[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Prometheon]

Hmmmm. Seems just a WEE BIT different don't you think? I was very pleased by the suggestion somebody else made on how Time Vault should be worded, though I don't remember who said it:

Time Vault-2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
If Time Vault would untap, instead you may skip your next turn. If you do, untap Time Vault.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

That was me.

Also, Steve, I'm sorry, but the more I examine things, the more I begin to disagree with you.

Time Vault has the following wording: Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.

This is the text in question, and I can honestly say that I believe that it infers strongly (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Time Vault could not be untapped whenever you wanted. First of all is the semi colon. The reference to untapping during your untap phase is in the SAME SENTENCE as the reference to skipping your turn. The way I read it is that "Time vault does not untap during your untap phase. To untap it [during your untap phase] you must skip a turn."  The second big issue is that there is ONE card in all of Alpha, Beta and Unlimited that could untap an Artifact. I highly doubt Richard and the other guys in his garage caught that interaction.

I agree with Gottlieb about the intent. From reading the card, I believe that it is clear enough that the card is meant to be untapped only once a turn. If it were worded differently, such as perhaps "Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase. You may skip a turn to untap Time Vault." I think your case would be stronger, but as it stands, you appear to be trying to bend the rules of Magic Templating and Oracle Errata in order to keep a combo intact, which is silly.

I am, however, totally adamant about removing all the time counter garbage. My proposed wording (quoted above) also kills the combo with Fusilade (and twiddle) and is much cleaner in my opinion (though unworkable, as stuff isn't supposed to 'happen' during your untap phase.) Also, it stays true to the original 'textual intent' of "to untap Time Vault you must skip a turn." In this regard, I can see some argument, due to the presence of reference to the untap phase before the semi colon. Therefore the debate shifts from whether Time Vault should be abuseable with Twiddle, which is debateable, rather than whether it should combo with Flame Fusilade, which I don't think it should based on it's printed wording and textual analysis.

[Moxlotus]

This is the text in question, and I can honestly say that I believe that it infers strongly (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Time Vault could not be untapped whenever you wanted. First of all is the semi colon. The reference to untapping during your untap phase is in the SAME SENTENCE as the reference to skipping your turn. The way I read it is that "Time vault does not untap during your untap phase. To untap it [during your untap phase] you must skip a turn."

And that is one way to read it, but to be Gottlieb and say that there is one clear interpretation is ludacrous.  It is reasonable to put "how to untap" in the same sentence because if you don't untap it normally in your untap phase, when do you do it?  No restrictions on when you can untap it are on the card--it simply says that it doesn't untap normally. 

[Khahan]

It is reasonable to put "how to untap" in the same sentence because if you don't untap it normally in your untap phase, when do you do it

When do you do it?  Whenever you want. 
Why whenever you want?  Because the card text does not put a restriction on when. That has been the consistent way of magic from day 1. Do what a card says. Don't do something it doesn't say. If it isn't in the card text, it isn't part of the card.

That is both how and why we know that you should be able to activate this ability any time you have priority.

So how and why do you know differently?

....

Sorry if this was confusing and you saw multiple posts. I was double checking something Prometheus wrote to address him and got confused looking at something mox lotus wrote.

[LordHomerCat]

What's your immediate goal Steve?  AFAIK, they don't do emergency Oracle changes like they do with rare bannings, so no actual change is going to happen for at least a number of months (the Coldsnap release).  Are you hoping for a Gottlieb article, going more in depth about his thinking process and how he came up with that errata (and hopefully a preview of what he's going to change it to at the next update)?  An emergency change, which almost certainly is not going to happen, as this is hardly destroying magic at the moment?  Maybe a public apology, followed by WOTC mailing out checks to Vault owners (sorry, this one is a joke)?  Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for removing the Time Counter in the interest of matching the actual card wording as close as possible, but it seems like this debate is going to go on with no official word for at least a couple months, until we approach the next update.

Some other points:

On Vintage and Standard Playskill:  We are all terrible.  Type1, Type2, Extended, Legacy, Limited, we are all terrible.  If you've top-8ed a Pro Tour, you are probably excluded (although I imagine that some of those people would call themselves terrible as well), but otherwise we all make mistakes.  It is a very very hard game, so its no wonder that we suck at it.  This is not meant as any kind of insult, of course, but who among us can come home from a tournament and not recall multiple mistakes in nearly every round or game?  Or even worse, who can come home and not even be able to tell where they made the mistakes?  Even Smennen details multiple mistakes and misplays in his articles!

