My opponent pointed out to me today that Ajani's Pridemate received errata. Here's the original printing up to and including Core 2019.
Whenever you gain life, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate.
Here is the new errata as of... now I guess.
Whenever you gain life, put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate.
It is extremely rare but there are corner cases where I might NOT want to add a +1/+1 counter. For instance, I sometimes play with or against cards similar to Citywide Bust or Ensnaring Bridge and controlling these +1/+1 counters allows it to survive. Not enough games to be back breaking, but those rare corner cases can decide an outcome. Now... not so much
I don't think that such errata is justifiable for Arena or necessary for the card.
This change was likely made almost entirely for Arena and I think it makes a ton of sense. Wizards recognizes, and has for a while, that what their cards do affect Online play and they try to account for that in their wording. This card in particular is exceedingly tedious to play in Arena due to not being able to yield to the trigger (like you can in MTGO). While this can be argued that it is somewhat of a failing on Arena's part, it really doesn't change enough about the card to be concerned about it and it makes the gameplay in Arena much smoother.
I wouldn't expect this kind of thing to happen often but I am glad it did here.
100% it was made for Arena, there is literally no other reason to do so. It DOES change enough about the card, its literally a functional change and the OP brought up 2 cases for it to NOT be changed. Its a bad idea to do this, when they could literally add some kind of 'yield always' mechanic to the application.
Well, no card says "Whenever you put a +1/+1 counter on a creature, gain N life.", so there's no infinite loops that can't be broken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
They could just streamline Arena as a software in a more clever way, instead they change the cards to fit their narrow software skills, which is kinda pathetic, but thats how they roll.
----
MTGO had this with always yes/no and it could be easily implemented with a check mark on cards the player can set to have a trigger always resolve in a predefined manner , just like shortcuts in paper magic would work too.
I hate that they do that, but they do what they want anyway.
It's interesting that the idea put forth to "fix" Arena was to add errata to a card that was originally printed in 2010 instead of handling the whole affair by fixing the software.
It's interesting that the idea put forth to "fix" Arena was to add errata to a card that was originally printed in 2010 instead of handling the whole affair by fixing the software.
That's the problem I have with it. Mark Rosewater likes to say that they avoid functional errata whenever possible. I refuse to believe this was impossible, and I dread seeing which cards will be changed to accommodate Arena's shortcomings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
It's interesting that the idea put forth to "fix" Arena was to add errata to a card that was originally printed in 2010 instead of handling the whole affair by fixing the software.
That's the problem I have with it. Mark Rosewater likes to say that they avoid functional errata whenever possible.
Not just Mark Rosewater but an article written in 2014 by Sam Stoddard touches upon the idea. Here is the relevant quote:
A question I have received a lot over the last year, especially as digital card games have become more popular, is if I wish that we could patch Magic cards in the same way digital games are able to patch their cards. I think that might be a fine decision for other games, but I am happy that we don't get to do that in Magic. I think it has built character for our game, and I know that our mistakes of the past have led us to improve both our design and development processes as a whole. In short, I think we make much better sets because we don't have the option to fix what we messed up on.
I refuse to believe this was impossible, and I dread seeing which cards will be changed to accommodate Arena's shortcomings.
Worse, I can see the sort of behavior where a card temporarily receives errata while it's in rotation in Arena then is quietly "corrected" as it rotates out. As far as I know, we don't know what WotC's long term plan for Arena is with cards that will rotate out. They can easily rotate cards out and never say another word about it.
Because Ajani's Pridemate's Oracle text (C.R. 108.1) now says "...put a +1/+1 counter..." rather than "...you may put a +1/+1 counter...", it now has greater implications for sanctioned tournaments, especially for the Missed Trigger infraction in tournaments at Competitive or Professional rules enforcement level (M.T.R. 4.5; I.P.G. 2.1; see also this thread).
Recall, however, that under the last paragraph of I.P.G. 2.1, which applies to sanctioned tournaments at Competitive or Professional rules enforcement level, "[t]he current game state is not a factor in determining", among other things, whether a triggered ability is "usually considered detrimental for the controlling player" for the purposes of the penalty upgrade to a Warning. In this sense, Ajani's Pridemate's ability (as it now appears in Ajani's Pridemate's Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]) is not "usually considered detrimental for the controlling player" within the meaning of I.P.G. 2.1 (in most cases, a creature having a high power is a benefit for that creature's controller, as it means the creature can assign more combat damage [C.R. 510.1a; see also C.R. 613.4c for Ajani's Pridemate]) (see also C.R. 113.2a); it's irrelevant here whether, in a particular circumstance, having a high power or toughness is detrimental (e.g., Collar the Culprit destroys a creature only if its toughness is 4 or greater [C.R. 608.2b]; see also this thread).
