[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Smmenen]

Leo:

The naturally intuitive reading argument fails because once we admit that there are multiple reasonable interpretations, then the reason for the errata – preserving the happiness of NEWBS who become disgruntled to discover that Time Vault works counter to their reading of the card – falls away.  The NEWB will call a judge, find out that Time Vault can untap at any time, read Time Vault, notice that this is one possible reading of the card, and no longer be upset, even if they are disappointed.  Period. 

As I said to TD:

MOST importantly, and I want you read this very carefully: once you admit that the card is ambiguous, then Gottlieb’s argument goes out the window, period.  Why?  Because his entire argument hinges on the assumption that it is not ambiguous.  Remember, he is saying that there is a clear reading and that NEWBS will be pissed off to discover that Time Vault does not work as they intuit.  If NEWBS find the card ambiguous, as they WILL, then they won’t be pissed off if the Time Vault doesn’t work one way and not another.

That is, they will look at the card, and be disappointed that their preferred reading of the card isn’t the case, but they won’t be upset since they can see on the face of the card that another reading is plausible.

Hence, Gottlieb’s entire house of cards is destroyed by the stroke of my pen and the logic of my words. 

[meadbert]

This whole situation illustrates the importance of precedence.

I don't think anyone would argue that the old errata of Time Vault made a great deal of sense.

Still, it had been the errata for several years now.

Also, Mark Gottlieb made a great case for the need for errata when he mentioned that skipping your next turn cannot really be a cost within the current rules of magic.

The question is, given that new errata is required to make the card work within the rules, do you start over, look at the Alpha wording and try to come up with what makes the most sense to be consistant with Alpha wording, or do you simply make the smallest change possible to the current wording to make Time Vault work within the rules.

I believe in respecting precedence and maintaining consistency so I would much prefer the second option.

In writing software, when you need to rewrite old code, it is almost always advisable to change as little as possible.  The "less is more" saying is important.

Sometimes, you find yourself rewriting the same code so frequently that you decide the whole thing is inherently flawed in its design and you start from scratch.  Time Vault is one of the most heavily errataed cards in magic, so I am pretty sure this  is more or less what Mark Gottlieb has done here.  I have some sympathy.

Still, this is dangerous.  The fact that Time Vault is so heavily errataed shows that the wrong Errata could break the format and force yet more errata.  Since its current errata has not broken the format, the safest thing to do is infact keep the errata as close to the current errata as possible.

When you are rewriting something, whether it be software code, a law or anything.  You must consider how it is going to be used and how it is currently used.  The two most common uses were the Flamevault combo and the combo with Smokestack.  It seems the new errata breaks both of these.  I may be reading the new errata wrong, but it seems to me that untapping Timevault is now the cost.  If Time Vault is already tapped then you may not untap it to skip another turn. This kills smokestack combo.

Why would Wizards want to do this?  The Smokestack/Time Vault combo must have been realized during the 2004 errata.  Over the past two years it has been the most common use of Time Vault.  It has not broken any format.

I have some sympathy for wizards wanting to get rid of the Flame Fussilade combo, since they never intended it.  What I don't understand is why they would ruin the smokestack combo at the same time.  It seems the new errata is a broadbased attack on Time Vault, all its uses and all players who play it.





Has Time Vault also been ruined for Stax?  It used to be you could skip infinite turns with a ramped smokestack and destroy all of your opponents permanents.  Now I am not sure.  Can you untap Timevault if it is already untapped?  My guess is no.  It seems that is part of the cost.

[dicemanx]

You are completely missing the point.  Many players expectations regarding this card were fulfilled.  The fact that you can make an argument that they are somehow "wrong" in their expectations is entirely irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant. Fulfilling expectations has no tangible benefit apart from achieving, as Steve says, "fleeting happiness", which has minimal weight in this discussion. All we need to establish is that textual ambiguity exists, in order to challenge Gottlieb's/Buehler's contentions that the errata needed to happen to fulfill clear "intent", and that it was beneficial. The big picture here continues to be the loss of several archetypes without offsetting gain.