On the actual issue:  Removing the time counter goes with everything said about "restoring the card to as close as possible to the actual text".  As far as making sure new players are able to tell what the card does by looking... what new player is ever, EVER, going to see an alpha Time Vault?  I mean, are you going to teach your nephew to play, and give him a deck of Grizzly Bears and Hill Giants... and TV/FF so he can combo out?  Its just not a relevant argument.  The only people who are going to have any interest in the card are Legacy and Vintage players, and only those with a couple hundred bucks to blow on random cards after they have plenty of Duals/power/etc.  No one is going to walk into the shop with his URzaTron deck, see a time vault, and think "Man, that card is perfect for this thing!  Thats just what I need to make this deck Vintage-ready!"  Errata-ing things like Oboro Envoy and Remand to work as intended is just fine, as new players will see them.  But Time Vault is ridiculous.  If a new player sees that, he still has to consult Oracle with this wording, so it seems like that should be a non-issue unless he drops the Time counter.

[diopter]

Diopter:
You are right that people need to rise above the inanity that has being being presented. But, I think that you are in a minority if you genuinely think that Time Vault is better or worse than it was before. As Gottleib pointed out, Time Vault has never worked the way that they like. If you really recognized that it was not supposed to function this way, good for you. The fact is, though, that the card was legally functioning the way that they were using it. Fixing it the way that they did destroyed a lot of trust.

In order for your side of the argument to be taken seriously, you or someone like you needs to step up and counter Steve's arguments. Explain why this was the proper way to handle this. Give us a better reasoning than Wizards did.

Alright, so Harkius has asked that somebody counter some of Steve's arguments. I will attempt to do so here. Forgive the length of this post, but it seems that the Vintage community does not respond well unless every point, counterpoint, and argument are explained in great detail.

I first want to apologize to anybody reading this who is familiar with formal logic. I have butchered my terms terribly in the hopes that perhaps this will be more readable; in any case, a proper logical treatment of this issue (in terms of formal logic, not informal logic) would be impossible.

For the sake of simplicity, I will not address the time counter issue in this post. That is power-level errata, and I wish to separate that from the templating errata that changes the timing of the untap. In any case, I may post something about the power-level errata, but henceforth I shall only be referring to “current errata� in terms of the timing-revised untap ability. Onto my argument:

Steve contends that the textual intent of Time Vault is ambiguous because its text is inherently ambiguous. It is quite true that Time Vault is ambiguous on its face; therefore there are any number of interpretations as to what Time Vault actually does. Steve lays out three hypotheses:

H1 - Basalt Monolith was not meant to untap at any time.
H2 - Basalt Monolith, Time Vault, and Mana Vault were not meant to have any specific wording, but the templating was matched up in Beta.
H3 - Time Vault and Mana Vault were meant to untap at any time, so Basalt Monolith was changed to remove confusion as to the timing of the Vault untap.

Steve contends H3. He also refutes H1 using this argument:

A1 - Very few sets contain cards with additional text so contradictory to text from previous sets.

I interpret A1 to mean that cards in later sets often do not contain additional text that imply vastly different functionalities as cards from previous sets. For a moment, let’s adopt A1 as a premise, and see where it takes us. With a little logic, we can argue that A1, while refuting H1, also refutes H3. H1 states that a change in Basalt Monolith's text implies a change in Basalt Monolith's functionality, while H3 states that a change in Basalt Monolith's text implying changes in the Vault functionalities. The argument A1 that Steve presents would exclude both H1 and H3, leaving H2. I will deal with H2 now.

H2 suggests that there was no specific wording in mind on any of the cards in question, and that templating consistency was the motivation to change Basalt Monolith. I can certainly appreciate this argument for its plausibility. However, if we were to take this to be a premise, then we would be conceding that Time Vault had no specific wording and thus no specific functionality at the time. To correct this, Richard Garfield made the templating consistent. Fixing such inconsistencies in wording is ineffective without fixing inconsistencies in functionality, because the new wording would not remove the ambiguities in how the cards work; thus, I contend that making the templating specific makes the functionality specific (thus creating an original functionality). This functionality is still unknown (since we are taking it on faith that wording is not technically equivalent to functionality), but it is either that the Monolith/Vaults untap at any time, or they do not untap at any time. I will attempt to define that functionality below.

I contend that the Monolith/Vaults (specifically Time Vault) do not untap at any time. Another TMD member, Prometheon, has posted this eloquent argument (edited for space constraints):

Time Vault has the following wording: Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.

Time Vault could not be untapped whenever you wanted [because of] the semi colon. The reference to untapping during your untap phase is in the SAME SENTENCE as the reference to skipping your turn. The way I read it is that "Time vault does not untap during your untap phase. To untap it [during your untap phase] you must skip a turn."

The sentence structure of the card text is telling. The clauses “Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase� and “to untap it, you must skip a turn� appear in the same sentence. In modern Magic, it is not uncommon for abilities to span two or more sentences, simply because we have the well defined templating of “cost: ability�. No such templating existed in the days of Alpha, so the subtlety of the semicolon suggests that the second clause “to untap it, you must skip a turn� is directly related to the first clause, which refers to the act of untapping during the untap step. Now, note that I have emphasized that this subtlety only suggests this relationship. However, the suggestion becomes a strong argument when we combine it with the presence of the “may be untapped at any time� clause in Basalt Monolith. The fact that this rules text was available to Richard Garfield, but he did not use it, makes a strong case that he did not wish to have Time Vault to have that ability to untap at any time; instead, he wanted Time Vault to untap only during the untap step. Since the modern treatment for abilities during the untap step is to have them trigger at the beginning of the upkeep phase, the current errata follows logically.

