All I can think with Martyrs of Korlis is that they were maybe planning to do a whole Bodyguard creature type that would have this "Take damage for you" mechanic and didn't want you doubling up.
That seems likely to me - the only other instance of bodyguard is in the creature type, and its worded as if you get to use one unique bodyguard per turn, but that bodyguard any number of times per turn. This would only be relevant if you had multiple cards with the creature type.
Some cards would self-reference by their printed name, others would self-reference by their printed creature type. See the original wordings of Goblin Balloon Brigade, Hypnotic Specter, for example. In many cases, using the creature's type this way was not confusing. In cases like Goblin Balloon Brigade and Martyrs of Korlis, it WAS confusing, so they started using the card's name consistently, and more recently "this creature".
The last line of Martyrs of Korlis is basically saying you can't redirect damage to two seperate sources. If someone Bolts you while you have 2 Martyrs out, you don't deal 3 damage to bith of them, just one.
Since it says “each turn”, that also seems to mean that if someone Bolts you twice when you have two Martyrs, you have to kill one of them, rather than having each Martyr take one Bolt.
oubliette was easy for me to understand, a creature is selected and it gets set aside, cannot be targeted and cannot do anything. Oubliette, is a prison where prisoners were put and forgotten about.
I wish Wizards would do some kind of non-legal mass reprint of all the old cards that were written conversationally to update them with the structured formatting of today. While it is really fun to read the old cards, the formatting of today is so much better and more intuitive.
@@Roll-Penut in response the Spuzzems have now unionized and successfully lobbied congress to ban that card from any deck I play. I just can't catch a break!
Check out the “full text” lands secret lair. It does the opposite of full art lands, filing the entire card with rules text going into excruciating detail about what specifically a basic land is.
I find this insight to past card text so fun and entertaining. Have you made one for Rock Hydra? That card is the posterchild of weird early rule text full of flavor. 9:54 My theory is that they thought having several Martyrs in play would be overpowered against artifact decks.
Since MtG was the first CCG, it's expected that there would be weird wording issues. They were literally inventing it all as they went along. The early days of MtG, they were still trying to lean more into the fantasy story telling and world building via card text which is how you get things like "the spell fails" and other things like that. Outside of flavor text, card text is extremely sanitized these days and has no more elements of lore or storytelling built-in like that. These days, the lore and story telling exists outside of the cards themselves. Back in the day, there were no supplemental publications like novels to explain anything. The first several novels had nothing to do with the cards and vice versa. They were all just set vaguely in the same universe.
Martyrs of Korlis probably had that text because of Veteran Bodyguard, which even today has a ruling of "If you have multiple Veteran Bodyguards, you can decide which one receives the redirected damage each time damage would be dealt to you."
Martyr's of Korlis, the last sentence is letting you know that you can't divide the damage up amongst multiple copies of the card to prevent them from dying. The intent of the sentence is preserved by the card's only ruling in Gatherer: "If you have multiple Martyrs of Korlis, you can decide which one receives the redirected damage each time artifact damage would be dealt to you."
The line about Bodyguards was superseeded by the removal of the bodyguard creature type, doesn't look like the change to the card was specifically noted. Wotc probably had some plan for more bodyguard creatures, but the idea was dropped. During the creature type update in 09, bodyguard was removed as a type of creature, including from the Martyrs. Since they didn't have a bodyguard creature type anymore and changed to being human, the line about bodyguards stopped meaning anything, so it was removed from the card.
Here's the thing though - Veteran Bodyguard doesn't have the line about "No more than one bodyguard" in it's Alpha or Beta printing - it shows up in Revised, pretty much out of nowhere.
I give wizards all the credit in the world to try and not change a card's effects only as a last resort or if they just made an error on the card. I will never forgive Konami's murder of Crush Card Virus among many other cards.
CE-EOTE: In addition to its current text why not just restrict it to only being able to use 1 card effect iff you also take the same amount of damage your opponent takes at the same time (like pre-erratum Ring Of Destruction)?
The same Bodyguard text was on revised versions of Veteran Bodyguard as well. So under the rules at that time, someone could ping you for a point from an artifact to force the Martyr's to take it, then you could not protect with the Veteran Bodyguard
yknow, shoutouts to fire emblem heroes having a hero with the line of text "unaffected by *effects* which slow special charge", which is very different from "Unaffected by "slow special charge"", the latter already existing, and yet working the exact same anyway (the difference is the former implies it only works on status effects, and not passive abilities on an enemy, even though it works on both)
They didn't created D&D, or even own it until 1997, years after that card came out. TSR was the company that made D&D, but it folded due to bad financial decisions(I could go all day on that story but I won't) so WotC bought the rights to the franchcise, with 2000's 3rd edition being the first edition to be made directly by the company.
