Duh!

[Finn]

OK, so Dreadnaught's reversion to its printed form was a surprise to me. It should not have been but it was. So what's next? Which potentially powerful cards have had errata for so long that we can't even remember their original function anymore? Which of those should we be watching?

[cdr]

Lotus Vale.

[Barook]

Lotus Vale.

And Scorched Ruins. And Bans.

Mox Diamond is also totally different from its old form in which you could use it as a Lotus Pedal as well.

[Bovinious]

I thought the same thing when I saw this errata, it seems like the exact same kind of errata on Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, and Scorched Ruins. For some reason Dreadnought had "if Phyrexian Dreadnought would come into play..." rather than an additional cost like Mox Diamond, and Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins have "If..." also. They all begin with "When" as printed and were all before 6th edition rules so shouldn't they all be changed if Dreadnought was changed? Or is WOTC going to use some arguement about original functionality with Mox/Vale/Ruins to keep them the way they are, the same reason LED has its errata?

[Nightmare]

Or is WOTC going to use some arguement about original functionality with Mox/Vale/Ruins to keep them the way they are, the same reason LED has its errata?This was what they've done in the past. Lotus Vale is not supposed to be a Black Lotus, LED isn't either. Mox Diamond was never intended to be a Lotus Petal. All of their wordings were changed during the 6th edition revision. While I could be wrong, I don't believe Wizards will "fix" any of these cards, because mana is generally one of those things they don't like breaking open.

[Bovinious]

I guess Dreadnought is different because it doesnt produce mana then? I'm not saying they should break Vale/Ruins/Mox, but it doesnt seem consistent with what they did with Dreadnought, back when it was printed you wouldn't have been able to Stifle (if Stifle existed) the ability or Fling with the ability on the stack because the stack didn't really exist, so wouldn't it make sense to leave it errataed if theyre going to use original functionality as an arguement (and a valid one) to keep LED/Mox/Vale/Ruins as they are currently worded?

[Nihil Credo]

I'm not very familiar with the old rules, but did Lotus Vale really work as a Black Lotus before 6E? I'm pretty sure it was never a 4-of in every deck, which means it got errata before the Sixth Edition rules change. Therefore, it should be left as it is, i.e. unplayable.

[ForceofWill]

nihil it would be a land that says come into play add 3 mana of any color then sac it. Is that not broken?

[Cait_Sith]

The thing is under Pre 6th Rules all of these "When" abilities all acted like additional costs now. When 6th Edition rules came the when abilities started acting differently, so they errata'd all the cards to restore them to their original functionality. Now they are errata'ing some to restore them to their original wording.

[vigilante]

Glacial Chasm has the same "if this would come into play..." Oracle wording, which means it'll probably end up on the chopping block at some stage. Not that anyone's gonna be doing anything degenerate with Glacial Chasm anytime soon.

[SpikeyMikey]

The errata was removed from Basalt Monolith, meaning that it can be combined with Power Artifact for infinte mana again. Or, I suppose, if there's anything that triggers on an artifact tapping, you could use that. I haven't looked into it too much, I tried building a couple of decks to abuse Basalt/PA, it really didn't do anything for me. They were cute, but not really competitive. Any deck that rolls over to Grip isn't really worth playing.

[Finn]

Lotus Vale would be interesting. It would be very interesting for a couple of weeks. Naturally it would be banned, but perhaps that is what needs to be done. Wizards seems to think these days that having a card work as printed and then banning it is preferrable in the long term to having power-level errata. It's hard to say, for sure, but considering that, I don't know that there will be a distinction made between the obviously broken Weatherlight lands and Dreadnaught. Perhaps they will think about it for more than 10 seconds before removing the errata this time. Or perhaps they can do it at a time that is not so goddamned stupid. Then they can wait and see for a month or so and ban it in the quarterly update.

