[Zendikar] Magosi, the Waterveil

[Demonic Attorney]

Magosi, the Waterveil

Land

~this~ enters the battlefield tapped
 , : Put an eon counter on ~this~.  Skip your next turn.
 , Remove an eon counter from ~this~ and return it to its owner's hand: Take an extra turn after this one.


Does this remind anyone of something?  A more-than-passing resemblance to some of the many faces of errata'ed Time Vault, no?  This redesign of Time Vault gets around all the infini-combos Time Vault used to enable.  No more Infinite/Infinite Lodestone Myr.  No more Flame Fusillade for 1,000,000.  No more searchability through a Planeswalker that itself functions as a component of an infinite combo.  And most importantly of all, no more Vault/Key.

Now, why would Wizards do such a thing?  It's rare indeed for them to reprint variants of the old quirky cards these days.  For example, I haven't seen another version of Raging River in a long time, and we can all agree that we won't be seeing reincarnations of the dexterity or subgame cards anytime soon.  Maybe this is an indication that they're planning to finally put Time Vault out of its misery and just ban it.  After countless errata, I don't think Time Vault has ever found a workable design that Wizards had been happy with (although, since I'm not Wizards, that's mostly speculation on my part).  

Now, in view of Wizards' lip service to abandoning power-level errata completely, Vintage is left with a card that completely defines the format.  After 13 years of playing Type One, and 5 years of playing competitive Vintage, I can never recall an era that has so completely revolved around one card as this one.  All attempts to weaken Time Vault's dominance through ancillary B/R decisions have failed.  Worse yet, they have brought with them the side effect of narrowing the Vintage cardpool and reducing the viability of alternate deck designs to compete with Time Vault.  

Worse still, the current Vintage environment does more to validate the negative stereotypes of Vintage than anything else I can remember.  We have unstoppable early game wins with a fair bit of regularity.  The degree of skill needed to assemble a game-winning combo with Time Vault is negligible.  No foil card or deck has been able to consistently combat Time Vault. Tournament top 8's are overwhelmingly dominated by decks that are almost identical.

Therefore, I'm left with the strong suspicion that Magosi, the Waterveil signals the end of Time Vault's Vintage lifespan.  I just can't think of any other reason to print the card.  And, from someone's who accumulated more than his share of wins on the back of the most powerful win condition Type One has ever seen, the end can't come soon enough.      

[Yare]

Are you saying this signals that Time Vault is going to be banned? If so, why didn't they ban it this time around since Zendikar is right about the corner? Or are you saying they're going to do it next time?

[Troy_Costisick]

It is suspicious, but LaPille did reaffirm in his June article that the DCI does not ban cards in Vintage for their power level.  I will say, though, that it is still stiking how close that is to the old Time Vault wording.  It's a shame you have to tap it to put a counter on, othwerise it would be useful with old Rings of Brighthearth combo.

[Diakonov]

I agree with Troy.  I get the feeling that they don't want to ban the card.  The problem has always been that it was originally intended to work with Twiddle, but by default that will always be an issue when Key is around.  If WotC was willing to let go of its "Twiddle-bility," there would be some simple solutions.  At the last tournament I played in, Jeremiah Rudolph explained to me one possible errata that would take care of this problem:

Time Vault enters the battlefield tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may untap Time Vault.
If Time Vault would become untapped, skip your next turn.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

The only possible wording I could think of that would still allow Twiddle to work would be, "If an ability (other than Time Vault's) would untap Time Vault, instead Time Vault remains tapped."  

[Eastman]

I can't believe how bad this card is.  With the returning it to it's owner's hand cost, it's really really bad, much worse than time vault under any errata.

I agree though that it is a sort of similar effect, so you have to wonder why they are printing it.  I disagree with the idea that having this card in the pool impacts the decision whether or not to ban time vault.  It isn't like their main reason not to ban TV is the lack of a replacement card with that effect.  Maybe they just got the idea to reprint it from all the time vault nonsense in Vintage. 

