The only surefire solution to prevent confusion would be to issue errata for the card to clarify what it does. Having Tabak rule one way or the other doesn't mean anything; players will still be confused by the multiple interpretations of the card by just reading the card text. Gatherer doesn't work as a foolproof solution either, since Gatherer rulings are merely derived from CR rules, and it's evident that even with the citation of CR rules, the confusion of the intended functionality still exists.
Cards like this have happened in the past, once they make an official ruling word will spread everyone will simmer down. Watching everyone argue over grammar and wording lets you see who really understand how the rules work, and see the other people who accept that the rules work, but don't know how. Hopefully I have crossed that threshold.
The only surefire solution to prevent confusion would be to issue errata for the card to clarify what it does. Having Tabak rule one way or the other doesn't mean anything; players will still be confused by the multiple interpretations of the card by just reading the card text. Gatherer doesn't work as a foolproof solution either, since Gatherer rulings are merely derived from CR rules, and it's evident that even with the citation of CR rules, the confusion of the intended functionality still exists.
Cards like this have happened in the past, once they make an official ruling word will spread everyone will simmer down. Watching everyone argue over grammar and wording lets you see who really understand how the rules work, and see the other people who accept that the rules work, but don't know how. Hopefully I have crossed that threshold.
The problem isn't whether or not people know about the rules they're talking about. The problem is the ambiguity that is present in the sentence at hand. This is similar to the sentence "I like hunting dogs", where it can mean either "I like to hunt dogs" or "I like dogs that hunt."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
My understanding of logic forces me to interpret the text in a way that allows the chain-veil to "go infinite". The "once this turn" just means that you can just use the loyalty-ability once and not multiple times per resolution of the artifact's activated ability.
I agree that the wording on the card could be clearer, but they have a lot of baggage to work with. Styles guides, readability, length, just to name a few. Assuming is is only once a turn i think it is worded fairly well within their parameters. If it isn't then they added tons of words for no reason and could have made the card a lot cleaner.
You guys are as bad as the people who keep trying to claim generator servant only works if the spend both mana on the same creature.
This is not a complicated interaction.
"Once per turn" tells you the effect generated is only usable once and only this turn.
Activating the ability again generates a new effect, completely separate from the previously generated one.
There is really no question about this. Judges are people. And thus fallible. Heck, I personally witnessed a L3 judge at GP Chicago making two incorrect rulings in a row. Both of which were corrected upon appeal by the head judge. One involved Thassa and Blind obedience, which is a little complicated, but the other was Skull-crack and protection, which really isn't. He just brain farted.
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
I agree that the wording on the card could be clearer, but they have a lot of baggage to work with. Styles guides, readability, length, just to name a few. Assuming is is only once a turn i think it is worded fairly well within their parameters. If it isn't then they added tons of words for no reason and could have made the card a lot cleaner.
While whoever comes up with the rules text for these things does have to conform to length, readability, and style limitations to optimize elegance and whatnot, clarity of what an ability does should never be sacrificed for elegance.
It's evident based on this thread only that the wording of the ability is ambiguous. Saying that one side or the other "doesn't know what they're talking about" simply because they possibly interpreted the wording of the ability differently than the intended functionality is bad, because each side uses the correct rules knowledge to justify how the ability works based on their interpretation of the card.
No amount of rulings given from judges or interpretations from people who didn't make the card will ever clear up this confusion for sure. The only way to know what the intended functionality of the card is is to ask the people who made the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The only really question here is whether "one of its loyalty abilities once this turn" stacks with another to make "twice this turn" or does once mean once.
The only really question here is whether "one of its loyalty abilities once this turn" stacks with another to make "twice this turn" or does once mean once.
Exactly. And we can't know that unless we ask the people who made the card. So there's no point in discussing rulings made by level 3 judges or anything like that, since they aren't the people who made the card and only go by the interpretation that they had of the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The only really question here is whether "one of its loyalty abilities once this turn" stacks with another to make "twice this turn" or does once mean once.
