Flame Fusilade + Time Vault no longer functional on Monday, 4/24/06

[orgcandman]

Splitting from wizards is a terrible idea. I don't think anyone here has enough time and endurance to track the format correctly to assess "Oh, this card isn't correct"

Quoted below is my letter to both Mark Gottlieb, AND Mark Rosewater.

Mark,
  I very rarely write into wizards to express disapproval. However, the
recent "out-of-the-blue" errata issuance for Time Vault is very
disturbing in its implications.
  The main issue is one of deception. The case for issuing errata is a
very difficult one to make at this juncture. All cards concerned are
only legal for play in eternal formats, or block formats. Even then,
Time Vault is not legal for any block format so its errata issuance
seems to be rather farcical at best.
  Your argument for changing is based on the "spirit" of the card.
However, nowhere on the card are the words "upkeep" or "once per turn"
or anything else. I, and many others, believe the original spirit of the
card was to be able to skip as many turns as you wanted, but only get to
take one extra turn. As the card was worded currently, that's exactly
how it worked.
  Look, I can understand where the deeper roots of this argument come
from. Legacy is taking off and Time Vaults are only going to get harder
and harder to come by, and so the barrier to entry on the format will
only become tougher.
  However, that is no reason to fundamentally change two formats with
one fell swoop. The way to curb things in Legacy are to ban.

  In all, I'm very disappointed by this move, but I guess it's to be
expected from a company, which of late seems to function more with
deception and chicanery.

Thank you for your time,
Aaron Conole

[Disburden]

I wonder what Randy Buehler thinks about all this? He does play Vintage and all.

[scutakicker]

This brings to mind why can't we just diverge from Vintage as a whole. Wizards doesn't seem to care about the format. Their upkeep is questionable, and all they really sponsor is the the Vintages Championships each year. Why not have TMD create a banned/restricted list and call it something like "Our Type 1"?

In some ways its not a bad idea. Peasant and 5-color have their own player-controlled governance. There's enough money in Vintage that its generally not a great idea, but for limited circumstances why not just refuse to follow rulings handed down from on high? "Thou shalt not use Time Vault in any useful manner." Give me a break. Is there anyone out there who actually supports this agreement? Then why should we abide by it? I don't even own any Vaults, but I'd like to see future tournaments specifically use the old rulings on it.

[Anusien]

To Gottlieb:

I understand why you nuked Time Vault.  The wording was ugly and it only connected marginally with what the card was intended to do.
That said, your timing was awful.  You let Time Vault survive multiple bannings, and so basically no one in the Eternal community can figure out why you did this.  The timing makes no sense; is there some sort of tournament coming up?  There are actually a couple of big Vintage tournaments coming up, and this reads like an emergency ban on Time Vault when you do that.
I think one of the other staggeringly bad ideas about this was that you crashed the singles market for Time Vault and also multiple cards.  People paid $80 or more for a single Time Vault which will drop by halves if not more money.  You've called into question problematic cards like Worldgorger Dragon and Illusionary Mask, and it really seems like those cards are on the chopping block.  Maybe you did that because it puts a hard price limit on Legacy.  I can almost guarantee that no one will ever pay $80 minimum for a card for Legacy because they are going to be worried about the price crashing.  But you've shattered people's faith in Wizards of the Coast as a managing entity.  Why did you really nuke Time Vault, and why did you do it when you did?  It seems like you've "saved the integrity of that card" but shaken up the format.  Nevermind that the original wording is nigh-useless.  You could have simply added "Play this ability only once per turn" to the skip a turn ability, and that preserves the skill testing uses of the card while banning the interaction with Flame Fusillade.  What you've done is driven a huge rift between Wizards of the Coast and the Eternal community.

[dicemanx]

Splitting from wizards is a terrible idea. I don't think anyone here has enough time and endurance to track the format correctly to assess "Oh, this card isn't correct"

The other option is for TOs, when advertising their events, to ignore certain rulings/errata/BR decisions. It's not ideal, but more reasonable and achievable than starting some player's organization to free ourselves from being at the mercy of WotC/Harbro decisions.

