Power Level Errata: They're removing it!

[jpmeyer]

It's not that the cards proved "too powerful", but that WotC was dealing with a huge number of cards, many of which actually required heavy rewrites to preserve their functionality.  Thawing Glaciers, for example was two blocks removed from Standard.  Also, I was actively reading the coverage of Worlds 99 at that time, and every day of the tourney they were issuing huge amounts of errata because players were finding tons of loopholes in the words or were finding wordings that completely broke (not in the Magic sense, but in the "doesn't work anymore" sense) the cards.  One of the formats that year was Extended, so there was an enormous cardpool and WotC couldn't forsee all of the ways that the cards would work under their new wordings.

I've been having a big problem with a lot of the discussions on power level errata because people are constantly bringing up cards outside of their historical contetxt.

[Matt]

I don't see why they can't use the Thawing Glaciers wording on Waylay:

Put three 2/2 white Knight creature tokens into play. Remove them from the game at end of turn. If it's the end phase, remove them from the game.

This would mean that Fires of Yavimaya + Waylay still works, as you would expect it to if you were only reading the cards, without Oracle. I think if we proposed this to MaGo, in the next update they might make this change.

[parallax]

Fires of Yavimaya + Waylay already works. You can play Waylay during the beginning of combat step.

[Norm4eva]

jpmeyer
I've been having a big problem with a lot of the discussions on power level errata because people are constantly bringing up cards outside of their historical contetxt.

Well it's not really relevant anymore, is it?  Think about in Type 1, when cards hop on and off the restricted list, because they're "no longer a concern" or whatever.  Case in point, Squirrel-Craft; it's legal in Vintage but who cares?  In the same world where it's ok to Vial out Faeries/Gix and get the mana for it, Waylay's a minor player.
The worst part of all this is it starts talking about "intent of the card" crap; WGD went round and round, now people dissect Time Vault and its brethren and try to find some reason why it should(n't) be worded as it is today.  This is something that can't be judged because a card's functions vary; one person sees a flying trampling beatstick, another person sees a combo with Necromancy.  It does both, but whether or not this was the intention is, without just walking up and asking R&D, unclear.  This is one of the most basic flaws behind power errata, as when does this remanipulation of a card's function become abuse?  And if it is abuse, when given enough time, will be be able to answer that abuse such that it's 'just another combo' in a sea of combos?  Aside from metagame reports and time, there's no real way to answer these questions, and even that is subjective when you consider 'buried treasure' cards; Food Chain Goblins utilizes several of these, and no one would have given them a second thought until that Japanese guy said "Recruiter = Necropotence".  The only fair way to do it is to make all things equal and then see where the chips fall.  It looked like they were going to do that this time but... such is clearly not the case.

[jro]

It's not that the cards proved "too powerful", but that WotC was dealing with a huge number of cards, many of which actually required heavy rewrites to preserve their functionality.  Thawing Glaciers, for example was two blocks removed from Standard.  Also, I was actively reading the coverage of Worlds 99 at that time, and every day of the tourney they were issuing huge amounts of errata because players were finding tons of loopholes in the words or were finding wordings that completely broke (not in the Magic sense, but in the "doesn't work anymore" sense) the cards.  One of the formats that year was Extended, so there was an enormous cardpool and WotC couldn't forsee all of the ways that the cards would work under their new wordings.

I've been having a big problem with a lot of the discussions on power level errata because people are constantly bringing up cards outside of their historical context.

Okay, then let's talk about historical context.  Here is a notice given to all players during Worlds 1999.  Worlds took place in early August.  You can see that they were aware that Thawing Glaciers doesn't work the way it should, but they chose not to stop it, for the reason that it wasn't considered "clearly broken".  The letter clearly states that Phyrexian Dreadnought was given errata while "Rogue Elephant or Harvest Wurm were ignored, since they're not 12/12 creatures."  And in the 7 years since then, neither the elephant or the wurm ever received errata to make them work like the errata'd Phyrexian Dreadnought.  Why didn't they change them?  Because their power level didn't warrant it.  Why did they eventually change Thawing Glaciers (in November)?  Because they realized it was too powerful.  Why did they revert Karoos to the written text?  Because their power level is extremely low anyway.

This is why I think that rules errata are a type of power level errata, and should be discussed when discussing power level errata as a whole.  Then again, I don't think there are separate and distinct categories of errata at all; I think the reasons for why any particular card receives a particular erratum are multiple, and include at least power level, intent, and any printed texts of the card.  Why R&D can't articulate that in a coherent policy I don't know, but hopefully it's something that they are working on.

[parallax]

There are no separate and distinct categories of errata. There is only errata, the reasoning behind the errata, and Wizards stated policies regarding errata. Wizards has stated that power reasons alone are not valid reasons for errata. But Waylay was not errataed to fix its power level. It's true that its power did increase, but Waylay was errataed because it worked one way when it was printed, the rules changed, and suddenly it worked differently. Wizards decided to errata Waylay to work in a similar way to its original functionality. Just as they did with Winter Orb and Howling Mine. Just because power level was affected doesn't make it power-level errata.

[jpmeyer]

Your link is from the very beginning of Worlds, which is why there are only four cards on that list.  As Worlds went on, card after card came up.  And to make matters worse, that Necropotence wording had to be changed almost immediately once Worlds began because it made the player wait an entire turn before getting his cards!

Also, Scott Johns defined "power level errata" in his column as "errata which was issued to stop degenerate combos".  Great Whale + Recurring Nightmare is a degenerate combo because it generates infinite mana.  Time Vault + untapper is a degenerate combo because it gives infinite turns.  There is no "combo" with Thawing Glaciers, Debt of Loyalty, or Lotus Vale.  The abuse is not with cards, but with rules.  In this regard, Worldgorger Dragon/Necromancy works perfectly.  The Dragon removes everything when he comes into play and returns everything when he leaves play.  He does just that when you Necromancy him.