And based on precedents, we're forced to conclude that they DO stack because they are effects that allow you to do something extra like additional land drops -- not effects that would limit what you can do, like Spirit of the Labyrinth.
The main problem is that the extra thing you can do is ignoring a limitation. The intent of card is probably to simply raise the once-per-turn limit of planeswalkers by one; but since that limit doesn't actually have a short official name, they were forced to write around it.
The problem with interpreting once per turn as only once per turn is that it doesn't allow you to get anything extra out of the card. The default condition of the game is you are allowed to activate one of a planeswalker's loyalty abilities once per turn.
The only really question here is whether "one of its loyalty abilities once this turn" stacks with another to make "twice this turn" or does once mean once.
the thing is : it don't stack...
Every new chain veil activation in fact just make the game see one of the walker's ability and say : ok you may play that ability cause i forgot if you have played a ability this turn...
if you activate 2 times ( each following the previous )( without activating walkers abilities between the process) you will just be able to activate 1 time each walker
if you activate a walker then activate the veil then activate the walker then activate the veil ... then after that veil activation for the game your walker hadn't activated any loyalty ability soo you can procede to activate it once again.
if you activate a walker then activate the veil then activate the veil ... then after that veil activation for the game your walker hadn't activated any loyalty ability soo you can procede to activate it once again but just one time.
the prouf is:
if you activate the chain veil another time you get :
For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn.
oh wait ? i can activate it again
no way but i alread activated it 2 times:
you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn.
oh man ! nice
cause i may activate one of its abilities while the chain veil's ability is on the stack resolving...
Also :
yes instant speed activations is posible ( but for this one i will wait for the FAC for clarification )
I hate Grammar nazis that always try hard to find erros in fine cards by their wording
This is why the NWO exist in magic's design ( make commons less complex ) cause whe we have things like Generator Servant ( that is a common and people alread tried hard to find a erro in the wording ...) and the chain veil people ultimate fate is chaos driven by the blind "don't work cause it don't work" people that apears to be lurking every new spoiler we have ...
Rules are always based on wording, so you shouldn't get too excited about ppl finding those. Secondly, the cards you named have no tap in their activation cost and are thus worded that way. Thirdly, the wording has the same effect. Activating Chain Veil does not give you an additional planeswalker activation. That is the problem that people are having. It is not worded similarly to playing an "additional land this turn" type effects. The effect produced by tapping Chain Veil has a duration(this turn). That continuous effect will hang around until end of turn. If you activate it again, all you have done is added another of the same effect. So, the effects you would have are:
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Using the planeswalker ability does not get rid of the first effect. You try to activate the ability a third time, first the rules say you have already activated, then you check the continuous effect, which says you can activate it once this turn as though it hadn't been activated. Then the game checks to see if you have activated it once this turn as though it had not been used. It finds you have and the original rule kicks in saying you cannot activate a planeswalker ability again after having already activated it. Two instances of once this turn do not stack, regardless of whether you would prefer the ability says "Use this abiity only once each turn."
Note the following for reference:
611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game
Also:
611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.
The stated duration is "this turn".
Finally, I don't know where you got the idea that instant activation of a planeswalker's ability was possible:
306.5d Each planeswalker h
as a number of loyalty abilities, which are activated abilities with
loyalty symbols in their costs. Loyalty abilities follow special rules: A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but only if none of that permanent’s loyalty abilities have been activated that turn. See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities
the prouf is:
if you activate the chain veil another time you get :
For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn.
oh wait ? i can activate it again
no way but i alread activated it 2 times:
you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn.
oh man ! nice
cause i may activate one of its abilities while the chain veil's ability is on the stack resolving...
Also :
yes instant speed activations is posible ( but for this one i will wait for the FAC for clarification )
I hate Grammar nazis that always try hard to find erros in fine cards by their wording
This is why the NWO exist in magic's design ( make commons less complex ) cause whe we have things like Generator Servant ( that is a common and people alread tried hard to find a erro in the wording ...) and the chain veil people ultimate fate is chaos driven by the blind "don't work cause it don't work" people that apears to be lurking every new spoiler we have ...
