Power Level Errata: They're removing it!

[LotusHead]

Ummm...as far as I understand, the only way to get infinite turns is like a 3/4/5 card combo.  Just using Mizzium and Vault isn't going to do anything

In fact you actually need  each turn to copy the Time Vault with Mizzium Transreliquat.

If Time Vault is on the field (or able to be welded in), and Mizzium Transrelquiant is on the field (or able to be welded in), having 3 mana is NOT an issue. (ok, 3 non-shop mana).

Time Vault costs $0 (10 proxy, ya know?) and Mizzium Transreliquat costs $1 (crap rare). Same goes for Basalt Monolith and Power Artifact (with PA being an oldie but goodie w/o reprints $10 max each).  Lotsa new options availiable nowadays.

I haven't been this excited about new decks since 5th Dawn: Home of New World DeckBuilding. (Crucible, Salvagers, Eternal Witness, etc)

Lastly.........
I HAVE to track these cards down and use them as Proxies for Power Jewelry... (this won't be hard...)

Mox Emerald    spoiler    Dancing Scimitar
Mox Jet    spoiler    Onulet
Mox Pearl    spoiler    Jandor's Saddlebags
Mox Ruby    spoiler    Ebony Horse
Mox Sapphire    spoiler    Flying Carpet

[Matt]

a new player doesn't have to know the technical words - it doesn't matter that they don't know the difference between a replacement ability and an activated ability and a static ability,

If you have no regard for the rules, there is really no point in having this particular discussion with you.

I have every regard for the rules, you speak out of sheer ignorance. Ask Jacob if you don't believe me, he has seen as well as anyone the numerous times I have defended the supremacy of the rules in the card creation forum.

There is not a rule that says you get to play with broken toys. If you have no regard for new players, there is no point in asking your opinion about anything concerning Wizards' policies because new players are the single most important thing to Magic's overall health. It is more important that a new player not be intimidated by opponents pulling arcane rulings out of their sleeve than for them to know the rules; that can come later. The operative word in that quote is "NEW." If you seriously expect a new player to sit down and read the CompRules then you make the worst Magic teacher I have ever heard of.

If you have an actual point to make, make it. If you see a flaw in my argument, then point it out. But don't try to hide behind insults.

Why doesn't Rancor cost 2G now

Sigh. Because it was never printed otherwise. Seriously, the goal behind ALL* of this is that someone who has never seen the card before knows what it does.

What makes Waylay and Impulse so different, anyway?

Waylay was printed under 5th edition rules, and when it was printed, it was not possible to make it into Ball Lightning. Sixth edition rules concerning turn structure interacting with the tokens' sacrifice wording caused the problem, just like the new concept of triggered ability interacting with Mox Diamond would have made it work in ways it never had before. The errata on Mox and Lotus Vale was to keep them working the same way they had prior to 6th edition, not to correct their power level.

I do agree that Waylay's errata is a mistake, but the cure is worse than the disease: the way to make Waylay work as it did under 5th edition rules is to give the tokens (ugh) Substance.

*not the creature type changes, though, which is one reason why I am not in favor of those. Leave my Ashen Ghouls alone, MTGO Classic Tribal zombie decks can do without.

[CHA1N5]

If you have an actual point to make, make it. If you see a flaw in my argument, then point it out. But don't try to hide behind insults.

Matt, I no longer have any interest in convincing you of anything.  You and I clearly have too many different values regarding this situation. I'm sorry if you're insulted, but it only serves to demonstrate how your standpoint is entirely foreign and obscure to me.

[dicemanx]

Old cards such as Beta cards are written in colloquial English, not Magic terminology. Look at Khabal Ghoul or Alpha Disenchant. Cards in those days did not use Magic terminology, they used natural English words in a natural-language manner. And the English meaning of "must" is clear.

It's clear to me that if you want to untap the card during untap, you must skip a turn. But its also intuitive that if another effect can untap the card, you don't have to skip a turn. It's how we played the card 12 years ago, because that was our interpretation of the text. It's also how a new player is likely to interpret the card now by my estimation. Too bad the new errata butchers this natural interpretation; this smells like power level errata all over again.