EDIT (Sep. 27, 2021): Some rules were renumbered in the meantime.
This, I do not like. This is exactly the kind of tiny, almost imperceptible change that is terrible. There's no reason to expect that people playing with older printings would know that this took place. Older printings meaning... every printing including M19.
What's interesting is that my opponent saw the change take place on Arena, thought he was nuts, then looked it up on Oracle. That was the same day he told me, January 18. But the article that talkas about the change, and why, was published on January 22! A full four days later!
This, I do not like. This is exactly the kind of tiny, almost imperceptible change that is terrible. There's no reason to expect that people playing with older printings would know that this took place. Older printings meaning... every printing including M19.
Indeed, this is a bad errata for cardboard players since many will just follow the "may" text and not realize the "may" has been removed. That means they could get in trouble if they forget to add a counter it during play (which would not happen with a may trigger).
This, I do not like. This is exactly the kind of tiny, almost imperceptible change that is terrible. There's no reason to expect that people playing with older printings would know that this took place. Older printings meaning... every printing including M19.
Indeed, this is a bad errata for cardboard players since many will just follow the "may" text and not realize the "may" has been removed. That means they could get in trouble if they forget to add a counter it during play (which would not happen with a may trigger).
Except that isn't what will happen. Regular REL becomes better for players and Comp REL remains the same:
BEFORE
At Regular REL, if the player missed this trigger, they are assumed to have not chosen the action. The game moves on, they do not get their counter. No Warning is issued since Warnings do not exist at Regular REL.
At Competitive REL, if the player missed their trigger, the opponent gets to choose whether to put it onto the stack. If they do, the controller of the trigger can then make a choice of whether to get their counter. They either do or don't based (mostly) on their opponent. Since the trigger is not considered detrimental, a Warning is not issued.
AFTER
At Regular REL, if the player missed the trigger, it can be placed onto the stack depending on how soon it was caught and what has happened in the game. They either get the counter or don't based on the judge's discretion. No Warning is issued.
At Comp REL, the scenario plays out the same as above.
Now, if they intentionally "forget" their trigger for some advantage (such as an Ensnaring Bridge being on the field) that could be a bigger problem regarding cheating (if they seem to make a habit of it). But, if it is determined that it is not cheating and is a simple mistake, the game moves on.
So, the main thing about this is that this change benefits players at Regular REL as they will, more often than not, get the counter in the event they forget (and catch it soon enough) whereas before they just didn't get it.
The most common gripe about this change seems to be the relatively rare corner case where the player doesn't want to add a counter due to a Bridge or Citywide Bust (I question how often this truly comes up while acknowledging it will be a nonzero amount of times). But, between that and the situations with newer players not getting their counters at Regular REL, I think the benefit to newer players is worth the loss of strategy. I know not everyone will agree, but it isn't like this change has *no* benefits in paper at all.
WizardMN, you have a valid point however, the article I linked to in my last post makes the reasoning very clear. This change was done to, "improving the life of digital Magic players everywhere." The argument to make the change to improve the look of paper is pretty thin, especially since the card hasn't seen a reprint with the new text AND the errata was out of cycle.
If streamlining the card through the rules was the ONLY reason... then yeah, I can kind of see that. Still won't agree with it. But as an obvious attempt to "fix" the digital version, yeah, that's really not sitting very well with me.
I honestly believe that adding errata to cards because of some specific need, almost, exclusive to digital media is a rabbit hole we don't need to go down.
Personally, I think a far better solution would be to let this card rotate out of Standard in due time. If WotC wished to see the corrected card reprinted, then simply reprint a new "corrected" card. Call it "Ajani's Cousin" or whatever. Then proceed to never print Pridemate ever again.
WotC has 25 years of cards but the way they use errata lately feels almost... abusive. I mean, c'mon. 25 years of errata and they end up settling on, almost, the original wording for Lightning Bolt? Thanks WotC, I knew it was a good idea to keep my ABUR bolts.
I am not in any way suggesting that Arena did not have a strong influence on the decision. I am simply pointing out that there are benefits to paper players and one of the reasons they gave was based on a change in philosophy regarding missed triggers in tournaments. As was mentioned, if it was printed now, it would be printed as it now reads. Whether that is enough of a reason isn't really relevant; it was *a* reason they gave along with the Arena reason.
