Would you consider them P9 level? Used simply, with the lotus vale, you can get either a semi-black lotus, but forcing you to use your land drop, or with the scorched ruins, get 4 colorless mana, but forces you to use your land drop. At the same time, if you have a stifle or trickbind or any other way to effectively counter or cancel the trigger, you've got a reusable black lotus or a reusable 2x sol ring that cost 0 mana. If they were to be errata'd to use their card text, how do you think vintage would be affected? You'd assume they'd be banned in legacy and restricted in vintage. And how much do you think they'd end up selling for? Right now they're like $6 a pop, I wonder if it's worth it to invest in a few of each, for the possibility their text might be errata'd back to the printed text the way phyrexian dreadnought and flash were. I think they're both two incredibly fascinating cards that could become auto-includes in many decks if they were errata'd to the printed text.
Well, there's absolutely no chance that they'll be errata'd back, because Wizards knows that they would be restricted in Vintage. Vintage-restricted cards are not made intentionally, they're mistakes (hence "Restricted"), so it wouldn't make any sense for Wizards to change errata in order to make cards restricted, especially since the cards already do something they're not supposed to.
Well, there's absolutely no chance that they'll be errata'd back, because Wizards knows that they would be restricted in Vintage. Vintage-restricted cards are not made intentionally, they're mistakes (hence "Restricted"), so it wouldn't make any sense for Wizards to change errata in order to make cards restricted, especially since the cards already do something they're not supposed to.
Except isn't that exactly what they did with Flash?
Well, there's absolutely no chance that they'll be errata'd back, because Wizards knows that they would be restricted in Vintage. Vintage-restricted cards are not made intentionally, they're mistakes (hence "Restricted"), so it wouldn't make any sense for Wizards to change errata in order to make cards restricted, especially since the cards already do something they're not supposed to.
They don't allow the fact that something is/would be too good in Legacy/Vintage stop them from printing it. Mind's Desire, for example, got added to the Vintage restricted list and Legacy banlist before it was legal to play in either format.
Except isn't that exactly what they did with Flash?
The difference here is that Flash had been errata'd away from its originally-printed functionality. Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and Mox Diamond have all been errata'd to be in line with their originally-printed functionality. It's not so much an errata as it is simply keeping them functional under 6th edition rules.
Straight from Stoddard's article about this very topic:
These rule changes have led to some older cards being in the limbo of their printed wording and the rules at the time creating cards that wouldn't work under our current rules set. The most prominent examples of this are Scorched Ruins and Lotus Vale. When these cards were printed, we didn't need to say "you have to pay this cost before the card can be used" because that was just how cards worked. If you didn't sac the lands, then you couldn't use the cards. Without the rule, the cards become horribly broken, more so than almost any other cards in Magic, making Lotus Vale an uncounterable Black Lotus, albeit one that eats up your land play for a turn. When given the option of either (A) making these cards work as printed and banning them in every format, or (B) making them work as they were intended but not lining up with the printed wording, we went with the second option. It isn't everyone's favorite, but we feel that it is the choice that is better for the game as a whole.
They reverted previous power-level errata on Time Vault, which made it into the powerhouse it is today. There's an inconsistency in how cards from that era were translated to present rules.
On these cards: They'd be absurd, with Vale being better. Obviously instant-restrictions (look at the weaker 'Lotus with drawback', Lion's Eye Diamond, the card is restricted for a reason despite being weaker than Lotus Vale would be without its power level errata).
Lotus vale, tap it for GGG, sack it. Fastbond, land, crucible of worlds. You now have almost 60 mana of any colors to do with as you choose. I'd like that, but it would be super busted.
Time vault is a special case. I don't think any card has seen more errata in the history of magic than time vault as I've heard of so many different erratas for it but the way it is right now is obviously the most broken and is as close to the original version of the card WotC can get to/it's correct in its current form.
What Wildfire said is true. Back when mox diamond and such were printed that's how the rules worked. Ability on the stack? Can't use it until ability resolves/is paid for. Otherwise mox diamond would just be a nigh strictly better lotus petal and lotus petal is a busted magic card.