At least the card is salvaged by Reliquat. I also bet that Gottlieb is shitting himself - he thought he'd pull a fast one and give us what we wanted (a removal of the time counters), but at the same time keep the card totally neutrered...or so he thought. Reliquat to the rescue!

[Matt]

I have a nagging suspcion that I may have argued something incoherently somewhere, but I am not sure what. I hve a suspicion that I am trying to rationalize something I know isn't true, but I am not sure what that is or how crucial to my overall argument it is.

I feel that to be intellectually honest I should remove myself from the discussion until such time as I sort out my thoughts (and that will probably be never because I am tired of this). I will say my final piece and then remain silent. Anything I have said previously which contradicts the following should be counted as something I said in error, because I am sure of this:

"Time Vault doesn't untap normally during your upkeep; to untap it, you must skip a turn."

The debate is whether the above should be read as the regular untapping is replaced by a special "turn skipping" untap or whether it is "this card doesn't untap as normal; furthermore, it can only untap by skipping a turn." I think both are plausible, though the latter seems more natural to me, because in my experience this is what new players think, and because of the strength of the word "must."

The first (Menendian's proposed wording) isn't bad, and it's better than the time counter wordings, but it just doesn't seem like it matches the printed as well as the second to me. The card IS ambiguous as you say, but the weight of "what new players assume" is I think enough to give one the edge over the other.

Continuing with full disclosure, my position rests on an assumption: that Wotc's experience in teaching new players the game agrees with mine, and that in their professional opinion as people who study how new players learn the game, that the second wording is the more natural interpretation. If it were the other way, I would be forced to conclude Steven's wording would be the better.

That is about all I think I can say on the matter of Time Vault specifically.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I think both are plausible, though the latter seems more natural to me, because in my experience this is what new players think

I know that when I first saw Time Vault I thought it would let me take infinite turns with Voltaic Key until I learned that it had been errated with time counters.  I don't think that from the reading of the card a new player would conclude that it couldn't be untapped with other means.

[LotusHead]

Unless people want to argue over the meaning of what the word IS means, I think we can all agree that WOTC has made Time Vault do what it says, pretty much.

At the very least, there is no Time Counter.  Additionally, there is no At the Beginning of Upkeep, you may Break Time Vault's Ability Somehow...

We CAN "Untap" Time Vault whenever we want, as long as another Magic Card (tm) lets us do so, but not "Untap Time Vault because we want to, whenever we want to).

Wizards still hasn't let us know KINDA IN ADVANCE of some "Major" changes beyond Friday-Monday interludes.

Time Vault is still kinda breakable (SmokeStacks for one, Mizzium Transrelequiat for another) without Time Counter Thing.

No one is complaining about Cummulative Upkeep Age Counters, right?

[dicemanx]

I have a nagging suspcion that I may have argued something incoherently somewhere, but I am not sure what.

You didn't argue anything incoherently. You presented an opinion on how a new player would interpret the card, and some of us disagree with you about a new player's perception of what the card is "supposed" to do. You perhaps attribute someone having an alternate opinion to some failure on your part. That isn't the case.

I maintain that new players would interpret the text in the exact fashion that the card was played 12-13 years ago. The text told us that you must skip a turn to untap the card. Fine. So the card doesn't untap normally unless a turn is forfeited. But if another effect can untap the card, then you don't have to skip a turn. The card was played this way before it received errata. That gives insight into how "new" players handled the text.

WotC reaction back then wasn't "NO NO guys, you're playing it wrong - you misinterpret the text!". WotC's reaction was "damn, this card is too strong because of this 3 card combo with Animate Artifact and Instill Enregy. Let's ban it". Seems very clear how they intended the card to work.

Therefore, forcing the skipping of a turn if you untap Vault through any means looks like power errata to me.

[Erdrick]

Time Vault is still kinda breakable (SmokeStacks for one, Mizzium Transrelequiat for another) without Time Counter Thing.

