Power level errata for Mox Diamond and Lotus Vale?

[lordofthepit]

Given that Wizards has stated that power level errata would be removed (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127) and that if a card grows too powerful, it would instead be banned (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af173), I was wondering why such errata still exists on Mox Diamond.

Arguments in favor of the errata include 1) this is more consistent with the original intent of the cards, before Sixth Edition rules, in which you could not tap the Mox for a mana or the Lotus for three without discarding/sacrificing a land and 2) the cards would be too powerful as printed before. But with regards to the first point, I believe Phyrexian Dreadnought was originally issued errata to change it to its original function (pre-Sixth Edition) before that errata was removed to "unclutter" the Oracle database. With regards to the second point, I could see how Mox Diamond becomes much stronger and Lotus Vale becomes absolutely broken without errata, but wouldn't it be safer just to ban them if that becomes the case?

[The Rack]

It still exists because that was the original function of the card; you couldn't tap for mana before you ditched the lands. There is no reason that they would change to the original wording which now wouldn't be the original function. That's why.

[lordofthepit]

It still exists because that was the original function of the card; you couldn't tap for mana before you ditched the lands. There is no reason that they would change to the original wording which now wouldn't be the original function. That's why.

But if that were the case, we shouldn't be able to Dreadnought should still have errata and we shouldn't be able to Stifle them (or play other tricks), right?

[Ozymandias]

Well, the idea is that a) if there's any gap at all between errata and banning, there will be massive price fluctuations and b) even if there isn't, it's better to have cards kludged to be at least playable in legacy (Mox Diamond is good and sees significant play) than to have them not played at all ever.

Graphically, Wizards has a philosophy of format health>number of cards playable>minimization of erratta. Vault-Key isn't the Vintage apocalypse, just good, and so it can stay. Dreadnought only makes a 12/12 with any number of ways to race, remove, or otherwize neutralize it. Mox Diamond with its errata removed would be too good, and they don't want to ban it, so ideological purity takes a backseat.

[Skeggi]

Why would Mox Diamond without an errata be significantly better than Lotus Petal? Sure, you have the option to pitch a land and keep it, so I guess it would be better. But not broken.

[lordofthepit]

Graphically, Wizards has a philosophy of format health>number of cards playable>minimization of erratta. Vault-Key isn't the Vintage apocalypse, just good, and so it can stay. Dreadnought only makes a 12/12 with any number of ways to race, remove, or otherwize neutralize it. Mox Diamond with its errata removed would be too good, and they don't want to ban it, so ideological purity takes a backseat.

I like your logic, and I can see this being their reasoning in keeping the errata. However, while I don't follow Vintage, I would speculate that being able to tutor out Time Vault with Tezzeret and almost immediately win the game with unlimited turn shenanigans is more broken than using Mox Diamond optionally as a Lotus Petal that must be used immediately, even after adjusting for the fact that Vintage is "more" broken.

However, turning every Lotus Vale into a land-drop Black Lotus might be the real problem, and I suspect it's because Mox Diamond and Lotus Vale are so similar, removing the former errata but not the latter would look even more inconsistent than the situation we have now.

Edit: With regard to your comment about price fluctuations, assuming that we can agree that price fluctuations is a bad thing (which I do), but that Mox Diamond without errata would be stronger but not broken (which I am inclined to believe but of which I am by no means confident), perhaps the right thing to do would be to remove errata from both cards in question, but to ban Lotus Vale for power level concerns but not Mox Diamond. The reasoning for this is that Lotus Vale is not a very expensive card anyway, so it would not be subject to fluctuations as long as the announcements are made concurrently; in fact, I suspect that it will not change much at all in terms of value, because Lotus Vale derives essentially all of its value from the casual market since it does not see competitive Vintage or Legacy play (and I'm sure Vintage can handle another restricted land-drop Lotus).

Edit #2: I just scoured Google and came up an older thread on this forum which I won't necro, but basically, it reminded me that there existed another land in Weatherlight similar to Lotus Vale called Scorched Ruins, which would generate a ridiculous 4 colorless mana in a single shot. I suspect that it is this along with Lotus Vale that makes Wizards hesitant to remove errata, rather than fear of allowing Storm combo decks to run 8 Lotus Petals.

[Nightmare]

I really hate having to do this over and over again. Not all errata is "power-level errata." A lot of it is functional errata, to make the cards work the way they did when they were printed.

Mox Diamond, Scorched Ruins, and Lotus Vale could not be tapped for mana before you sacrificed whatever in pre-Sixth edition rules. Post-Sixth, there was a window for them to work that way, but in order to restore their functionality, Wizards errata-ed them to correct this disfunction.

Dreadnought was errata-ed to stop the interaction with Stifle specifically. It was done using the flawed logic that this errata was functional as well, and later, when someone else was in charge, they realized that it had nothing to do with making the card work, and removed the errata which didn't really change anything other than power level of the card.

The end.

[Finn]

Can we lock the thread now?

[Nightmare]

Oh yeah, I forgot that part.