I don't think the lands would be broken. getting 3-4 mana turn 1 for free is good, but storm decks can't increase storm count and other 'fair' decks can't reuse the mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
712.5b The controller of another player can't make choices or decisions for that player that aren't called for by the rules or by any objects. The controller also can't make any choices or decisions for the player that would be called for by the tournament rules.
Example: The player who's being controlled still chooses whether he or she leaves to visit the restroom, trades a card to someone else, agrees to an intentional draw, or calls a judge about an error or infraction.
I don't think the lands would be broken. getting 3-4 mana turn 1 for free is good, but storm decks can't increase storm count and other 'fair' decks can't reuse the mana.
Broken cards in "fair" decks are rarely broken. That's why they're "fair".
Broken cards make the broken decks.
Also: Fast mana is used to great effect by more than just Storm.
Also also: I'm sure Storm would love to have 4-5x Black Lotus, even if 4 of them didn't increment the storm count.
I don't think the lands would be broken. getting 3-4 mana turn 1 for free is good, but storm decks can't increase storm count and other 'fair' decks can't reuse the mana.
...why does everybody fixate on storm?
Even if storm were never invented as a mechanic, these two lands being legal in the current rules as written would ruin any meta they were in, easily. You could almost guarantee first turn wins every time in NON-storm decks of all sorts, if you could run a playset of each of these as written nowadays.
It's the last line that answers the question: Yes, Matt knows perfectly well that some cards are not allowed to do what the text says, but "development's concerns about Lotus Vale were stronger" so it gets treated differently. That's power-level errata.
I don't really care what it's labeled, but that's a terrible argument. You have absolutely no idea from that text WHY their concerns were stronger. Could be strength, but could also be:
-Popularity/awareness of the cards
-Cost/availability
-How profoundly each one was syntactically different from the intent, regardless of power
-Etc.
It's certainly not popularity/awareness considering they're all old jank from the beginning of the game. Time Vault is the odd one out on price since it's one of those super limited cards that stopped being printed before reasonable print runs. Availability should be the same for the other 3, though, since they're all Mirage block rares. Now, Time Vault does function as originally intended, but Time Walk was in print and Twiddle was the only way to abuse it. Flash was obviously intended to work like Quicken, not to abuse enter/leave the battlefield abilities, which weren't that common at the time. Even if it worked as printed in 6th, you could, what? Use 2 cards to turn Nekrataal into a Terror?
There's a consistency thing with the CIPT lands. It's not just the "good" cards that have the errata, Heart of Yavimaya and Balduvian Trading post have it as well. When Phyrexian Dreadnought got errata but things like Rogue Elephant didn't, it was clear that the dreadnought's power level is what made it special compared to other CIPT sac creatures. Since all these lands (as well as Mox Diamond) were errata'd though, none of them are really singled out for being powerful from the player's perspective, even if it turns out the power of a handful of them is what motivated the errata in the first place. So even if it's a power-level motivation, you get a kind of consistency in the errata that most power-level errata specifically lacks and broke.
These lands also differ from most power-level errata in that they are abusable by themselves. Flash and time vault require specific cards to "break their original functionality", unintended interactions particularly with newer cards, but lotus vale suddenly becomes black lotus without any obscure combo required. Things like Master of Arms and Power Surge are of the handful of cards whose individual functionality is broken by rules update, although even those cards differ in that they are rendered near-useless rather than insanely overpowered.
I don't know whether the errata is really justified or power level or whatever, but these cards are unlike most of the "power level" ones people like to draw comparisons to, which is likely why they are still getting treated differently by Wizards.
Do we really need this thread again? They function roughly the same now as they did originally. There is no power level errata with them. They would be broken if the errata were removed. That's all there is to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Example: The player who's being controlled still chooses whether he or she leaves to visit the restroom, trades a card to someone else, agrees to an intentional draw, or calls a judge about an error or infraction.
How about this?
Broken cards in "fair" decks are rarely broken. That's why they're "fair".
Broken cards make the broken decks.
Also: Fast mana is used to great effect by more than just Storm.
Also also: I'm sure Storm would love to have 4-5x Black Lotus, even if 4 of them didn't increment the storm count.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
...why does everybody fixate on storm?
Even if storm were never invented as a mechanic, these two lands being legal in the current rules as written would ruin any meta they were in, easily. You could almost guarantee first turn wins every time in NON-storm decks of all sorts, if you could run a playset of each of these as written nowadays.
I don't really care what it's labeled, but that's a terrible argument. You have absolutely no idea from that text WHY their concerns were stronger. Could be strength, but could also be:
-Popularity/awareness of the cards
-Cost/availability
-How profoundly each one was syntactically different from the intent, regardless of power
-Etc.
These lands also differ from most power-level errata in that they are abusable by themselves. Flash and time vault require specific cards to "break their original functionality", unintended interactions particularly with newer cards, but lotus vale suddenly becomes black lotus without any obscure combo required. Things like Master of Arms and Power Surge are of the handful of cards whose individual functionality is broken by rules update, although even those cards differ in that they are rendered near-useless rather than insanely overpowered.
I don't know whether the errata is really justified or power level or whatever, but these cards are unlike most of the "power level" ones people like to draw comparisons to, which is likely why they are still getting treated differently by Wizards.