our first issue

[ben]

Well, since everybody seems to be speaking their mind on the Waylay issue, I would like to express mine as well.

I believe that the errata on Waylay was incorrect. I believe that the errata on Waylay should have limited you from attacking with the tokens that you created without aid of another card. With the old wording of Waylay, it could be used to pay for certain upkeep costs, trigger effects, and other such subtleties. Now, it can only be used during the attack phase, which, in my opinion, severely limits the options that were once given to Waylay.

I believe that being able to attack with the 3 knight tokens was outside of the spirit of the card, and gave White a little too much speed. I believe that Waylay should have been errated to either destroy the tokens on the next beginning phase, or the tokens should have been destroyed during the cleanup step.

My point is this:
I am all for the removal of the Waylay errata, but I believe that another errata should take its place. The errata would remove the restriction of combat only, but the tokens it creates would not be allowed to attack without another card.

Just my .02

Ben
CPA Member
“… Could someone remind me what the word ‘Waylay’ means?… I seem to have forgotten..”

 

[Oversoul]

You guys are slacking. They still haven't reverted the change on Waylay.

 

[Spiderman]

Stop necro-ing!

 

[turgy22]

Well I, for one, agree with the Waylay errata. It was meant as a defensive combat trick and any other use is incredibly out of flavor for white.

I'm glad the CPA hasn't used its incredible clout to strongarm Wizards into changing the card.

 

[HOUTS]

Why the unnecessary need to unerrata this card?

Boredom?

Honestly folks, considering the formats, with B/W being dominate, and Husk running rampant, Waylay wouldn't be a good choice of a card to unleash. Secondly it goes against (and I am so discouraged my little CPA'ers wouldn't even recognize this) all of White's primitive ideas. Since when did it have haster's? Anyone?
Is it known for it?
Survey says: No.
Also, the true reasoning for the errata had to do with End of Turn effects...

HOUTS

 

[Ransac]

ARGH!!!!!! THREAD-NECRO = BAD OVERSOUL!!!!!!


*Ransac clobbers Oversoul over the head with a lead rabbit.*


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[TomB]

You guys are slacking. They still haven't reverted the change on Waylay.

Yup, we lost that fight big-time, and now of course no one even thinks about it (well, ALMOST no one...). The gripe some of us had over 6th ed. rules was a huge loss too. But a few of us stuck around anyways, and stopped treating the game like it was such a big deal.

We're happier now...

 

[Spiderman]

Did anyone actually bring it up to WOTC? Y'all talked about it but I never gathered (or remembered) a "spokesperson" approaching WOTC about it...

 

[Ransac]

Y'know, I recall something from a magazine about WOTC rethinking the errata. Obviously, nothing ever came of it.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Spiderman]

I don't recall that (whether it be from a mag or their website).

But if they were, was it because of the CPA (or a great part from the CPA) or just the general outcry from players who wanted Waylay to keep working as it shouldn't under the 6th rules?

 

[Ransac]

Well, I'm not sure how actively the initial founders pursued this, but I'm more willing to believe that it was the latter of the two.

Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Oversoul]

Where was the outcry for Iridescent Drake?

 

[TomB]

I don't recall that (whether it be from a mag or their website).

But if they were, was it because of the CPA (or a great part from the CPA) or just the general outcry from players who wanted Waylay to keep working as it shouldn't under the 6th rules?

Well, if anything it was from the general outcry, rather than anything we did. IIRC, our debates over the issue broke down mostly due to our inability to come to a consensus opinion of what we thought SHOULD happen. Same thing happened with the people involved in the debate over 6th ed. rules - we couldn't agree on what we thought was wrong about it, so the whole idea of fighting it withered and died on the vine.

Now most of those people are long gone, and the rest of us have learned to deal with it.

 

[DarthFerret]

What was wrong with 6th Ed. rules? That is easy.

#1. The first person to play does not draw. I hate this. What is the advantage to going first then? I prefered the older style!

#2. Getting rid of Interrupts. I loved the way I could halt the entire LIFO Pile and play something anywhere I wanted in the middle of it. (For those who dont know LIFO=Last in First Out, kinda like the stack we have now, but not as simple.) I think trying to simplify the game was just a marketing ploy to let little kids (8-12 yrs old) start playing and enjoying the game. Nowadays, if I find a shop that has anyone playing, the average age of the player is under 17! I think the game has lost a little maturity due to this.

#3. Well, that is all I can think of right now, however, I know that I had a lot of issues with the rules when it first happened, but I am too old to remember all of them.

 

[orgg]

The biggest deal at the point in time this thread was in existance was the changing of cards to work differently than they did under pre-6th editon rules. Waylay could be played when you were Bolted to save yourself with a Soul Warden under your control. Now, it can't. The other issue I remember was Aether Storm; at one point, it caused all non-artifact creatures to not be able to be played. The erratta simply said "creatures," making the card much MUCH less useful.

Thawing Glaciers's erratta, however, we believed to be the correct way to do the waylay erratta, those of us (who I believe was the bulk of the people here) whom believed cards' drastic funtional changes should not happen.

 

[Jigglypuff]

Besides the cards you mentioned, though, there weren't that many "drastic functional changes". Except for poor Master of Arms, who got the rug pulled out from under him, but we won't go there.

And Sixth Edition rules were a good idea. This is mainly because they got rid of spells and abilities that could only be played at a Very Special Time (interrupts, regeneration, damage prevention, etc). Now, every spell and ability follows the same rules. It allows the players to easily figure out how everything fits together.

(- Steve -)

 

[Spiderman]

Y'know TomB, I wish we could do a "Where are they now" of the Founders and driving forces behind the creation of the CPA... did they leave because of lack of Magic time, or because the CPA couldn't/didn't do what they originally envisioned it to do, or whatever...

Well, obviously arguing about 6th rules is a moot point since we're already at the 9th rules , but yeah, I was (and am) all for the changes. As Jigglypuff said, it made everything much more consistent - did you know pre-6th, you couldn't respond to a CIP ability? You had to stop the creature from coming in play or it happened (or resolved). Interrupts just made the game needlessly complicated - I mean, it;s still complicated, otherwise the judges would be out of business right now.

 

[turgy22]

The thing about the new rules that bugged me the most was how much worse the ability to tap stuff down got. Maybe I was playing it wrong all along (I can't really remember anymore), but I used to be able to Twiddle in response to a Tim's ability and prevent the damage from being done. You could also tap down a blocking creature during combat and it wouldn't do any damage.

In retrospect, those things just seem wrong, but at the time, that was how we played.

 

[Spiderman]

You were definitely playing the Twiddle in response to Tim wrong. Once Tim's ability was activated, you couldn't prevent it from happening (at the time, since there wasn't any Stifle or equivalent card). It's the old saying "you can't stop the effect even if you remove the source).

The "tapped blockers deal damage" under 6th WAS a change and it made a handful of cards useless (that tapped blockers). On the other hand, it made a handful of cards stronger (like Mishra's Factory blocking and tapping itself to pump itself up). So it depends how you look at it...

 

[Killer Joe]

Once 6E rules came into the fold I, myself, became a better player because the new rules made more sense to me. Not to say that the rules before 6E were WRONG, but that I had a harder time with them mostly because I played with people who didn't bother discussing the nuances of the rules and whatever they said about the rules was correct.

Does anyone remember that a few writers on the Dojo were threatening to leave the game if the new rules were to come to fruition? If Wiz Co canheged the rules now I would either suck it up or find other people would like to play with 6E rules but I highly doubt that I would quit playing altogether ("I highly doubt that I would quit playing.") - sorry