A question on Lotus Vale
Jose Luis
I扉e heard that under 6ed rules you could use Lotus Vale as a pseudo
Black Lotus. Can i believe it?
Does the same apply to Mox diamond? I'm Interested in Type I tourneys.
Thanks in advance.
JOSE
====
Stewart Potter
Jose Luis <jnohedam__...@nexo.es> wrote in article
<3751516...@news.bcn.ttd.net>...
: Sorry, if this was posted before but...
:
Currently, the answer is unknown. Lotus Vale's errata has not been posted
yet, so its wording in 6thE is unknown. Mox Diamond (being in the Type 2
environment, has been errata'd) has the errata:
Mox Diamond
0
Artifact
As an additional cost to play Mox Diamond discard a land card from your
hand.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
So, IMO (just my opinion), I would expect Lotus Vale to get a similar
errata. Something to the effect "As an additional cost to play Lotus Vale,
sacrifice two untapped lands". Of course that wording is a bit "out of the
ordinary" because lands have NO costs to play. Maybe Lotus Vale will be a
land with a play cost?
Nontheless, I would expect that Lotus Vale *will not* be a psuedo Black
Lotus.
-----
Stu
Walker
> Lotus.
>
> -----
> Stu
Yes, but it could get much worse...
Imagine this.
Turn 1:
Land that produces green
Tap, sac land to cast Crop Rotation
Bring out Lotus Vale
Voila, three mana turn one, that will _stay_ there unless something else
destroys the land. It could end up being even worse than a Lotus... =)
-Walker
Ingo Kemper
Luis ) wrote:
>Sorry, if this was posted before but...
>I扉e heard that under 6ed rules you could use Lotus Vale as a pseudo
>Black Lotus. Can i believe it?
No.
If Lotus Vale's card text wasn't changed, it could indeed be tapped
for mana before you sacrifice it.
It would still be no Black Lotus because you'd have to use it right
away, but anyway: The Wizards already confirmed that Lotus Vale will
receive errata to prevent people from misusing it in this way.
>Does the same apply to Mox diamond? I'm Interested in Type I tourneys.
We already received the errata for all cards in Tempest and up. Mox
Diamond has been errataed to read "As an additional cost to play Mox
Diamond, discard a land card from your hand". Thus you have to discard
that land card when you announce playing Mox Diamond, eliminating the
possibility of using it like a Lotus Petal.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
David DeLaney
>Sorry, if this was posted before but...
>I扉e heard that under 6ed rules you could use Lotus Vale as a pseudo
>Black Lotus. Can i believe it?
No, not particularly. _If it kept the same wording_, it would be usable in
this manner. But it's not gonna keep the same wording [though at present
we don't know what the new wording Will Be yet].
>Does the same apply to Mox diamond?
Yes; we already know the new wording for 6E for _this_ card:
MOX DIAMOND 0 Artifact
As an additional cost to play ~, discard a land card []. / Tap:
Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
So to cast this spell, the cost is "discard a land card". This has to be done
before anyone can even respond to the spell; it's no longer any sort of
"when Mox Diamond comes into play" triggered ability.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Stewart Potter
Walker <d...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<3751962E...@prodigy.net>...
: > Nontheless, I would expect that Lotus Vale *will not* be a psuedo Black
:
But, this is not a problem of Lotus Vale, simply a problem of Crop
Rotation. A Tinker for a Mox Diamond gets around the "additional play cost"
as does Copper Gnome, etc. So, a deck with Lotus Vale (in fact a deck with
any "shweet" lands) should stock up on Crop Rotations.
------
Stu
Ingo Warnke
: : Yes, but it could get much worse...
: :
: : Imagine this.
: :
: : Turn 1:
: : Land that produces green
: : Tap, sac land to cast Crop Rotation
: : Bring out Lotus Vale
: :
: But, this is not a problem of Lotus Vale, simply a problem of Crop
: Rotation.
No, it's a problem of Lotus Vale. Why do you think CiP costs were so
popular among designers after Alliances? It allowed them to create cards
with a new kind of drawback (not just upkeep or casting cost) that could
not be prevented!
What would have happened if Phyrexian Dreadnought costed 12 mana but missed
the 'sac creatures worth 12 of power'? It would have been highly abusive
with cards like Animate Dead. The usual method against this previously
were even more drawbacks, as can be seen on cards like Polar Kraken or
Leviathan.