[GrandpaBelcher]

The whole thing is quite shady.  I don't own Time Vaults or anything that even nearly approaches the value those hold (well, held), but I definitely feel for the people who invested in those cards as they got more play in the past few months.  It's a huge shock to the market, not just on Vaults, but on prospective other cards as well since we don't know how far this will go.

Also, does anyone else get the feeling that they did this on Friday for a reason?  Aren't people supposed to get fired on Fridays so they don't come in the next day and gun-down the office?  I, for one, hope Wizards has a better explanation for all this than Ask Wizards by the end of the day.

I'll get started on my email now.

[Polynomial P]

To Gottlieb:

I would first like to say that I agree with the errata that you are making to Time Vault. The interactions with cards like Flame Fusillade is problematic and outside of the original intentions of Time Vault.

I, however, am appalled at the manner of which this errata is taking place. The interaction between Time Vault and Flame Fusillade has been know for 7-8 months now. The interaction between Time Vault and Lodestone Myr has been know for even longer. By choosing not to errata Time Vault until now, you have deceived the Magic community, both dealers and players. You have allowed us to believe that this combo is within the rules that R+D wanted. This has allowed Time Vault to appreciate in value and forced Legacy players to puchase insanely expensive cards for sanctioned tournaments only to find out that those cards are now unplayable.

Most troubling is the precedent you are setting by your course of actions. You have made it clear that R+D can errata any card, no matter the price/impact on the community, for any reason. I would like to play in Sanctioned Vintage tournaments, like Gencon, but to do so I would have to buy 3 more bazaars. I am honestly afraid to do so now, since you could errata bazaars (or Black Lotus or Illusionary Mask or Worldgorger Dragon or....) because "it’s the right thing to do for the integrity of that card".

[Komatteru]

Splitting from wizards is a terrible idea. I don't think anyone here has enough time and endurance to track the format correctly to assess "Oh, this card isn't correct"

The other option is for TOs, when advertising their events, to ignore certain rulings/errata/BR decisions. It's not ideal, but more reasonable and achievable than starting some player's organization to free ourselves from being at the mercy of WotC/Harbro decisions.

That would be a disaster for metagame reasons among other things.  Imagine if FlameVault Gifts were the deck to beat in all tournaments it's allowed in -- what happens when Gencon rolls around?  Gencon already has problems with guessing games regarding card access ("will more than 3-5 people have the cards to play Uba Stax?" was one question my team asked), but it would be a bigger problem if decks weren't even legal in that format.  Essentially, Gencon might lose all its significance, and that would be bad.  Gencon is really a good way to show WotC that there are a lot of people interested in Vintage.  The SCG circuit goes a long way toward that, but paying the big buck and acquiring the expensive cards really shows the dedication we have to this format.

[Smmenen]

This brings to mind why can't we just diverge from Vintage as a whole. Wizards doesn't seem to care about the format. Their upkeep is questionable, and all they really sponsor is the the Vintages Championships each year. Why not have TMD create a banned/restricted list and call it something like "Our Type 1"?

In some ways its not a bad idea. Peasant and 5-color have their own player-controlled governance. There's enough money in Vintage that its generally not a great idea, but for limited circumstances why not just refuse to follow rulings handed down from on high? "Thou shalt not use Time Vault in any useful manner." Give me a break. Is there anyone out there who actually supports this agreement? Then why should we abide by it? I don't even own any Vaults, but I'd like to see future tournaments specifically use the old rulings on it.

And do you kjnow what a fucking mess 5-color is?

Kevin Cron is on the voting board for that format and its a total joke.


Incidentialy, the whole original intent argument is ludiciorus.

The original intent of disenchant was that you couldn't respond to Coutnerspell with Disenchant.  Remember interrupts?  Who knows what the hell the original intent was and who really gives a shit what RIchard Garfield thought in his garage in 1990?

Also: Continue to write Gottlieb!!!

[Eddie]

My reply to Mark:

I'd like a moment of your time to address the new errata which Time Vault will receive.

