Errata spawned by Sixth Edition rules...

D

Dune Echo

Guest
I think we should also address the large amount of errata that Sixth Edition is going to spawn. Think about what cards have already been errata'd because "it wasn't what the designers intended." I think that we should hold them responsible for making new rules which if you remember they bragged about how these new rules would add new complexity to tactics and strategy while simplifying card interaction. Instead of giving us that rules interaction, they errata every damn thing that becomes stronger in some way. I think this is related to the Waylay issue and should be addressed as well.
 
I

igfett

Guest
I like the 6th edition rules. for a complete overhaul, they let very little slip through the cracks. it could have been much worse. I don't see anything wrong with the rules. in fact, some of the stuff that was added in 6th edition, like the stack, i had always been using, for like the last couple years, in casual play, becuase it just makes sense
 
D

Dune Echo

Guest
I agree with you igfett, I'm just saying that they advertised and bragged how 6th was going to add so much to the strategy and then when people start figure out how to break cards even more under the new rules, they issue errata to fix the cards that are being used in a way "unlike what was originally intended." Look at them: Lion's Eye Diamond, Flash, Phyrexian Dreadnought, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, Waylay(!). They are trying to cover their asses when they didn't expect people to go back and try to break more cards in unforeseen ways. All we really need is a shit-load more errata and this is an important issue related to Waylay.
 
I

igfett

Guest
well, that erreta had to be issued, because the cards were written under the old rules, and their old wordings didn't make the cards work corectly anymore. what you are asking, though, is for a change in the 6th edition rules, to stop further erreta. any change, though, would just create more unforseen problems. I doubt there will be any other problems with wording under the 6th edition rules. they did the same thing they did to the diamond to a lot of cards with the release of the 6th rules, and it was one that got by without getting re-worded. no big deal. 3 of the things you mentioned wer because of new rules regarding anouncing spells, and coming into play abilities. if they hadn't changed the rules to include these new ones, there would be many more than 3 cards that needed re-wording. heck, the vale was gonna be re-worded whether they switched rules or not. it had been watched for a long time. anyway, this is beside the point. we will go one issue at a time, and the first issue is waylay. after that, if a majority of the members want to discuss this, we will. let's let it rest until then

-igfett
CPA Member
"respect my authority!"
 
D

Dune Echo

Guest
Igfett, I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that they need to just deal with the fact that they changed the rules and that cards now interact differently. They expected this. Instead of issuing this errata that makes cards that aren't useless or are stronger back the way they were, deal with it. Extended is quickly becoming like Classic anyway, just without the Power 9.
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
Dune Echo, I agree with you. Part of the package we were presented when they first announced the rule changes was that even though some things would work differently (like triggered effects) we wouldn't care, because the new rules would change the way other cards would work. It was supposed to be a trade-off, of a sort. I was rather looking forward to fresh new uses for lame cards like Waylay, and I'm somewhat disappointed the DCI didn't see fit to leave it be. This wasn't an environment altering earthshaking situation. This was simply a card that could be used to strengthen an ailing deck type, a card that actually improved diversity in the tournament scene. This is what's needed to freshen things up. This is what we were promised for accepting the new rules.
But they couldn't leave it alone. So now we're back to 2 or 3 weenie decks, LD, and Death. Yahoo.

TomB
CPA Member
"I do not teach. I simply reveal"
-Daudi, Femeref Tutor
 
M

Masticore

Guest
Im not so much mad at 6th rules. It just makes me mad that you could do a FUN thing namely Waylay but no...they had to errata it. I just seen that they have also reworded some more cards such as Undiscovered Paradise.
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not so much mad at all the rule changes either. In fact, I was very much in favor of dealing with triggered effects at instant speed, and death at 0 life. The mana pool deal is the way I've always played it.
I do have a bit of a problem with the concept of creatures dealing damage even if they are no longer in play, though I'm getting over it. I found the elimination of interrupts unneccessary, and the change with artifacts, replete with it's accompanying errata, silly. They're just colorless enchantments now. And I think the idea of being able to add effects to the stack once it has begun to resolve is horrible.

But that's just my opinion. In reading the posts of others I've found that different people love/hate different things about the new rules. To each his own. The truly funny part is, the new rules we're supposed to make playing the game easier, and make whole reams of errata unneccessary.

All they really did was replace some old, mouldy errata with some fresh, new errata.

Arrrg.

TomB
CPA Member
"I do not teach. I simply reveal."
-Daudi, Femeref Tutor

P.S. So what did they do to Undiscovered Paradise? No, wait. Don't tell me. I don't really want to know.
T.
 
