People have been talking about mechanical errata recently in regards to potentially changing rampage, and have been talking about the mass Errata that phyrexians got in regards to legends with that errata, so now seems like the perfect time to ask my question:You’ve said in the past that things like the mass errata to make things phyrexian is ok as functional errata because they were always phyrexian in flavor. That being the case, would legendary errata be acceptable for proper nouns from ABUR, Arabian Nights, and Antiquities, since they are from before “legendary” was even a thing? Aladdin, Ali from Cairo, King Suleiman, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Library of Alexandria are all proper nouns. 4 of those 5 reference people/places from the real world, which we know from the portal sets do constitute the “legendary” super type. You could argue that Bazaar and Library see to much play in extended formats to get such major functional errata, but the “phyrexian” errata to glistener elf and blighted agent turned infect from a fringe deck to basically unplayable in modern. I know you guys avoid mechanical errata if ever possible because it confuses new players, but I’d be willing to bet new players would be more confused hearing “Aladdin is not considered a proper noun. Nor is Baghdad” than they would be hearing “that card from 25+ years ago has been changed” especially considering many other old cards from around that time have had serious errata to their printed text that changes some of them SEVERELY. I guess my question is just: why is the mass errata of phyrexian acceptable, when it is changing things that were always phyrexians in flavor to be so mechanically, but an errata of proper nouns to be legendary from ABUR, Arabian nights, and antiquities not acceptable, when it would be changing things that were always proper nouns in flavor to be so mechanically?

Making a creature Phyrexian does impact how other cards interact with it, but it doesn’t change how the card functions in a vacuum. Adding legendary to a card does, and pretty severely in any 4-of format.

Why were cards that clearly represent specific individuals but were printed before Legends (ex. Aladdin, Ali from Cairo) not erratad to be Legendary?

Because it changes how the cards work. If we ever stripped the drawback from Legendary, we’d consider it.

Do you think the majority of players would react favorably to Ali From Cairo, Uncle Istvan, The Nephilim, and other appropriate cards getting errata'd to Legendary?

The majority of players don’t play Commander/Brawl. Other than in those formats, being legendary is a mechanical downside, so no, I don’t think the majority would react favorably.

Can red ever do the Worship effect on a creature again? (Ali from Cairo and Fortune Thief are the two existent cards) It sort of fits into red's 'living on the edge of loss' theme that the red extra turn cards have.

The two cards you’re referencing are a card from early Magic before the color pie had solidified and a Time Spiral card referencing it as a tribute to the game’s past. The ability has never actually been in red’s slice of the color pie.

You forgot Ali from Cairo in your Arabian Nights pt 1 podcast. Can you talk about him a bit?

Ali from Cairo has the distinction of being one of only a handful of non-ante creatures to have ever been banned. He was also the first card that prevented you from dying while it was in play.