With the printing of Deep Forest Hermit in Modern Horizons I can't help but compare it to Deranged Hermit which is currently part of the Reserved List. It does seem to break some of the rules of the RL which is stated below:
- Reserved cards are cards that will never be printed again in a functionally identical form.
- A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness.
I will point to the second one as the rule which it may come into conflict with the most. This may or may not matter now but if this continues we could see this as a prelude to reprint similar functional copies of important artifacts, lands and others which are part of the RL in the near future.
This is just one of the reasons why I don't like the RL at all and wish they would finally remove it to make old formats more accessible to players of this game via reprints.
Would like to know other peoples thoughts on this.
I am super hesitant to touch this topic because I've seen it go poorly in many different online contexts. But at least it's more Modern-specific in that Hermit is Modern-legal, so I'll give it a chance.
The cleanest answer to this is that Deranged Hermit and Deep Forest Hermit are not functionally identical because they don't have the same abilities. They don't have the same abilities either in the literal sense, in that Vanishing replaces Echo, and in the practical sense, in that Vanishing and Echo present distinct upsides and downsides between one another. Echo requires a 5 mana investment the turn later, but then you keep DH for good. This gives players the option to keep DH on the battlefield, which I know many players exercised back when Urza's block was around. If you don't pay the Echo cost, you lose the DH the turn after you play it. We can envision a scenario where a player wants to Overrun with DH/squirrels on the board but can't because they need to pay DH's Echo cost. Contrast this with Vanishing which allows you two turns of swinging with the 2/2 x4 team, but then you lose DFH no matter how much mana you're willing to invest.
So no, Wizards has not broken the rules of the policy. Wizards is free to reprint versions of RL cards with changed abilities. They can change colors and even make better versions of cards. Look at *****ty Mirage Canopy Dragon and compare to Hellkite Tyrant. Or Archon of Valor's Reach. Or Roalesk, Apex Hybrid. Unless you're wedded to Mono G or facing a lot of Crushing Canopy or something similar, these other cards are generally just going to be WAY better Canopy Dragons. Or compare garbage Aku Djinn to big man Doom Whisperer. Unless you're playing a strategy that tries to grow opposing creatures, Djinn tribal, facing Baneslayer Angel, or fighting all those Crushing Canopies, Whisperer is also just way better. There are tons of examples where Wizards prints virtually upgraded RL cards or RL reskins with different abilities. This doesn't violate RL policy any more than DH vs. DFH.
if we consider similar cards just a litle diferent as reprints, then shock lands, cards that draw 3 cards, etc could also be considered reprint.
DFH is just a throwback reference to a good creature in its era, the change of Echo to Vanishing is as much of a change as the "ETB tapped unless u pay 2 life." imo
I think most people agree that the reserve list doesn't make much sense today but it's probably going to stay forever.
As long as a card doesn't check all boxes, it can be printed. The new Hermit has a different ability than the older one so it's compliant with these rules.
However, I think there is also one thing to keep in mind: WoTC won't trick themsleves to break the rule as they are more concerned with the spirit of the rule itself.
They won't print improved duals (let's say they gain you life when they ETB) since that would probably make duals value go down and that's precisely what the reserve list was trying to avoid
I dunno why bring this for this example. It's clearly doesn't fit the criteria if you follow it to the letter. It's not really a functional reprint using the card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, AND toughness. It's clearly don't have the same ability with Vanishing vs Echo which makes it different gameplay-wise.
The iconic +1/+1 and making squirrels could be contested on the functionally identical form argument, but I think people put too much weight on the ability type and think these criteria are "OR" cases instead of "AND". It's clearly on the text every single stipulation has to be met to be considered functionally identical.
The interpretation would be they need to violate all these cases at the same time to have this card creation rule. They can't make Thunderous Spirit as 1WW Elemental Spirit 2/2 Flying, First Strike with just a name change. Maybe they can just get away with making it just spirit, but to be on the safe side they probably make it blue/white and change the creature type at the same time (I believe Maro mentioned this case when designing with these stipulations in mind) if they want a creature with weenie flying first strike.
Which is the same case as the new red Juzam Djinn with even the similar art. The only difference is color and creature type. Of course it's basically the same card. You can even try cast it earlier with rituals and Simian Spirit Guides to have a similar explosive gameplay of the past with Juzam. However, it does not break all criteria. It's maybe too close to comfort, but it's not the first time like that juzam sliver.
People can split hairs and may argue any card with functionally identical gameplay breaks this ruling; however, if you take this rules as they need to meet all these factors, none of those cases breaks any of it and it's clear as day. People arguing against these seem to dig hard to find loopholes against these cases in their arguments. It's reaching.
