The wording adds some functionality needlessly to this card.
When Elder Land Wurm blocks, it loses defender.
So if another effect gives Elder Land Wurm defender then it really shouldn't be able to get out of if by blocking. The wording I here is a bit tricky. Personally I'd advocate sticking with the original wording. It doesn't have defender, it simply can't attack until it has blocked. But if we must upgrade all "can't attack" cards to "defender" cards then the best I can come up with is this:
As Elder Land Wurm enters the battlefield, choose Aye or Nay, but you must choose Aye.
If the chosen word is Aye then Elder Land Wurm has defender.
When Elder Land Wurm blocks change the chosen word to Nay.
You see, the fact that there is a chosen word links the three abilities. That way we can have blocking remove only the specific instance of defender that Elder Land Wurm gave itself. This wording has the benefit of being obtuse in the extreme. As for the wording they gave it, randomly adding abilities that old cards don't have doesn't make me happy at all. This is one star for sure.
Another change from nowhere, this time words just appearing magically where they weren't before.
Tap target untapped creature you control. If you do, add Variable Colorless to your mana pool, where X is that creature's converted mana cost.
So how abut that "If you do" part, eh? I honestly don't even see what function that serves in the card. Unless you cast it on a creature that has "cannot become tapped" it isn't going to mean anything anyway. This wording is clearly one star.
Oh lets see what was done here
Flip Falling Star onto the playing area from a height of at least one foot. Falling Star deals 3 damage to each creature it lands on. Tap all creatures dealt damage by Falling Star. If Falling Star doesn't turn completely over at least once during the flip, it has no effect.
Right, meaningless. This is all the more reason to be angry about the terrible Chaos Orb wording. There are two cards that use this mechanic, it should be in the rules. This raises my ire and receives zero stars.
This is not a good day for Oracle wordings.
Whenever Floral Spuzzem attacks and isn't blocked, you may destroy target artifact defending player controls. If you do, Floral Spuzzem assigns no combat damage this turn.
This wording is just dead wrong. It should read:
Whenever Floral Spuzzem attacks and isn't blocked, Floral Spuzzem may choose to destroy target artifact defending player controls. If it does, Floral Spuzzem assigns no combat damage this turn. (Floral Spuzzem's controller makes choice on Floral Spuzzem's behalf)
Yeah, that's better. But actually, two stars.