CiP costs allowed the designers to get around cards like Animate Dead that
circumvent the casting process. Since CiP-costs as triggered abilities were
'faster' than instants, CiP costs made most often sure that the card could not
be used without the CiP cost being paid. For cases where mana source abilities
were on cards with CiP-costs, the "can't use activated abilities until
CiP-costs are payed"-rule was created relative shortly after Alliances brought
Lake of the Dead.
With 6E rules triggered abilities and thus CiP-costs became 'as slow as'
instants. Now it would be possible to use instant abilities of the card
before the CiP cost has been paid. This puts the designers before 2 problems:
If a card gets an additional play cost (like Mox Diamond), any unusual way
to get the card into play will get around the CiP-cost. This is the Animate
Dead problem.
If a card gets CiP-cost, it may be used before the CiP costs is played.
This is the Lake of the Dead problem.
The first problem exists for any kind of permanent, as there are ways to get
any kind of permanent into play without casting it. The solution, the CiP-cost,
gets around this.
The second kind of problem exists only for those cards that would be abusive
if used once before the CiP-cost is paid. The solution is the additional play
cost.
: A Tinker for a Mox Diamond gets around the "additional play cost"
: as does Copper Gnome, etc.
Right. We have to find out which of the 2 above problems is greater for Mox
Diamond. The intent behind the land discard is that for the effect the
casting cost of 0 is way to low.
If you get it into play in some other way, you must have used up some
resources, so the land discard is no longer necessary to balance the Mox out.
The other problem is that you could get 1 mana of any color out of it if you
then sacrifice it if a CiP-cost is used. This is thought to be abusive, as
the banning of Lotus Petal shows.
The evaluation of these problems shows that the first problem is only a minor
one, so giving Mox Diamond an additional play cost was IMO the correct de-
cision.
Let's do the same analysis for Lotus Vale. Obviously, having a land that
can make 3 mana of any color for just tapping is baroken. Thus the first
problem is important if the means to get it into play without casting it
don't require a heavy continuing drawback on your mana production. Crop
Rotation requires just one land to sacrifice, cards like Show and Tell don't
even cost you a land. This makes the first problem really major IMO.
The second problem is similiarly big. A Black Lotus is broken, and a CiP-cost
turns a Lotus Vale into a Black Lotus.
So, unlike the Mox Diamond, both problems are important for the Lotus Vale.
Giving it a play cost gets around the 'it becomes a Black Lotus'-problem, but
it does nothing about the 'with Crop Rotation it becomes a permanent Black
Lotus'-problem.
My solution: Make the CiP-cost in such a way as it cannot be abused. For
example, word Lotus Vale as
Lotus Vale comes into play with a waiting counter.
When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice 2 untapped lands and remove
a waiting counter. If you do't, sacrifice Lotus Vale.
T: Add 3 mana of any color to your mana pool. You can't use this ability if
there is a waiting counter.
This kind of 'fix' isn't new, Time Vault was fixed with a counter as well, as
the usual methods to limit its use (tapping) could be to easily circumvented.
Ingo Warnke
Stewart Potter
Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote in article
<3753...@news.uni-rostock.de>...
: Stewart Potter (s...@graytechnologies.com) wrote:
:
:
[snip ... very good explanation of CiP costs, et al]
: Let's do the same analysis for Lotus Vale. Obviously, having a land that
:
Thanks Ingo,
I like this idea. You are right that it does bring back the original
function of Lotus Vale (that is to say the designer's intent). Sometimes
counters increase the "confusion factor" of a card (except for possibly
+1/+1 counters ...) but this seems like a good method for handling the
"black lotus" problem of this card.
------
Stu
Totto
> : example, word Lotus Vale as
> :
> : Lotus Vale comes into play with a waiting counter.
> : When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice 2 untapped lands and
> remove
> : a waiting counter. If you do't, sacrifice Lotus Vale.
> : T: Add 3 mana of any color to your mana pool. You can't use this ability
> if
> : there is a waiting counter.
> :
> : This kind of 'fix' isn't new, Time Vault was fixed with a counter as
> well, as
> : the usual methods to limit its use (tapping) could be to easily
> circumvented.
> :
> : Ingo Warnke
> :
>
> Thanks Ingo,
>
> I like this idea. You are right that it does bring back the original
> function of Lotus Vale (that is to say the designer's intent). Sometimes
> counters increase the "confusion factor" of a card (except for possibly
> +1/+1 counters ...) but this seems like a good method for handling the
> "black lotus" problem of this card.
Still VERY abusive with giant fan... ;)
Totto (and so is time vault :)
Darkblad
>>Black Lotus. Can i believe it?