Whilst I understand the reason why you'd want a new errata on the card to keep things clean, there are 2 things that are bothering me.

a) sometimes, playing and fun should be above rules changes. This is the case here, I think. Due to a minor cleanup in the card, which is almost pure for aesthetic reasons because it isn't bothering anyone, it is now rendered useless. This card is loved in both Vintage and Legacy, and it certainly wasn't distorting the formats where it was played. If it's not broken, why try to fix it?

b) If you still want to do the errata, why not wait till the next banning / restrictions updates? As said before, these cards are no problem when they are played now. So why do this now, at a random date? It would seem a lot more logical together with a banned / restricted list update. (Next to this: why didn't this happen when Mana Vault changed? Both cards are in the same set. Or why didn't this happen when the combo with fusillade was discovered? If it happened earlier, players, collectors and dealers would not have lost a lot of money. I know that I'm not the only one that bought Time Vaults when the combo was there, after the big price jump. Now, the price will drop lower than before, because the card is worse than before the combo).

Anyway, thank you for your time reading this mail.

[Matt]

Wait, let me get this straight. Gifts decks used what, one Time Vault. So...VINTAGE players are complaining because they lost out on maybe $50 worth of card? Vintage. Vin. Tage. $50.

Do I have that correct?

[orgcandman]

Wait, let me get this straight. Gifts decks used what, one Time Vault. So...VINTAGE players are complaining because they lost out on maybe $50 worth of card? Vintage. Vin. Tage. $50.

Do I have that correct?

It's not the price concerns for me, although that is a inconvenience. It's the precedant. The ability for wizards to use the "Not in the spirit of the card" to edit for powerlevel, and do so at a moments notice.

[Komatteru]

The monetary concern is more from Vintage players who bought Vaults to play in Legacy events.  I know Steve owns 6 of them, and several members of our team own sets as well because of the Legacy GP.

[dicemanx]

There was already an existing Vintage deck using 4 Time Vaults (HyperMUD), a deck that I was working on and planning to even possibly debut in Rochester depending on how testing would go.

I actually couldn't care less about Legacy, which is already a disaster of a format in my view, but now I'm peeved that it is impacting T1 and the precedent it has set. Now I might be completely wasting my time trying to return WGD to former glory because I might find out that they will continue on their crusade to "clean up the rules"and nail WGD or the animate spells next.

While these decks aren't currently considered top tier, they at least presented vintage with potentially exciting options. I don't like any decision that limits those options.

[Methuselahn]

This is absurd.  Now my collectable cards are worthless.  I've playtested both Legacy and Vintage lists with the combo as a four-of and a one-of, and I know for sure that none of them are degenerate!  Maybe I'm not seeing all the insane plays with Brass Man, Colossus of Sardia, Island Fish Jasconius, Black Carriage, and/or Marjhan but this looks like a completely impulsive and unnecessary move, not to mention irresponsible.  This combo has been around for some time now.  In fact, it was obvious as soon as Fusillade was released.  This is when the errata should have been changed.  Not ages after a Gran Prix, where it was legal.  Ridiculous.  And to think that I waited and waited for WotC to act on the combo before picking up the Vaults.

I pee in your campfire wizards.

[warble]

I think the "not in the intent" clause by wizards at least makes me feel safe about owning power.  It actually was intended to break some rules, so *whew* at least my prices there are stable.  While it is true that the errata makes time vault a complete joke, it also plays a part in wizard's attitude that the game should be interactive.  After selling out, and this I can speak from experience with, the bottom line is growth, new customers, and retention.  Nowhere in this does vintage/type 1 come into play.

While we comprise a market outside of wizards, and the artists and wizards employees all have cards from old sets in their retirement funds, it is important to realize that Wizards did sell to a large corporation, and they do NOT care about the little people.  While this impacts a lot of collectors, it still does not make time vault completely worthless from a collection standpoint.  In addition, the original wording of time vault was more correct than the initial errata, so it is more of a mistake for wizards to have attempted to fix a card and failed miserably.  While upsetting, it is not the first time that the game has changed (ask anyone who liked interrupts better than instants...)  While it is a concession that wizards "f'ed up and as a result we lost money" it is a correction to a correction.