Scorched ruins would be really good too but nowhere near lotus vale. It's like asking the hypothetical or whether you would have a black lotus that sacked for 4 generic mana or 3 of any color. 3 of any color wins out almost every time only deck I can think of where ruins would be better is shops and even there it isn't strictly better as sometimes you see colored spells in shops or phyrexian metamorph/you can pay the blue instead of 2 life via lotus but not ruins cornercase sure but it is what it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
The inconsistency is only obvious to veteran players who want to create degenerate board states. If you take a fairly new player and ask them how Lotus Vale works, they'll say that it gives you three mana of any color, but that you have to sacrifice two lands to get it to work. The idea that you should be able to use it before the drawback requires a detailed understanding both of timing and of power-level errata, and goes against the intent of the design team.
The card doesn't create any fun board states or open up any interesting plays. It's just more fast mana in a format already chock-full of it. It makes the banned/restricted list longer, and we want to have as few cards banned/restricted as possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
The inconsistency is only obvious to veteran players who want to create degenerate board states. If you take a fairly new player and ask them how Lotus Vale works, they'll say that it gives you three mana of any color, but that you have to sacrifice two lands to get it to work. The idea that you should be able to use it before the drawback requires a detailed understanding both of timing and of power-level errata, and goes against the intent of the design team.
The card doesn't create any fun board states or open up any interesting plays. It's just more fast mana in a format already chock-full of it. It makes the banned/restricted list longer, and we want to have as few cards banned/restricted as possible.
On the newbie assessment test - many of the combos in Vintage fail the 'does this work intuitively?' test. The worst of it is cards with no creature type printed on them that were retroactively changed in the Onslaught creature type update and that can now be used with Cavern of Souls. Fortunately few of those come up in competitive Constructed.
I feel Wizards should be more open to power-level errata and to errata that simplifies the rules (preserving the way the card works alone) even if changes like that break some card interactions.
In particular the very worst rules nightmare cards - Panglacial Wurm, Selvala Explorer, Chromatic Sphere, Sylvan Library, Caged Sun, etc - these could all do with functional errata that makes them function intuitively under the rules but that outright prevents the weird corner cases they can produce with their printed wording.
I think the following wording captures the printed intention perfectly while allowing Stifle shenanigans.
Lotus Vale
Land
When ~ ETB, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice two untapped lands. While this ability is on the stack, mana abilities of ~ cannot be played.
T: Add 3 mana of any colour to your mana pool.
A variant of this wording would also work for Interdict, which would get considerably better with its original functionality restored.
I think the following wording captures the printed intention perfectly while allowing Stifle shenanigans.
Lotus Vale
Land
When ~ ETB, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice two untapped lands. While this ability is on the stack, mana abilities of ~ cannot be played.
T: Add 3 mana of any colour to your mana pool.
A variant of this wording would also work for Interdict, which would get considerably better with its original functionality restored.
Uhh... You still can't respond to mana abilities, so I'm not sure what you're looking for...
I think the following wording captures the printed intention perfectly while allowing Stifle shenanigans.
Lotus Vale
Land
When ~ ETB, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice two untapped lands. While this ability is on the stack, mana abilities of ~ cannot be played.
T: Add 3 mana of any colour to your mana pool.
A variant of this wording would also work for Interdict, which would get considerably better with its original functionality restored.
Uhh... You still can't respond to mana abilities, so I'm not sure what you're looking for...
The game rules allow effects that prevent mana abilities being played. Phyrexian Revoker can shut down a Mox.
With this wording there is no time to play the mana ability before the drawback goes on the stack.
I think the following wording captures the printed intention perfectly while allowing Stifle shenanigans.
Lotus Vale
Land
When ~ ETB, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice two untapped lands. While this ability is on the stack, mana abilities of ~ cannot be played.
T: Add 3 mana of any colour to your mana pool.
A variant of this wording would also work for Interdict, which would get considerably better with its original functionality restored.
Uhh... You still can't respond to mana abilities, so I'm not sure what you're looking for...
The game rules allow effects that prevent mana abilities being played. Phyrexian Revoker can shut down a Mox.
With this wording there is no time to play the mana ability before the drawback goes on the stack.
I don't believe Interdict ever had the ability to counter a mana ability.
The wording I'd give Interdict to restore its original functionality is:
"Counter target activated ability if its source was an artifact, creature, enchantment or land. Until end of turn, and while Interdict is on the stack, activated abilities of that permanent cannot be played. (Mana abilities cannot be targetted.)