I could easily see WOTC looking at the old text on Unstable Mutation and assuming the intended effect was to put a -1/-1 counter on the creature on EACH upkeep.
I still think it's hilarious that Magic *still* tells you to shuffle your library after searching when Yugioh made that a basic rule in the rulebook that didn't need to be put on the cards themselves in like 2003.
If you think "sacrifice" is something that doesn't confuse players then you clearly haven't looked at rulings questions on the Magic subreddit. As for inconsistencies in early rules text, that WAS a feature in the early game. Richard Garfield knew questions would come. But he expected the game to be a small thing you play with friends at home and that as a group you would decide on specific card interactions. It was only as the game became a phenomenon with its tournaments that it was recognized how ot needed consistent text and comprehensive rules. Also, the idea of some of the weird text is that early on, flavor was more important than specific rules.
I never understood the controversy behind Oubliette's modern wording. It does what the Arabian Nights version wanted to do, not the O-Ring effect that it got changed to. Why are people upset that it's "not what Oubliette does", when it's more loyal to the desired effect?
There's actually a couple reasons, and it was actually changed to phasing for a bit (2005-2007) before they changed it to the masters edition wording. First, "out of play" was just like "remove from play", meaning the original wording did actually exile the card. Returning the creature would actually retrigger enters abilities. Phasing doesn't do this. Second, there was the disconnect with how it interacted with equipment. The original card didn't interact with them at all other than unattaching them, as they weren't a subtype at the time, but changing Oubliette to phasing meant it did include phasing out attached equipment indirectly. This was actually a major difference when it came to tokens. Tokens used to cease to exist when phased out, and things that phased out indirectly with them would stay phased out permanently, with no way to regularly come back to play. With all that said, Phasing is by far the ideal way for the card to function, despite some changed interactions. I'm glad they changed it when they reprinted it again. Plus, tokens don't cease to exist when phased out anymore, so it can't be used to permanently remove something like a Batterskull. Edit: removed the part saying it was because of backlash. That may have been part of it, but I think I misremembered the reason. I think it was actually because they were cleaning up errata where possible, using the most recent printed wording for the card as a base for what the new printing should be. This led to some cards with good errata being changed back since they hadn't received a printing with those errata.
never heard of transmute artifact, I thought, "wow, this would be great in my shorikai deck!". And then I looked it up. I fucking hate the reserved list more and more every day
15:03: The term you want is "wised up". "wizened" has nothing to do with being wise, at least not directly -- it's an adjective and means "wrinkly". Which means many wizards *are* wizened, just from being old!
5:05 the interim version also has the oblvion ring version of exiling a permanent where if you flicker it as it enter player the target is permanently removed whereas the original and new version dont do this.
Magic players have a difficult time grasping the concept that MTG was the first of it's kind And the designers hadn't figured out how to template cards yet
Not exactly. You can still use other Goblin Artisans on the same artifact spell, you just have to wait one at a time to see if previous Goblin Artisans countered the spell. It's also not restricted to once per turn, or even once per spell (if you can untap it, you can try again). Remember, Magic doesn't use batching (similar to Yu-Gi-Ohs chain links) anymore. As far as I'm aware, the closest Magic has to a "hard once" are cards that say they can be activated or triggered "only once" (such as Goblin Ski Patrol, Stalking Leonin, or Acrobatic Cheerleader). As long as these don't change zones, they cannot be activated or triggered again (think Baronne de Fleur's negate ability).