Or maybe this is going to combo in some way with landfall?  It is a land that returns itself to owner's hand, which is pretty useful in a landfall environment.  They probably made it this awful by itself so that it isn't too broken with subsequently printed landfall effects. 

[Smmenen]

All attempts to weaken Time Vault's dominance through ancillary B/R decisions have failed.  

Tournament top 8's are overwhelmingly dominated by decks that are almost identical.

Your basis for these bold claims, is what exactly?    In the July and August statistical analysis of the global Vintage metagame, neither one of these statements is true (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38899.0 )

[Anusien]

Wizards, especially Mark Rosewater, like to try and print fixed versions of broken cards.  This is how we got Yawgmoth's Bargain, a "fixed" Necropotence.  This is an order of magnitude less broken.  Rings + this will get you 2 turns for every 1 they take.  This + untap + Rings will get you infinite turns.

[Stormanimagus]

All attempts to weaken Time Vault's dominance through ancillary B/R decisions have failed.  

Tournament top 8's are overwhelmingly dominated by decks that are almost identical.

Your basis for these bold claims, is what exactly?    In the July and August statistical analysis of the global Vintage metagame, neither one of these statements is true (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38899.0 )

Stephen. I don't think the main argument for re-errataing Time Vault is not based on Tournament T8 percentages (and btw, Drain Tendrils is a Drain deck that runs TV as well so those have to be considered Vault/Key decks for all intents and purposes as well) but more based on design space for Vintage. I think that the Vault/Key combo has warped Vintage more than Trinisphere did and more than Gush/Bond did. Also, one must consider the level of hate required to quell this simple combo.

Ichorid is often considered the most hated deck in Vintage because players know they have to devote 6-8 SB slots to beating JUST ICHORID or they will lose to it. Now granted, some of the hate cards used to beat ichorid splash to hate on other decks but often they aren't that powerful elsewhere (i.e- Jailer is totally dead elsewhere). This becomes annoying for players, but they suck it up and do it because they don't want to lose to the Zombie Menace.

This does not even come CLOSE to touching the lengths players must currently go to to beat Vault/Key decks. I mean, Vintage has not become Ravager vs./ Anti-Ravager like the good old days of Extended *vomits on self* but it is getting there. Vintage is boring right now. You either play Vault/Key decks with plenty of restricted Tutors to find em (and probably Drains) or you play a deck that won't lose to them (probably a Null Rod deck or an equally fast combo deck).

Before you declare that things are fair and balanced lets look at how many archetypes are even widely played right now.

*Oath might have some T8s but it is generally a sick joke of a deck right now without Brainstorm.

*Dredge has been improving but has a hard time going all the way a tournament because of the hate.

*TPS is only piloted by a couple skilled players to T8 finishes and a good TPS player can still often lose to a mediocre Tezz player.


I mean, I'll give you that Fish and Stax have been improving and I'm totally psyched about that, but the Vintage design space right now is quite narrow and I do, indeed, blame Time Vault for that problem. I think fixing it would be a ballsy yet highly intelligent move on the part of Wizards R & D.

Those are my thoughts on the matter,

-Storm

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure how that's responsive to the content of my post.

I was questioning the claims (1) that the restriction of Thirst had no effect on the degree of dominance of Time Vault (DA wrote that "All attempts to weaken Time Vault's dominance through ancillary B/R decisions have failed.")  (2) that Top 8s are dominated by nearly identical decks.    Both statements verifiably false, even sans the hyperbole in the latter statement.     While Time Vault decks remain the top decks, they are far less dominant than they were 2 months ago.   And the diversity in Top 8s has risen dramatically in July and August from the first six months of the year.   

I was making no claim about design space, whether time vault will be re-errated or banned, or any other issue.   Nor am I really concerned with those issues, frankly.