I understand the post-modern argument that there is no single meaning that can be ascribed to any language.  I'm not sure if that's the argument you are making here, but if it is it can be disposed of quickly.  That argument proves far too much here.  If we assume that no single meaning is ascertainable in general, we should probably pack it up and play Yahtzee, because this game won't work.

Another generalization - so if we admit that Time Vault text is ambiguous, we might as well extend it to all cards and say that their texts are ambiguous? Not making sense here....

Also, Mark Gottlieb made a great case for the need for errata when he mentioned that skipping your next turn cannot really be a cost within the current rules of magic.

The question is, given that new errata is required to make the card work within the rules, do you start over, look at the Alpha wording and try to come up with what makes the most sense to be consistant with Alpha wording, or do you simply make the smallest change possible to the current wording to make Time Vault work within the rules.

Neither, because you miss a third, very straightforward option. Shift the cost of skipping a turn to an effect. Just like they did on Chronatog and Meditate.

The "debt cost" issue has little bearing on this discussion.

[Khahan]

The naturally intuitive reading argument fails because once we admit that there are multiple reasonable interpretations, then the reason for the errata – preserving the happiness of NEWBS who become disgruntled to discover that Time Vault works counter to their reading of the card – falls away.  The NEWB will call a judge, find out that Time Vault can untap at any time, read Time Vault, notice that this is one possible reading of the card, and no longer be upset, even if they are disappointed.  Period. 

Quite simply, the single best argument made in the plainest language against Gottleib's thought process.  It is (was) 100% correct and because of that, it proves Gottleib's reasoning to be flawed. As Steve said earlier, if any one of his arguments are true, then Gottleib's house of cards comes crashing down.

Boom!

If you find the quoted portion above to be false, please state why. If you can't, then you should see that Gottleib had no real reason to make a change to TV. Without a real reason, he should not have done it.

[PucktheCat]

Steve, the player first encountering a Time Vault won't have read your article.  And he probably won't be a brand new player either, just someone running into Time Vault for the first time.  He will be applying his intuitions about how Magic cards work to the face of the card.  Some of these players will, as you say, conclude that it is ambiguous and move on.  But it appears that you, me, Mark Gottlieb, and a significant number of other players would be inclined to think that one untap per turn is the more natural reading of the card.  That was what I thought the card should do the first time I read it, and I have no reason to think that I will be the last or only person to come to that conclusion.

It doesn't matter if in some objective, abstract, ontological sense the card is ambiguous, because in the relevant, real world setting we are dealing with there is a best reading of the card.

Its not irrelevant. Fulfilling expectations has no tangible benefit apart from achieving, as Steve says, "fleeting happiness", which has minimal weight in this discussion. All we need to establish is that textual ambiguity exists, in order to challenge Gottlieb's/Buehler's contentions that the errata needed to happen to fulfill clear "intent", and that it was beneficial. The big picture here continues to be the loss of several archetypes without offsetting gain.

Right, and your playing with a card you like is a paramount, overriding value.  This whole game is about "fleeting happiness."  If you think that the policy of making cards act like they look like they should act is a bad one, make an argument on that point.  Continuing to focus on one application of the policy is the equivilent of evaluating the 6th ed. rules by looking only at how they affected Mirror Universe.

Hence, Gottlieb’s entire house of cards is destroyed by the stroke of my pen and the logic of my words. 

:lol:

Hence, [Smmenen's] entire house of cards is destroyed by the stroke of my pen and the logic of my words. 

[Harlequin]

So what are we really arguing here??

Are we arguing the errata? or the REASONS given for the errata?

Supose I told you, I think murder is wrong because If we murder people then sun will explode.  Therefore If we do not want the sun to explode, then we should not allow murder.

Clearly my reason is flawed.  but if you disprove my reason... does that mean murder is ok??   Attacking and disproving reasons for a change, does not mean that the change was not correct.  It seems most of Steves arguement is based on arguing a reason.... not the change itself.... wich is ultimately irrelevent in my book.