So, assuming A1 as our premise, we can make a strong argument that the current errata is correct. Now, for the sake of completeness, we will assume the opposite of A1 to be our premise (those who are familiar with formal logic will recognize the following argument). If the opposite of A1 is true, then A1 is false and therefore H2 is false. Thus, we have the remaining hypotheses H1 and H3 to contend with. As a reminder, here are A1, H1, and H3:

A1 - Very few sets contain cards with additional text so contradictory to text from previous sets.
H1 - Basalt Monolith was not meant to untap at any time.
H3 - Time Vault and Mana Vault were meant to untap at any time, so Basalt Monolith was changed to remove confusion as to the timing of the Vault untap.

Steve suggests a hypothetical situation in which a player confused about the timing of Mana Vault’s untap would infer that it could untap at any time because of the removal of the “untap at any time� clause from Monolith. OK. I will suggest my own hypothetical:

Situation 1:
We adopt H1 as a premise, i.e. Basalt Monolith was not meant to untap at any time.
A player owns Alpha versions of Basalt Monolith and the Vaults, and perceives the functionality of the cards to be the following:
1.) Monolith can untap at any time.
2.) Vaults cannot untap at any time (they are missing the “any time� clause); therefore, they must untap during the untap step.
Said player acquires Beta versions of Basalt Monolith and the Vaults. He compares the Alpha cards and the Beta cards and concludes:
1.) Monolith can no longer untap at any time; it has lost the “any time� clause.
2.) Vaults still cannot untap at any time.
Conclusion: The player got the functionalities of the cards in question right.

Situation 2:
We adopt H3 as a premise, i.e. the Vaults were meant to untap at any time, and the change in the Monolith’s wording was meant to clarify this.
A player owns Alpha versions of Basalt Monolith and the Vaults, and perceives the functionality of the cards to be the following:
1.) Monolith can untap at any time.
2.) Vaults cannot untap at any time (they are missing the “any time� clause); therefore, they must untap during the untap step.
Same as before. Said player acquires Beta versions of Basalt Monolith and the Vaults. He compares the Alpha cards and the Beta cards and concludes:
1.) Monolith can no longer untap at any time; it has lost the “any time� clause.
2.) Vaults still cannot untap at any time.
Conclusion: The player got the functionalities of the cards in question wrong.

A principle of science is that in the absence of an absolute measure of a quantity, relative measurements are taken instead. Many of you will be familiar with the concept of gravitational potential, which is defined to be 0 at an infinite distance and infinitely large at zero distance from a point mass. However, these are conventions, and those who are really familiar with this type of thing know that adding a constant to the potential is a valid mathematical operation that will still allow the potential to satisfy Laplace’s equation. In any case, the reason I bring up that example is that the same principle applies in this case. In the absence of an absolute standard for templating, comparison between cards is a powerful tool. We are not completely devoid of an absolute standard though; we know that the Alpha version of Monolith, as printed, untaps at any time. We can therefore compare all the other cards to this absolute standard, to come to the following conclusions, regardless of which of H1 or H3 we picked as our premise:

Alpha:
1.) Monolith can untap at any time.
2.) Vaults cannot untap at any time (they are missing the “any time� clause); therefore, they must untap during the untap step.

Beta:
1.) Monolith can no longer untap at any time; it has lost the “any time� clause.
2.) Vaults still cannot untap at any time.

As demonstrated in my hypothetical situations, these conclusions support H1 and not H3. Therefore, the Vaults were meant to only untap during the untap step. We apply the modern treatment for this and come up with the current errata.

[policehq]

You just can't store time in a time vault by untapping it, flavour-wise. The tap/untap was used for keeping track of whether a "time deposit" had been made. To get it online you had to skip a turn. It's as easy as that. Why people get riled up in the tapping and untapping I honestly have no idea. A time counter is all that's needed.

Why are we able to store mana in a Mana Vault by untapping it and not time in a Time Vault?

Additionally, the time counter issue is pointless to bring up because WotC is not going to errata them off Time Vault. One of their goals is to allow you to play with their cards; errataing it to rid it of those counters would make it unplayable in legacy, and a restricted card in Vintage.

The current errata allows noone to play Time Vault in Vintage or Legacy.

-hq

[Juggernaut GO]

Sure you can play time vault, if you skip a turn before taking another turn.  That is the way the card was intended to be used in alpha, other then using twiddle and animate artifact instill energy.  Wizards saw that as a way to abuse the card, erratta'd it to require a time counter to take another turn in addition to skipping a turn and made it part of the effect.  Along came flame fusillade which was integrated in a deck to abuse of a part of time vault they didn't anticipate, they issue erratta once again to fix the problem. 

