There is no additional mechanism to say "blank cards are illegal".
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
dbzccg by score had its own problem with a champion's only card being mass proxied and faked by players. The Almighty Light Cage. Their solution is way better than any solution Wotc has ever come up with, they errat'd it to allow only the winner of the tournament it came from to use it.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
See current Magic Tournament Rules:
Okay, sounds like the only particular legality issue is the Magic Tournament Rules. If you wanted to run it in a casual game, or maybe even an unsanctioned game at a store, you might be allowed to do so with permission from friends/judges. I would always ask permission before using it, in this sort of case...
I kind-of like the idea of a deck that just tries to drop 1996WC ASAP and beat face, though it would probably be weak to a lot of different kinds of removal.
While it's interesting that they tidied up the rules, it's always been moot. The card was never released. Simply having a card available does not mean "released." A prime example of this is pre-release events, where an entire set is publicly available, but no card is "released," and are not legal until the actual release date.
Thus, 1996 World Champion can have been given to a player, without ever being "released" by WotC. Physical ownership =/= release.
Even in the time they were printed, WotC publicly stated that Nalathni, Sewers, Mana Crypt, etc were legal, while 1996 was not, and never was. This to me shows that they "released" the promo cards, but 1996 never was released.
==
I'm amused that a 2 year old thread was dug up on this subject.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I think it was and is plain that 1996WC is an "authorized card" (i.e. fits the phsyical characteristics) "from" a promotional printing or supplement.
The word released was added in from other sub-sections regarding when cards become legal. The argument boils down to something like "this card is not released yet, but it could be someday, so it's not legal yet" which is plainly nonsense.
The current rules leave section 3.3 totally alone (so 1996WC is still plausibly an authorized Magic card) but redefine Vintage legality to include only specifically named promotional cards.
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
But it's not in a Magic card set...
To the contrary, they specifically include "supplements" and "promotional printings" as non-set sources of "Authorized Game Card[s]"
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
edit - list of all the WC cards:
https://www.abugames.com/set258/Buy-World-Championship-Checklist-Magic-The-Gathering-Singles-Cards-For-Sale.html
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
The 1996 World Champion card has a normal back (based on photos). It has a black border. It is a different type of card entirely than those you've identified.
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
You mean this page which doesn't mention anything about them in terms of Vintage legality?
6.5 is the format definition for Vintage, and that's the section that was changed to exclude promos other than the 4 listed.
Are you deliberately mis-reading what I posted? I said it was section 3.3, you quoted me saying that, then you posted section 6.5 as proof that what I said was missing from the rules. I'm going to assume it was just a brain fart but it's a pretty bad one.
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/
I'm sorry. I thought you were still arguing for potential Vintage legality. My bad.
In terms of non-specific tournament legality, sure, it's an actual card.
I thought the 1996 champion was published by somebody else...
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
Check it out!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part-1-one-shot-resources/
http://www.eternalcentral.com/resource-advantage-in-magic-part2-tempo/
I've also written a short primer on Manaless Dredge in Vintage:
http://www.eternalcentral.com/the-dredge-of-glory-an-introduction-to-manaless-dredge-in-vintage/