Rules are always based on wording, so you shouldn't get too excited about ppl finding those. Secondly, the cards you named have no tap in their activation cost and are thus worded that way.
Patron of the Orochi
Legendary Creature — Spirit 7/7, 6GG (8)
Snake offering (You may cast this card any time you could cast an instant by sacrificing a Snake and paying the difference in mana costs between this and the sacrificed Snake. Mana cost includes color.)
{T}: Untap all Forests and all green creatures. Activate this ability only once each turn.
you may try : oh but it is old wording
but you really think it would be on gatherer this way....
or that it should be worded this way:
{T}: Once this turn Untap all Forests and all green creatures.
?
i will bet that someone will say : Soo if you use this yours forests and green creatures will not untap anymore?
Thirdly, the wording has the same effect. Activating Chain Veil does not give you an additional planeswalker activation. That is the problem that people are having. It is not worded similarly to playing an "additional land this turn" type effects. The effect produced by tapping Chain Veil has a duration(this turn). That continuous effect will hang around until end of turn. If you activate it again, all you have done is added another of the same effect. So, the effects you would have are:
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Using the planeswalker ability does not get rid of the first effect. You try to activate the ability a third time, first the rules say you have already activated, then you check the continuous effect, which says you can activate it once this turn as though it hadn't been activated. Then the game checks to see if you have activated it once this turn as though it had not been used. It finds you have and the original rule kicks in saying you cannot activate a planeswalker ability again after having already activated it. Two instances of once this turn do not stack, regardless of whether you would prefer the ability says "Use this abiity only once each turn."
"4, T: For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn."
I am an in the potentially (assuming you can untap it) infinite camp. The reason for this is what happens if theoretically what would happen if you replaced the word once with the word thrice? What would this new card do? This new card would allow you to use one loyalty ability three times as though it were activated zero times. Therefore we can conclude that the "once" in "once this turn" refers to the number of times you can activate loyalty abilities as though none had been activated this turn per activation, not the number of times this ability works.
Similarly, if we take the once this turn out entirely we get "you may activate one of its loyalty abilities as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn". This would lead to infinite usage of + and 0 abilities as argued by other posters.
That's added because he untaps himself and would be a single card infinite combo. Flickering him with haste can still cause an infinite combo, seems Veil may be akwardly worded the way it is to stop stacking and flicker infinite effects.
I thought this thread would be a good place to look at combos... but it's turned into a rules forum thread. And there isn't even an official ruling on this card.
The best point that should have put it to rest is that if they wanted it to only work once per turn, they'd simply only let you activate the ability once per turn as they do with every single thing that only works once a turn. They've set the precedent. As other failures have demonstrated, this is the best way to word it so that people know they get to use their PWers' abilities again (once per activation), but can use any one of the abilities and can't use an ability more than once. Every other attempt at wording it has been equally ambiguous. It's also absurd to think that no one at Wizards saw this and didn't have the same contention. If they had, why wouldn't they include the "once per turn" line that every other similar thing has?
"4, T: For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn."
I am an in the potentially (assuming you can untap it) infinite camp. The reason for this is what happens if theoretically what would happen if you replaced the word once with the word thrice? What would this new card do? This new card would allow you to use one loyalty ability three times as though it were activated zero times. Therefore we can conclude that the "once" in "once this turn" refers to the number of times you can activate loyalty abilities as though none had been activated this turn per activation, not the number of times this ability works.
Similarly, if we take the once this turn out entirely we get "you may activate one of its loyalty abilities as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn". This would lead to infinite usage of + and 0 abilities as argued by other posters.
/\
this exacly this
I think people should try this and see that they are wrong and . this thread is becoming ridiculous haha and a waste of time.
The best point that should have put it to rest is that if they wanted it to only work once per turn, they'd simply only let you activate the ability once per turn as they do with every single thing that only works once a turn.
