Official Errata Explanation

[Machinus]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af127

So why did Time Vault get this errata when its Alpha brother Mana Vault did not, despite their similar printed wordings? The truth is that Mana Vault was printed more recently with different wording. Now that the majority of Mana Vaults in existence have printed wording that works—regardless of what the initial Alpha intent was—we are beholden to that functionality, and Mana Vault’s Oracle wording is the modern equivalent of that.

[andrewpate]

I also found it interesting that he points out the significance of the Menendian/Shay article specifically.  Almost as if they've been reading TMD since Monday and seeing the speculations as to its impact.

[Matt]

At this point I would like to open the floor to giving me praise for accurately predicting R&D's stance on virtually every issue, or alternately, base and atrociously-punctuated accusations that they stole every justification straight from my posts.

I just sent MaGo an email suggesting that during the next update, he wouldn't consider changing Waylay to:

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.

I give myself good odds that he goes through with it. If it works, I'll follow up with my Mox Diamond suggestion!

[Yare]

Only thing I'm surprised about is that Debt of Loyalty wasn't mentioned.  Oh, well I guess I was surprised by the Menendian/Shay reference.  It also is fairly clear that WotC reads TheManaDrain, which in my opinion is probably a good thing.

The Time Vault explanation was almost identical to what Matt was saying in the other threed

[Necrologia]

The key question we asked ourselves was, “When this card was made, was the intent that it be incredibly easy to skirt the drawback?” We went with “No.”

The article was good for being so clear, but that one line irked me a bit. I understand their reasoning, but saying that their primary motive was to keep Time Vault from being abusable seems pretty darn close to power level errata to me. Insert random comment about Animate Artifact+Instill Energy here.

I'm not trying to rile anyone up, just making a neutral observation I suppose.

[Vegeta2711]

I understand their reasoning, but saying that their primary motive was to keep Time Vault from being abusable seems pretty darn close to power level errata to me.

Yeah, because if they really wanted to hose it, they totally would've left in the loophole that let's it get used w/ Mizz for infinite turns. The combo that was figured out like .02 seconds after we saw the new errata by multiple people.

 

[Juggernaut GO]

I just want to point out that mizzium copy thing/time vault  will be no where near as busted as vault/fusilade.

you cant recoup mizzuim copy thing, and it takes as much mana as severance/belcher.

[Nastaboi]

Zodiac Dragon / Rukh Egg – Printed intent was that these cards only worked from play. “From play” is merely clarification. If it didn't say that, they would still only work from play since that's the default. The text was added because the cards are (obviously) a bit confusing without it, and this is the modern template for this clause.

So Zodiac Dragon won't break our format wide open. The funny thing is that no one has yet to dream about 4 mana they would get by discarding a Su-Chi to TFK.

[Erdrick]

I noticed that Soul Burn no longer regenerates.  Has anyone found any other changes / corrections from yesterday to today?

[parallax]

I see that Portal is still errataed out of existence.

[Norm4eva]

Waylay / Thawing Glaciers – These cards had their intended functionality disrupted by a rules change. If we're willing to “leave intent intact” by making cards better (the aforementioned Ertai's Familiar and Armor of Thorns with substance), then we have to be willing to “leave intent intact” by making them worse as well. The end-of-turn phase didn't exist as we know it when these cards were printed.

I still don't buy this, man.  If for no other reason than pretty much every other Instant in existance can be played at end of turn, whether it's a good idea or not.  You don't break an opponent's Standstill during their second main phase.  There's a big difference between playing Lightning Bolt AEOT to kill a guy versus playing it during the second main phase; you could argue that every Bolt and bounce spell ever was 'never meant' to be nearly as effective as it is, since before the rules change you could just play another guy.  I really don't think this is picayune, because there's a pretty wide precedent for letting people play every other Instant at end of turn - just not this one.

[Matt]

Waylay / Thawing Glaciers – These cards had their intended functionality disrupted by a rules change. If we're willing to “leave intent intact” by making cards better (the aforementioned Ertai's Familiar and Armor of Thorns with substance), then we have to be willing to “leave intent intact” by making them worse as well. The end-of-turn phase didn't exist as we know it when these cards were printed.