[Nightmare]

Lotus Vale would be interesting. It would be very interesting for a couple of weeks. Naturally it would be banned, but perhaps that is what needs to be done. Wizards seems to think these days that having a card work as printed and then banning it is preferrable in the long term to having power-level errata. It's hard to say, for sure, but considering that, I don't know that there will be a distinction made between the obviously broken Weatherlight lands and Dreadnaught. Perhaps they will think about it for more than 10 seconds before removing the errata this time. Or perhaps they can do it at a time that is not so goddamned stupid. Then they can wait and see for a month or so and ban it in the quarterly update.The problem is, yes, they can ban it in Legacy, but in Vintage, access to even another restricted Lotus and another 1-time use superLotus is retarded. Consider this scenario: Turn 1, Lotus Vale, Crucible, Emerald/Petal/Diamond, Fastbond. You have infinite Lotuses on Turn 1, and they sure as shit aren't hit by Null Rod or Chalice for 0. It's not a power level issue on these cards that needs correction, it's a change in the fundamentals of the game, and I honestly have enough faith (unfounded or not) in Wizards to believe they can see how degenerate the potential is in those cards.

Oh, and because no one has mentioned it yet, Lake of the Dead.

[Di]

Glacial Chasm has the same "if this would come into play..." Oracle wording, which means it'll probably end up on the chopping block at some stage. Not that anyone's gonna be doing anything degenerate with Glacial Chasm anytime soon.

Not anytime soon, because I was there like a year ago. :)

Also, please stop talking about Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins. That shit won't ever happen. We can dream though....

[Bovinious]

It just seems a bit inconsistent to me that, if Dreadnought's "when" ability originally functioned as an additional cost, they are now making it work how it would work as printed NOW with 6th edition rules. If theyre willing to do this for Dreadnought it seems that doing so for all the mana cards that are worded in the exact same way isnt too farfetch'd, although I don't really want them to break all those cards, doing this to Dreadnought but leaving the mana cards errata'd isn't consistent at all.

[Sims]

It may not be consistent but it's rational. They know acceleration is broken in the Eternal formats, which is why in the article announcing the removal of power level errata from a lot of cards way back when, they said in no uncertain terms that Lion's Eye Diamond is working as intended and not getting changed back to being a Lotus. With that in mind, I find it highly HIGHLY unlikely that they will change the wording on Scorched Ruin, Vale, Mox Diamond, etc. because they'd be too highly abusable.

Dreadnought on the other hand, while it may see play, isn't going to break the format.

[Bovinious]

I agree 100% that they probably wont break all those mana cards, but it seems stupid to me that WOTC is pushing this policy of "no power level errata", but then they're seemingly making exceptions for "broken mana cards", the whole damn point of power level errata was to stop brokeness and avoid banning a card by issuing errata, and thats exactly what theyre still doing by keeping the errata on these mana cards. It makes them look like hypocrites, no one wants these mana cards to function as printed and they shouldnt because rules were different back then, but WOTC saying theyre going to remove all power level errata then ban if neccessary, but not un-errataing mana cards specifically is just so hypocritical, why even have that policy to begin with if theyre just going to ignore it for 8 or so "broken mana cards"?

[Finn]

That's a really good point, Adam.

In that case, perhaps a foil reprint for judges or one of those stupid promotional cards for each of these cases would do the trick to solidify the better wording.

[Nightmare]

I agree 100% that they probably wont break all those mana cards, but it seems stupid to me that WOTC is pushing this policy of "no power level errata", but then they're seemingly making exceptions for "broken mana cards", the whole damn point of power level errata was to stop brokeness and avoid banning a card by issuing errata, and thats exactly what theyre still doing by keeping the errata on these mana cards. It makes them look like hypocrites, no one wants these mana cards to function as printed and they shouldnt because rules were different back then, but WOTC saying theyre going to remove all power level errata then ban if neccessary, but not un-errataing mana cards specifically is just so hypocritical, why even have that policy to begin with if theyre just going to ignore it for 8 or so "broken mana cards"?
You are (still) working under the false assumption that the cards functionality was changed to fix the power level of the cards. This is not true. A brief history lesson -

The cards were printed, in their old rules before the stack was invented. They worked then like they do now, because you did not get to use them before paying their cost.

Sixth Edition came with rules changes, the stack was invented, and the cards went from terrible, to rediculous.

Wizards said, "this is a loophole, we didn't intend for them to work this way." They erratad the cards to make them function like they did pre-sixth edition rules.

This is not the same as Phyrexian Dreadnaught, who was fixed with the release of Stronghold and Pandemonium. That was power-level errata. The rest of these are not.