I don't see what the problem is really.

[policehq]

Personally, I have no problem with it. I just find inconsistencies in their explanation. I don't buy into any conspiracy theory that Wizards is out to make more money or backing out on previous rules.

The simple fact, to me, is that they are using the precedent of Mana Vault, and it can be abused using Twiddle, Voltaic Key, etc. There isn't a "Mana Counter" on Mana Vault. Heck, perhaps there should be. I wouldn't have a problem with the new Time Vault errata at all.

Now, how has this errata really affected us? I believe it's only psycholigically and financially. As we have all stated, the interaction between Flame Fusillade and Time Vault were not format-distorting. In fact, arguments were made supporting Goblin Charbelcher and Mana Severance, Burning Wish and Yawgmoth's Will, and Tinker and Colossus being superior.

The Gifts archetype still remains. As long as you have Yawgmoth's Will and Burning Wish, any two-card combo will win the game.

We lost Time Bandits and HyperMUD, and the person claiming to have invented these decks admitted not owning the cards, nor were these decks prevelant.

I think the psychological fear and the financial fear are the same. I fully believe that I can trust Wizards with my cards. In a way, I took a loss when I sold a play set of Time Vaults after unsuccesfully trying to build Mono-Brown combo, and before Flame Fusillade was released.

Regarding investments made, Wizards may not have given us much fore-warning about the errata, but what they do give us is plenty of time to see cards before new sets come out. Some people in this forum have complained that Wizards should have known about the interaction. If they should have, why wouldn't we be able to? Flame Fusillade was issued in spoilers at least a month before its release. At an SCG Andy Probasco and others touted how strong the combo would be. There are two windows of opportunity that sit there:
1) To buy Time Vaults if you recognized the synnergy early enough.
2) To sell Time Vaults as they rise in popularity.

Gottlieb explained in full why the errata took place. Stephen said there are multiple interpretations of the card, and now we know which one to use.

So I pose the question to you:
What do you feel you've really lost?
- If it is money, I lost money also by selling Time Vaults before Flame Fusillade. By "losing money" I mean that the potential for my collection's value rising was no longer there. I still don't complain about selling them prematurely simply because Wizards released an expansion to continue their business and keep producing cards.
- If it is trust in Wizards, what policy have they backed out on? Do you seriously not believe that Gottlieb was keeping cards in tact order? They have given us no indication of a reprint policy change, and it keeps coming up on this forum.
- If it is the Gifts deck archetype, think again.

Seriously I want to know what policy they have broken that would establish a precedent leading to the ruination of our collections and our format's diversity. Errata based on power level? Gottlieb clearly states that this wasn't the case. Is it that they overdid it while issuing the errata? Well, as JuggernautGO has convinced me, Time Vault is still playable; in fact, to an extent it still remains playable in a deck with Smokestack and Tangle Wire, making your opponent lose more of his or her board while also not being able to play any threats. Once you've established board control, yes, you've practically won already, but Time Vault can speed the process. Is the new concept of 'debt' bothering you? I really want someone to pinpoint how WotC betrayed Vintage players.

In the end, I support a new errata on Mana Vault that gives it a "Mana Counter" if they really want the two to synch up.

I do want to add, though, that Twiddle and Time Vault were issued in the same core sets, and so was Channel/Fireball. Perhaps Richard Garfield intended it to be a combo. I highly doubt it, though.

-hq

[CF]

In the end, I support a new errata on Mana Vault that gives it a "Mana Counter" if they really want the two to synch up.

I agree. It would make the most sense.

Also, just a tidbit, Flame Fussilade wasn't the first card to abuse Time Vault - I've died several times to a INF/INF Lodestone Myr.

--
Chris

[policehq]

In the end, I support a new errata on Mana Vault that gives it a "Mana Counter" if they really want the two to synch up.

Also, just a tidbit, Flame Fussilade wasn't the first card to abuse Time Vault - I've died several times to a INF/INF Lodestone Myr.

The reason I bought Time Vaults was for the Lodestone Myr combo, but since it didn't work as well as I hoped, I sold them pre-Flame Fusillade.

-hq

[Juggernaut GO]

I disagree that flame vault didn't distort the format, in new england at any given weekend tournament there would be about 10 flame vault gifts decks to compete against.  This is the deck that made me give up playing stax.

Dealing with a colossus can be hard at times, but dealing with an uncounterable 2 card combo if your playing shops is just retarded and next to impossible.  The best you can do is play a sphere of resistance and pray they dont find lotus to cast the flame fusillade.

Losing to the same deck for 3 months is pretty lame, so, good riddance.

[diopter]

- If it is trust in Wizards, what policy have they backed out on?

Be careful with this statement. A lot of people in this forum are clinging on to the belief that the errata was issued to lower Time Vault's power level, thus going Aaron Forsythe's stated policy that WotC will no longer issue power level errata. To me, it seems obvious that this was nothing but templating errata issued in an attempt to clean up a card, but to others, this is not the case, and those others will probably attack this statement.