M

Masticore

Guest
<html>
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/worlds99article.asp?dcierrata">Here's where to find some MORE errata.</a>
 
L

Limner

Guest
A majority of the confusion caused by the new rules comes from spell stack resolution. This can be cleared up with a simple rule change. All that is required is to limit responses to the last spell on the stack and disallow any response once the last spell has resolved (and thereby the stack must finish resolving). This also clears up some infinite looping issues whereby a resolving effect is placed back on the stack in response to a resolving effect. It seems this resolves (pardon the pun) the problem but does it cause others? Look forward to your input...the Limner
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
How do you mean "limit responses", Limner? I would think that would be too restrictive. I agree with you (as stated above) on the "spell stack resolution" issue though. I think the old rules, where the whole stack resolves once it starts resolving was a whole lot easier to understand.

TomB
CPA Member
"I hereby resolve...to attain resolution... by resolving this resolution... to the resolving resolution. I will lead...the resolving resolution revolution!!"
 
J

JF

Guest
I'm playing now since about two and a half years (since begin of Visions). After some short time I had been able to follow the rules and most of the errata.

WHAT THE HELL is going on??? I have never heared about Aether Storm errata. Looking at WotC homepage there is no link to such an text. There I found some errata for Iridescent Drake and the both Weatherlight Lands.

WHAT THE HELL are we talking about? Ist that the future of the game where you need a dayly check of 20 different newsgroups to be up to date?

Is that the simplification WotC promised?
NO THANKS!

What to do now? Which cards do have errata, which not and what is the text of the errata?
Where can I find all that information at one location?
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
The problem to me is that WotC actually stated that 6th (note how I do NOT use the extra 6's) would make us "look at the cards differently," so we do. Then they errata the cards, and we're stuck looking at them the same way. Does this seem hypocritical to anyone else?

--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic
 
D

Dune Echo

Guest
THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING SINCE WAYLAY WAS FIRST ERRATA'D! We need to make WotC and the DCI and R&D sit back and realize that they have to deal with the reprecussions of changing the rules. Why do cards that become more powerful have to be errata'd? What about the now weaker cards? Are they errata'ing them to make them back they way they were? We don't need more errata. Sixth Edition was supposed to solve this!
 
B

Baron Sengir

Guest
As many Dojo forums Dwellers can tell you, I've been quite vocal with my opinions on 666e. I hate the card mix. God, what a bunch of crap.

On the other hand, I liked the rules. They seemed to make a lot of crappy cards powerful. Like Waylay. When I heard how Waylay originally worked under 666e rules, I was overjoyed. I would finally be able to use this cool card the way I wished I could have since I first saw the damn thing. I actually thought that Cards like Lotus Vale and Lion's Eye Diamond might be powerful cards and I would have to break them out of my binders and come up with new kinds of decks. The possibilities seemed endless.

Then Waylay was 'fixed.' Then all the others. All that creativity and potential for new deck archetypes shot to hell because someone had done pretty good in a tourney with it.

The 666e rules are not broken. They are the rules I wish Magic had started with. The DCI is broken. I believe they are becoming stagnant. They are so used to the same old / same old that they panic at groundbreaking tech. They knew the Lotus Vale loophole existed from the beginning. Why, if it is so broken, did they not fix it then?!?

It seems to me that the 666e rules were like a brand new sweater. It looks good, it feels comfortable and you think you might enjoy wearing it so you buy the sweater. Then some guy (the DCI) comes along and pulls a thread out. Then another and another. Soon you don't have a sweater anymore, just a huge pile of tangled threads and an angry consumer.

I remain
The Baron
Now I have that freakin' Weezer song going through my head. Great ...
 
T

Tobold

Guest
6E does change a lot of cards and only a few got errataed. Played with a Mogg Fanatic lately? Under 6E rules this card is much improved. Power Sink on the other hand is weaker now. And all this change is good.

Some cards they did have to errata. Lotus Vale without errata would have been nearly a Black Lotus and would have broken Extended. Of course we have to discuss where the border is. Many people thought the Waylay errata was not necessary while I heard nobody crying about Lotus Vale.
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
I think people are more upset at the way Waylay was removed. Instead of trying to close the loophole that's causing this problem, they just rewrote the card...I didn't like that - however, I did like taking a way a hyperfast offensive card from White...

-ferret

"...still trying to find a use for Avoid Fate..."
 
Top