[vroman]

the "unfun" tendency of time vault, comes from the fact it can deliver victory from any board position w very little effort. I think when ppl are winning, they are annoyed when they suddenly lose without opponent going to extreme lengths
ie
its ok for storm to win while playing from behind, bc they still have to cast 10 spells on their miracle turn
its ok for stax or pre-time-vault control to stabilize from a bad position and proceed to win
its ok to be in a bad position and just lose
its NOT ok to be in a bad position and pay 2 mana and immediately win

time vault means when you are losing, you dont have to stabilize before winning, and you dont have to work hard to get there. ppl dont like this.

[Nehptis]

Vroman got this exactly right.  Put stats and metrics aside regarding which decks or cards are dominating.  Bottom line, Vintage is unfun due to the existence Vault/Key combo.

I'm usually a Drain or Combo player.  Sometimes Fish.  I have never played a Shop deck.  My point is that I hated the 4 x 3Sphere "moment" in Vintage history.  That was not very enjoyable for me.  But, I'd take that over where we are today with Vault/Key any day.

[zeus-online]

I'm with DA and vroman on this one.

I think the combo is plain boring, even when winning with it....it's more like..."Oh, i just won". I found almost all of the old T1 Control decks more enjoyable then vault/key.

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/features/21_time_vault_marked_up.jpg

[Shock Wave]

the "unfun" tendency of time vault, comes from the fact it can deliver victory from any board position w very little effort. I think when ppl are winning, they are annoyed when they suddenly lose without opponent going to extreme lengths
ie
its ok for storm to win while playing from behind, bc they still have to cast 10 spells on their miracle turn
its ok for stax or pre-time-vault control to stabilize from a bad position and proceed to win
its ok to be in a bad position and just lose
its NOT ok to be in a bad position and pay 2 mana and immediately win

time vault means when you are losing, you dont have to stabilize before winning, and you dont have to work hard to get there. ppl dont like this.

I'm not sure any of the above is consistent with the intended direction of this thread, but I wholeheartedly agree, and I can't help but chime in because I think it is important that everybody starts voicing their opinion when there is a consensus that things are "unfun". We really don't need to define what this means, we just need to agree that something is wrong, and it seems as though a lot of players think so.

My major gripe with the Key/Vault combo is that it augments the power level of the control shell beyond what was supposedly too powerful in a lesser control/combo incarnation of years past: Gifts Ungiven. I mean, we got rid of Gifts because the deck was just too dominant and explosive, right? Well, Vault/Key in a control shell is even more absurd, so we really have not achieved anything or made things any more fair.

I have always felt that the challenge of playing with Mana Drains and all the best cards in Vintage (i.e. the blue goodies) should be that the Drain/Control player should have to fight some war of attrition or resource battle to stay alive long enough to stabilize. A control deck should not be able to just "combo" you out in the early game with a modicum of resources. Winning the game should involve some decision making, and it should involve a struggle. When control decks become "combo" decks that have the potential to combo you on turn 1 or 2, then something is wrong.

This year at Gencon, I regularly asked my Legacy opponents what formats they play, to which they largely replied other formats, but seldom Vintage. When I asked why not Vintage, the response on several occasions was: "I refuse to play Vintage as long as the Key/Vault combo is around. It's just not fun right now." Now, maybe this is a tactic by Wizards to push players to Legacy, but that is another discussion altogether.

[Troy_Costisick]

This year at Gencon, I regularly asked my Legacy opponents what formats they play, to which they largely replied other formats, but seldom Vintage. When I asked why not Vintage, the response on several occasions was: "I refuse to play Vintage as long as the Key/Vault combo is around. It's just not fun right now." Now, maybe this is a tactic by Wizards to push players to Legacy, but that is another discussion altogether.

If those guys weren't playing it prior to Key/Vault, then the loss of Key/Vault in the format would have no impact on them joining it now.  I'd be willing to bet those are the same guys who said that they refuse to play as long as Gush-Bond was in the format or while Gifts dominated the format or whatever.  Key/Vault is just a convenient excuse.