How is it still breakable with SmokeStacks?  Who in their right mind would skip a turn that is still 2 whole turns from now?  Take Meditate for example: you usually cast it during your opponents end of turn, or if you are desperate for lock components then you may cast it during your main phase.  But, never before your draw.  Just look at my comments from an earlier post.

Since casual Staxs and Stasis decks are some of my favorites, my biggest beef is with when you get to untap it.  You focused on the word MUST, I would like to point out the lack of the word NEXT.  I always thought of the untapping more as a replacement effect for the turn, than the skipping a turn as a replacement effect for the untapping.  Ask anybody who used it for it's supposed "original intent", and they will tell you that they untapped it during their opponent's end of turn (just before their turn started).

[CHA1N5]

At the very least, there is no Time Counter.

Anyone who thinks this does not understand what we mean when we say "Power Level Errata".

There *is* still a time counter, they just made it so most people don't notice.

[ctthespian]

Is it because it was worded differently? But it has the same sort of text as Time Vault.

Well, for one thing, Brassy was reprinted in 4th, giving it entirely new text. Additionally, though, the original brass man text does not match TV at all.

Compare:

Time Vault does not untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.
Brass Man does not untap as normal; you must pay 1 during untap phase to untap it.

Brass Man's text clearly refers to an untap trigger (which converts to an upkeep trigger under more modern rules). TV has no such wording.

Actually this is the basis for why I viewd the uproar on TV's eratta silly in the first place.  If you look at the original text for TV and Brassy you'll see the statements before the semicolon.  To paraphrase them:  "X doesn't untap as normal."  Everything after the semicolon is what to do TO untap it.  (The semicolon is used to link two independant clauses that are closely releated in meaning.)  So it can be assumed that the costs were to be paid during the untap.  Back in ABU this was possible to my knowledge, just look at Brassy's text.

And as far as a delayed trigger inference, I can't see how you don't see the same wording in TV as Brass Man.   I see Effect before the semi colon (doesn't untap) and Cost after it (pay 1 or skip a turn.)

So I'm happy for the new eratta.  It seems close to the original intent of TV and doesn't allow for unintented abuse.

-Keith

[Dozer]

"Time Vault doesn't untap normally during your upkeep; to untap it, you must skip a turn."

The debate is whether the above should be read as the regular untapping is replaced by a special "turn skipping" untap or whether it is "this card doesn't untap as normal; furthermore, it can only untap by skipping a turn." I think both are plausible, though the latter seems more natural to me, because in my experience this is what new players think, and because of the strength of the word "must."

What I see in the original wording is: To make Time Vault untap normally, you must skip a turn. What the original wording, even in colloquial English, does *not* say is: "When this untaps, skip a turn." The "must skip a turn"-part on the original is only connected to an untap that comes from the game rules. I think the semicolon is the telling aspect: The sentence isn't over, and both parts depend on each other only. The first part sets the "where and what", the second part gives the special condition to overcome the drawback.

The fact that early exploits had already happened in the first years of the game just goes to show that Time Vault is simply mis-constructed. The effect it had/has was/is too strong for the game. (I disagree with that, but that's apparently the case, looking at the recent errata and Richard Garfield's original comments at removing the card.) I always understood Time Vault to say mean:

"Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step unless you skip your next turn.
: Take another turn after this one."

Flame Fusillade would still not work, but Voltaic Key would, or anything else that untaps the artifact. That's my interpretation of how the Vault was intended... but since we'll never finish this debate anyway, let's just wait and see what Aaron Forsythe has to say in Friday.

Oh, and you can find all current changes to the Oracle collected by Yawgatog here, in case that hasn't been posted yet (I admit, didn't check).

[Yare]

"Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step unless you skip your next turn.
: Take another turn after this one."

Flame Fusillade would still not work, but Voltaic Key would, or anything else that untaps the artifact. That's my interpretation of how the Vault was intended... but since we'll never finish this debate anyway, let's just wait and see what Aaron Forsythe has to say in Friday.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these sentiments, particularly the "let's wait til Friday" one.  I feel like we've hashed out about everything there is to hash out until then. 