[Bovinious]

So Dreadnought and the mana cards got the same errata but for different reasons, I can see that errata to preserve how the cards were supposed to work isn't power-level per se. But this unerrata of Dreadnought still seems inconsistent to me because while maybe WOTC issued the power level errata to stop Pandemonium, I gaurantee the printed intent wasnt so you could Stifle, Fling, or do anything else in response to the trigger as the stack wasnt around yet, as was stated. So wouldnt keeping the errata on Dreadnought be nearer to its printed intent? Just because it got the same errata as the mana cards but for the wrong reason does that make the errata wrong? I guess since theres no way now to word it so Pandemonium works but Stifle/Fling don't then Dreadnought will never return to original functionality...

[Finn]

Berserk could be changed back so that you can cast it after damage is on the stack. That would give Green an interesting 1 mana creature killer ala Reciprocate. That would not be such a big deal, and would make Berserk a lot more attractive.

Word of Command: This is a judgement call, but they could simply give it split second. That was how the card was originally intended to work. As it is now, it is utterly useless.

Ali from Cairo presents an interesting possibility. The original wording makes it possible to purposely damage yourself to zero (which puts you at 1), gain life back, and then not take damage at all while he is in play, depending on interpretation.

Singing Tree does not say TARGET on the card. It could have a few niche uses. But I doubt they would change this despite the recent alteration to Drop of Honey. Argivian Archaeologist, Drafna's Restoration, Visions, etc would also get this change under this policy, and they really should not IMO.

Here's a big one: Su-Chi. It does not say "Graveyard from play" it says "graveyard". And unlike Rukh Egg it has never been reprinted. That sucker screams for abuse with something like Intuition.

Sorrow's Path: Good God can it finally be? If you donate Sorrow's Path to thine enemy and then tap it with Rishidan Port, you will have smote him. Atleast that's how it's worded. Of course you could just give him Illusions, but it's possible!

That's all for now.

[Cait_Sith]

Giving a spell split second is different than making it an interrupt. Interrupts could be responded to with more interrupts. Split Second cannot be responded to with Split Second. Big difference.

[Finn]

Yeah, because of all the interrupts floating around. So it can't be countered. That would make it DO SOMETHING.

[DrJones]

I surf gatherer for cards when I'm bored, and I've been looking for cards that should receive errata. I'm the weirdo that reported the lack of target on Natural Selection and the lack of creature types on land animation effects, I also reported that Flash was listed as legal in Legacy on gatherer, which has now been fixed.

There are some cards I've found that is highly unlikely they will be "un-errataed", but that are very broken along with R&D's secret lair:

- Forbidden Lore. Due to a templating mistake, it can be played on an opponent's land (unlike the rest of the cycle), and due to Ice Age's weird way to specify costs, tapping the land is an effect which can be done a million times.
- Zodiac Dragon. Due to poor wording, it works as a super-squee that allows for very broken combos with anything that requires discarding a card.
- Debt of Loyalty. Under Fifth Edition rules, regeneration spells and abilities could only be played when a creature was being destroyed, the changes in sixth edition would make this work as a white Control Magic, except that is an instant and costs 1 less.

[Nightmare]

Points = moot. Gatherer updated at noon today; no free, uncounterable Black Loti for us.

[Finn]

Dude, you don't really think that this will all be done at once do you?
Between the good doctor and myself, we have probably done more investigation of the contenders than Wizards has. They still have to find these out for themselves.

[HPC]

So Dreadnought and the mana cards got the same errata but for different reasons, I can see that errata to preserve how the cards were supposed to work isn't power-level per se. But this unerrata of Dreadnought still seems inconsistent to me because while maybe WOTC issued the power level errata to stop Pandemonium, I gaurantee the printed intent wasnt so you could Stifle, Fling, or do anything else in response to the trigger as the stack wasnt around yet, as was stated. So wouldnt keeping the errata on Dreadnought be nearer to its printed intent? Just because it got the same errata as the mana cards but for the wrong reason does that make the errata wrong? I guess since theres no way now to word it so Pandemonium works but Stifle/Fling don't then Dreadnought will never return to original functionality...

