I am going to lock this and the other duplicative thread you recently made and direct folks to your thread here.

Every time you have a new thought, you do not need to post a new thread. All of your posts are just variations on your original “help me make a mono-U deck” thread.

This is the second time you have been warned against duplicative threads. I am going to lock this and the other duplicative thread you recently made and direct folks to your thread here.

Please note, if you continue to aggressively post new threads, instead of commenting on your existing thread, action may be taken temporarily restricting your ability to post.

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

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.

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.

The Lore forum is used for actual Magic lore, not your fan fiction. The Social forum is probably the best one to use for fan fiction.

That said, this site is really not a place for fan fiction. I am not sure anyone has ever posted fanfic here and you would probably be better off elsewhere. If you do post here, keep it PG.

As you already have a thread asking for advice on this deck, located here, I am locking this thread.

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

After moving this thread, I noticed you had another thread posted asking for advice on the same deck, linked here (as well as another one I am likewise locking). As you could easily ask this question on your existing advice thread, I am locking this thread to prevent redundancy and forum clutter.

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

wallisface - While I agree with your game design points, those are game design issues, not lore ones. Everything you mention could be solved without annihilating entire plot lines from the lore - they simply could just use fewer planeswalkers in the stories and thus print fewer in the sets.

The entire elimination of sparks and subsequent rise of Omenpaths felt like bad writing to me - a lazy excuse to shoehorn popular, marketable characters into whatever sets they want.