I still don't buy this, man.  If for no other reason than pretty much every other Instant in existance can be played at end of turn, whether it's a good idea or not.  You don't break an opponent's Standstill during their second main phase.  There's a big difference between playing Lightning Bolt AEOT to kill a guy versus playing it during the second main phase; you could argue that every Bolt and bounce spell ever was 'never meant' to be nearly as effective as it is, since before the rules change you could just play another guy.  I really don't think this is picayune, because there's a pretty wide precedent for letting people play every other Instant at end of turn - just not this one.

My suggested woding fixes this.

[Jacob Orlove]

I want to see errata for Master of Arms, then. That is a card that got destroyed by rules changes, but never saved by errata.

[Harkius]

I want to see errata for Master of Arms, then. That is a card that got destroyed by rules changes, but never saved by errata.

What? Is this a joke and I am obtuse or am I missing something?

Nevertheless, I wouldn't necessarily agree that this article proves that they are reading TMD. Rather it means that they read their email. How many of us emailed them about this issue within 48 hours of the last announcement?

Finally, this statement irks me:

The key question we asked ourselves was, “When this card was made, was the intent that it be incredibly easy to skirt the drawback?” We went with “No.”

The article was good for being so clear, but that one line irked me a bit. I understand their reasoning, but saying that their primary motive was to keep Time Vault from being abusable seems pretty darn close to power level errata to me. Insert random comment about Animate Artifact+Instill Energy here.

I'm not trying to rile anyone up, just making a neutral observation I suppose.

This is not tantamount to power-level errata. Power-level errata would be designed to bring the power of a card into line. This was, rather, tantamount to saying what has always been the party line: Time Vault was not meant to be (ab)used the way that it has been and that the errata all along has been intended to prevent the misunderstandings, causing it to be used as intended.

Now, I don't think that they can honestly claim to know the original intent. And they don't make that claim. They finally admitted that they are guessing. This means that no one will ever really know, and that we will simply have to live with their guess, like it or not.

Edit: Good job, Matt. Way to think like a corporate shill.

Harkius

[Jacob Orlove]

I want to see errata for Master of Arms, then. That is a card that got destroyed by rules changes, but never saved by errata.

What? Is this a joke and I am obtuse or am I missing something?

Under pre-6th rules, tapped blockers did not get to assign combat damage. Hence, Master at Arms's ability actually did something relevant. If they're truly interested in restoring all cards to printed intent, then his ability should tap the blockers and have them not deal combat damage.

[Harkius]

Ah. Yes. I remember now. Regeneration used to remove them from combat and what not.

My bad.

Harkius

[Jacob Orlove]

Ah. Yes. I remember now. Regeneration used to remove them from combat and what not.

My bad.

Harkius

Regeneration still removes a creature from combat. I'm talking about stuff like Icy.

[Norm4eva]

My suggested woding fixes this.

Would you lobby to have it put on every Instant ever printed before 6th Ed, then?  Because unless I'm mistaken that's more or less how Instants functioned before 6th, because the end-step was so different.

[Matt]

My suggested woding fixes this.

Would you lobby to have it put on every Instant ever printed before 6th Ed, then?  Because unless I'm mistaken that's more or less how Instants functioned before 6th, because the end-step was so different.

No, that's just silly, and moreover, I don't think you even read my wording.

[Norm4eva]

Of course I did.  If it's the end step, RFG.  I get what you're after here, and it's not as if you're wrong, the card would function the way it did before.  But no other instant would.  Make them all fizzle at the end step, or else it's just playing favorites.

[Ephraim]

Of course I did.  If it's the end step, RFG.  I get what you're after here, and it's not as if you're wrong, the card would function the way it did before.  But no other instant would.  Make them all fizzle at the end step, or else it's just playing favorites.