Unfortunately, that still doesn't solve the problem of potentially having multiple activations of the ability in a single turn (through blinking, etc.). The same problem of "ability that states something that's true" versus "ability that creates an 'expendable' usage of aomething" would still arise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The best point that should have put it to rest is that if they wanted it to only work once per turn, they'd simply only let you activate the ability once per turn as they do with every single thing that only works once a turn.
Unfortunately, that still doesn't solve the problem of potentially having multiple activations of the ability in a single turn (through blinking, etc.). The same problem of "ability that states something that's true" versus "ability that creates an 'expendable' usage of aomething" would still arise.
"4, T: For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities twice this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn."
BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
. . . _ . . .
I breaked your world go cry baby cause we don't mind
(Yes i m becoming stupid in this thread soo or you start to ratiocinate or i will be lowering the level here )
This thread is gonna be a very interesting re-read when he have the official ruling. Half of us are gonna look like complete idiots.
Why hasn't wotc said something about this? It's not like the magic community has been arguing over this card for like 12 hours straight now. Just tell tabak to log back into tumblr and post 1 thing. Would save us a lot of arguing.
Cards like this have happened in the past, once they make an official ruling word will spread everyone will simmer down. Watching everyone argue over grammar and wording lets you see who really understand how the rules work, and see the other people who accept that the rules work, but don't know how. Hopefully I have crossed that threshold.
The problem isn't whether or not people know about the rules they're talking about. The problem is the ambiguity that is present in the sentence at hand. This is similar to the sentence "I like hunting dogs", where it can mean either "I like to hunt dogs" or "I like dogs that hunt."
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
This is not a complicated interaction.
"Once per turn" tells you the effect generated is only usable once and only this turn.
Activating the ability again generates a new effect, completely separate from the previously generated one.
There is really no question about this. Judges are people. And thus fallible. Heck, I personally witnessed a L3 judge at GP Chicago making two incorrect rulings in a row. Both of which were corrected upon appeal by the head judge. One involved Thassa and Blind obedience, which is a little complicated, but the other was Skull-crack and protection, which really isn't. He just brain farted.
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
While whoever comes up with the rules text for these things does have to conform to length, readability, and style limitations to optimize elegance and whatnot, clarity of what an ability does should never be sacrificed for elegance.
It's evident based on this thread only that the wording of the ability is ambiguous. Saying that one side or the other "doesn't know what they're talking about" simply because they possibly interpreted the wording of the ability differently than the intended functionality is bad, because each side uses the correct rules knowledge to justify how the ability works based on their interpretation of the card.
No amount of rulings given from judges or interpretations from people who didn't make the card will ever clear up this confusion for sure. The only way to know what the intended functionality of the card is is to ask the people who made the card.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Exactly. And we can't know that unless we ask the people who made the card. So there's no point in discussing rulings made by level 3 judges or anything like that, since they aren't the people who made the card and only go by the interpretation that they had of the card.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
And based on precedents, we're forced to conclude that they DO stack because they are effects that allow you to do something extra like additional land drops -- not effects that would limit what you can do, like Spirit of the Labyrinth.
The main problem is that the extra thing you can do is ignoring a limitation. The intent of card is probably to simply raise the once-per-turn limit of planeswalkers by one; but since that limit doesn't actually have a short official name, they were forced to write around it.
the thing is : it don't stack...
Every new chain veil activation in fact just make the game see one of the walker's ability and say : ok you may play that ability cause i forgot if you have played a ability this turn...
if you activate 2 times ( each following the previous )( without activating walkers abilities between the process) you will just be able to activate 1 time each walker
if you activate a walker then activate the veil then activate the walker then activate the veil ... then after that veil activation for the game your walker hadn't activated any loyalty ability soo you can procede to activate it once again.
if you activate a walker then activate the veil then activate the veil ... then after that veil activation for the game your walker hadn't activated any loyalty ability soo you can procede to activate it once again but just one time.