My personal feelings?  I'm damn glad I don't have a time vault or I would be cursing and ebay-ing that thing as fast as I could.  However, knowing how large corporations work is knowing that the little people don't matter.  Don't expect wizards to give a flying f'ck about you as a vintage player, because in fact they don't and it will only get worse.  If that means you don't like the risk of holding assets from wizards, that is a personal choice.  I'll hold onto my assets simply because I believe that they still have some integrity.  Less than I thought they had initially, but my confidence is not completely shot.  And yes, they should have fixed time vault as soon as we broke the combo.  The fact that they didn't was probably red tape internally, and trying not to look bad.  Now they just look like asses.

[Yare]

Splitting from wizards is a terrible idea. I don't think anyone here has enough time and endurance to track the format correctly to assess "Oh, this card isn't correct"

The other option is for TOs, when advertising their events, to ignore certain rulings/errata/BR decisions. It's not ideal, but more reasonable and achievable than starting some player's organization to free ourselves from being at the mercy of WotC/Harbro decisions.

That would be a disaster for metagame reasons among other things. Imagine if FlameVault Gifts were the deck to beat in all tournaments it's allowed in -- what happens when Gencon rolls around? Gencon already has problems with guessing games regarding card access ("will more than 3-5 people have the cards to play Uba Stax?" was one question my team asked), but it would be a bigger problem if decks weren't even legal in that format. Essentially, Gencon might lose all its significance, and that would be bad. Gencon is really a good way to show WotC that there are a lot of people interested in Vintage. The SCG circuit goes a long way toward that, but paying the big buck and acquiring the expensive cards really shows the dedication we have to this format.

I must admit the idea to "split" originally came to my mind, but I do not think that this is the best plan of action.  This is because finding an impartial group to decide what is legal and what is not would be very dififcult.  On top of that, some individuals would follow it and some would not.  Part of what makes Vintage sustainable is that it is the same worldwide.  While metagames themselves vary, the card pools and the rules are identical.  To have different rules on what cards can be played (note: do not get started on proxies, that's another topic entirely) would be devastating to the format.  While I am upset with this particular incident (and it especially sucks for the collectors), I think we just have to suck it up and move on.  That being said, if this precedent continues in the future, THEN maybe we should consider doing something drastic.  Until then, let's just express our discontent to the company and see what happens from here.  I predict there will be some kind of answer from WotC regarding this decision, particularly if we are vocal about the whole situation.

[ashiXIII]

Wait, let me get this straight. Gifts decks used what, one Time Vault. So...VINTAGE players are complaining because they lost out on maybe $50 worth of card? Vintage. Vin. Tage. $50.

Do I have that correct?

It's more like $80, and that's for an Unlimited one. Alpha/Beta Time Vaults are (were) hitting about $200, and as ThaGunslinga mentioned, he recently traded a BETA VOLCANIC for a crimped black bordered Time Vault, which makes his third one. That's a whole lot more than $50. But even so, the money wasn't really the point, it was the principle behind the entire thing. The principle that Wizards is willing to simultaneoulsy destroy an entire combo and the value of a card on the secondary market at their whim.

[Disburden]

I sent my email just now. I wonder if we'd see anything about this on Magicthegathering.com, or will it be ignored?

My beta Time Vault cost me almost 200$ about two months ago.

[Nefarias]

In the past hasn't Wizards announced rules changes when new editions (3rd, 5th, 6th) came out?   I'm curious as to why they decided to arbitrarily announce it on April 24th.

I was wondering the same thing... This errata hardly wants an emergency update to Oracle (by their own admission)...

Just to answer this question, they continuously update Oracle wordings without a fixed schedule, but they aren't often heard about. I'm guessing that they had been planning this one for at least a month or so, so to tell us three days before it happens make it that much worse.

[Harlequin]

I'm gunna chime in here ... as someone who has never bought, sold, or owned a time vault from any set ...