@@lanibentz9976 It would be kind of awkward and wordy without a specific keyword, but not technically impossible to give an ability a "hard once per turn" style of effect, even with the wordings we have. For example: "activate this ability only if you haven't activated an ability of a card or token named [CARDNAME] this turn and only if this permanent is named [CARDNAME]." Though, importantly, Magic doesn't "activate" triggered abilities like Yu-Gi-Oh does, and would require significantly different wording (similar wording as above wouldn't stop multiple being triggered at once). More importantly, it would cause confusion as to "why" a card was made with a restriction like that. Most Magic formats just don't have the card velocity and tutor power to make an effect like this necessary, and in formats that do have it, the effect would need to be pretty strong to use it. The only place it might occur would be on a predefined token, to stop you from abusing the many token duplicators in the game, but even then it would have to be a really powerful effect to be worth the restriction, because we already have things like drawing cards and making mana on tokens
@@lanibentz9976 Comment failed to send I guess. Trying again. It would be kind of awkward and wordy without a specific keyword, but not technically impossible to give an ability a "hard once per turn" style of effect, even with the wordings we have. For example: "activate this ability only if you haven't activated an ability of a card or token named [CARDNAME] this turn and only if this permanent is named [CARDNAME]." Though, importantly, Magic doesn't "activate" trigger abilities like Yu-Gi-Oh does, and would require significantly different wording (similar wording as above wouldn't stop multiple triggering at once). More importantly, it would cause confusion as to "why" a card was made with a restriction like that. Most Magic formats just don't have the card velocity and tutor power to make an effect like this necessary, and in formats that do have it, the effect would need to be pretty strong to use it. The only place it might occur would be on a predefined token, to stop you from abusing the many token duplicators in the game, but even then it would have to be a really powerful effect to be worth the restriction, because we already have things like drawing cards and making mana on tokens
@@lanibentz9976 Third try, much simpler message. Possible, but not probable for a host of reasons. It would need to specify not just its card name be the same (because of name-changing, ability-copying, etc.), but also other card names (so it's not just applying to itself). It would also only work easily for activated abilities.
Tawnos Coffin isnt printed far after the Oubliette, doing the same. So its not that alone for years. The Oubliette was Never really played, while the coffin saw a lot of games, at least in greater rounds.
All I can think with Martyrs of Korlis is that they were maybe planning to do a whole Bodyguard creature type that would have this "Take damage for you" mechanic and didn't want you doubling up.
That seems likely to me - the only other instance of bodyguard is in the creature type, and its worded as if you get to use one unique bodyguard per turn, but that bodyguard any number of times per turn. This would only be relevant if you had multiple cards with the creature type.
Some cards would self-reference by their printed name, others would self-reference by their printed creature type. See the original wordings of Goblin Balloon Brigade, Hypnotic Specter, for example. In many cases, using the creature's type this way was not confusing. In cases like Goblin Balloon Brigade and Martyrs of Korlis, it WAS confusing, so they started using the card's name consistently, and more recently "this creature".
The last line of Martyrs of Korlis is basically saying you can't redirect damage to two seperate sources. If someone Bolts you while you have 2 Martyrs out, you don't deal 3 damage to bith of them, just one.
And you can't split the damage
Since it says “each turn”, that also seems to mean that if someone Bolts you twice when you have two Martyrs, you have to kill one of them, rather than having each Martyr take one Bolt.
oubliette was easy for me to understand, a creature is selected and it gets set aside, cannot be targeted and cannot do anything. Oubliette, is a prison where prisoners were put and forgotten about.
Expect many such to open up in near future.
I wish Wizards would do some kind of non-legal mass reprint of all the old cards that were written conversationally to update them with the structured formatting of today. While it is really fun to read the old cards, the formatting of today is so much better and more intuitive.
That’s basically gatherer. Sure, it’s not a physical copy, but the stream-lined text does exist
Why non legal?
@@dylanburmood2139many of these cards are on the reserve list
@dylanburmood2139 A number of the old cards would most likely break or warp formats in some way. I'd just like to casually enjoy the cards
@@dylanburmood2139 I assume that to mean not _Standard_ legal, so other formats could still use them without breaking the current meta
floral spuzzem is amazing, i hope one day to be allowed by spuzzem to play it
Spuzzem strategist has your back
@@Roll-Penut in response the Spuzzems have now unionized and successfully lobbied congress to ban that card from any deck I play. I just can't catch a break!
Now I want to see a secret lair that makes simple cards as overly verbose and needlessly complicated as possible
There was one like that for basic lands
Check out the “full text” lands secret lair. It does the opposite of full art lands, filing the entire card with rules text going into excruciating detail about what specifically a basic land is.
Was about to mention basic lands haha
Also check that un-set Rules Lawyer card, absurd to read and even more bizarre to play
I find this insight to past card text so fun and entertaining. Have you made one for Rock Hydra? That card is the posterchild of weird early rule text full of flavor.
9:54 My theory is that they thought having several Martyrs in play would be overpowered against artifact decks.
Since MtG was the first CCG, it's expected that there would be weird wording issues. They were literally inventing it all as they went along. The early days of MtG, they were still trying to lean more into the fantasy story telling and world building via card text which is how you get things like "the spell fails" and other things like that. Outside of flavor text, card text is extremely sanitized these days and has no more elements of lore or storytelling built-in like that. These days, the lore and story telling exists outside of the cards themselves. Back in the day, there were no supplemental publications like novels to explain anything. The first several novels had nothing to do with the cards and vice versa. They were all just set vaguely in the same universe.