Absolutely untrue.  You are forgetting that the entire purpose of Wizards' new policy is to bring a card's function in line with what was intended when the card was printed.  Magic has always had the functionality that you could say, "Before the end of your turn..."  It meant that you were casting the spell during a main phase, but that is besides the point.  They decided when they created 6th Ed. rules that they wanted a formal opportunity for instant-speed effects during the end-of-turn.  Did this make instants better? Absolutely.  That was part of the intent of the rules change.  It did not, however, change the way that Wizards intended for them to function -- except for Waylay.  They intended for Waylay to be a defensive spell and the rules change wildly altered its functionality.  Forsythe's comparison to Armor of Thorns is dead on.  If the rules change simply altered the optimal timing for playing the card, no big deal.  If the rules change added or removed functionality from the card, then errata is appropriate for bringing the card into line with the initially-intended functionality.

[unknown.root]

Does anyone else agree that now that Waylay is outside of Type 2, it safe to go back to the 2W "ball lightening" card that is was in the past. I for one would not mind that in vintage, and it would make it playable again in other formats too.

Kevin

[Norm4eva]

Absolutely untrue.  You are forgetting that the entire purpose of Wizards' new policy is to bring a card's function in line with what was intended when the card was printed.  Magic has always had the functionality that you could say, "Before the end of your turn..."  It meant that you were casting the spell during a main phase, but that is besides the point.  They decided when they created 6th Ed. rules that they wanted a formal opportunity for instant-speed effects during the end-of-turn.  Did this make instants better? Absolutely.  That was part of the intent of the rules change.  It did not, however, change the way that Wizards intended for them to function -- except for Waylay.  They intended for Waylay to be a defensive spell and the rules change wildly altered its functionality.  Forsythe's comparison to Armor of Thorns is dead on.  If the rules change simply altered the optimal timing for playing the card, no big deal.  If the rules change added or removed functionality from the card, then errata is appropriate for bringing the card into line with the initially-intended functionality.

Fixed quote tags -Matt

The 'intent of the cards' thing can go round and round.  They did it with WGD, they did it with TV, and now little kids like me are doing it with Waylay.  Actually, I'm not trying to divine the intent, because I'm pretty sure that's pointless and subjective.  Fortunately for me this card has text that can be interpreted easily under modern Magic rules, unlike Time Vault of yore.

Magic has always had the functionality that you could say, "Before the end of your turn..."  It meant that you were casting the spell during a main phase, but that is besides the point.

It's not really beside the point, because as a good player surely you'd almost never play a spell during an opponent's 2nd main phase unless it were pertinent to do so.  There's a plethora of good plays that are optimized because of the end step and one couldn't possibly list them all.

It did not, however, change the way that Wizards intended for them to function -- except for Waylay.

Really?  You've looked at the Oracle wording for each Instant in the game and none of them are empowered by the end step like Waylay?  Can you really make this statement?  There's only like 1001 instants in Legacy; are you sure that Waylay is the only one that was boosted in its power and playability?
If you do some digging you realize that Waylay only got errata'd after it got widely played.  It might have been too good for old Type 2 but it seems a dated concern.  Honestly, there's no rationale for it now, whether or not it really breached its intent.

[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.

Wizards gave the card a hasty, jerry-rigged fix to squelch it and then never went back to do it up right (they had a lot of other, more important things to deal with at the time). No one ever had a problem with using original-wording Waylay and Recurring Nightmare to bring a Spirit of the Night back for your attack. That was a clever and fair use of Waylay that unfortunately was killed by the "un-thoughtful" errata, which is why I am pushing for the "Thaw" wording.

The "Combat" errata is not something they thought through and decided, "This is the best way to stop White Lightning," it was just a quick fix that's never gotten revisited. It is not like Time Vault or similar, and it does not in any way represent actual thought-out policy.

[Dakkon]

What kind of errata is Candelabra of Tawnos? was that a power-level errata or an error?

[jro]

I love Gottleib's construction of "printed intent", because it tries to steal the accuracy of what we can all agree on (what is printed on the card) and apply it to something that he can claim a superior subjective understanding of (the intent of the card) because he's the guy in charge.  So for Gottleib, being a "strong, strong believer that cards should have functionality that matches their printed intent" means being a strong, strong believer in Mark Gottleib.