[Diakonov]

This year at Gencon, I regularly asked my Legacy opponents what formats they play, to which they largely replied other formats, but seldom Vintage. When I asked why not Vintage, the response on several occasions was: "I refuse to play Vintage as long as the Key/Vault combo is around. It's just not fun right now." Now, maybe this is a tactic by Wizards to push players to Legacy, but that is another discussion altogether.

If those guys weren't playing it prior to Key/Vault, then the loss of Key/Vault in the format would have no impact on them joining it now.  I'd be willing to bet those are the same guys who said that they refuse to play as long as Gush-Bond was in the format or while Gifts dominated the format or whatever.  Key/Vault is just a convenient excuse.

Regardless, I still have to agree with Shockwave that the majority of Vintage players seem to find Vault/Key "unfun."  I actually do find the current control mirror to be a fun match to play, but outside of that, I think Vault/Key has been detrimental to the rest of the format.  There are a lot of fun strategies and lines of play that are simply not competitive options anymore, particularly the stand-by incremental anti-control strategies.  It has also managed to nerf combo as an entire archetype, since Vault/Key's minimal requirement of slots gives you the ability to seamlessly switch back and forth between control and combo.

On the other hand, I can appreciate to a certain degree the DCI's desire to keep the original text in tact.  However, this just should not come at the cost of a format.  It is their obligation to do something, even if it is just printing a hoser that nullifies it.  Especially now that we have traps as an new effect, I'm sure that there's something they could figure out.

[Demonic Attorney]

To those of you who pointed out that Tom Lapille has gone on record saying that current WotC policy is to avoid banning cards in Vintage, I respond with two points.

First, no policy is written in stone and things can always change.  Especially in light of Time Vault continuing its role as the defining card in Vintage, notwithstanding the restriction of four blue staples in the last few months.

Second, the printing of Magosi follows closely on the heels of this remark by WotC staff:

Thing you've worked on that you're most proud of:

Here? Um. A certain Banned/Restricted list meeting whose results are presently classified. In general? Selangor State Right to Information Law, the Memphis Pyramid Arena redevelopment, the Chatter of the Squirrel series.

Maybe he was talking about the recent Legacy changes.  Maybe not.  But that curious statement, suggesting important changes to the B/R list, and the printing of a version of Time Vault that seems to track the purpose of previous Time Vault errata, seems significant to me.


EDIT:  Steve, I'd appreciate it if you didn't cite to premium articles if you want me to respond to your posts.  That's like me entering a feedback thread for your writing on SCG and saying the following, "Steve, you're demonstrably incorrect in making assertion X.  As proof of my claim, I present to you the MYSTERY BOX!  The support for my argument is inside.  If you'd like to see it, please pay me a subscription fee.  Then you can defend your position from my evidence."

That having been said, your characterization of my first claim is a straw man argument.  As for your challenge to my second claim, I think there's ample basis to conclude that that top 8's are dominated by nearly identical lists.  1 2 3 4 

[Troy_Costisick]

On the other hand, I can appreciate to a certain degree the DCI's desire to keep the original text in tact.  However, this just should not come at the cost of a format.  It is their obligation to do something, even if it is just printing a hoser that nullifies it.  Especially now that we have traps as an new effect, I'm sure that there's something they could figure out.

Here, I am with you 100%.  Not having a trap that blows up artifacts in Zendikar was an epic fail on WotC's part.  There might be one in WorldWake, but it's inexcuseable IMHO to put two green "put-a-creature-into-play" traps in the same set and leave out an artifact killer.

[Nehptis]

However, this just should not come at the cost of a format.  It is their obligation to do something...

Wizards has 3 options:

1) Print Vault/Key hate in a new set - Worst option, it rarely has the intended impact.