>
>No, not particularly. _If it kept the same wording_, it would be usable in
>this manner. But it's not gonna keep the same wording [though at present
>we don't know what the new wording Will Be yet].
>
Let's try this one here.
When Lotus Vale comes into play from anywhere you may sacrifice two untapped
lands. If you do not you can't tap lotus vale for mana and sacrifice lotus
vale.
Tap:Add 3 mana of any one color to your mana pool.
Ingo Kemper
>Let's try this one here.
>When Lotus Vale comes into play from anywhere you may sacrifice two untapped
>lands. If you do not you can't tap lotus vale for mana and sacrifice lotus
>vale.
Too late. The problem is that you can tap Lotus Vale for mana _before_
this ability resolves and would stop you from doing so.
Something like this would work:
When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two untapped lands.
If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any one color to
your mana pool", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
grey616
"Lotus Vale cannot be tapped for mana until you have resovled its cip
effect." (or probably something better worded) After all, the rulebook does
say that the number one rule in Magic is that the text on cards overrides
any rule in the rulebook.
Ingo Kemper wrote in message
<3755d9a1...@ingo.news.uni-muenster.de>...
Ingo Kemper
wrote:
>Why can't they just errata it to have the same wording but add the line
>"Lotus Vale cannot be tapped for mana until you have resovled its cip
>effect." (or probably something better worded) After all, the rulebook does
>say that the number one rule in Magic is that the text on cards overrides
>any rule in the rulebook.
Or what about this:
You cannot play Lotus Vale from your hand.
Sacrifice two untapped lands: Put Lotus Vale into play from your
hand. Play this ability as a sorcery.
T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
At what price beauty?
Or, as was already suggested, something like this:
When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two untapped
lands. If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any one
color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
At what price beauty?
There are several ways to fix the card. I'm curious how the Wizards
are going to do it.
Brad Hindman
playing your one land per turn? The way Lotus Vail enters play looks similar to cycling in that
it is an ability of a card in hand. I would think that I would be free to put the Vail into play AND
play an additional land in the same turn.
-- Brad Hindman
Morgan Lewis
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:14:03 -0700, "grey616" <za...@smtp.cwia.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why can't they just errata it to have the same wording but add the
> >line "Lotus Vale cannot be tapped for mana until you have resovled
> >its cip effect." (or probably something better worded) After all, the
> > rulebook does say that the number one rule in Magic is that the text
> >on cards overrides any rule in the rulebook.
>
> Or what about this:
>
> You cannot play Lotus Vale from your hand.
>
> Sacrifice two untapped lands: Put Lotus Vale into play from your
> hand. Play this ability as a sorcery.
>
> T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
>
> At what price beauty?
>
The problem here is that you'd be allowed to put LV into play and still
play another land. Maybe "[Sacrifice two untapped lands, skip playing
one land this turn]:" would be better. (I used "one land" for
situations involving Summer Bloom and the like.)
> Or, as was already suggested, something like this:
>
> When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two untapped
> lands. If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any one
> color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
>
> At what price beauty?
>
> There are several ways to fix the card. I'm curious how the Wizards
> are going to do it.
>
> Ingo Kemper
> --
As am I. I'm sure we could, if we decided to put an effort into it,
come up with nearly a dozen different ways to do it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Ingo Kemper
<hin...@solarz.colororado.edu> wrote:
>> Or what about this:
>>
>> You cannot play Lotus Vale from your hand.
>>
>> Sacrifice two untapped lands: Put Lotus Vale into play from your
>> hand. Play this ability as a sorcery.
>>
>> T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
>>
>> At what price beauty?
>
>If Lotus vail had the text of Ingo's first option would putting the Lotus Vail
>into play count as
>playing your one land per turn?
No, it wouldn't. Okay, that would change the card.
> The way Lotus Vail enters play looks similar
>to cycling in that
>it is an ability of a card in hand. I would think that I would be free to put
>the Vail into play AND
>play an additional land in the same turn.
Right. Well, you could still add some more rules text, but I think the
easiest way to fix Lotus Vale would be to have it gain the mana
ability only if you sacrifice two untapped lands.
Walker
>
> Sacrifice two untapped lands: Put Lotus Vale into play from your
> hand. Play this ability as a sorcery.