I'm not buying the "collector" arguement, not 100% at least.  Time vault was worth X lets say $50 before Mirrodin.  then maybe because of Lodestone it jumped a bit maybe $60.  Then Flamevault came out and im sure alot of "players" got really great deals.  Then the price rocketed, and more "Players" bought the card at this inflated price.  And i doubt anyone who needed a vault to complete thier collection of revised cards went out and BOUGHT the vault for it's collectablitly when the price was so inflated. Its the "players" who are loosing out on money not really the collectors...  I find it hard to say: I am a "Collector" of cards, but I only collect cards that are playable.  To me that defines a ccg player.  On a similar note, For every looser there is a winner... I'm sure in the months leading up to the release of this card, there were plenty of very smart players and collectors who bought vaults for cheap and resold them at a higher price as the combo grew in popularity.  It's not like the card that was originally $60 before Flameing Fusilade is going to drop to a Dollar box Rare.  Its going to re-assume its "casually playable, really old rare card" and go back to being $40-50ish.  So if you had vaults and kept them... you broke even.  

Like Matt said, How much are you possibly missing out on?  Even $200 is not ~that~ bad of a hit to your collection.

On the other hand, the abruptness of the change is alarming.  but lets focus on what the problem really is... and stop handing out tissues to players who are "looseing" money because of the change.  If I invest $200 in an up and comming new buisness and it totally tanks ... well that was my choice to take that risk.  If you pimped your deck with crimped beta signed missprinted Vaults, you were risking your money.  On the other hand, if you bough your vaults when they were cheap...before this combo was in the spotlite, then you made a killing, and that was a risk that YOU took, and that payed off for YOU.  We can't all win.

As for attempting to customize the rules and make our "own" format.  That would be detrimental to the community.  It would basically shut down the site, because If everyone had thier own "house rules" for vintage then there would be no point of discussion because there would be standard to compare anything to.  Any deck discussion and developement would only be realavent within the store it was playing in.

As Brassman pointed out in his article on gifts.  It really doesn't matter what cards you use as a win condition.  Flame Fusilde + Valut will inevitable be changed for X + Y for an equally broken wincondition.  Its as If they changed the errata on Balduvian Hydra ... it really wouldn't have that much impact on the game, and It would have little to no impact on true collectors ... so no one would care.  Why do we really care about this?  because to us it seems like Wiz is just flexing thier muscles, and giving the vintage world no time to fully consider the change and adjust our decks accordingly.

[ashiXIII]

Here's my letter:

Dear Mr. Gottlieb,
 
 
          I'm obviously e-mailing in reference to the 'announcement' of the Oracle change to Time Vault. This seems to me like a very bad PR move on the part of Wizards. It seems inane to me that you would neuter an established combo, and more importantly destroy the value of a (highly priced) card on the secondary market, simply on the whim that you don't feel it works the way it was originally intended to. Granted, with the original wording, it doesn't seem like it should work the way it does. However, after all this time of the combo becoming a staple and the card's value being so high, doesn't it seem like a better idea to overlook this small fact and instead maintain your players' faith in your ability to run the game? Wizards has, on many occassions, stated that they are sensitive to the value of cards on the secondary market, because it affects their customers, and thus the company itself, indirectly. However, this move does not show that this is the case at all. I know many players who are very upset over this, not only because they lost money, but because they fear they may lose more money on other investments (read: Magic cards. Many players consider these to be an investment). Also, why would you announce this so suddenly, in an Ask Wizards column? It seems you mostly answered that specific question because it allowed you to make this statement. This makes it appear that Wizards may be hiding something. What is the real reason behind this revision? Was it because the current way it works "bothered" you much the same as local enchantments did? Or maybe it was because you simply wanted to express your power as rules manager? Or was it another reason entirely? This has upset a great deal of players, collectors, and dealers, and I've yet to find one that was happy or nonchalant about it. Maybe you could check out this thread on The Mana Drain to see how people feel about this: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=28076.0
Thank you for your time.
 
