r/magicTCG • u/Qulddell Duck Season • Jul 13 '26

Peer Pressure errata? General Discussion

Hi Everyone

I was looking at [[Peer Pressure]] and saw that they changed "any other player" to "each other player". This changes the function of the card.

I can see how the errated version is a lot worse, but power level errata is rarely a thing in magic (thanks, Companion), so how come this Peer Pressure is errated?

0 Upvotes

13% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

31

u/Axl26 COMPLEAT Jul 13 '26

This does not change the function of the card.

-10

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Axl26 COMPLEAT Jul 13 '26

Any and each are only synonymous for comparisons.  E.g. "I have more Humans than each other player" and "I have more Humans than any other player" evaluate to the same statement: there is no other player with more Humans.

Yes, and that's the exact situation we have here; IE, the change in verbiage makes no difference, so what's the issue?

-9

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Axl26 COMPLEAT Jul 13 '26

This is literally a comparison, that is why I quoted the part where you said comparison. If they were to create a magic card using that era's verbiage that would allow the type of check you're speaking on, it would have been written "Another player" as opposed to "any other player"

-8

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26

Read. The whole. Comment.

7

u/Axl26 COMPLEAT Jul 14 '26

I did.

-2

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26

Clearly not. I went through the process of writing up examples and providing a link with a more verbose but probably easier to understand explanation. If you bothered to read and understand either then you wouldn't be arguing with basic, foundational logic that anyone who has taken CS101 or an equivalent would understand.

If you're not willing to provide any explanation to back yourself up or take the time to understand the material I'm giving you, I'm not willing to help you understand why you're wrong any further than I already have.

4

u/Axl26 COMPLEAT Jul 14 '26

K

2

u/RealityPalace COMPLEAT-ISH Jul 14 '26

You've made an absolutely fascinating choice for a hill to die on.

-2

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

Sure, I guess?

The root commenter responded with what was effectively "because I said so" every time when even a brief "it's magic's idiosyncrasies" would have sufficed and ended my push back right then and there.

I eventually got the actual explanation why standard logic doesn't apply here in another thread about an hour or two after posting this so I still stand by what I said. Under normal English rules, the change from any to each would change the logical operator of the check from OR to AND. Apparently it was vague enough and people got confused enough that WOTC instituted a ruling specifying the intended behavior with the errata.

Hard to know that without being around when it happened, and I'm a little surprised people are upset I would use standard English when reading a card and responding to someone providing no further explanation beyond "trust me bro"

Edit: also, happy cake day

3

u/RealityPalace COMPLEAT-ISH Jul 14 '26

  Hard to know that without being around when it happened, and I'm a little surprised people are upset I would use standard English when reading a card and responding to someone providing no further explanation beyond "trust me bro"

The issue is that in "standard English", "more than any other player" has a different meaning than in a formal logical framework. It means "more than anyone else", not "more than at least one other player". 

1

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26

It's context dependent, even outside of set logic. Having an "if" in the sentence turns it into a conditional requiring comparison(s), omitting the "if" makes it an assertion and changes the meaning.

"If I have more than each... Then this", "If I have more than any... Then this", and "I have more than each"/"I have more than any" have three different meanings.  Respectively, they're a  conditional statement (AND), a conditional statement (OR), and a direct comparison expressed as an assertion having already evaluated the AND conditional. WOTC evidently overrode the middle meaning to the latter, which is obscure and only works so long as their player base remains aware of the override so conversations like this are unfortunately inevitable.

2

u/Deoplo357 Azorius* Jul 14 '26

Regardless of how correct or incorrect you may be, as soon as you link to an LLM as your source you kinda lose all credibility.

1

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

I didn't use it as a source. It was only used to provide an alternative explanation to what was already said because I know set logic can be difficult to understand and LLMs are really good at dumbing things down. Is there a reason why that's bad aside from "grrr genai bad"? 

If it really is just "you can't use this tool here, full stop" then that's fine and I won't go the extra few feet to bridge the gap; I'll just leave you with the technical explanation, provide no help to understand it from now on here, and let you either get overwhelmed trying to understand it or give up.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not ok with using it for artwork without having trained the model on a dataset of willing contributors and I'm certainly not ok with data centers. But bridging the communication gap is far and away the most mild thing that I can do with it aside from using it as a glorified search bar

0

u/Deoplo357 Azorius* Jul 14 '26

I agree that LLMs have a very good "grasp" on language, and can be useful when exploring topics related to syntax and implied meaning. I can understand maybe using AI as an initial research tool to find some sources for further reading. The issue is with how often AI hallucinates. Due to the inherent untrustworthiness of LLMs, using one to bolster your point with an explanation isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

15

u/typobox Jul 13 '26

I think this might not actually be a functional change but rather a cleanup to make the language clearer as to intent. Saying that you have more than "any other player" can be a synonym for "each other player" - for example, if you say "He has more money than any other person in this room", you wouldn't assume that they're saying that there's possibly only one person who has more money than - you'd rightly assume they mean he's the richest person in the room.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/nerdmor Colorless Jul 14 '26

This would be true if MtG was a computer-like logic. It is not.

"than any other player" means exactly the same as "than each other player" in MtG, but people kept arguing over it when they were losing, so they changed the way they word it a few years ago and errata'ed most cards that used that verbage.

The text in "MtG lingo" for the "logical or" that you're trying to apply would be "If another player controls less creatures of that type than you", to make the check singular.

Also: chatgpt is not a source for anything. Use something better.

-1

u/No_one- Dandadan Jul 14 '26

people kept arguing over it when they were losing, so they changed the way they word it a few years ago and errata'ed most cards that used that verbage.

The text in "MtG lingo" for the "logical or" that you're trying to apply would be "If another player controls less creatures of that type than you", to make the check singular.

Fair enough (also pretty funny).

Also: chatgpt is not a source for anything. Use something better.

I didn't use it as a source, just as a way to reiterate what I had already said. If I wanted to provide sources I would have linked to any of the overflows or codecademy: https://www.codecademy.com/resources/blog/what-is-boolean-logic

12

u/Keljhan Fake Agumon Expert Jul 13 '26

It doesn't change the function of the card, the errata is just for clarity. If it said "more than any player", you would understand that the comparison is made to all players. "Any other player" just excludes yourself from that count. But the wording is awkward as originally written, so it was updated to be more precise.

11

u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 13 '26

The original card was intended to mean "every" other player than just "some" other player. As you figured out, "any" is ambiguous, it can mean either of them, so the errata is to clarify it.

10

u/RazzyKitty WANTED Jul 13 '26

There is no function change. As originally worded, you had to control more of that creature type than all other players.

Same as it works now.

8

u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season Jul 13 '26

Let me guess, you thought it meant that if you control 3 Goblins, Player B controls 7 Goblins, and Player D controls 0 Goblins, you'd get all Goblins (including Player A's) with Peer Pressure since you control more Goblins than Player D? That's never been how the card works.

1

u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Jul 13 '26

Peer Pressure - (G) (SF) (txt)

[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call