2) Thin out the Restricted list in a huge way.  I'm talking to the extent of Troy's list in his "sig": unrestrict: Balance, Burning Wish, Flash, Gush, Imperial Seal, Library of Alexandria, Mana Vault, Ponder, Regrowth.  Then see if Vault/Key is still an issue or if we've simply created worse problems.

3) As was said above - http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/features/21_time_vault_marked_up.jpg

[LotusHead]

Well, pic finally released.

[nineisnoone]

Magosi, the Waterveil

Land

~this~ enters the battlefield tapped
 , : Put an eon counter on ~this~.  Skip your next turn.
 , Remove an eon counter from ~this~ and return it to its owner's hand: Take an extra turn after this one.


Does this remind anyone of something?  A more-than-passing resemblance to some of the many faces of errata'ed Time Vault, no?  This redesign of Time Vault gets around all the infini-combos Time Vault used to enable.  No more Infinite/Infinite Lodestone Myr.  No more Flame Fusillade for 1,000,000.  No more searchability through a Planeswalker that itself functions as a component of an infinite combo.  And most importantly of all, no more Vault/Key.

Now, why would Wizards do such a thing?  It's rare indeed for them to reprint variants of the old quirky cards these days.  For example, I haven't seen another version of Raging River in a long time, and we can all agree that we won't be seeing reincarnations of the dexterity or subgame cards anytime soon.  Maybe this is an indication that they're planning to finally put Time Vault out of its misery and just ban it.  After countless errata, I don't think Time Vault has ever found a workable design that Wizards had been happy with (although, since I'm not Wizards, that's mostly speculation on my part).  

Now, in view of Wizards' lip service to abandoning power-level errata completely, Vintage is left with a card that completely defines the format.  After 13 years of playing Type One, and 5 years of playing competitive Vintage, I can never recall an era that has so completely revolved around one card as this one.  All attempts to weaken Time Vault's dominance through ancillary B/R decisions have failed.  Worse yet, they have brought with them the side effect of narrowing the Vintage cardpool and reducing the viability of alternate deck designs to compete with Time Vault.  

Worse still, the current Vintage environment does more to validate the negative stereotypes of Vintage than anything else I can remember.  We have unstoppable early game wins with a fair bit of regularity.  The degree of skill needed to assemble a game-winning combo with Time Vault is negligible.  No foil card or deck has been able to consistently combat Time Vault. Tournament top 8's are overwhelmingly dominated by decks that are almost identical.

Therefore, I'm left with the strong suspicion that Magosi, the Waterveil signals the end of Time Vault's Vintage lifespan.  I just can't think of any other reason to print the card.  And, from someone's who accumulated more than his share of wins on the back of the most powerful win condition Type One has ever seen, the end can't come soon enough.

I don't really see how this signals the end of Time Vault, or a banning at the very least.  I would more expect a re-errata along the lines of the card, but I don't.  I think the Vintage-noise on the card just put it back into their minds and the card designers wanted to play around with it.  Fair reprints of broken cards are quite common.

I'm a fan of unrestriction because I think many cards on the list are ridiculous, but if they aren't going to do that or move away from their no-bans in Vintage policy or no power-level errata policy, then they could always just re-work the base game rules.  

I mean, I wouldn't have thought they'd what is functionally a mass errata like that, but apparently they are quite willing to do that.  It wouldn't be difficult to create special rules for "additional turn" effects.  

A quick take off the top of my head is:

A turn that is created by a card effect is different than a normal turn and referred to as an 'extra turn.'  
Extra turns are executed the same way a normal player turn would.  
However, card's that create extra turn during any turn that is an 'extra turn' functionally do not create an 'extra turn.'