EDIT ---------- I forgot to add this little tidbit that I thought was a bit out of line in Steve's post:

.....
Have you done a study?  Have you polled a random sample of people?  Have you asked 500 college students which interpretation they read onto the card? 

You are making a very very bold assertion here with absolutely ZERO to support it! 

[...3 short paragraphs later..]

I would probably guess that 50% or so of players would read it as untapping at upkeep only and 35% or so as untapping at any time.  Even if only 5% of players would read it as untapping at any time, that is still a huge number of players.

At least he was saying "most common" and didnt give numbers.

I’ll go out on a limb even more, I’d wager it has made less than  .01% of magic players happy.

Ok count me down as one "happy" on the polls.  As I have outlined in my other posts, I think this is a perfectly logicical and justified middle groud between a power level errata, a standariztion errata, and an effort to do so without rewriting erratas for other cards.  Now show me a list of 10,000 players to off set JUST me.

[Prometheon]

Yeah, there is a slight dualistic fallacy in place here...

[PucktheCat]

I would probably guess that 50% or so of players would read it as untapping at upkeep only and 35% or so as untapping at any time.  Even if only 5% of players would read it as untapping at any time, that is still a huge number of players.

Have we seen any evidence that there are ANY such players?  It seems to me that the outrage is all coming from people who, in retrospect, find the card ambiguous.  You have to think that if a significant number of players had always thought the natural reading was that the card could untap at any time at least ONE would have come forward and taken that position in the hundreds of posts that have been burned on this issue.  I guess I would concede that someone, somewhere, has probably read the card that way, but there is no reason to think that is a significant part of the population.

Remember, this thread is in response to your article, which was focused entirely on convincing as many people as possible that the card was ambiguous.  If the distribution is roughly 50/50 in this thread, you have to figure that among people who haven't read this article the tendency is even greater to find the current wording to be the natural one.

[Smmenen]

There was a typo in my earlier post:

I said .01 % happy, I meant unhappy.

[Harlequin]

Remember, this thread is in response to your article, which was focused entirely on convincing as many people as possible that the card was ambiguous.  If the distribution is roughly 50/50 in this thread, you have to figure that among people who haven't read this article the tendency is even greater to find the current wording to be the natural one.

I highly doubt that anyone who has a general grasp on comprehensive rules of magic in its current printing, would argue that Time Vault's card printed text is clear.  Infact I don't think anyone thinks its clear.  I think the 50/50 split is between people who are looking at the errata itself, and people who want to argue the accuracy of the reasons given.  And further more, who that that by disproving the reasons, feel that that somehow prooves that the errata should be reversed/reworded.  Its an argument over the realavence of one representative's reasoning.

I brought up the first quote simply to point out that your discrediting your arguements when you attack a poster for one thing, then do itself a few lines later. 

I brought up the second quote to point out how chooseing to use .01%, wich is 1 out 10,000, to prove your point is called "cooking the numbers."   I could argue that this errata only effects a small portion of the inhabbitants of 1/9 our our solar system's planets; and is therefor irrelevant.  So the errata should no longer be discussed and we should focus our attention on the correlation between Murder and Sun Explosions, because that effects the entire solar system as a whole... but I doubt that will change the topic of this thread.

At this point I'm not even arguing about wheather or not I think the choice to errata time vault holds water.  I'm just trying to point out flaws in peoples logic, methodology, and overall scheme of presenting thier argument.

[meadbert]

Also, Mark Gottlieb made a great case for the need for errata when he mentioned that skipping your next turn cannot really be a cost within the current rules of magic.

The question is, given that new errata is required to make the card work within the rules, do you start over, look at the Alpha wording and try to come up with what makes the most sense to be consistant with Alpha wording, or do you simply make the smallest change possible to the current wording to make Time Vault work within the rules.

Neither, because you miss a third, very straightforward option. Shift the cost of skipping a turn to an effect. Just like they did on Chronatog and Meditate.

The "debt cost" issue has little bearing on this discussion.

Actually I your third option is the logical conclusion of my second option.  I believe the smallest possible change should have been made which would have been:
Cost = nothing
Ability = Untap Timevault, put a time counter on it and skip your next turn.