Pre-6th edition rules you could cast a Dreadnought for 1 mana and you would have to sacrifice it as a result of its ability unless you had 12 power worth of other creatures on the board. Under 6th edition rules Pandemonium's ability would still trigger, or you would still have a chance to respond to the Dreadnought's triggered ability by using Fling. The only catch with pre-6th rules is once both players passed priority all abilities on the stack are cleared (admittedly it gets a little more complicated with interrupts). Instead of banning it they gave Dreadnought a power-level errata basically said "we don't want people cheating in 12 damage so easily." But the errata is not how Dreadnought worked, it is a power-level errata that was a direct result of later cards printed and not a rules change. At the very least Wizards should have to admit they were short-sighted in templating the card and ban it if necessary, which is what they're finally doing.

Now pre-6th you couldn't use any activated abilities on cards until you've paid all costs. So Lotus Vale, which is only useful if you can use its activated ability, required you to pay all costs before you could use it. Or if you had a Birds of Paradise and a Tabernacle of Pendrill Vale in play you couldn't tap your BoP to pay it's own upkeep cost because you couldn't use its ability until all costs have been paid. I believe the "pay-all-costs" rule was enacted around the time of Mirage because people would try to use Lotus Vale without paying costs. So all these minor fixes snowballed into a nasty set of rules that eventually got fixed in 6th edition.

Now Dreadnought didn't have any activated abilities associated with it. So under pre-6th rules its cost still didn't behave as an "additional cost." Even though I'm sure Wizards wish they templated it better.

Edit: fixed grammar and cleaned up language

[Bovinious]

Pre-6th edition rules you could cast a Dreadnought for 1 mana and you would have to sacrifice it as a result of its ability unless you had 12 power worth of other creatures on the board. Under 6th edition rules Pandemonium's ability would still trigger, or you would still have a chance to respond to the Dreadnought's triggered ability by using Fling.

This is what I'm trying to say, 6th edition rules made it possible to Fling/Stifle in response to the trigger with the printed wording. But Dreadnought was printed in Mirage before 6th edition, so back then you couldn't respond to the trigger because there was no stack. I just think removing this errata isn't staying true to the printed intent, the way the card was supposed to work, because back in Mirage you wouldnt have been able to Fling/Stifle in response, however Pandemonium worked back than and should still work. I guess what I'm saying is since theres really no way to make Pandemonium work but make Stifle/Fling not work, I think its best to leave the errata because thats closer to printed intent. Unfortunately it looks like its original functionality of working with Pandemonium and not with Fling/Stifle is lost forever to the stack and 6th edition rules.

[Nightmare]

Wizards agrees with you on all but one word. See if you can find which one.

This is what I'm trying to say, 6th edition rules made it possible to Fling/Stifle in response to the trigger with the printed wording. But Dreadnought was printed in Mirage before 6th edition, so back then you couldn't respond to the trigger because there was no stack. I just think removing this errata isn't staying true to the printed intent, the way the card was supposed to work, because back in Mirage you wouldnt have been able to Fling/Stifle in response, however Pandemonium worked back than and should still work. I guess what I'm saying is since theres really no way to make Pandemonium work but make Stifle/Fling not work, I think its best to leave the errata thats closer to printed text. Unfortunately it looks like its original functionality of working with Pandemonium and not with Fling/Stifle is lost forever to the stack and 6th edition rules.

[Bovinious]

Well from the Power-Level-Errata-B-Gone article under "What didn't change":


Lotus Vale / Mox Diamond / Phyrexian Dreadnought – More cards that had their functionality disrupted by a rules change. The intent of these cards was always that the costs had to be paid before the cards could be used, and we want to maintain that.

This is the article where WOTC stated they were going to be getting rid of power-level errata, and in it Forsythe talks about printed intent a whole lot for all the cards that did change (this was back when Time Vault got changed). This article made me think they cared about printed intent, which is why the mana cards didn't get unerrataed back then or now, and which is why this unerrata of Dreadnought still perplexes me.

[MattH]

Someday Mox Diamond will be fixed. It is not the same case as all the lands like Vale and Lake of the Dead, because it is a spell and you can counterspell the Mox for a 2-for-1. Nothing on the card implies this. Furthermore, as printed, you should be able to play the Mox and have it be sacrificed, just to up storm count, but due to errata, you can't do this.

What an ideal wording would do is two things:
1. Not let it be a Petal - i.e., not let it be tapped for mana unless a land was discarded.
2. Not have to discard a land unless the Mox came into play.