[zeus-online]

I remember building a casual time vault deck a looong time ago, with several ways to dig out the restricted voltaic key in order to take infinite turns... I definetly was surprised to see the time counters back then.

/Zeus

[parallax]

I remember building a casual time vault deck a looong time ago, with several ways to dig out the restricted voltaic key in order to take infinite turns... I definetly was surprised to see the time counters back then.

/Zeus

Exactly. I have a hard time believing that the most natural interpretation of this card is anything other than the one that everyone used before they ever errataed it in the first place.

[Norm4eva]

Waylay was printed under 5th edition rules, and when it was printed, it was not possible to make it into Ball Lightning. Sixth edition rules concerning turn structure interacting with the tokens' sacrifice wording caused the problem, just like the new concept of triggered ability interacting with Mox Diamond would have made it work in ways it never had before. . . I do agree that Waylay's errata is a mistake, but the cure is worse than the disease: the way to make Waylay work as it did under 5th edition rules is to give the tokens (ugh) Substance.

Rules change all the time, cards gain and lose functionality because of it.  Legends don't work the same anymore, to cite a recent example.  The targetting rules changed so cards like Decimate have an arguably improved function.  So there seems to be an established precedent for just changing the rules and allowing old cards to just function under the new ones.  Where's the beef?

[CHA1N5]

Rules change all the time, cards gain and lose functionality because of it.  Legends don't work the same anymore, to cite a recent example.  The targetting rules changed so cards like Decimate have an arguably improved function.  So there seems to be an established precedent for just changing the rules and allowing old cards to just function under the new ones.  Where's the beef?

Granted.  Please cite the rule that made the 1994 function of Time Vault no longer work.

[LotusHead]

Time Vault is still kinda breakable (SmokeStacks for one, Mizzium Transrelequiat for another) without Time Counter Thing.

How is it still breakable with SmokeStacks?  Who in their right mind would skip a turn that is still 2 whole turns from now?  Take Meditate for example: you usually cast it during your opponents end of turn, or if you are desperate for lock components then you may cast it during your main phase.  But, never before your draw.  Just look at my comments from an earlier post.

From my expierience with Time Bandits (TimeVault, LodeStone Myr, Flame Fusilade Stax), having a SmokeStack in play with even 1 counter, plus any other lock peice (Chalice for 0/1 Sphere, etc) makes Time Vault Awesome.

You skip your turn (yes, I used to "skip my turn" at end of opponent's turn) and watch your opponents

I stand corrected (I think).

Time Vault is ass at skipping your turn because you have to (usually) be IN your turn, sacking permanents to smokestack, etc. 
Hello Chronatog!

[Spacebalzz]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, as I've I skipped a couple of pages of this post to avoid all the "Time Vault is gonna be so awesome" banter, but what happens if they removed the power level errata from Flash?  I remember the errata came when Flash had too much synergy with Academy Rector, most often used to go get Bargain for 1U.  With a plethora of broken enchantments and combos that require them in vintage, it seems that this would have effect on the vintage environment.  Thoughts?

Also, if we're going to be kicking it back to original card texts, then perhaps we should return Floral Spuzzem to his rightful place as the smartest card in magic.  If you remember correctly, in the original legends text, it notes "If Floral Spuzzem attacks and isn't blocked, then Floral Spuzzem chooses an artifact..." Come on R&D, let the Spuzzem do some thinking again. 

[parallax]

Actually, I looked Flash up earlier and they didn't bother to fix the obvious power-level errata on it.

[Jacob Orlove]

Waylay was printed under 5th edition rules, and when it was printed, it was not possible to make it into Ball Lightning. Sixth edition rules concerning turn structure interacting with the tokens' sacrifice wording caused the problem, just like the new concept of triggered ability interacting with Mox Diamond would have made it work in ways it never had before. . . I do agree that Waylay's errata is a mistake, but the cure is worse than the disease: the way to make Waylay work as it did under 5th edition rules is to give the tokens (ugh) Substance.

Rules change all the time, cards gain and lose functionality because of it.  Legends don't work the same anymore, to cite a recent example.  The targetting rules changed so cards like Decimate have an arguably improved function.  So there seems to be an established precedent for just changing the rules and allowing old cards to just function under the new ones.  Where's the beef?