[Khahan]

Seriously I want to know what policy they have broken that would establish a precedent leading to the ruination of our collections and our format's diversity. Errata based on power level? Gottlieb clearly states that this wasn't the case. Is it that they overdid it while issuing the errata? Well, as JuggernautGO has convinced me, Time Vault is still playable; in fact, to an extent it still remains playable in a deck with Smokestack and Tangle Wire, making your opponent lose more of his or her board while also not being able to play any threats. Once you've established board control, yes, you've practically won already, but Time Vault can speed the process. Is the new concept of 'debt' bothering you? I really want someone to pinpoint how WotC betrayed Vintage players.

To me, the errata was unnecessary and the basic reasoning presented that, 'we suddenly have a card that lets time vault be used in ways we didn't anticipate,' is scary.    What's next, [card]tinker[/card] gets errata because a new artifact comes out that lets you abuse it even more?  Or maybe they errata [card]mana drain[/card] because somebody decides the original purpose of the card was to only have the mana available on your next turn and not simply the post combat upkeep.

I guess its the old 'slippery slope,' path I see this leading us down.   This is based on the fact that I see no proof that the original intent was to only allow this to happen once and only on the upkeep. That is the crux of Gottleib's reasoning and I simply disagree. I do not see where he is coming up with that at all.  It was an idea he got in his head. Whether it was right or not, whether it was true or not, whether it was needed or not, he acted upon that idea.  So what will the next idea he acts upon be and will it be as unfounded as this one was?

[Juggernaut GO]

It's not a slippery slope to stop a gross abuse of a card where wizards has not overstepped any boundrys before in issuing errata.  What your suggesting will happen, is just not conceiveable, at least with the examples of mana drain and tinker.

Mana drain and tinker are already as broken as they can be, and their power levels will never waiver with the release of new cards.  If they haven't changed tinker yet because of darksteel colossus, they never will, and that combo has been around for how long now?

When a card becomes part of a really good combo which is undercosted and that it never was intended to be used with, I fully support wizards in issuing errata to fix the problem and make it interact fairly in the metagame again.

[dicemanx]

When a card becomes part of a really good combo which is undercosted and that it never was intended to be used with, I fully support wizards in issuing errata to fix the problem and make it interact fairly in the metagame again.

You inadvertently support Smmenen's argument with these statements.

If you have an issue with the power of the card, and how you've been losing to it thus preventing you from playing your favorite deck, then you might want to appeal for a B/R decision. Its too bad that the card would never get restricted as per your wishes had it not been errata'd, because it really wasn't that powerful or distorting.

[Khahan]

Mana drain and tinker are already as broken as they can be, and their power levels will never waiver with the release of new cards.  If they haven't changed tinker yet because of darksteel colossus, they never will, and that combo has been around for how long now?

I knew somebody would do this. I used tinker and mana drain as EXAMPLES. Illustrations for my point. They're just the 2 cards that popped into my  head. I could have just as easily said counterspell and demonic tutor. Maybe they feel blue is too powerful in T1 so they are going to errata islands some how!  Sheesh. Its an example, no matter how plausible or improbable.

The point is...what is next? And now that we have precedent to make a seemingly random decision, whats to stop them?

Do I think they'll go overboard and start issuing random errata on a daily basis?  No. In fact, I actually doubt it will happen again. I just don't see any other cards with this potential right now. Its the 'right now' that worries me though.  I'd like to believe Wizards will always act in the best interest of the game. To me, part of that is not making random  changes the functionality of cards (we can call it templating structure all we want, but how its used has functionally changed).

[Nehptis]

What about the spendable resource issue?  In Magic you can spend only what you have.  You have a finite number of life points, cards in hand, cards in GY, cards in play, cards in library, and TURNS.  Before errata Time Vault allowed you to spend Turns that you did not have. Steve commented on it briefly, but I would like to see more information.

[Juggernaut GO]

Nothing will ever stop me from playing any deck I create from week to week.  If I lose to flame vault in every top 8 I make, then thats the way it goes. I will complain about losing to that combo all day long however since I think it is cheesy.

I just think its great that they cut a leg out from under the lazy people who had been playing the same gifts deck for nearly a year.  With any luck, people will try something new and we will see a little bit more diversity in the upcoming summer P9 tournaments.

I am not sure who I agree with, since there were so many big words in the article and in the posts before mine.  I am merely a cave man and all the modern words frighten me.   I only say that I think it was a good idea to change the card, and I don't see it affecting many other things in the vintage community except for a birth of some new decks.  Or a bunch of people who quit magic.

[dicemanx]

I just think its great that they cut a leg out from under the lazy people who had been playing the same gifts deck for nearly a year.  With any luck, people will try something new and we will see a little bit more diversity in the upcoming summer P9 tournaments.

The strength of Gifts was not contingent on Flame-Vault. The deck will continue to be powerful.