This allows the card to work within the current rules while being consistent with its most common uses.

[Smmenen]

I would probably guess that 50% or so of players would read it as untapping at upkeep only and 35% or so as untapping at any time.  Even if only 5% of players would read it as untapping at any time, that is still a huge number of players.

Have we seen any evidence that there are ANY such players?  It seems to me that the outrage is all coming from people who, in retrospect, find the card ambiguous.  You have to think that if a significant number of players had always thought the natural reading was that the card could untap at any time at least ONE would have come forward and taken that position in the hundreds of posts that have been burned on this issue.  I guess I would concede that someone, somewhere, has probably read the card that way, but there is no reason to think that is a significant part of the population.

There is no reason to think the opposite either.  What reason is there to think that a lot of people would someone read time vault and think it untapped at upkeep?

Let's take a look at the text again:

Time Vault doesn't untap as normally during untap phase; to untap it, skip a turn.

Symbolically that reads:

A doesn't B as C; to B A, D.

Now put some other words in there. 

You have a command on one side of the semi colon and a conditional statement on the right side.

IMO, the most natural textual reading is the reading that permits Time Vault to untap at any time.

Any other reading requires inferences that aren't in the actual text of the card.  Booya.

Remember, this thread is in response to your article, which was focused entirely on convincing as many people as possible that the card was ambiguous.  If the distribution is roughly 50/50 in this thread, you have to figure that among people who haven't read this article the tendency is even greater to find the current wording to be the natural one.

See above.

Not if people can read.  The strictest textual interpretation of the templating on time vault permits one to untap it at any time.  Any other reading requires additional inferences

Note that the semi-colon's meaning is still evident: there is a command that is logically related to the conditional statement.  one is a prohibition and another explains what you do to untap the card.  The relation is untapping, a mechanic that has nothing to do with timing objectively speaking. 

[Harlequin]

Time Vault doesn't untap as normally during untap phase; to untap it, skip a turn.

is a bit different from "Skip your next turn."

To me this card should do one of two things.  End your turn the moment it untaps (think timestop).  Or, would only untap if you skipped your last turn.

Perhapse the most clear errata would be. 

"Before your turn begins, you may choose to skip the turn, If you do, untap timevault."

Seems reasonable... but there is no card with that sort of templateing.  So why create new templateing to fix a problem that has already been fixed by another widely accepted errata (ei the errata on mana vault).

Edit:
"skip a turn" could also imply a turn of my choice.  I could say, I'll skip my 100th turn.  that logically fills the criteria of being "A turn" does it not?

[policehq]

I couldn't care less whether Flame Vault combos with Time Vault, specifically.  I, personally, now think the right call is to remove the Time Counter – which I will ask Gottlieb to do in the upcoming weeks.

Steve, I appreciate your logic. I don't appreciate Wizards' timing.

Still, though, I'm looking at Lodestone Myr being printed, Flame Fusillade being printed, and all the while, Time Vault has its Time Counter.

Why would you argue for the time counter to be removed? Don't you think it's a little bit late for that? You attack Wizards' timing, and only after Flame Fusillade is released are you so adamant about Time Vault's counter. This seems hypocritical.

-hq

[Jacob Orlove]

Why would you argue for the time counter to be removed? Don't you think it's a little bit late for that? You attack Wizards' timing, and only after Flame Fusillade is released are you so adamant about Time Vault's counter. This seems hypocritical.

It's because we didn't know about this "policy" of matching the oracle text to the card text until now. In fact, when looking at errata on cards like [card]Oboro Envoy[/card], it's easy to think that the text of a card is not the highest priority when issuing errata.

[PucktheCat]

You are arguing about what people should think, but anyone who read this thread can tell you that not everyone is convinced by these arguments, and the fact that you are arguing at all suggests that your claim is far from self-evident.  All your article shows is that the language of Time Vault, when deconstructed by a trained lawyer with an axe to grind, can be made to appear ambiguous.  Fine, granted.  The fact remains that when read by players who are looking for the meaning of the card, not looking to obscure the meaning, many come to the conclusion that the most natural reading is the one now reflected in the errata.  So far as we know, none come to the opposite conclusion.