The 6th edition rules change was different because they were literally rewriting the rules of the game, and they knew that if a ton of cards suddenly started working differently, players would be even more upset. Thus, they errata'd a lot of cards to preserve their pre-6th functionality (eg Winter Orb and Howling Mine got "~this~ turns off if tapped" errata).

[Norm4eva]

Rules change all the time, cards gain and lose functionality because of it.  Legends don't work the same anymore, to cite a recent example.  The targetting rules changed so cards like Decimate have an arguably improved function.  So there seems to be an established precedent for just changing the rules and allowing old cards to just function under the new ones.  Where's the beef?

Granted.  Please cite the rule that made the 1994 function of Time Vault no longer work.

Oh I wasn't talking about Time Vault.  I'm talking about my goddamned Waylays.  I'm a little kid, man.

The 6th edition rules change was different because they were literally rewriting the rules of the game, and they knew that if a ton of cards suddenly started working differently, players would be even more upset. Thus, they errata'd a lot of cards to preserve their pre-6th functionality (eg Winter Orb and Howling Mine got "~this~ turns off if tapped" errata).

Every Instant worked differently.  There's not a lot of Instants with "-this- can't be played AEOT".  I can't seem to find too many other cards given "Play -this- only during combat." errata either, except for maybe Flash Foliage.  No, at least in the world of Instants, Waylay got singled out.

[parallax]

Actually, only instants that set up delayed triggered abilities that trigger on an end step work differently.
A quick Gatherer search reveals:
Corpse Dance (already gives the creature haste)
Sacred Boon
Scars of the Veteran
Shallow Grave
Soulshriek
Tidal Wave (has defender)

None of these cards are significantly changed by the end-of-turn workaround as they either already have haste or have defender.

I think that 6th Edition rules change errata is a separate issue from power-level errata and should be discussed separately. There is some incentive for undoing it for the same reasons the power-level errata is being undone. i.e. so that cards will function as they are written, but it's not really the same thing.

[nataz]

why isn't this thread about cloud of faeries.

[Erdrick]

"Time Vault doesn't untap normally during your upkeep; to untap it, you must skip a turn."

The debate is whether the above should be read as the regular untapping is replaced by a special "turn skipping" untap or whether it is "this card doesn't untap as normal; furthermore, it can only untap by skipping a turn." I think both are plausible, though the latter seems more natural to me, because in my experience this is what new players think, and because of the strength of the word "must."

What I see in the original wording is: To make Time Vault untap normally, you must skip a turn. What the original wording, even in colloquial English, does *not* say is: "When this untaps, skip a turn." The "must skip a turn"-part on the original is only connected to an untap that comes from the game rules. I think the semicolon is the telling aspect: The sentence isn't over, and both parts depend on each other only. The first part sets the "where and what", the second part gives the special condition to overcome the drawback.

The fact that early exploits had already happened in the first years of the game just goes to show that Time Vault is simply mis-constructed. The effect it had/has was/is too strong for the game. (I disagree with that, but that's apparently the case, looking at the recent errata and Richard Garfield's original comments at removing the card.) I always understood Time Vault to say mean:

"Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step unless you skip your next turn.
: Take another turn after this one."

Flame Fusillade would still not work, but Voltaic Key would, or anything else that untaps the artifact. That's my interpretation of how the Vault was intended... but since we'll never finish this debate anyway, let's just wait and see what Aaron Forsythe has to say in Friday.

Oh, and you can find all current changes to the Oracle collected by Yawgatog here, in case that hasn't been posted yet (I admit, didn't check).

And I originally understood it as (in modern magic terms):

"Time Vault comes into play tapped.
: Untap Time Vault and skip your next turn.
If Time Vault would become untapped any other way, instead Time Vault remains tapped.
: Take an extra turn after this one."

Where Flame Fusillade would work, but Voltaic Key would not.


But looking at it now,

I am pretty sure that grammatically "to untap it, you must skip a turn" = "you must skip a turn to untap it"

And to me this implies that the skipping a turn is suppose to occur before the untapping.  (Not to mention the lack of the word "next" before "turn".)