Another example of failing to understand historical context: Lion's Eye Diamond.  Before 6th Edition rules, you needed to tap your mana and then play your spell (in fact, Dave Mills was giving a match loss in the finals of a Pro Tour for playing spells and then tapping mana!).  After 6th Edition rules, you play your spell and then tap your mana.  Thus, LED didn't need "play this as an instant" on it originally to keep you from using it to cast the spells in your hand because back then the rules required you to sacrifice it first anyway.

[Godder]

It's quite conceivable that Waylay was missed, along with the Parallax cards. A sizeable pile of cards were done, and it's easy to overlook a few here and there, especially if you don't think of them as having power-level errata.

If rules-based errata is just power errata with another name, perhaps we should consider the original printing of Abeyance (mana abilities are activated abilities) - it would do what the card says it does, but wouldn't be far off a cantrip Time Walk for much the same cost. One of those on Isochron Scepter would be awesome, if highly unpleasant for someone...

[jro]

Also, Scott Johns defined "power level errata" in his column as "errata which was issued to stop degenerate combos".  Great Whale + Recurring Nightmare is a degenerate combo because it generates infinite mana.  Time Vault + untapper is a degenerate combo because it gives infinite turns.  There is no "combo" with Thawing Glaciers, Debt of Loyalty, or Lotus Vale.  The abuse is not with cards, but with rules.  In this regard, Worldgorger Dragon/Necromancy works perfectly.  The Dragon removes everything when he comes into play and returns everything when he leaves play.  He does just that when you Necromancy him.

I don't think there was ever a degenerate combo with Cloud of Faeries (at least, not in 2 cards), and I don't know if the Treachery / Replenish combo can be fairly called degenerate, since it didn't go infinite either, so I might object to Johns's equation of "power level errata" with "degenerate combo errata" for the case of those cards.  But I'm entirely willing to grant that the cards that have just been reverted were initially changed for different reasons than cards like Thawing Glaciers.  That doesn't change the fact that cards printed before 6th edition that have identical rules issues have been treated differently because of power concerns.  It would be nice if R&D decided to address that disparity at some point.  Hopefully Forsythe will do it tomorrow.

[Erdrick]

Just a quick question.  Does anyone know why Mox Diamond has different errata than Lotus Vale and Dreadnought?

[Yare]

Well, for L

Just a quick question. Does anyone know why Mox Diamond has different errata than Lotus Vale and Dreadnought?

Well, for Lotus Vale, it's probably because it isn't a spell, and therefore a cost for playing it would be unusual

For Dreadnought, I'm leaning toward power errata, but there may be other reasons.  Others are free to contribute.

[jro]

For Dreadnought, I'm leaning toward power errata, but there may be other reasons.  Others are free to contribute.

All I know is, if Dreadnought were worded like Mox Diamond, then MaskNought would become MaskFlashNought, because Flash bypasses additional costs.

[jpmeyer]

Just a quick question.  Does anyone know why Mox Diamond has different errata than Lotus Vale and Dreadnought?

This is actually a tricky question because Mox Diamond and Phyrexian Dreadnought are the only cards in Magic that I'm seeing in Gatherer that are worded the way that they are for the type of card that they are.  What I mean by this is that Mox Diamond's wording only appears on instants and sorceries, while Phyrexian Dreadnought's wording only appears on lands.

(and if the question is "Is Phyrexian Dreadnought's wording power level errata?" the answer is "Yes", with the combo being Pandemonium/Phyrexian Dreadnought)

[Matt]

Then again, I don't think there are separate and distinct categories of errata at all; I think the reasons for why any particular card receives a particular erratum are multiple, and include at least power level, intent, and any printed texts of the card.  Why R&D can't articulate that in a coherent policy I don't know, but hopefully it's something that they are working on.

Are you saying that Great Whale and Grip of Chaos are the same?

Wizards has stated that power reasons alone are not valid reasons for errata.

True but this was not always their policy. Great Whale's errata was pretty clearly done for no reason other than to weaken the card.

All I know is, if Dreadnought were worded like Mox Diamond, then MaskNought would become MaskFlashNought, because Flash bypasses additional costs.

I think you've got it backwards - I think he's asking, why doesn't Mox say "If this would come into play, discard a land. If you do, put it in play; if you don't, put it in the graveyard."

I think they SHOULD make it say that, because it does a better job of replicating what the phrase "When Mox Diamond comes into play, discard a land" used to mean at the time the card was printed. At the time, that wording was not a triggered ability - CIP abilities happened immediately. But it was also not a cost, which matters a great deal when facing counterspells.

[jro]

Then again, I don't think there are separate and distinct categories of errata at all; I think the reasons for why any particular card receives a particular erratum are multiple, and include at least power level, intent, and any printed texts of the card.  Why R&D can't articulate that in a coherent policy I don't know, but hopefully it's something that they are working on.

Are you saying that Great Whale and Grip of Chaos are the same?

I have no idea what you mean by "the same" here.  They were obviously errata'd for different reasons.  I'm saying that categorizing those reasons exclusively is wrong.

And I disagree that the Great Whale errata was solely for power reasons.  Great Whale was intended to be a free fatty, not a mana engine.  Intent was also then a factor in issuing the errata.

But look, I don't care to argue my position anymore, so you win.

[Jacob Orlove]

Further discussion should be in the Forsyther article thread, because a lot of the stuff here is obsoleted by what he said.