Sincerely,
          Joe Davis

[cssamerican]

Well, I don't own any cards. I play online exclusively, so this feels more like a banning than a slap in the face. However, if I did own the cardboard this would make me sell all of it. They have said several times in the past they don't errata for power reasons, and its been quoted like gospel here on these boards in the past. This is obviously an errata that decreases the power level of an expensive card, plain and simple. This to me means you can't depend on them keeping their word, and worst yet you can't depend on them protecting the collector. This could have been done before tons of people invested their money into Time Vault just before FF was released. Instead they let the market inflate and then pulled the rug out from under the collectors...It is like junk stock! Enron anyone. If they can do this to the collector what is stopping them from reprinting power in the future if they feel that it will make them more money.

[dicemanx]

As Brassman pointed out in his article on gifts.  It really doesn't matter what cards you use as a win condition.  Flame Fusilde + Valut will inevitable be changed for X + Y for an equally broken wincondition.  Its as If they changed the errata on Balduvian Hydra ... it really wouldn't have that much impact on the game, and It would have little to no impact on true collectors ... so no one would care.  Why do we really care about this?

You're indifferent because all you see this affecting is BMGifts.

I'm not, because I see it as a decision affecting at least a couple viable decks in T1.

I didn't hear about people bemoaning how magic shouldn't have "debt" mechanics prior to this sudden errata decision, and WotC stopped printing such cards a long time ago, so why not leave them alone? It seems like this decision is either met by ambivalency (from people like you) or by disdain (people like me). The net sum is that you've increased the level of unhappiness with the decision, and sown the seeds of mistrust in the process. Or from the game point of view, the net sum is that we've again neutered a card that was giving us more exciting options in T1. That doesn't seem productive in the sleightest.

In other words, those that care are unhappy, and those that didn't care to begin with continue not caring. So whats the point?


Perhaps Time Vault didn't match Garfield's intent back in 1993 when if first debuted, but why not just say THATS HOW IT WORKS NOW. It works with Fusillade, it works with Myr. So what's wrong with that?

[Smmenen]

Like I said, who cares what the original intent was?  The original intent was that no one would see more than 5 black lotuses ever and that Dark Ritual was slower than Counterspell. 

[Yare]

Like Matt said, How much are you possibly missing out on? Even $200 is not ~that~ bad of a hit to your collection.

I am not quoting Harlequin to pick on anybody in particular, just as an example of the argument.

I could almost see this idea justified if the combo were degenerate.  However, as we have seen, it is not.  Come on, FIFTY to TWO HUNDRED dollars (for a playset)?  For what? To what end do all these people have to lose this money? What good is coming out of this?

In my opinion, the real reason for the change (or the "end" that I speak of) was to make Legacy more "budget" because (at least as far as I can tell) Time Vault was making some sort of impact on the format. Consequently, people were buying the card, driving the price up, etc.  Since the angle of Legacy is that you can't play expensive cards (or at least that's how WotC wants it to be in my mind), Time Vault had to be fixed somehow.  Now, banning a card (because restriction is not a choice in Legacy) that has jumped in price would cause a huge outrage in that community.  Simply ask people about restricting Mishra's Workshop for an explanation about that.  Consequently, they had to find a way to ban Time Vault without actually banning it.  Therefore, their solution was this errata.  That way, when people say, "I can't play with my card anymore" Wizards can just go "oh, sure you can.   It's just that it's working the way it was supposed to now."  Vintage, indirectly, took the hit as well.  That is how I see this.  It was a way to reduce the cost of Legacy, nothing more.  So, now that I look at it, maybe the intent is to cause prices to drop, just not on Time Vault specifically, but for Legacy as a whole.  Could, then, broken Legacy destroy Vintage?

Edit: What is the appropriate e-mail address if I wish to send a letter to Gottlieb?  I have searched the thread but am unable to find what I am looking for.  If someone could post it, I would appreciate it.  Thanks.

[Mr. Nightmare]

I totally disagree with you Yare.  i think there would be no reason for them not to ban it in Legacy if that was their aim, even for price.  When they split the lists, price was one of the factors contributing to why cards were being banned.  Legacy would not have uproared if it had been banned, in fact, most of us were expecting it to be March 1st, and were genuinely surprised it wasn't.  Hell, even if the errata changed in correlation to a B/R announcement, no one would have been that upset.  Its the sudden and the arbitrary that has everyone outraged.