Also, I am not sure what you mean by the change being "out of cycle"?
I am not in any way suggesting that Arena did not have a strong influence on the decision. I am simply pointing out that there are benefits to paper players and one of the reasons they gave was based on a change in philosophy regarding missed triggers in tournaments. As was mentioned, if it was printed now, it would be printed as it now reads. Whether that is enough of a reason isn't really relevant; it was *a* reason they gave along with the Arena reason.
Gotcha...
Also, I am not sure what you mean by the change being "out of cycle"?
Bad edit on my part.
The article explains that there was no scheduled update for Oracle for the supplemental product so the change was done "early." I think what the article is trying to say is that Oracle updates/changes come during new set releases and/or major errata changes (such as the new redirection rule). WotC even points out that, "The timing on this card's change is a fairly special case."
Ah, I see. Yes, that reinforces the idea that Arena had a relatively large influence on the change. I get the idea that people don't want to see things like this happen on a larger scale and I agree with that. I too would rather things not change *just* to make up for Arena's shortcomings.
I still stand by the idea that this particular change, even if made for a dubious reason, is good in general. It is not the first time Wizards has issued errata to a card that didn't necessarily need it. Winter Orb and Kismet come to mind as other examples where the decision for errata was to revert to 20 year old functionality (Orb) or match a newer card (Kismet) so I don't think infrequent changes like this are that concerning.
If they establish a pattern of things like this, such as if they ever decided to errata Nexus of Fate so it exiles itself to combat the "roping" and stalling issues on Arena, then we can start looking at Arena as having too much effect on the paper game based solely on the differences in the platform vs paper.
Ah, I see. Yes, that reinforces the idea that Arena had a relatively large influence on the change.
[...]
If they establish a pattern of things like [this Oracle text change on Ajani's Pridemate], such as if they ever decided to errata Nexus of Fate so it exiles itself to combat the "roping" and stalling issues on Arena, then we can start looking at Arena as having too much effect on the paper game based solely on the differences in the platform vs paper.
This reminds me of the comprehensive rule change in Core Set 2019 that provides that the Magic Tournament Rules take precedence whenever they "contradict [the] rules" "governing shortcuts and loops" "during a tournament" (C.R. 725.1c), while leaving the existing shortcut and loop rules unchanged in the comprehensive rules. Why didn't they just apply those tournament rules to all Magic games, not just in tournaments? The reason is supposedly that doing so would not follow "formal logic". Which goes back to what I vaguely recall may be the real nature of the comprehensive rules: they exist largely for Magic Online's sake (see also this thread I started). Here, too, the nature of a digital game seems to shape the physical game.
EDIT (Sep. 26): Edited, including because one rule was renumbered in the meantime.
Here is the new errata as of... now I guess.
It is extremely rare but there are corner cases where I might NOT want to add a +1/+1 counter. For instance, I sometimes play with or against cards similar to Citywide Bust or Ensnaring Bridge and controlling these +1/+1 counters allows it to survive. Not enough games to be back breaking, but those rare corner cases can decide an outcome. Now... not so much
Thinking I missed an announcement. A quick Google turned up this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/ah12ec/ajanis_pridemate_has_been_erratad_to_no_longer_be/
Wow...
I had this wall of text about my annoyance at this errata but it all really can be boiled down to one simple sentence.
I don't think that such errata is justifiable for Arena or necessary for the card.
I wouldn't expect this kind of thing to happen often but I am glad it did here.
That being said, I wonder why it took them so long to realize that life gain trigger can happen very frequently.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
Spirits
On phasing:
----
MTGO had this with always yes/no and it could be easily implemented with a check mark on cards the player can set to have a trigger always resolve in a predefined manner , just like shortcuts in paper magic would work too.
I hate that they do that, but they do what they want anyway.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Ajani's Pridemust.
It's interesting that the idea put forth to "fix" Arena was to add errata to a card that was originally printed in 2010 instead of handling the whole affair by fixing the software.
That's the problem I have with it. Mark Rosewater likes to say that they avoid functional errata whenever possible. I refuse to believe this was impossible, and I dread seeing which cards will be changed to accommodate Arena's shortcomings.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Not just Mark Rosewater but an article written in 2014 by Sam Stoddard touches upon the idea. Here is the relevant quote:
Worse, I can see the sort of behavior where a card temporarily receives errata while it's in rotation in Arena then is quietly "corrected" as it rotates out. As far as I know, we don't know what WotC's long term plan for Arena is with cards that will rotate out. They can easily rotate cards out and never say another word about it.