If they worded it, "As Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond," both situations I described would work AND it would still not be able to be used before losing it, which is what the combination of the 1997 wording and 1997 rules would get you.

And just FYI, there is no other card in the game (as of a couple years ago when I looked) which works exactly like Mox Diamond, so this change would not imply further changes. I think MaGo simply hasn't noticed or investigated it yet, but I have faith that someday I will be able to keep a hand of Mox, Land, 5 spells against a Daze deck and not be screwed.

[DrJones]

Hi!
While I was taking a look at green sorceries, I noticed that the Oracle wording on Marshaling the Troops (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=10547) works differently than its printed wording. Because the tapping is an effect, not a cost, you're allowed to tap your own tapped creatures. Under printed wording, you might be able to attack with 3 creatures, pay 1G and gain 12 life, for example. (Which is pretty good)

Of course, Portal Three Kingdoms has very poor wordings, and as such this might not be considered a "Power level errata", but a "bad template" errata, much like the one Lifeline got.

What do you think about it?

[MattH]

Printed text: "Tap any number of your creatures. You gain 4 life for each creature tapped this way."

Oracle text: "Tap any number of untapped creatures you control. You gain 4 life for each creature tapped this way. "

I think it's fine. It's really just clarification errata, not functional errata: even under the printed wording, if a creature you choose to be tapped was already tapped, it didn't get "tapped this way" so you wouldn't gain life from it.

Whether the tapping is a cost or effect has nothing to do with this.

[FoolofaTook]

Lotus Vale would be interesting. It would be very interesting for a couple of weeks. Naturally it would be banned, but perhaps that is what needs to be done. Wizards seems to think these days that having a card work as printed and then banning it is preferrable in the long term to having power-level errata. It's hard to say, for sure, but considering that, I don't know that there will be a distinction made between the obviously broken Weatherlight lands and Dreadnaught. Perhaps they will think about it for more than 10 seconds before removing the errata this time. Or perhaps they can do it at a time that is not so goddamned stupid. Then they can wait and see for a month or so and ban it in the quarterly update.

I think it's possible that Wizards really is planning to unerrata some broken cards and then ban them and reprint them in a less broken form as a slightly different spell.

One example of this trend would be Flash getting unerrata'd then banned and Scout's Warning effectively taking over its originally intended effect plus a bonus (cantrip and cheaper.) Admittedly Scout's Warning is white and Flash was blue so the comparison is not perfect, however if you want to build a deck that Flashes creatures in on the stack SW certainly is more than adequate to fulfill that desire.

[Bovinious]

According to today's ask Wizards, Vale/Ruins/Mox wont be getting the same errata as Dreadnought, because apparently it doesnt matter that theyre worded exactly the same, it matters that one has activated abilities and one doesnt. Whatever, Im fine without the free lotuses and such. Heres the link for reference: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0807

[Lego]

Berserk could be changed back so that you can cast it after damage is on the stack. That would give Green an interesting 1 mana creature killer ala Reciprocate. That would not be such a big deal, and would make Berserk a lot more attractive.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this has to do with the way combat changed after 6th.


Word of Command: This is a judgement call, but they could simply give it split second. That was how the card was originally intended to work. As it is now, it is utterly useless.

The card as written says "This spell may not be countered after you have looked at opponent's hand." They got rid of that clause because it was stupid. You can't counter a spell halfway through its resolution. The card works exactly as printed.


Ali from Cairo presents an interesting possibility. The original wording makes it possible to purposely damage yourself to zero (which puts you at 1), gain life back, and then not take damage at all while he is in play, depending on interpretation.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. He works the same now as when he was written. If damage would reduce your life total to less than 1, it reduces it to 1 instead. That's it, that's all, that's everything. He keeps doing that for as long as he's in play.


According to today's ask Wizards, Vale/Ruins/Mox wont be getting the same errata as Dreadnought, because apparently it doesnt matter that theyre worded exactly the same, it matters that one has activated abilities and one doesnt.

This actually does matter. If you read the link, you'll see that in pre-6th edition rules, Vale/Ruins/Mox couldn't use their activated abilities before the CIP conditions were met. If they left them as written, they would gain a lot of power. They never took power away from the cards. 6th edition gave them power, and Wizards took that power away, restoring them to their original function.