I know you like to see diversity. Vault added to that - like I said, there were 2 very interesting archetypes that were nuked by this errata (I don't mean Gifts - I mean HyperMUD and FV full combo). Vault wasn't stifling the viability of any other decks, so we'll have nothing to compensate for its loss.

And while you think Vault was "cheesy", that can be attributed to almost any deck or broken card in this format. I'm sure that many hate Shops, many hate Bazaar decks, many hate Drains, Tinker, YawgWill etc etc. But that's the nature of the format. Those powerful cards are part of it, and Vault was too. I think when it comes to vintage, diversity and maintaining a high number of viable, playable cards trumps everyone's personal likes and dislikes.

[Jacob Orlove]

This topic was a huge mess, so I cleaned it up. For those still debating, please stay on topic and don't make ridiculous arguments.

[Moxlotus]

What about the spendable resource issue?  In Magic you can spend only what you have.  You have a finite number of life points, cards in hand, cards in GY, cards in play, cards in library, and TURNS.  Before errata Time Vault allowed you to spend Turns that you did not have. Steve commented on it briefly, but I would like to see more information.

Moving the "skip a turn" to the other side of the colon and make it an effect rather than a cost woud bring it in line with cards like Chronatog and Meditate.  You can cast as many meditates in a turn you want--you are not paying turns, the effect is skipping turns.  The effect of untapping Time Vault could be skipping a turn.

[policehq]

I guess its the old 'slippery slope,' path I see this leading us down.   This is based on the fact that I see no proof that the original intent was to only allow this to happen once and only on the upkeep.

I refuse to believe your statement that you see no proof of having to invest to receive benefits. Tell me to read the Alpha and Beta versions all you want, but come on... It can't possibly be unfathomable for Time Vault not to have been designed to pay a turn to receive a turn later.

At least Steve said that Gottlieb's interpretation was one of three valid interpretations.

You guys aren't broke, you guys still have Gifts, Lodestone Myr was a perfect target for Oxidize/Artifact Mutation/Bounce/Etc. Wizards hasn't screwed you over at all. You're creating more problems with all this "where will it all end?" nonsense, because Gottlieb gave reasons for the errata! For some reason half the people on this forum simply believe it was about the combo or being degenerate. The argument isn't that you're going to lose trust in Wizards, because obviously you don't trust Gottlieb's judgment as it is to make a perfectly reasonable errata. You lost trust in Wizards long ago if you're in a mental position to be susceptible to this victimized feeling.

Also, I highly advise that you don't point fingers to powerful cards with unintended interactions, if the problem you have with Wizards is that they're changing "so many things" and "ruining Type 1." Sure, tell Gottlieb how confusing Illusionary Mask. Let's get rid of that. Let's get rid of Mana Drain. (I'm only using this argument because the method you are using to prove your point is fingerpointing at more powerful cards and whining that Time Vault can't be like them. The change has been made, so if you want Time Vault to be like them, WotC will have to tone them down, too.)

Are you really going to be all that mad if they change Mana Drain to give you mana after you get a chance to untap? I hope not, if you're a drain player. Yes, that was an example, but Time Vault had slipped under the radar for a while and was fixed to match the phrasings of its kin; better late than never.

Illusionary Mask isn't going to get touched anymore. Bazaar of Baghdad and Worldgorger Dragon aren't going to be touched anymore. This isn't a precedent of screwing your decks up. This is a precedent of getting cards using the same language.

Time Vault, pre-errata, was a dead card in your hand until Flame Fusillade, or, in rare circumstances, Lodestone Myr, were playable. The errata did not tone down the power level of the card by itself. Wizards have promised not to errata cards based on power levels. They still haven't done that, even with Time Vault! The card is absolutely terrible! What happened was an errata to fix the wording on Time Vault made Flame Fusillade useless in Vintage and Lodestone Myr is only useful with artifacts like Howling Mine.

The bottom line is Time Vault sucked in your opening hand with Gifts. It's completely dead. An unpowerful card. A poor interpretation of the card's intent and wording allowed it to be abused with other cards, but this is not an errata to take the power away from one card.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

At least Steve said that Gottlieb's interpretation was one of three valid interpretations.

You guys aren't broke, you guys still have Gifts, Lodestone Myr was a perfect target for Oxidize/Artifact Mutation/Bounce/Etc. Wizards hasn't screwed you over at all. You're creating more problems with all this "where will it all end?" nonsense, because Gottlieb gave reasons for the errata! For some reason half the people on this forum simply believe it was about the combo or being degenerate. The argument isn't that you're going to lose trust in Wizards, because obviously you don't trust Gottlieb's judgment as it is to make a perfectly reasonable errata. You lost trust in Wizards long ago if you're in a mental position to be susceptible to this victimized feeling.

The point is his reasons that he gave are inconsistent with other policies AND that he was so insistent that it was so clear that Vault was meant to untap only during your upkeep when it is quite clear there are different interpretations.

