@gkraigher said in Turbo Xerox and Monastery Mentor:
I beg to disagree. Zodiac Dragon's intent was to be able to return whenever it was discarded. I posted this earlier, but please read the prongs and tell me where my logic is wrong.
The dispositive issue in a case like this is how the card was ruled to function when it was released.
The Time Vault/ Power Level Errata debates happened a decade ago at this point, and I don't remember the specific findings as they relate to Zodiac Dragon. Perhaps @MaximumCDawg or someone else familiar with those debates might be able to shed light on this question without my having to do further research.
On the other hand, Aaron Forsythe said that Zodiac Dragon's design intent was that it was supposed to only return to hand from the graveyard if it left play: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/power-level-errata-b-gone-2006-07-14
Zodiac Dragon / Rukh Egg – Printed intent was that these cards only worked from play. “From play” is merely clarification. If it didn't say that, they would still only work from play since that's the default. The text was added because the cards are (obviously) a bit confusing without it, and this is the modern template for this clause.
The historical authority is regarded as Stephen D'Angelo's Crystal Keep, which sadly is no longer operated. However, I keep a bookmark to the archived version of his site, which you (or anyone else) can access here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040717064701/http://www.crystalkeep.com:80/magic/rules/search.html
This site contains all of the rulings that were published up until he ceased updating them. The search function doesn't work, but you can still find cards by index. In any case,
"When played under non-Portal rules, the text should be read as "When ~this~ goes to a graveyard from play, you may return ~this~ to its owner's hand." [D'Angelo 2000/06/05]"
I confess I don't fully understand what that means, as it suggests that there is something specific to the Portal Rules that explains this function. But I can't tell from his ruling along whether that's simply power level errata or what you claim.
If you can find actual evidence that it was ruled to work the way you say it does when Portal 3 Kingdoms was released in 1999 or shortly thereafter, I will join your crusade. But thus far, I am unaware of any evidence. And I can't even remember my position on the card 11 years ago, although I do remember having given it some thought.
- Moreover, Guan Yu, Sainted Warrior exists and reads word for word the way you are reaching to interpret Zodiac Dragon to read:
This is your best argument, but it's not dispositive. The fact that Guan Yu specifically had the "from play" clause while Zodiac Dragon does not does certainly raise the inference that the fact that Zodiac Dragon does not was intentional or by design, but that inference is not a certainty. It could simply have been a mistake or inconsistency. And the presumption or benefit of the doubt is generally given to the rules team who ruled on the card's functionality when the card is released, as those rules managers will generally have access to the designers.
You make some good points, but I'm not entirely persuaded as of yet. I'd have to research and better understand the Portal rules, and/or find evidence that the card was actually ruled to work or played the way you suggest before I'd conclude that the current errata really is power level errata.
Further, I recommend starting a new thread before continuing a discussion under this topic any further.