I say if they want to errata cards away from how they are printed, they should reprint them, otherwise, if they have readily understandable readings in modern Magic terminology, leave them alone.  So I'll give him Time Vault, because Unlimited card text is to modern rules as Anglo-Saxon is to modern English.  But R&D should not maintain a queer limbo in which certain cards that were too good (or, in the case of Master of Arms, too bad) in the original Extended format because of rules changes are the only cards with errata related to power level.  Forsythe says they might even look at the Parallax cards again, and those had errata right in the Nemesis FAQ, not added years after the cards were released and (in the case of at least Thawing Glaciers) months after they had been used as written.

What really bugs me is that Forsythe doesn't address this inconsistency in how pre-6th edition cards are treated, i.e. Phyrexian Dreadnought gets errata while Rogue Elephant doesn't.  He says that the pre-6E cards kept their errata to match their intent.  So there's obviously a line where the intent matters less than the printed text on pre-6E cards if the power level of the card is low enough.  I'd like to know how R&D decides where to draw that line given that cards like Thawing Glaciers and Flash aren't all that likely to show up in Legacy decks today even if they did match their printed wordings.  R&D should let today's metagame decide which cards are too strong for the format, not a format from six years ago that no longer exists.  Meanwhile, cards like Lotus Vale remain utterly unplayable instead of their likely fate of banned in Legacy and restricted in Vintage.

Honestly, if Wizards were to make all these "rules change" cards match their printed text, isn't that something that the B&R lists couldn't handle?  Would a Vintage combo deck with Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, an improved LED, and a Mox Diamond-cum-Lotus Petal break the format so bad it would necessitate bannings?  Would Legacy lose that much as a format to see those cards banned?

[Matt]

What kind of errata is Candelabra of Tawnos? was that a power-level errata or an error?

Neither, it was just an updating. "Mono Artifact" meant you had to tap it to use it, before the invention of the tap symbol. As contrasted with "Poly Artifact" (Ashnod's Altar) and "Continuous Artifact" (Winter Orb).

[Harkius]

Ah. Yes. I remember now. Regeneration used to remove them from combat and what not.

My bad.

Harkius

Regeneration still removes a creature from combat. I'm talking about stuff like Icy.

See, this is why I don't play with creatures. :p

Harkius

[Cerryl]

Magic has always had the functionality that you could say, "Before the end of your turn..."  It meant that you were casting the spell during a main phase, but that is besides the point.  They decided when they created 6th Ed. rules that they wanted a formal opportunity for instant-speed effects during the end-of-turn.  Did this make instants better? Absolutely.  That was part of the intent of the rules change.  It did not, however, change the way that Wizards intended for them to function -- except for Waylay.  They intended for Waylay to be a defensive spell and the rules change wildly altered its functionality.

This is absolutely incorrect.  "Before the end of your turn..." NEVER meant durring your opponent's main phase.  In pre 6th edition rules, there were two phases following the main phase, the discard phase and the cleanup phase.  Players could play instants durring the discard phase.  In old school Magic, "Before the end of your turn..." meant durring your opponent's discard phase.  "End of turn" effects were processed after the discard phase, durring the cleanup phase, when no instants could be played.  That is why Waylay tokens couldn't carry over to the next turn under the old rules.

[jpmeyer]

I want to see errata for Master of Arms, then. That is a card that got destroyed by rules changes, but never saved by errata.

What? Is this a joke and I am obtuse or am I missing something?

Under pre-6th rules, tapped blockers did not get to assign combat damage. Hence, Master at Arms's ability actually did something relevant. If they're truly interested in restoring all cards to printed intent, then his ability should tap the blockers and have them not deal combat damage.

Aaron Forsythe mentioned in the talkback for that article that nobody had noticed Master of Arms, but now that someone in the thread brought it up, that they'll probably do something about it in the Time Spiral update.  Same with Mistform Wall.