[policehq]

The point is his reasons that he gave are inconsistent with other policies AND that he was so insistent that it was so clear that Vault was meant to untap only during your upkeep when it is quite clear there are different interpretations.

Again, I ask, what policies?!? Errata to take the power away from a card? Before Flame Fusillade was printed, how often did you see Time Vault? If we're going to be nit-picky and use each word to our advantage, Wizards can turn around and say "We didn't issue errata to fix the power level of one card." Time Vault's "power" came from Flame Fusillade, and Wizards have never promised not to errata to fix combos.

Please tell me what policies Wizards have taken back with this move, and it is not issuing errata based on power level. Time Vault is and always will be a bad card.

-hq

[dicemanx]

Time Vault is and always will be a bad card.

Time Vault incidentally was playable with 5 cards: Stasis, Smokestack/Tangle Wire, Lodestone Myr, and Flame Fusillade. This isn't to suggest that it was broken pre-FF, but it was certainly viable.

[policehq]

Time Vault is and always will be a bad card.

Time Vault incidentally was playable with 5 cards: Stasis, Smokestack/Tangle Wire, Lodestone Myr, and Flame Fusillade. This isn't to suggest that it was broken pre-FF, but it was certainly viable.

Seriously? That's your argument? Time Vault was a good card in Stasis decks? Stasis?! Viable Stasis decks?

Or Shop decks used it when they're already having a hard time fitting three crucial cards? Goblin Welder, Tangle Wire, and Chalice of the Void are competing for their slots.

That's your argument? Wow.

I admit, Time Bandits got the axe. It was absolutely murdered. Lodestone Myr and Flame Fusillade aren't going to cause players to cry, though, and Gottlieb's logic is right on (except I believe Mana Vault should have a Mana Counter to maintain consistency), and it is not breaking any of their rules or promises concerning issuing errata based on power level. If Time Bandits had been taking Sanctioned tournaments across the world, and if Flame Vault were Tier 1 in Legacy, I might be inclined to argue against Gottlieb. Still, Time Vault was a black sheep in its class, and the only intention of changing its wording was so that it would fit with similar cards. Gottlieb says this, and you all call him a liar and don't believe him; I don't understand why. I can only assume you're upset about monetary loss or didn't trust him to do his job well in the first place. Policies have not been backed out on yet, even with this new errata.

Not to mention, your argument clearly supports my point that Time Vault is a bad card and needs other bad cards to make combos that were inconsistent with the updated rulings of untapping during upkeeps.

The power level of an already bad card dropping was simply collateral damage while WotC WAS following their standards and being consistent.

If someone names another policy besides "power level errata shouldn't be used," then I'd be glad to hear you out. Til then...

-hq

[Moxlotus]

Again, I ask, what policies?!? Errata to take the power away from a card?

Yes.  The Time counter is an power level errata.  The reasoning they gave for the errata is to make it line up with Mana Vault more--but Vault doesn't have a counter of any sort.  It can be untapped by Voltaic Key ,but Time Vault can't.  The time counter is clearly power-level errata while having a policy against power-level errata.  Hypocrisy.  I'm sorry if you can't see this, but this seems perfectly clear to everyone else.

Wizards have never promised not to errata to fix combos.

Yes, they have.  They said they don't errata to fix combos anymore--that's what the B&R list is for.

[Harlequin]

I think people are muddling up their logic.  And using examples that do not apply.  Clearly TWO things were brought into consideration for the current errata on TV.  TWO things... that are limiting the card from different ends, and neither of which break any sort of promise that ppl are claiming Wizard's made to us.

Promblem A:  Powerlevel.  This is what lead to the errata involving the concept of the Time Counter.  This ENABLED wizards to comfortably print cards like Votaic Key, and other Un-tapping abilities to DIVERSIFY the card pool.  If left "time-counter-less" then the card would likely be the first card Banned based on power level OR they would have never printed Voltaic Key... but that is neither here nor there.  The point is, they wanted a way to make sure that players were paying for the untap, and the counter was implemented to differentiate between untapping Timevault with the intent of skipping a turn to buy a future turn... and untapping Vault simply to steal a turn from your opponent.

Problem B:  We have two cards with similar original wording, similar intended play... but they have totally different errata's.  these cards are Time Vault, and Mana Vault.  Clearly a vault based mini-cyle, pay a cost, to charge up a benefit.  One comes into play charged, the other doesn't.  So for a while (so they claim) they have wanted to standardize the wording on these two cards, but other, more urgent, issues have kept them from doing so.  So now pretend for a second you are R&D.  you have two cards:
Time Vault, Already errata'ed once, with a high degree of separation between card printed text and errata.  (The creation of the time counter)
And
Mana Vault: Also errate'ed but this one has no added counters to muck it up, so It has a low degree of separation between printed text.  This one more clearly states that this card can only be untapped once at a precise moment in your turn.