[Whatever Works]

who really said we have to play by their rules. I know If I ran type 1 tourneys I would say to my players " Yeahh... y'know that thing they did to time vault.. they really didn't.." What is wizards to do ? Stop sanctioning T1 events ? *snicker* The game is ours, guys - not theirs. If they do this to many more cards, a declaration of type one independence may need to be drafted. We are the ones who play the game, we should have the largest part in setting the rules.

This brings to mind why can't we just diverge from Vintage as a whole. Wizards doesn't seem to care about the format. Their upkeep is questionable, and all they really sponsor is the the Vintages Championships each year. Why not have TMD create a banned/restricted list and call it something like "Our Type 1"?

Because I don't trust anyone here other than myself to appropriately craft a restricted list. 

Overall, you have to admit that Wizards has done an AMAZING job with the banned/restricted list... They have unrestricted 1/2 a dozen cards without making a mistake...

They restricted Mind's Desire before it ever became legal (being created is a whole different issue).

They restricted Trinisphere at about the right time... Leaving it alone until the unreasonable complaints (or at least imho) became deafening

They Restricted the CORRECT cards in both the case of GAT (when it dominated) and LONG.DEC (Burning Wish/LED)

They also correctly ignored HEAVY demand over the years to restrict Dark Ritual and Mishra's Workshop... People talked about a combo winter after Trinispheres restriction... and well... where is it??? Combo is good dont get me wrong... but its not 7 of 8 decks in a top 8.

This recent decision when its all said and done could go either way. Sure its bad if you own beta time vaults etc. However, the combo was created off an obvious abuse of card phrasing... You CANT OWE turns...Its a redicules condition that the cards interacted upon, and likely better late then never...

Dragon/Illusionary mask combos dont break rules... They are broken and have really abusive and poorly designed card synergies... but the cards follow general rules, and work perfectly within the contect of their oracle text.

Kyle L

[jpmeyer]

While we're at it, cards should never rotate out of Standard, get banned or restricted, or be made obsolete in any way, because that might cause them to lose value.

The whole losing value argument is absurd.  Don't include that in your emails.  Stick to things like precedent.

[Glix]

I actually agree with the errata.  I do realize that the splashback of errating, and esspecially at this point, is quite harsh.  However, the orignal text is as follows:
"Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn."
This, although unclear, leaves me, at least, to believe that the orignal intent was "Time Vault does not untap during your untap phase unless you skip your next turn."
Even this is slightly different from what they are doing, but my point is that the card is worded, and imo intended, to not untap during your upkeep unless you wish for it to, and to not untap at any other time by conventinal means (i.e. the card itself or standard game rules.)
I have never owned a time vault, and I do feel that it was wrong, to a degree, for wizards to not have seen the combo (which was to me, and probably most competant players, obvious), and also to effect the secondary market in such a way.  I feel that they should have figured this out from the forums and performed this action in a manner similar to Mind's Desire.  However, they did not.  I am truly sorry for any who spent money on an alpha time vault only to discover this fact.  However, I also believe that the errat was not a slight.  In my eye, I believe that the card was never meant to be used in such a manner, and in fact never meant to interact with itself in the way that the current errat allows.  It was orignally labeled as a monoartifact, clearly showing that it was intended to be used once, in addition to being the only card that does an action allowing a player to essentially gain something for nothing (and don't give me any flack about no Urza's Contact Lenses).

In short, I believe that the errata is both correct in competant, but I am disgrunteled at the manner in which it was carried out.  It disheartens me to see that they would do this, as this card that many have spent upwards of 100 dollars on will now have no uses.  The Community will be able to move on, however, and I hope that this hit will be taken without too much suffering.  I am trully sorry to any who purchased a time vault, esspecially those who got 4.

Well, it would seem that the vaultless version of Gifts I have been playing will be more popular now at least.