Martyrs of Korlis probably had that text because of Veteran Bodyguard, which even today has a ruling of "If you have multiple Veteran Bodyguards, you can decide which one receives the redirected damage each time damage would be dealt to you."
Martyr's of Korlis, the last sentence is letting you know that you can't divide the damage up amongst multiple copies of the card to prevent them from dying. The intent of the sentence is preserved by the card's only ruling in Gatherer: "If you have multiple Martyrs of Korlis, you can decide which one receives the redirected damage each time artifact damage would be dealt to you."
The line about Bodyguards was superseeded by the removal of the bodyguard creature type, doesn't look like the change to the card was specifically noted. Wotc probably had some plan for more bodyguard creatures, but the idea was dropped. During the creature type update in 09, bodyguard was removed as a type of creature, including from the Martyrs. Since they didn't have a bodyguard creature type anymore and changed to being human, the line about bodyguards stopped meaning anything, so it was removed from the card.
Here's the thing though - Veteran Bodyguard doesn't have the line about "No more than one bodyguard" in it's Alpha or Beta printing - it shows up in Revised, pretty much out of nowhere.
I give wizards all the credit in the world to try and not change a card's effects only as a last resort or if they just made an error on the card. I will never forgive Konami's murder of Crush Card Virus among many other cards.
CE-EOTE:
In addition to its current text why not just restrict it to only being able to use 1 card effect iff you also take the same amount of damage your opponent takes at the same time (like pre-erratum Ring Of Destruction)?
I think Martyr of Korlis meant to clarify that if you have multiple, only one of them would receive the damage, not each of them.
The same Bodyguard text was on revised versions of Veteran Bodyguard as well. So under the rules at that time, someone could ping you for a point from an artifact to force the Martyr's to take it, then you could not protect with the Veteran Bodyguard
As someone who did not play magic util recently, Oubliettes change makes total sense.
yknow, shoutouts to fire emblem heroes having a hero with the line of text "unaffected by *effects* which slow special charge", which is very different from "Unaffected by "slow special charge"", the latter already existing, and yet working the exact same anyway
(the difference is the former implies it only works on status effects, and not passive abilities on an enemy, even though it works on both)
Martyrs of Korlis sounds like Wizards of the Coast still being stuck in the D&D mindset when designing cards
They didn't created D&D, or even own it until 1997, years after that card came out. TSR was the company that made D&D, but it folded due to bad financial decisions(I could go all day on that story but I won't) so WotC bought the rights to the franchcise, with 2000's 3rd edition being the first edition to be made directly by the company.
I could easily see WOTC looking at the old text on Unstable Mutation and assuming the intended effect was to put a -1/-1 counter on the creature on EACH upkeep.
I still think it's hilarious that Magic *still* tells you to shuffle your library after searching when Yugioh made that a basic rule in the rulebook that didn't need to be put on the cards themselves in like 2003.
If you think "sacrifice" is something that doesn't confuse players then you clearly haven't looked at rulings questions on the Magic subreddit.
As for inconsistencies in early rules text, that WAS a feature in the early game. Richard Garfield knew questions would come. But he expected the game to be a small thing you play with friends at home and that as a group you would decide on specific card interactions. It was only as the game became a phenomenon with its tournaments that it was recognized how ot needed consistent text and comprehensive rules.
Also, the idea of some of the weird text is that early on, flavor was more important than specific rules.
Also we apparently needed "your choice" spelled out.
My favourite weird text on a card: Floral Spuzzem.
I never understood the controversy behind Oubliette's modern wording. It does what the Arabian Nights version wanted to do, not the O-Ring effect that it got changed to. Why are people upset that it's "not what Oubliette does", when it's more loyal to the desired effect?
There's actually a couple reasons, and it was actually changed to phasing for a bit (2005-2007) before they changed it to the masters edition wording.
First, "out of play" was just like "remove from play", meaning the original wording did actually exile the card. Returning the creature would actually retrigger enters abilities. Phasing doesn't do this.
Second, there was the disconnect with how it interacted with equipment. The original card didn't interact with them at all other than unattaching them, as they weren't a subtype at the time, but changing Oubliette to phasing meant it did include phasing out attached equipment indirectly. This was actually a major difference when it came to tokens. Tokens used to cease to exist when phased out, and things that phased out indirectly with them would stay phased out permanently, with no way to regularly come back to play.
With all that said, Phasing is by far the ideal way for the card to function, despite some changed interactions. I'm glad they changed it when they reprinted it again. Plus, tokens don't cease to exist when phased out anymore, so it can't be used to permanently remove something like a Batterskull.