You make the point in your article that contention magnifies ambiguity.  This whole debate is almost certainly the most contentious thing that has ever happened around Time Vault, and the potential ambiguities in its wording certainly have been highlighted by this discussion.  In other contexts, however, those ambiguities will recede, and people will be looking for the most likely reading.  This errata ensures that they will be right more often than they will be wrong.

Oboro Envoy

That card was just a printing mistake right?  Like Impulse?

[jpmeyer]

Time Vault doesn't untap as normally during untap phase; to untap it, skip a turn.

Symbolically that reads:

A doesn't B as C; to B A, D.

Now put some other words in there.

You have a command on one side of the semi colon and a conditional statement on the right side.

IMO, the most natural textual reading is the reading that permits Time Vault to untap at any time.

Any other reading requires inferences that aren't in the actual text of the card.  Booya.

First, I need to note that you didn't write the card text literally because this might change how the card is read.  You wrote "as normally" instead of "normally" and "to untap it, skip a turn" rather than "to untap it, you must skip a turn", which makes your phrasing make the card sound more ambiguous than it is.  "As normally" makes it sound like there is a special way to untap it and "To untap it, skip a turn" makes it sound like there is the possibility that it could be untapped at any time.

Back in the day, I placed the emphasis on the "normally".  Normally, cards are just supposed to untap when it's your untap phase.  If it were just "doesn't untap", I assumed that there was some other way to untap it.

This is not me speaking now about a hypothetical n00b.  That is actually what I thought as a n00b when I saw "doesn't untap as normal" on a card.

[Moxlotus]

Issue 1

Make the two cards with similar card-printed-text "close" in errata.  
Option 1 - Make TV's errata look like Mana Vault (remove time counter)
Option 2 - Keep the time counter on Time vault.

If opted to stick to the counterless wording on both cards you have the following:

Mana Vault + Volatic Key = Sol Ring (not that bad the format can deal with a 2 card combo that creatates a 2nd Sol ring.  Heck you can make another sol ring with Sculpting steel).

Time Vault + Voltaic Key = well I think the closests combo would be Iscochronic Septer with Timewalk imprinted ... for  less mana each turn.  Not unstoppable, but at least Sol ring is a valid card, this combo is not even alowed without some sort of Transmographing.

If that is not a solid enough arguement for why Timevault needs a counter ... then we just are not seeing eye to eye on what this format's power level should be.

Time Vault doesn't need a counter because errata is not decided with power in mind.  That's what the B&R list is for.  That is why this whole post is irrelevant.  Current policy states that errata has nothing to do with power level.  However, in errataing TV and keeping a power level errata.  It goes against that policy.

Next issue:

I said this errata has made next to nobody happy.  People claimed I was wrong.  Can someone explain why this errata has made them happy?  What makes you happier--format diversity or cards from 13 years ago that have identical texts having closer oracle texts--yet still not identical?  Why does this make you happy?  Not ambivalent--but genuinely happy.  I can easily explain why it has made me unhappy--I like a format with lots of options.  I enjoy playing against multiple decks in a tournament or being able to play lots of decks.  This decision has a direct effect on what I enjoy--it is actively taking away from something I enjoy and therefore makes me unhappy.  I would appreciate if someone can explain why they are happy about this decision in plain english.

[jpmeyer]

Oh, another point that I don't remember addressed:

“I will continue to make my decisions based on common sense, player intuition, printed wordings, and the integrity of both the individual cards and the game as a whole.�

Gottlieb doesn't claim to be making utilitarian decisions or basing things on precedent and whatnot.  I personally would say that making decisions based on the fact that "language is fundamentally ambiguous" goes against both common sense and player intuition, because yes, while language is fundamentally ambiguous, we assume that it isn't when we're using it.

The sort of logic that gets used on B/R list updates is not the kind being used in this decision, and I do agree with that.  His job is to make the cards work correctly rather than to cater to popular opinion.