>
> T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
Yes, but how does this fix the problem any better than the 'As an
additional cost to play...'? You still have the quite simple work
around of Crop Rotation, etc., which allows you to keep the land in
play. Which do you think is more abuseable... A one-shot Black Lotus
that counts as a land drop, or a Black Lotus you can bring into play by
several cards, and keep it there? (You could consider the land-sac the
saccing of the Lotus, so really it just costs you G/a spell more than
the Lotus would... And is much, much better).
> When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two untapped
> lands. If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any one
> color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
This would be a good way to go, I think. It may be a bit confusing, but
oh well... Since when was Magic not confusing? ;-)
> Ingo Kemper
-Walker
grey616
fix it the way it was fixed under 5ed rules, with a rule that specifically
prevented the tapping for mana before dealing with costs, but add that rule
to the card text this time?
Walker wrote in message <375706ED...@prodigy.net>...
Stewart Potter
<92847799...@GlobalCom.gct-us.com>...
: Isn't it simpler to leave the original text of Lotus Vale alone and
simply
: fix it the way it was fixed under 5ed rules, with a rule that
specifically
: prevented the tapping for mana before dealing with costs, but add that
rule
: to the card text this time?
[snip]
Well, that is pretty much what this does
": >> When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two untapped
: >> lands. If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any one
: >> color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
There are two constraints here, first, is to make Lotus Vale work pretty
much like it did before the rules change (note, a variance in its
capablility post-6th E may be acceptable as long as its not broken).
Second, to make the use of Lotus Vale non-complicated. A lengthy diatribe
of how this is one card who's ability can't be used until its
come-into-play costs have been paid (ala the 5th E rules) would be
unwieldy. However, what Ingo suggested in the above text accomplishes this
in a fairly straightforward manner.
-----
Stu
Laurie Cheers
> Ingo Kemper wrote:
> > "grey616" <za...@smtp.cwia.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Why can't they just errata it to have the same wording but add the
> > >line "Lotus Vale cannot be tapped for mana until you have resovled
> > >its cip effect." (or probably something better worded) After all,
> > >the rulebook does say that the number one rule in Magic is that
> > >the text on cards overrides any rule in the rulebook.
> >
> > Or what about this:
> >
> >
> > Sacrifice two untapped lands: Put Lotus Vale into play from your
> > hand. Play this ability as a sorcery.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The problem here is that you'd be allowed to put LV into play and
> still play another land. Maybe "[Sacrifice two untapped lands, skip
> playing one land this turn]:" would be better. (I used "one land"
> for situations involving Summer Bloom and the like.)
That might allow you to play a Land and then play a Lotus Vale.
Perhaps it could mimic the text on the original Island Sanctuary:
"Sacrifice two untapped lands, play one fewer land this turn"...
> > There are several ways to fix the card. I'm curious how the Wizards
> > are going to do it.
>
> As am I. I'm sure we could, if we decided to put an effort into it,
> come up with nearly a dozen different ways to do it.
Yeah. Let's see...
Lotus Vale Land
Lotus Vale cannot come into play.
Reveal Lotus Vale from your hand, Sacrifice two untapped lands: This
turn, Lotus Vale can come into play as normal. Play this ability only if
Lotus Vale is in your hand.
T: ...
but at this point, it's starting to get esoteric. And this one doesn't
let you Crop Rotate it, either.
--
Laurie Cheers (lrc...@york.ac.uk)
Only fools can't see
the emperor's new .sig:
Mike Marcelais
> > color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
>
> oh well... Since when was Magic not confusing? ;-)
How about:
Lotus Vale enters play tapped.
When Lotus Vale enters play, you may sacrifice two untapped lands. If you do,
untap Lotus Vale, otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
(T): Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
Yes, you could (in theory) still abuse it using Twiddle or somesuch, but that
cuts into the net mana you get (for the "Black Lotus" use) and doesn't let you
get around having to sacrifice the lands to keep it around. [Using Twiddle
means 2 cards + 1 land drop + (U) for 3 mana. Worse than Dark Ritual, except
that you get to pick the color.]
--
============================================================
Mike Marcelais mich...@microsoft.com Magic Rules Guru
(ma-serei maiku) Anime otaku
[My posts are my own opinions; I don't speak for Microsoft.]
=== -= Moonstone Dragon =- ================== -= UDIC =- ===
Da Twink Daddy
Mike Marcelais <mich...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7j93au$4...@news.dns.microsoft.com...
> > > When Lotus Vale comes into play, you may sacrifice two
untapped
> > > lands. If you do, Lotus Vale gains "T: Add three mana of any
one
> > > color to your mana pool.", otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
> >
> > This would be a good way to go, I think. It may be a bit
confusing, but
> > oh well... Since when was Magic not confusing? ;-)
>
> How about:
>
> Lotus Vale enters play tapped.