So if there was no errata, I would now understand it as:

"Time Vault comes into play tapped.
If you would take a turn, you may instead untap Time Vault.
If Time Vault would become untapped any other way, instead Time Vault remains tapped.
: Take an extra turn after this one."

[Harkius]

Waylay was printed under 5th edition rules, and when it was printed, it was not possible to make it into Ball Lightning. Sixth edition rules concerning turn structure interacting with the tokens' sacrifice wording caused the problem, just like the new concept of triggered ability interacting with Mox Diamond would have made it work in ways it never had before. . . I do agree that Waylay's errata is a mistake, but the cure is worse than the disease: the way to make Waylay work as it did under 5th edition rules is to give the tokens (ugh) Substance.

Rules change all the time, cards gain and lose functionality because of it.  Legends don't work the same anymore, to cite a recent example.  The targetting rules changed so cards like Decimate have an arguably improved function.  So there seems to be an established precedent for just changing the rules and allowing old cards to just function under the new ones.  Where's the beef?

The 6th edition rules change was different because they were literally rewriting the rules of the game, and they knew that if a ton of cards suddenly started working differently, players would be even more upset. Thus, they errata'd a lot of cards to preserve their pre-6th functionality (eg Winter Orb and Howling Mine got "~this~ turns off if tapped" errata).

This is not actually correct. Winter Orb and Howling Mine had this functionality before. What they did was to clarify that all artifacts are normally active regardless of their tapped or untapped state, with the exception of these two (and Static Orb, too, I think).

Harkius

[Yare]

This is not actually correct. Winter Orb and Howling Mine had this functionality before. What they did was to clarify that all artifacts are normally active regardless of their tapped or untapped state, with the exception of these two (and Static Orb, too, I think).

Harkius

I can confirm that under old rules, artifacts that were tapped were turned "off," like Trinisphere.  Unfortunately, I do not have a source.

[Jacob Orlove]

That is what I meant by "preserve their pre-6th functionality". I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, actually.

[Norm4eva]

I think that 6th Edition rules change errata is a separate issue from power-level errata and should be discussed separately. There is some incentive for undoing it for the same reasons the power-level errata is being undone. i.e. so that cards will function as they are written, but it's not really the same thing.

That's not what it was though.  A quick Google search for 'waylay errata' brings, among other things, a DCI Judge discussion which roughly outlines the motivation for choosing this particular method of 'fixing' the 'problem'.

> I understand the reasoning for the errata ( are you planning to errata
> Pestilence, thawing Glaciers and Sneak Attack too? )  I just think it's to
> limiting on the card.
...
> I still like "You may not play ~this~ during the End Phase" better, since
> it could be carbon-copied to Thawing Glaciers, Pestilence, et al, but
> Waylay is the main problem card, and this repairs it.
...
> I agree.  The loophole should be fixed not the cards.    The whole point of
> Classic was to simplify things and we are going in the wrong direction...
...
>         The other major rationale behind Classic rules is to create a core rule
> set that is as close to static as possible. To this end, R&D and everyone
> involved with rules development would prefer to change individual cards in
> order to fix problems rather than restructure the rules to fix either
> "minor" problems or individual cards. Clearly, changing the way "at end of
> turn" works (which involves completely restructuring the turn) so that
> Waylay isn't "broken" (which it isn't in any event) is a poor way to fix
> this problem. You don't kill the termites by burning down the house.
>
> ...alteration of the rules is a Bad Thing (tm), and it is far wiser to
> evaluate cards individually or by categories rather than alter the rules to
> fix either "problems" that arise with new cards, or "complications" that
> arose from rendering older cards compatible with the new rules set.
>

So putting this together, R&D tried to simplify the rules with sixth
(I'm still as confused as heck, but Wizards can right me off as a
simpleton judge).  They tried to fix infinite recursion with the new
rules but missed the mark and introduced a new (lesser) devil; the
ability to do things effectively "after the end of turn".  My first vote
is, as unpalatable as that may sound, to fix the rules to maintain the
intent and integrity of "end of turn" meaning precisely that.