Spells can be trickier like Reverberate and Fork may be a little bit to close to comfort in case of the rules. In this case it may be worthy discussing.
People seem very close minded on the ability part of these restrictions when it's not in a different weight as color, cmc, and other criteria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
- Reserved cards are cards that will never be printed again in a functionally identical form.
- A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness.
I will point to the second one as the rule which it may come into conflict with the most. This may or may not matter now but if this continues we could see this as a prelude to reprint similar functional copies of important artifacts, lands and others which are part of the RL in the near future.
This is just one of the reasons why I don't like the RL at all and wish they would finally remove it to make old formats more accessible to players of this game via reprints.
Would like to know other peoples thoughts on this.
The cleanest answer to this is that Deranged Hermit and Deep Forest Hermit are not functionally identical because they don't have the same abilities. They don't have the same abilities either in the literal sense, in that Vanishing replaces Echo, and in the practical sense, in that Vanishing and Echo present distinct upsides and downsides between one another. Echo requires a 5 mana investment the turn later, but then you keep DH for good. This gives players the option to keep DH on the battlefield, which I know many players exercised back when Urza's block was around. If you don't pay the Echo cost, you lose the DH the turn after you play it. We can envision a scenario where a player wants to Overrun with DH/squirrels on the board but can't because they need to pay DH's Echo cost. Contrast this with Vanishing which allows you two turns of swinging with the 2/2 x4 team, but then you lose DFH no matter how much mana you're willing to invest.
So no, Wizards has not broken the rules of the policy. Wizards is free to reprint versions of RL cards with changed abilities. They can change colors and even make better versions of cards. Look at *****ty Mirage Canopy Dragon and compare to Hellkite Tyrant. Or Archon of Valor's Reach. Or Roalesk, Apex Hybrid. Unless you're wedded to Mono G or facing a lot of Crushing Canopy or something similar, these other cards are generally just going to be WAY better Canopy Dragons. Or compare garbage Aku Djinn to big man Doom Whisperer. Unless you're playing a strategy that tries to grow opposing creatures, Djinn tribal, facing Baneslayer Angel, or fighting all those Crushing Canopies, Whisperer is also just way better. There are tons of examples where Wizards prints virtually upgraded RL cards or RL reskins with different abilities. This doesn't violate RL policy any more than DH vs. DFH.
Thelonite Hermit came before and with Deranged Hermit and Deep Forest Hermit we have a "mega cycle"(?)
Wizards can print cards really similar with reserved list cards but with a twist Itlimoc, Cradle of the Sun, Vault of Catlacan, etc...
if we consider similar cards just a litle diferent as reprints, then shock lands, cards that draw 3 cards, etc could also be considered reprint.
DFH is just a throwback reference to a good creature in its era, the change of Echo to Vanishing is as much of a change as the "ETB tapped unless u pay 2 life." imo
I think most people agree that the reserve list doesn't make much sense today but it's probably going to stay forever.
As long as a card doesn't check all boxes, it can be printed. The new Hermit has a different ability than the older one so it's compliant with these rules.
However, I think there is also one thing to keep in mind: WoTC won't trick themsleves to break the rule as they are more concerned with the spirit of the rule itself.
They won't print improved duals (let's say they gain you life when they ETB) since that would probably make duals value go down and that's precisely what the reserve list was trying to avoid
The iconic +1/+1 and making squirrels could be contested on the functionally identical form argument, but I think people put too much weight on the ability type and think these criteria are "OR" cases instead of "AND". It's clearly on the text every single stipulation has to be met to be considered functionally identical.
The interpretation would be they need to violate all these cases at the same time to have this card creation rule. They can't make Thunderous Spirit as 1WW Elemental Spirit 2/2 Flying, First Strike with just a name change. Maybe they can just get away with making it just spirit, but to be on the safe side they probably make it blue/white and change the creature type at the same time (I believe Maro mentioned this case when designing with these stipulations in mind) if they want a creature with weenie flying first strike.
Which is the same case as the new red Juzam Djinn with even the similar art. The only difference is color and creature type. Of course it's basically the same card. You can even try cast it earlier with rituals and Simian Spirit Guides to have a similar explosive gameplay of the past with Juzam. However, it does not break all criteria. It's maybe too close to comfort, but it's not the first time like that juzam sliver.
People can split hairs and may argue any card with functionally identical gameplay breaks this ruling; however, if you take this rules as they need to meet all these factors, none of those cases breaks any of it and it's clear as day. People arguing against these seem to dig hard to find loopholes against these cases in their arguments. It's reaching.
Spells can be trickier like Reverberate and Fork may be a little bit to close to comfort in case of the rules. In this case it may be worthy discussing.
People seem very close minded on the ability part of these restrictions when it's not in a different weight as color, cmc, and other criteria.