> When Lotus Vale enters play, you may sacrifice two untapped lands.
If you do,
> untap Lotus Vale, otherwise sacrifice Lotus Vale.
> (T): Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
>
>
> Yes, you could (in theory) still abuse it using Twiddle or somesuch,
but that
> cuts into the net mana you get (for the "Black Lotus" use) and
doesn't let you
> get around having to sacrifice the lands to keep it around. [Using
Twiddle
> means 2 cards + 1 land drop + (U) for 3 mana. Worse than Dark
Ritual, except
> that you get to pick the color.]
My problem with this wording is that it defeats kismet/stasis type
effects. Really, I think that Ingo's first suggestion, where the land
only gains the mana ability if you sac the lands is the best.
--
Da Twink Daddy
bs...@entropy.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984
Da Twink Daddy
news:3758A20C...@prodigy.net...
> > If you use Crop rotation to bring out Lotus Vale, would you need
three
> > lands. One land to sac. to Crop Rotation and two for Lotus Vale?
>
> It depends on how they errata it.
>
> Current wording, yes. You sac a land to play Crop Rotation, then
put
> the Lotus Vale into play. Then, the Vale triggers, and you have to
sac
> two untapped lands.
>
> If they errata it like Mox Diamond, so that it's an extra cost to
play
> it, then no. You play the Crop Rotation, saccing a land, and put
the
> Lotus Vale into play. You didn't play it from your hand, so you
don't
> have to pay the extra play costs (The two sacrifices).
>
> If they errata it the way Ingo suggested (Something like: "When
Lotus
> Vale comes into play, sacrifice two untapped lands and Lotus Vale
gains
> "T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool," or sacrifice
> Lotus Vale.")
>
> I wouldn't be surprised, though, if WotC actually errata'd it like
Mox
> Diamond, just to preserve consistant templates, and to annoy the
> players. They seem to be good at that ;-)
> (And it doesn't really matter to me, since I only play T2)
The problem with that is that it an the lands they errata in a similar
manner would be the first occurrence of lands w/ play costs. They'd
actually need to change the rules so that lands are announced and paid
for but don't go onto the stack... right now there is no time to pay
for a land.
Also, Any errata is going to _functionally change_ the card. They
changed mox diamond in at least 2 ways though. 1) If you don't cast
it, you don't disco the land (did b4), 2) If it is counterspelled now,
you have already disco'd the land (not b4).
So, they will probably issue some horrible functional change to it.
mvi...@go.com
>Yes, but how does this fix the problem any better than the 'As an
>additional cost to play...'? You still have the quite simple work
>around of Crop Rotation, etc., which allows you to keep the land in
>play. Which do you think is more abuseable... A one-shot Black Lotus
>that counts as a land drop, or a Black Lotus you can bring into play by
>several cards, and keep it there? (You could consider the land-sac the
>saccing of the Lotus, so really it just costs you G/a spell more than
>the Lotus would... And is much, much better).
>
Walker
> lands. One land to sac. to Crop Rotation and two for Lotus Vale?
It depends on how they errata it.
Current wording, yes. You sac a land to play Crop Rotation, then put
the Lotus Vale into play. Then, the Vale triggers, and you have to sac
two untapped lands.
If they errata it like Mox Diamond, so that it's an extra cost to play
it, then no. You play the Crop Rotation, saccing a land, and put the
Lotus Vale into play. You didn't play it from your hand, so you don't
have to pay the extra play costs (The two sacrifices).
If they errata it the way Ingo suggested (Something like: "When Lotus
Vale comes into play, sacrifice two untapped lands and Lotus Vale gains
"T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool," or sacrifice
Lotus Vale.")
I wouldn't be surprised, though, if WotC actually errata'd it like Mox
Diamond, just to preserve consistant templates, and to annoy the
players. They seem to be good at that ;-)
(And it doesn't really matter to me, since I only play T2)
-Walker
Don Goreham
me explain. Who really plays with Lotus vale in even a fun deck. Our
resident goofy deck builder used it once, but that's about it. Now if they
leave the wording as is and let it be essentially a Black Lotus then people
can actually attempt to think about T1 play again. Of course they will need
to ban in extended and restrict it in T1, but who would really mind. Now I
may be way off in my thinking, but I think that this would be the coolest
solution.
Later,
Don