Well, I think that shifting the discussion from "rules can't handle this" to "editorial rules prohibit" (whatever those are in mtg) and "you don't do this in 'real' magic" shows the truer nature of this idea. One is a fatal error while the other is something more of an opinion.

I for one would like to question as to what exactly does p/t setting serve with these effects. In cases where this might be a problem (ie. new players in standard) it's highly unlikely to occur (how many creatures per set have variable p/t?) + if you know that s are when a spell is cast without paying its mana cost (which might have around the same chance of happening as this), this too should be deduced pretty easily from that. I mean, what else could it be than 0? One might even say that adding "with base power and toughness 1/1" would confuse players more than its exclusion would and add unnecessary text (that uses a noncommon/weird phrase no less) which also is a factor for comprehension complexity.

I'm not quite sure why this card has suddenly received attention, but I would point out it's 7 years old, as is my initial comment on it. (Though yes, 107.2 has been around since before 2010; even back in 2007 the same rule existed, just as part of rule 104.2.)

Editorial rules prohibit removing all abilities without defining new power and toughness. Just because they added a hack in to prevent the game from breaking in case it happens, doesn't mean you're supposed to go out of your way to test it. I'm not even sure if that rule applies here, since there's no ways of making a creature have an undefined P/T in real Magic.

People always keep bringing this "issue" up:

> 107.2. If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, either as a result or in a calculation, it uses 0 instead.

You could add something like: X/Y/* then they become 0/1/1 ?

Lose all activated and triggered abilities?

Maybe the rules should define "lose all abilities" to mean "lose all abilities other than characteristic defining abilities", that would often be useful.

I made my own version of this in Card Name Reinterpretations, although it's not very different: Rise to the Challenge #2

This card was created as an alternative to Magma Rift, because I didn't want to just reprint a card. I said over on the Facets of Sienira page "This set would have really liked Plated Geopede and Magma Rift, and perhaps in development I'll swap them in for the cards that have those slots at the moment."

Design philosophy has shifted a lot in the past 6 years, and this would very likely now just be a reprint of Magma Rift... Either that or perhaps the new Devour in Flames, which further demonstrates how massively underpriced this card was.

Hm. Maybe because History Sculptor was blue, and I wanted to differentiate them? I... agree this looks just as blue as white, looking at it now 5 years on.

Why did you choose white over blue?