[dicemanx]

Why does this make you happy?  I would appreciate if someone can explain why they are happy about this decision in plain english.

Because they can't moxlotus. I've asked many times, and predictably the question is ignored.

 

[PucktheCat]

Well, if you want reasons particular people are happy, be prepared to have people tell you that they simply didn't like the combo and are glad it is gone.  Several people have said just that.  That's just as legitimate as your desire to play the combo at upcoming events.

Myself, I think the policy was made for the future of the game and I am always happy at anything that increases  the chances that this game will be around when I retire.

[Harlequin]

Issue 1
Time Vault doesn't need a counter because errata is not decided with power in mind.  That's what the B&R list is for.  That is why this whole post is irrelevant.  Current policy states that errata has nothing to do with power level.  However, in errataing TV and keeping a power level errata.  It goes against that policy.

Policy is just that.  It has nothing to do with contractual binding agreements.  A policy is a guideline for normal opperating procedure, I think we can all agree that vault is somewhat "out of standard."  We're talking about a card that under the current card pool would be ridiculously powerful - however under the card pool it was originally printed, It was not.  For a small set of cards they can bend thier policy.  What would go against policy is if they errataed Flameing Fussilade to something like "tap any number of permenants and deal 1 damage for each perminent tapped in this way." This card already has perfectly logical and meaningful card printed text.  To change it after the fact would break your precious pollicy.  Do you really not see the difference between my example and timevault?  Timevault as printed has meaningless card text... what does "normally" mean, when is "a turn" -- who knows?  

Next issue:

I said this errata has made next to nobody happy.  People claimed I was wrong.  Can someone explain why this errata has made them happy?  What makes you happier--format diversity or cards from 13 years ago that have identical texts having closer oracle texts--yet still not identical?  Why does this make you happy?  Not ambivalent--but genuinely happy.  I can easily explain why it has made me unhappy--I like a format with lots of options.  I enjoy playing against multiple decks in a tournament or being able to play lots of decks.  This decision has a direct effect on what I enjoy--it is actively taking away from something I enjoy and therefore makes me unhappy.  I would appreciate if someone can explain why they are happy about this decision in plain english.

So there basically is no right answer.  You're going to tell me what I'm allowed to be happy about and what I'm not allowed to be happy about.  If your calling my "happiness" Abivolance or lets say that I am "Content", then I think its appropriate to say that your so labled "un-happiness" is not "Sadness"  -- however I think its more like "discontent," or being "upset", or perhaps even "anger" or "outrage."   These are all just words.  And I'm surprised that you would contest the words I use to feel about a certain situation.

[Juggernaut GO]

I am happy about it because I got sick of losing to flame vault in gifts about 3 months ago.  

[Moxlotus]

If people are going to say they simply didn't like the combo then I would ask them why they didn't like it.  It didn't dominate the format.  It wasn't degenerate.  It was easily shut down.

And I still don't understand how it was good for the future of the game.  The reason given was so it matched close with the text--but with a time counter players STILL need to look up the Oracle so it saves new players nothing.

@ Harlequin.  I agree it has meaningless card text--the the point is that they claim they are not breaking any policy and I have shown how they are.  Also, please explain why you are happy then.  I won't say what you're allowed to be happy about so can you please be a little less melodramatic plz k thx?  There are 3 expressions that people are saying exist now--happiness, ambivalance, and unhappiness.  I can understand ambivalance and unhappiness, but I can't see a reason to be happy.  I am simply asking a question so if you could calmd own and act like less of a woman (insert mox is a sexist pic or whatever) and please simply explain why you are happy.  However, I may have additional questions to follow up.

edit:

@ Travis--thanks for the straight answer.  This is what I am looking for--simple reasons.  I am guessing that many people just didn't like playing against the combo.  However, is it really that bad having a combo that is easily hated out in the format?  If you could follow up it would be nice.

[Harlequin]

Quoted from my Post from page 3.