Example.  Player 1 plays Time Vault (tapped) and Voltaic Key.  Player pays an additional mana and taps Voltaic Key to untap Time Vaul and the taps Time Vault to create an extra turn.  Player reaches end of turn and proceeds to his extra turn.  During his extra turn, he pays 1 mana and taps Voltaic Key to untap Time Vault.  Time Vault is untapped.  However, if he tries to tap Time Vault to create another extra turn, no extra turn will be created.  At end of turn, Player 1 passes priority to Player 2.

Explanation.  A replicated game state is not a true gamestate.  When an effect creates a replicated gamestate, it can only do so in reference to a true gamestate.  Therefore when the initial Time Vault activation creates a replicated turn, it gives it to Player 1 in reference to the current true gamestate, that is Player 1's normal turn.  When Time Vault activates again during the replicated gamestate, it references a replicated gamestate.  Much in the same way ownership and control are not the same thing, when it references the replicated gamestate it sees that the gamestate is controlled by Player one but it is not owned by Player 1.  Only the game itself can grant ownership of a turn to a player.  Card effects merely create extra turns and grant control, never ownership.  Therefore when it tries to grant the owner of the gamestate an extra turn, it fails to find one attached to the current gamestate.  Player 1's normal turn has ended.  The turn does not merely attach to the player because he is in control of the current turn.  Therefore, the extra turn is created but does not attach to any player and therefore at the end of turn Player 2 is granted his turn.

Would have much broader implications then just Vintage, but if they need a high-minded justification to pull it off, I'd think it (or something like it) could work.

[wiley]

I'm left with the strong suspicion that Magosi, the Waterveil signals the end of Time Vault's Vintage lifespan.  I just can't think of any other reason to print the card.  And, from someone's who accumulated more than his share of wins on the back of the most powerful win condition Type One has ever seen, the end can't come soon enough.      

I can't see this card as having any effect on policy making at wotc.  The people who come up with new card ideas are largely not the same people who decide errata and rules policy.  There are people in R&D who play vintage, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that at least some of them have high powered vintage cards on the brain while at work.  I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Place was the one that made it, since he has at least designed decks for vintage (the oath deck that Aaron Forsythe played in his "A Fine Vintage" article), and even less surprised if Rosewater made it since he loves to fix cards. After-all, the team for this set was Mark Rosewater, Doug Beyer, Graeme Hopkins, Kenneth Nagle and Matt Place.

I would be saddened to hear that they are willing to re-errata time vault now, despite its horribly unfun effect on the current vintage format.  Oddly though, I could easily see them deciding one player taking infinite turns is not good for the game as a whole and changing the rules to prevent it, which doesn't strike me as being wrong in the least, not to mention that it wouldn't be the first time they have augmented the rules for time vault or some other vintage playable card (uba mask, wishes etc.)

While I do hope that something productive is done eventually about the key/vault interaction, I think expecting it any time soon is simply grasping at straws.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm no expert on R&D thinking, but most of the suggestions here don't make sense.  I don't think they'll ban Time Vault...yet.

I think this is a test case to see if the other formats can break this new version of the mechanic.  Then R&D can look at the larger issues through this live test case (with possible consequences for T1 and general rules applications down the road).

[vroman]

I
I think this is a test case to see if the other formats can break this new version of the mechanic.  Then R&D can look at the larger issues through this live test case (with possible consequences for T1 and general rules applications down the road).

that is definitely not the reason. Magosi is unbreakable. its a designated crap rare sole purpose to evoke nostalgia.

[Pern]

It wouldn't be difficult to create special rules for "additional turn" effects.  

A quick take off the top of my head is:

A turn that is created by a card effect is different than a normal turn and referred to as an 'extra turn.'  
Extra turns are executed the same way a normal player turn would.  
However, card's that create extra turn during any turn that is an 'extra turn' functionally do not create an 'extra turn.'

Would have much broader implications then just Vintage, but if they need a high-minded justification to pull it off, I'd think it (or something like it) could work.

They've gone to some lengths recently to print enough time walks so that a Standard time walk deck is possible.
It's something they want in the format. I don't see them changing the rules to make it not work.