Official Errata Explanation

[Norm4eva]

Norm, your mistake lies in that you are assuming the problem is when you can play Waylay. This isn't surprising because that's what it looks like from the errata, but it's wrong. The problem is the duration of the tokens. The tokens were never supposed to carry over from one turn to the next.

Actually my concerns are more or less in line with jro's; there's a clear inconsistency in the errata policy where cards that have clearly proven their power at one point or another are treated differently than kindred cards; the Dreadnought/Rogue Elephant comments are apt in outlining this.  There's a clear differential in power and thus, potential for abuse; yet the basis of their execution and function are the same.  Why the disparity?  One card obviously matters the most, while the other one is practically inconsequential.

[ELD]

For my dollar, easily the most frightening power errata that could be removed is Flash.  If they go with how the card is written, then we will have a very powerful effect with Academy Rector.

Card type: Instant

Casting cost: 1U

Card text: Put a creature card from your hand into play. You may pay its mana cost reduced by up to 2. If you don't, sacrifice it.

I haven't seen anyone talking about this one yet.

[Matt]

Norm, your mistake lies in that you are assuming the problem is when you can play Waylay. This isn't surprising because that's what it looks like from the errata, but it's wrong. The problem is the duration of the tokens. The tokens were never supposed to carry over from one turn to the next.

Actually my concerns are more or less in line with jro's; there's a clear inconsistency in the errata policy where cards that have clearly proven their power at one point or another are treated differently than kindred cards; the Dreadnought/Rogue Elephant comments are apt in outlining this.  There's a clear differential in power and thus, potential for abuse; yet the basis of their execution and function are the same.  Why the disparity?  One card obviously matters the most, while the other one is practically inconsequential.

I do agree with this, but there's more than one way to reduce power.

[Spacebalzz]

Concerning Flash,

Actually, I brought this up in another thread regarding power-level eratta; however, after reading Forsythe's article, I don't think it will ever be changed back.  The most important question with Flash is:  What was the intended purpose of the card? 

Was the intended purpose of the card to allow a player to put a creature into play at instant speed under the condition that said player could pay its casting cost in addition to the casting cost of Flash OR was the intended purpose of the card to allow a player to put a creature into play (and, as a result, gain that creature's come in or out of play ability i.e. Crater Hellion or Academy Rector) regardless of whether or not that player can pay said creature's mana cost.

More simplistically, the real argument concerning Flash is:  Is paying the casting cost of the creature a condition for whether or not the creature comes into play and, as a result, whether or not a CIP or Graveyard effect of that creature will trigger.

Personally, I think that the original text of the card implicitly states that you put the card into play first regardless of whether or not you can pay the casting cost in order to trigger its CIP or Graveyard effect.  Further, the errata is a paradigm power-level errata instated in order to stop Flash-Rector Bargain decks that were rampant in Standard at the time.  I believe that Flash should be changed back to its original wording and thus retain its originally intended effect, and if it has a negative effect on vintage or extended, ban or restrict it accordingly.

[Norm4eva]

Was the intended purpose of the card to allow a player to put a creature into play at instant speed under the condition that said player could pay its casting cost in addition to the casting cost of Flash OR was the intended purpose of the card to allow a player to put a creature into play (and, as a result, gain that creature's come in or out of play ability i.e. Crater Hellion or Academy Rector) regardless of whether or not that player can pay said creature's mana cost.

See, it's conversations like this that distort and convolute the way cards need to be treated in regards to whatever errata they (un)receive.  I really don't give a shit what Flash's intented function is, because I know what it says and I understand that function within Magic's context.  Likewise, with Aether Vial's new interaction with Priest of Gix, was Vial intended to be a Ritual?  Was the Priest?  Was Sakura Tribe-Elder meant to be a Time Walk?  Was Skullclamp intended to obselete control?
I disagree with the notion that it's any one person's job to determine a card's ultimate purpose.  The application is most important.  If we're talking about killing a Llanowar Elves, there's no difference between Lava Dart, Shock, or Lightning Bolt because the purpose is the same, and the execution is the same; I pay R, spend a card, your Elves go to the yard.  Cards have their purposes contorted by players on a regular basis.  This is why "intent of the card" is a distorting and IMO backward way to determine its appropriate application.  The execution of a card's function appears in the rules text.  The application of that function is a player's call.

[freakish777]

Flash is just like Phyrexian Dreadnaught which they've stated they aren't changing.  It was intended that you pay the costs, or the card went to the bin.  If you are going to argue for Flash-Rector-Bargain to be back, you have to make an argument for Pande-Naught to be back as well.  I personally don't think either are coming back, and frankly, I don't really care.  They both fall under the "mistake" errata in my opinion.

I would like to see Vault combo with Twiddle/Fusillade/etc, and I can't say I overwhelmed with Joy by the new errata, but I am content to with Vault at the moment.  I am content with Wizards taking complaints seriously and addressing them as opposed to sweeping responses under the rug and saying "That portion of our market is the least important, we can afford to lose them now if it means less confusion later for the projected growth in our product."

[Matt]

I think you could read Flash's "sacrifice" the same way you read Alpha Tranquility's "discard" if you wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised to see WotC take this stance, if they mention it.

[jpmeyer]

Dreadnought seems a lot more clear-cut than something like Flash.  There are plenty of cards with similar printed text to Dreadnought (like Rogue Elephant) that it's pretty clear that you make the sacrifice after it hits play.  Flash seems kinda ambiguous as to what it's "supposed" to do.

Oh, and I tried make a Pandemonium/Phyrexian Dreadnought deck and it sucked, with the reason being that the deck no longer has 11 copies of Necropotence with which to draw into its 3 card, 6 mana combo.  Compare that to say, Illusions/Donate's 2 card, 7 mana combo which can be spread out over two turns.

[parallax]

Flash was printed in 6th edition, which is well after they figured out what card wordings meant. And Pande-naught should work. Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins needed errata because the old rules didn't allow activated abilities to be played before comes-into-play abilities resolved. The new rules do. Phyrexian Dreadnaught doesn't have an activated ability. I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to work how it says.