The next-most palatable fix is to errata the card.  However, this is
obviously a problem with a category of cards, requiring a group fix, so
my second vote would be "You may not play ~this~ during the End Phase".
It's simple, understandable and preserves the best integrity and intent
of the card, while giving a fix for the group.

So, R&D selects "Play only during combat."  This is a fix for this
particular card, and cannot be applied to other similarly affected
cards.  This errata significanly changes how and when you can use waylay
and practicaly neuters it.  This would be my relucant third choice fix,
I also suspect that there is a way to circumvent this errata.

Banning has been the vehicle of choice in the past, but that means even
worse player flack.  Rate that as an awful fourth choice.

IMO too many cards have been banned when they should have had an errata
issued eg, memory jar should have had the equivalent of the fifth
edition "comes into play tapped" added to it.  Wizards R&D is moving in
the right direction by using errata (but let's not get too many of them
please), but has a way to go in giving us in judgedom errata which Joe
Player inuitively understands and agrees with.
...
Seriously, errata (and ruling) announcements should not create so much
discussion.  This means that they are not being thought through clearly
enough, with enough consideration, in the first place.  Personally, this
is my observation of how fourth and fifth edition rules developed, and
Wizards is repeating the same recipe now with sixth.

Seems clear that it's not about preserving "pre-6th functionality".  A "No play AEOT" could have been issued across the board for a number of cards to maintain their original intent, but that's not what happened.  Waylay got singled out and got kicked in the pills.  Honestly, it seems like the same thing happened to Time Vault.  I understand that it works as it does for a reason, but it's roughly akin to issuing WGD an errata like "Remove all non-enchantment permanents you control from the game" and then saying 'Look, it mostly does what it did before, so it's pretty much intact now.'  Look at all the major cards that shoulda-but-didn't get their text reinstated; it's because they're broken and everyone knows it.  Flash is a pretty glaring example.  Debt of Loyalty was probably an honest mistake, but we seem to have the opportunity to milk most of the rest of their 'oopsies'.

[jro]

I think that 6th Edition rules change errata is a separate issue from power-level errata and should be discussed separately. There is some incentive for undoing it for the same reasons the power-level errata is being undone. i.e. so that cards will function as they are written, but it's not really the same thing.

I don't believe that it is an entirely separate issue, as I believe that most rules change errata is a consequence of changes in power level brought on by the new rules.

For instance, both Diamond Kaleidoscope and Lion's Eye Diamond from Mirage had mana abilities that said "sac something: get some mana".  But only Lion's Eye Diamond has errata that says the abilitiy may only be played as an instant.  Why?  Because the power-level of Lion's Eye Diamond became too high under the new rules, while Diamond Kaleidoscope is still garbage.

This is true of many other cards from that era as well: if the rules changes affected tournament play, the card was errata'd (Thawing Glaciers, Waylay).  Most other cards were left as is (Corpse Dance, Hornet Cannon, Master of Arms).  Recently, long-standing "rules errata" on the Karoo lands from Visions was removed so that they play as written.  (I'm sure it's no mistake that this happened after the printing of the superior Ravnica block bouncelands.)  The same exact sort of errata that was removed from the Karoos has been left intact on Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins.

So, clearly, rules change errata is often made and maintained because of changes in power level, not just to maintain consistency of function.

The 6th edition rules change was different because they were literally rewriting the rules of the game, and they knew that if a ton of cards suddenly started working differently, players would be even more upset. Thus, they errata'd a lot of cards to preserve their pre-6th functionality (eg Winter Orb and Howling Mine got "~this~ turns off if tapped" errata).

But the timing for the errata of many cards coincided not with the release of the 6th edition rules, but rather when those cards proved too powerful in tournament settings.  6E rules went into effect on June 1, 1999.  Waylay was errata'd on July 28 following its succes at Nationals in early July.  Thawing Glaciers didn't receive errata until November 1.  (Dates taken from here and here.)

PS.  If a mod thinks this belongs in a new thread, feel free to move it.