A while back, there was a post calling people out to post "legitimate" reasons why they like the errata.  First off that is a loaded question for a righteous flaming.  But I'll step up and say I like it for 2 reasons:

#1 - It shows that Wizards even remotely cares about Vintage... And has the ability to work hours devoted to vintage into a budget.  Even though they make minimal $ on us.

#2 - They are actively attempting to standardize rules and cards.  As far as new player go (that everyone seems so concerned about all of a sudden).  If asked, I can explain Mana Vault to them, and how the errata is different... then explain Timevault by saying "It's a bit like the Mana Vault errata, but bla bla bla..."

Reitteration of that point on page 4:

Why don't people understand that choosing "middle ground" is not automatically being Hypocritical.  This is the middle ground between a power lvl errata, an effort to standardize, and an effort to make as little change as possible. 

If you think that extremeism and absolutism is the only path for decission making, you need to grow up a bit and open your eyes.

To put it into one sentece.  I Like the errata because in simplifies the card without making it too power.

[PucktheCat]

If people are going to say they simply didn't like the combo then I would ask them why they didn't like it.  It didn't dominate the format.  It wasn't degenerate.  It was easily shut down.

Right, you are going to argue with them until they realize that they liked the combo after all.

[Moxlotus]

@ Puck.  Yes.  That is exactly what I am going to do.  I guess it is wrong to ask someone why they like or don't like something.  I guess it is wrong to ask people to have reasons for what they believe.  I am completely sorry.

@ Harlequin.  Ok-I understand why it makes you happy.  Thanks.  I have another question

#2 - They are actively attempting to standardize rules and cards.  As far as new player go (that everyone seems so concerned about all of a sudden).  If asked, I can explain Mana Vault to them, and how the errata is different... then explain Timevault by saying "It's a bit like the Mana Vault errata, but bla bla bla..."

Wouldn't it be easier to explain TV to newer players with the "but, blah time counter stuff" ?  Ah, but then it would be too powerful possibly.  I would argue then that's what the B&R list is for.

Why don't people understand that choosing "middle ground" is not automatically being Hypocritical.  This is the middle ground between a power lvl errata, an effort to standardize, and an effort to make as little change as possible. 
 

When there is one policy that says they won't errata cards based on power level, I take that as they won't errata cards based on power level, not even a one tiny bit because the B&R list can handle power.  Making a statement, and then going against that statement (even a bit) is still hypocritical.

[Juggernaut GO]

I say the deck was out of balance in new england.  Showing up at a tournament of about 30 people, when at least 10 of them are running flame vault is unbalancing, and boring to play against.

It isnt so easily hated, what do you do, drop pithing needle on time vault, run null rod, or blue blast to counter the flame fusillade?

I say the combo was too fast to set up via demonic, vamp, mystical, and imperial seal.  

I am the only person in the vintage community that thought flame-vault was a cheesy combo, and I accept this.  There was no point in restricting either card because gifts ran only 1 of them anyway, so they resorted to changing the erratta on time vault.

It does not make it a useless card, I can see the card be played in stax, maybe now that the prices drop again I will pick up 1 or 2 and put it in my deck.

[Moxlotus]

@ Travis- Thank you very much.  That is exactly what I asked for.  I only wish others could answer like you did.

[dicemanx]

Not to throw gas on the fire, as I am one of the "Ambivalent" people, but wasn't the Counter added before Wizards took the policy about power-level errata?  And as such, if they were to remove it, wouldn't that be altering the power-level (specifically, not the functionality) of the card with errata?

That is an irrelevant question.

Remember why we're making these arguments in the first place. We want to salvage the playability of the card. There is one impediment though. The rules manager is trying to convince us that there is a clear intent associated with the card text, and he aims to match textual intent and oracle wording as closely as possible. But we can argue that the time counter goes against this goal (nevermind the fact that what he's setting out to do is impossible given the textual ambiguity). The point is, he's not even achieving what he's setting out to do, so why mess with the card in the first place.

I don't want him to remove the counter. I want him to not touch the card period (apart from that trivial cost to effect switch which apparently seems important even though its really a trivial semantics issue).