Draw a card."
lotus vale scorched ruins
Would you consider them P9 level? Used simply, with the lotus vale, you can get either a semi-black lotus, but forcing you to use your land drop, or with the scorched ruins, get 4 colorless mana, but forces you to use your land drop. At the same time, if you have a stifle or trickbind or any other way to effectively counter or cancel the trigger, you've got a reusable black lotus or a reusable 2x sol ring that cost 0 mana. If they were to be errata'd to use their card text, how do you think vintage would be affected? You'd assume they'd be banned in legacy and restricted in vintage. And how much do you think they'd end up selling for? Right now they're like $6 a pop, I wonder if it's worth it to invest in a few of each, for the possibility their text might be errata'd back to the printed text the way phyrexian dreadnought and flash were. I think they're both two incredibly fascinating cards that could become auto-includes in many decks if they were errata'd to the printed text.
Except isn't that exactly what they did with Flash?
They don't allow the fact that something is/would be too good in Legacy/Vintage stop them from printing it. Mind's Desire, for example, got added to the Vintage restricted list and Legacy banlist before it was legal to play in either format.
The difference here is that Flash had been errata'd away from its originally-printed functionality. Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and Mox Diamond have all been errata'd to be in line with their originally-printed functionality. It's not so much an errata as it is simply keeping them functional under 6th edition rules.
Straight from Stoddard's article about this very topic:
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
On these cards: They'd be absurd, with Vale being better. Obviously instant-restrictions (look at the weaker 'Lotus with drawback', Lion's Eye Diamond, the card is restricted for a reason despite being weaker than Lotus Vale would be without its power level errata).
Time vault is a special case. I don't think any card has seen more errata in the history of magic than time vault as I've heard of so many different erratas for it but the way it is right now is obviously the most broken and is as close to the original version of the card WotC can get to/it's correct in its current form.
What Wildfire said is true. Back when mox diamond and such were printed that's how the rules worked. Ability on the stack? Can't use it until ability resolves/is paid for. Otherwise mox diamond would just be a nigh strictly better lotus petal and lotus petal is a busted magic card.
Scorched ruins would be really good too but nowhere near lotus vale. It's like asking the hypothetical or whether you would have a black lotus that sacked for 4 generic mana or 3 of any color. 3 of any color wins out almost every time only deck I can think of where ruins would be better is shops and even there it isn't strictly better as sometimes you see colored spells in shops or phyrexian metamorph/you can pay the blue instead of 2 life via lotus but not ruins cornercase sure but it is what it is.
Currently Playing:
Retired
The card doesn't create any fun board states or open up any interesting plays. It's just more fast mana in a format already chock-full of it. It makes the banned/restricted list longer, and we want to have as few cards banned/restricted as possible.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
On the newbie assessment test - many of the combos in Vintage fail the 'does this work intuitively?' test. The worst of it is cards with no creature type printed on them that were retroactively changed in the Onslaught creature type update and that can now be used with Cavern of Souls. Fortunately few of those come up in competitive Constructed.
I feel Wizards should be more open to power-level errata and to errata that simplifies the rules (preserving the way the card works alone) even if changes like that break some card interactions.
In particular the very worst rules nightmare cards - Panglacial Wurm, Selvala Explorer, Chromatic Sphere, Sylvan Library, Caged Sun, etc - these could all do with functional errata that makes them function intuitively under the rules but that outright prevents the weird corner cases they can produce with their printed wording.
I love this analogy.
I think the following wording captures the printed intention perfectly while allowing Stifle shenanigans.
Lotus Vale
Land
When ~ ETB, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice two untapped lands. While this ability is on the stack, mana abilities of ~ cannot be played.
T: Add 3 mana of any colour to your mana pool.
A variant of this wording would also work for Interdict, which would get considerably better with its original functionality restored.
Uhh... You still can't respond to mana abilities, so I'm not sure what you're looking for...
The game rules allow effects that prevent mana abilities being played. Phyrexian Revoker can shut down a Mox.
With this wording there is no time to play the mana ability before the drawback goes on the stack.
Oh, no, I was wondering about Interdict.
I don't believe Interdict ever had the ability to counter a mana ability.
The wording I'd give Interdict to restore its original functionality is:
"Counter target activated ability if its source was an artifact, creature, enchantment or land. Until end of turn, and while Interdict is on the stack, activated abilities of that permanent cannot be played. (Mana abilities cannot be targetted.)
Draw a card."
Yeah, I see what you meant now.