[DrJones]

According to today's ask Wizards, Vale/Ruins/Mox wont be getting the same errata as Dreadnought, because apparently it doesnt matter that theyre worded exactly the samehttp://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0807
Of course it doesn't matter that they're worded exactly. Carnivorous Plant is worded exactly like Dusk Boars, and it still has been errataed.

[MattH]

This actually does matter. If you read the link, you'll see that in pre-6th edition rules, Vale/Ruins/Mox couldn't [i]use[/u] their activated abilities before the CIP conditions weren't met. If they left them as written, they would gain a lot of power. They never took power away from the cards. 6th edition gave them power, and Wizards took that power away, restoring them to their original function.

Rarrrgh! Not true for Mox!

[Lego]

Rarrrgh! Not true for Mox!

Yes, still true for Mox. Pre-6th edition, there was no stack. When the Mox came into play, you couldn't do ANYTHING until you resolved its trigger. The game essentially stopped, you either discarded a card or sacrificed the Mox, and then things continued as normal. I'm not sure exactly, but it's possible that you could play Interrupts while the Mox ability was resolving. Either way, you certainly couldn't tap it for mana until you had resolved the discard/sac trigger.

[Meekrab]

Word of Command: This is a judgement call, but they could simply give it split second. That was how the card was originally intended to work. As it is now, it is utterly useless.
What? None of those three sentences are true. Instants could always be responded to. I wasn't in the room when Dr. Garfield designed that card, but I'm fairly certain he knew your opponent would Lightning Bolt your Bog Wraith in response to you casting Word of Command.


Ali from Cairo presents an interesting possibility. The original wording makes it possible to purposely damage yourself to zero (which puts you at 1), gain life back, and then not take damage at all while he is in play, depending on interpretation.
Ali says damage that would kill you reduces you to 1 life instead. The sentence "All further damage is prevented," 'depending on interpretation' means that nothing can deal damage to anything until Ali is removed from play. I'm pretty sure no one has ever thought Ali would prevent himself from being killed in combat.


Here's a big one: Su-Chi. It does not say "Graveyard from play" it says "graveyard". And unlike Rukh Egg it has never been reprinted. That sucker screams for abuse with something like Intuition.
Su-Chi says "goes to the graveyard." Cards could never ever in the history of magic "go to the graveyard" from anywhere but in play. It's simply an outdated template, it isn't functionally different from the Oracle wording.

[MattH]

Yes, still true for Mox. Pre-6th edition, there was no stack. When the Mox came into play, you couldn't do ANYTHING until you resolved its trigger. The game essentially stopped, you either discarded a card or sacrificed the Mox, and then things continued as normal. I'm not sure exactly, but it's possible that you could play Interrupts while the Mox ability was resolving. Either way, you certainly couldn't tap it for mana until you had resolved the discard/sac trigger.

Way to TOTALLY misunderstand why Mox is different. Hint: because it's a spell, not a land.

The timing of the mana ability has NOTHING to do with why Mox is different from the lands. It's the fact that the discard is now a cost of even playing the spell.

Prior to 6th edition, if you Counterspelled my Mox you did not get a 2-for-1. This is the most important functional change, as illustrated by this hand on the draw: "Mox, Land, 5 spells. Opponent is playing Daze. Fuck."

Prior to 6th edition, if I want a smaller hand (for Black Vise), I could just play the Mox and watch it get sacrificed, even if I had no lands in hand.

Prior to 6th edition, if Mox was the only card in my hand, and I had a Tablet of Epityr on the board, I could gain one life.

ALL of that functionality was lost to the errata. Furthermore, now I can't use the Mox just to up storm count or to be my 7th card for threshold. The printed wording suggests I can do this, under ANY rules set. The errata is totally contradictory with the card itself. And furthermore, it is not hard to get errata that fixes almost all of these:

"As Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond."

With that wording, you still would not be able to tap it for mana without discarding a land, yet not open yourself up to a counterspell.

[Cait_Sith]

MattH, posting a single line and then arrogantly trying to prove him wrong about his response to your ONE LINE is actually hilarious. You TOTALLY misunderstand how language works.

Other than that, I am curious why Wizard's has not thought of using a replacement effect. They may have reasons.