Rules are always based on wording, so you shouldn't get too excited about ppl finding those. Secondly, the cards you named have no tap in their activation cost and are thus worded that way. Thirdly, the wording has the same effect. Activating Chain Veil does not give you an additional planeswalker activation. That is the problem that people are having. It is not worded similarly to playing an "additional land this turn" type effects. The effect produced by tapping Chain Veil has a duration(this turn). That continuous effect will hang around until end of turn. If you activate it again, all you have done is added another of the same effect. So, the effects you would have are:
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Once this turn you may activate a planeswalker ability as though none of its abilities have been used
Using the planeswalker ability does not get rid of the first effect. You try to activate the ability a third time, first the rules say you have already activated, then you check the continuous effect, which says you can activate it once this turn as though it hadn't been activated. Then the game checks to see if you have activated it once this turn as though it had not been used. It finds you have and the original rule kicks in saying you cannot activate a planeswalker ability again after having already activated it. Two instances of once this turn do not stack, regardless of whether you would prefer the ability says "Use this abiity only once each turn."
Note the following for reference:
611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game
Also:
611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.
The stated duration is "this turn".
Finally, I don't know where you got the idea that instant activation of a planeswalker's ability was possible:
306.5d Each planeswalker h
as a number of loyalty abilities, which are activated abilities with
loyalty symbols in their costs. Loyalty abilities follow special rules: A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but only if none of that permanent’s loyalty abilities have been activated that turn. See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
This is the most correct post in this thread.
humm what?
Legendary Creature — Spirit 7/7, 6GG (8)
Snake offering (You may cast this card any time you could cast an instant by sacrificing a Snake and paying the difference in mana costs between this and the sacrificed Snake. Mana cost includes color.)
{T}: Untap all Forests and all green creatures. Activate this ability only once each turn.
but you really think it would be on gatherer this way....
or that it should be worded this way:
{T}: Once this turn Untap all Forests and all green creatures.
?
i will bet that someone will say : Soo if you use this yours forests and green creatures will not untap anymore?
see?
reading is tech
for this read the posts above...
I am an in the potentially (assuming you can untap it) infinite camp. The reason for this is what happens if theoretically what would happen if you replaced the word once with the word thrice? What would this new card do? This new card would allow you to use one loyalty ability three times as though it were activated zero times. Therefore we can conclude that the "once" in "once this turn" refers to the number of times you can activate loyalty abilities as though none had been activated this turn per activation, not the number of times this ability works.
Similarly, if we take the once this turn out entirely we get "you may activate one of its loyalty abilities as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn". This would lead to infinite usage of + and 0 abilities as argued by other posters.
That's added because he untaps himself and would be a single card infinite combo. Flickering him with haste can still cause an infinite combo, seems Veil may be akwardly worded the way it is to stop stacking and flicker infinite effects.
I will say that I am excited about the possibility of using this and Kiora's Follower, maybe a Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx
EDH:
Zur, The Enchanter
Modern:
Burn
Legacy:
Cheeri0s
Burn
/\
this exacly this
I think people should try this and see that they are wrong and . this thread is becoming ridiculous haha and a waste of time.
Unfortunately, that still doesn't solve the problem of potentially having multiple activations of the ability in a single turn (through blinking, etc.). The same problem of "ability that states something that's true" versus "ability that creates an 'expendable' usage of aomething" would still arise.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
"4, T: For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities twice this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities had been activated this turn."
BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
. . . _ . . .
I breaked your world go cry baby cause we don't mind
(Yes i m becoming stupid in this thread soo or you start to ratiocinate or i will be lowering the level here )
Why hasn't wotc said something about this? It's not like the magic community has been arguing over this card for like 12 hours straight now. Just tell tabak to log back into tumblr and post 1 thing. Would save us a lot of arguing.
EDIT: now it seems even riki isn't sure.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtgRikipedia/status/484398443901640705
"There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 'good job'." -Terrance Fletcher, Whiplash (2014)