Recall, however, that under the last paragraph of I.P.G. 2.1, which applies to sanctioned tournaments at Competitive or Professional rules enforcement level, "[t]he current game state is not a factor in determining", among other things, whether a triggered ability is "usually considered detrimental for the controlling player" for the purposes of the penalty upgrade to a Warning. In this sense, Ajani's Pridemate's ability (as it now appears in Ajani's Pridemate's Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]) is not "usually considered detrimental for the controlling player" within the meaning of I.P.G. 2.1 (in most cases, a creature having a high power is a benefit for that creature's controller, as it means the creature can assign more combat damage [C.R. 510.1a; see also C.R. 613.4c for Ajani's Pridemate]) (see also C.R. 113.2a); it's irrelevant here whether, in a particular circumstance, having a high power or toughness is detrimental (e.g., Collar the Culprit destroys a creature only if its toughness is 4 or greater [C.R. 608.2b]; see also this thread).
EDIT (Sep. 27, 2021): Some rules were renumbered in the meantime.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Indeed, this is a bad errata for cardboard players since many will just follow the "may" text and not realize the "may" has been removed. That means they could get in trouble if they forget to add a counter it during play (which would not happen with a may trigger).
BEFORE
At Regular REL, if the player missed this trigger, they are assumed to have not chosen the action. The game moves on, they do not get their counter. No Warning is issued since Warnings do not exist at Regular REL.
At Competitive REL, if the player missed their trigger, the opponent gets to choose whether to put it onto the stack. If they do, the controller of the trigger can then make a choice of whether to get their counter. They either do or don't based (mostly) on their opponent. Since the trigger is not considered detrimental, a Warning is not issued.
AFTER
At Regular REL, if the player missed the trigger, it can be placed onto the stack depending on how soon it was caught and what has happened in the game. They either get the counter or don't based on the judge's discretion. No Warning is issued.
At Comp REL, the scenario plays out the same as above.
Now, if they intentionally "forget" their trigger for some advantage (such as an Ensnaring Bridge being on the field) that could be a bigger problem regarding cheating (if they seem to make a habit of it). But, if it is determined that it is not cheating and is a simple mistake, the game moves on.
So, the main thing about this is that this change benefits players at Regular REL as they will, more often than not, get the counter in the event they forget (and catch it soon enough) whereas before they just didn't get it.
The most common gripe about this change seems to be the relatively rare corner case where the player doesn't want to add a counter due to a Bridge or Citywide Bust (I question how often this truly comes up while acknowledging it will be a nonzero amount of times). But, between that and the situations with newer players not getting their counters at Regular REL, I think the benefit to newer players is worth the loss of strategy. I know not everyone will agree, but it isn't like this change has *no* benefits in paper at all.
If streamlining the card through the rules was the ONLY reason... then yeah, I can kind of see that. Still won't agree with it. But as an obvious attempt to "fix" the digital version, yeah, that's really not sitting very well with me.
I honestly believe that adding errata to cards because of some specific need, almost, exclusive to digital media is a rabbit hole we don't need to go down.
Personally, I think a far better solution would be to let this card rotate out of Standard in due time. If WotC wished to see the corrected card reprinted, then simply reprint a new "corrected" card. Call it "Ajani's Cousin" or whatever. Then proceed to never print Pridemate ever again.
WotC has 25 years of cards but the way they use errata lately feels almost... abusive. I mean, c'mon. 25 years of errata and they end up settling on, almost, the original wording for Lightning Bolt? Thanks WotC, I knew it was a good idea to keep my ABUR bolts.
Also, I am not sure what you mean by the change being "out of cycle"?
Gotcha...
Bad edit on my part.
The article explains that there was no scheduled update for Oracle for the supplemental product so the change was done "early." I think what the article is trying to say is that Oracle updates/changes come during new set releases and/or major errata changes (such as the new redirection rule). WotC even points out that, "The timing on this card's change is a fairly special case."
I still stand by the idea that this particular change, even if made for a dubious reason, is good in general. It is not the first time Wizards has issued errata to a card that didn't necessarily need it. Winter Orb and Kismet come to mind as other examples where the decision for errata was to revert to 20 year old functionality (Orb) or match a newer card (Kismet) so I don't think infrequent changes like this are that concerning.
If they establish a pattern of things like this, such as if they ever decided to errata Nexus of Fate so it exiles itself to combat the "roping" and stalling issues on Arena, then we can start looking at Arena as having too much effect on the paper game based solely on the differences in the platform vs paper.
EDIT (Sep. 26): Edited, including because one rule was renumbered in the meantime.