Which card would you opt to change?  make a highly disconnected card equally disconnected from its original card text (but make it look more like Mana Vault)?  Or screw up a different card to make it Equally disconnected with another card (as in adding a counter to mana vault and make it no longer use the upkeep and also make it untappable as much as you want - think grim monolith but with a counter)?  Also factor in that the card text on the 4th ed that has the word "upkeep" printed would be even worse.  Thats not to say that 4th ed = the errata... but at least it is close.

People argue that there are people who get paid to work on the errata list, and that this should never have taken so long.  but I highly doubt that Wizard's cut a check to anyone under the Job Title "Time vault errata council chair person"  The point being, they are releasing new mechanics with every set, and I'm sure that it is very difficult to meet printing deadlines to keep product flowing from the R&D team's desk to the store shelves.  Perhaps timevault's interaction with Flame Fusillade escalated Wizard's priority on the errata fix, but I'm sure it did not cause it.

Wizards would have taken different actions if they wanted it out of legacy.  And I'm sure they would have done something bigger if it was a Money making scheme (thats the most outrageous comments on these threads). 

I don't see why people see this issue so narrowly.  what is so hard to understand that the decission was a combination of an "Old power based" errata mixed with a new "Standardization" errata.



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..."

[dicemanx]

Seriously? That's your argument? Time Vault was a good card in Stasis decks? Stasis?! Viable Stasis decks?

Or Shop decks used it when they're already having a hard time fitting three crucial cards? Goblin Welder, Tangle Wire, and Chalice of the Void are competing for their slots.

That's your argument? Wow.

Chill. I've been playing Vaults a lot longer than most people knew of their potential, and some of these interactions were viable in Legacy (Stasis for example, which I don't consider T1 viable).

And Vault was very playable with Lodestone Myr, in my opinion precisely because it had added synergy with Smokestack and Tangle Wire. Time Bandits wasn't the only viable archetype that got neutered - HyperMUD was the original Vault-centered Shop combo deck, and that got axed too.

Not to mention, your argument clearly supports my point that Time Vault is a bad card and needs other bad cards to make combos that were inconsistent with the updated rulings of untapping during upkeeps.

Let me just get this straight: you are saying that "power errata wasn't in fact administered, because Time Vault isn't powerful at all - Fusillade made it powerful"

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at your logic. Some cards have individual powerful effects and break the rules to an extreme (Ancestral Recall, Moxes/Lotus), and some are powerful because of their specific interaction with other cards in the game. If you neuter the first class via errata to diminish its power, that is power errata. If you neuter the second class, that is likewise errata for power reasons.

[policehq]

Yes.  The Time counter is an power level errata.

And this debate and lack of trust from Wizards is starting now, as opposed to several years ago, because. . . ?

Since Time Vault did not have activated ability wordings, some kind of activated cost had to be made to untap it and to tap it for an extra turn. Black Lotus says "discard" on early versions; I'd certainly love for Black Lotus to be uncounterable: a discarded Elvish Spirit Guide for three of any color. Why haven't we been arguing about that? Why didn't everyone argue about the Time Counter a long time ago?

After Sixth Edition, all the rules changed, and cards were given templates and clearly defined activation costs. WotC is capable of defining these activation costs, and this one makes perfect sense to me. You skip a turn to be able to gain a turn. However, the earlier sets did not have the "tap" symbol or colons. Mana Vault was given one chance to untap: during its upkeep. Time Vault had a similar wording to Mana Vault and has been adjusted accordingly into the Oracle.

You guys are years too late arguing against the Time Counter, and it's too stupidly obvious you just want the combo and the money for Time Vaults. If you aren't arguing about it because it axes the combo and prices dropped, and it's purely about the Time Counter, can you please refer me to arguments made when that change was made to the Oracle?

Also please inform me of a promise not to errata based on combos and not on a specific card based on power levels.

Let me just get this straight: you are saying that "power errata wasn't in fact administered, because Time Vault isn't powerful at all - Fusillade made it powerful"

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at your logic. Some cards have individual powerful effects and break the rules to an extreme (Ancestral Recall, Moxes/Lotus), and some are powerful because of their specific interaction with other cards in the game. If you neuter the first class via errata to diminish its power, that is power errata. If you neuter the second class, that is likewise errata for power reasons.

Randy Buehler was speaking in the context of what happened with Waylay and, at one point, Abeyance when he said errata would not be issued based on power level. I personally didn't play Waylay, and I don't see how it's broken by itself (Crusades pushed it further), but Abeyance was changed based on power levels since it practically gave you a Time Walk where the opponent can draw and play a land if they have one.

These examples are individual cards that got errata because by themselves they distorted the format. Time Vault does not do that. Worldgorger Dragon is a terrible card. Phyrexian Dreadnought is a terrible card. Yet they have good interactions with other printed cards. Still, these cards were printed with clear rulings, and, in the case of Worldgorger Dragon, after basic templates had been established. None of the cards using these combos will be errata'd. Time Vault was because it is printed in complete sentences with no activation cost (was it intended not to be Stifled?) and laid out the same way Mana Vault is.

-hq