Why Did WotC Change the Rules Text for Lotus Vale?
General forum
Posted on Dec. 8, 2024, 3:57 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Lotus Vale's ability was originally a triggered ability, but it was changed to a replacement effect, as this user points out, so why did WotC change it? They usually avoid making functional changes to cards, so I wonder why they did so, in this situation.
What does everyone else say, about this? Why did WotC change the rules text of Lotus Vale?
DemonDragonJ says... #3
Caerwyn, that was a rather obnoxious move by WotC, in my mind, since responding to the triggered ability by tapping the land for mana is an example of good and clever strategy, in my mind.
December 8, 2024 6:19 p.m.
wallisface says... #4
DemonDragonJ it’s not a ”good and clever strategy”, its abusing the card to make it do something it was never designed or balanced to do, as already pointed out by Caerwyn
December 8, 2024 8:41 p.m.
DemonDragonJ It would be a good way to take advantage of a quirk in the rules, but when it's functionally equivalent to a Black Lotus, that's just too much power even when it costs a land drop for the turn. Smaller effects might have gotten away with it better, but Lotus Vale is not the card to do it with.
December 8, 2024 8:45 p.m.
This is hardly an “obnoxious move” - the official policy of Wizards is to use errata to preserve the original meaning of the card. From a certain point of view, this errata is not changing the card - it is preserving the card by ensuring the modern rules match the original intent.
Compare Winter Orb and Winter Orb. Notice the errata there? All continuous artifacts used to have a rule where if they were tapped, they were turned off. That rule went away… so cards like Winter Orb received errata to include “as long as Winter orb is Untapped” language.
Or every old Wall creature. When they removed the “walls can’t attack” restriction on the subtype, they used functional errata to give all walls Defender.
What happened with Lotus Vale is not weird - it is just how Wizards handles situations like this to preserve the original card even when the underlying rules that card was designed upon change.
December 8, 2024 10:15 p.m.
Think about nadu. Was it a “good and clever strategy?” Yes. Was in broken and led ridiculously long combo turns? Yes. Did it get banned to prevent this? Yes.
December 13, 2024 6:57 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #8
wallisface, do you believe that that is why WotC is no longer reprinting Oblivion Ring and instead reprinting Banishing Light?
December 15, 2024 6:24 p.m.
wallisface says... #9
DemonDragonJ its likely that Banishing Light is getting the reprint because its rules text more closely fits with the current 2024 wording for designs like this. It’s also easier to grok for new players getting into the game. I don’t see the comparison between this and Lotus Vale being at-all close.
Caerwyn says... #2
When Lotus Vale came out, you were not allowed to respond to triggered abilities. This meant you could not activate Lotus Vale's ability while the trigger was on the stack, getting 3 mana, then sacrificing Lotus Vale but not the other two lands.
When the rules changed, they gave Lotus Vale errata to preserve its original functionality. If they did not make this change, Lotus Vale would effectively become a Black Lotus, as you could get three mana without having to sacrifice the lands. Rules changes that fundamentally alter the underlying card's ability, as happened here, is one of the few times cards might receive functional changes.
December 8, 2024 5:07 p.m.