Edit: removed the part saying it was because of backlash. That may have been part of it, but I think I misremembered the reason. I think it was actually because they were cleaning up errata where possible, using the most recent printed wording for the card as a base for what the new printing should be. This led to some cards with good errata being changed back since they hadn't received a printing with those errata.
never heard of transmute artifact, I thought, "wow, this would be great in my shorikai deck!". And then I looked it up. I fucking hate the reserved list more and more every day
15:03: The term you want is "wised up". "wizened" has nothing to do with being wise, at least not directly -- it's an adjective and means "wrinkly". Which means many wizards *are* wizened, just from being old!
5:05 the interim version also has the oblvion ring version of exiling a permanent where if you flicker it as it enter player the target is permanently removed whereas the original and new version dont do this.
Balduvian Shaman has a massive text block and manages to be pretty useless!
When I was a new player it took me quite some time to understand sacrifice.
Magic players have a difficult time grasping the concept that MTG was the first of it's kind
And the designers hadn't figured out how to template cards yet
I wasn't playing during this era, but it sounds fun.
You should do the Best Cards That Give You Experience Counters.
16:00, wait so you mean…a hard once per turn clause? In magic the gathering?!
Not exactly. You can still use other Goblin Artisans on the same artifact spell, you just have to wait one at a time to see if previous Goblin Artisans countered the spell. It's also not restricted to once per turn, or even once per spell (if you can untap it, you can try again). Remember, Magic doesn't use batching (similar to Yu-Gi-Ohs chain links) anymore.
As far as I'm aware, the closest Magic has to a "hard once" are cards that say they can be activated or triggered "only once" (such as Goblin Ski Patrol, Stalking Leonin, or Acrobatic Cheerleader). As long as these don't change zones, they cannot be activated or triggered again (think Baronne de Fleur's negate ability).
@ okay so yea, I misread it, whoops. I do kinda wonder what you’d have to do to make a hard once like in yugioh but for magic
@@lanibentz9976 It would be kind of awkward and wordy without a specific keyword, but not technically impossible to give an ability a "hard once per turn" style of effect, even with the wordings we have. For example: "activate this ability only if you haven't activated an ability of a card or token named [CARDNAME] this turn and only if this permanent is named [CARDNAME]."
Though, importantly, Magic doesn't "activate" triggered abilities like Yu-Gi-Oh does, and would require significantly different wording (similar wording as above wouldn't stop multiple being triggered at once).
More importantly, it would cause confusion as to "why" a card was made with a restriction like that. Most Magic formats just don't have the card velocity and tutor power to make an effect like this necessary, and in formats that do have it, the effect would need to be pretty strong to use it.
The only place it might occur would be on a predefined token, to stop you from abusing the many token duplicators in the game, but even then it would have to be a really powerful effect to be worth the restriction, because we already have things like drawing cards and making mana on tokens
@@lanibentz9976 Comment failed to send I guess. Trying again.
It would be kind of awkward and wordy without a specific keyword, but not technically impossible to give an ability a "hard once per turn" style of effect, even with the wordings we have. For example: "activate this ability only if you haven't activated an ability of a card or token named [CARDNAME] this turn and only if this permanent is named [CARDNAME]."
Though, importantly, Magic doesn't "activate" trigger abilities like Yu-Gi-Oh does, and would require significantly different wording (similar wording as above wouldn't stop multiple triggering at once).
More importantly, it would cause confusion as to "why" a card was made with a restriction like that. Most Magic formats just don't have the card velocity and tutor power to make an effect like this necessary, and in formats that do have it, the effect would need to be pretty strong to use it.
The only place it might occur would be on a predefined token, to stop you from abusing the many token duplicators in the game, but even then it would have to be a really powerful effect to be worth the restriction, because we already have things like drawing cards and making mana on tokens
@@lanibentz9976 Third try, much simpler message.
Possible, but not probable for a host of reasons. It would need to specify not just its card name be the same (because of name-changing, ability-copying, etc.), but also other card names (so it's not just applying to itself). It would also only work easily for activated abilities.
Amazing🤩🤩🤩🤩
I love weird cards
Collect em.. 🤔 None of these cards appeal to me but the banned cards due to cultural sensitivity like Jihad, Invoke Prejudice and Imprison? Hmm..
You might want to do an extra proofreading pass on a video all about the text of cards.
1:01, but rotation is common "parlayence".
...at least to me.
Nice t is dude rocks yo
Chains of Mephistopheles. 🤨
Tawnos Coffin isnt printed far after the Oubliette, doing the same.
So its not that alone for years.
The Oubliette was Never really played, while the coffin saw a lot of games, at least in greater rounds.
reading the card explains the card
except illusionary mask