[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[dicemanx]

it's too stupidly obvious you just want the combo and the money for Time Vaults.

You got it. It was made stupidly obvious so even someone like you could understand.

We want the combo in T1 - we like diversity in the format so long as it isnt dominant or distorting, which by definition would instead limit that very diversity we seek. Vault combos were not dominant or distorting.

We don't want to lose money on time vaults - who would? But even this reason is secondary to the reason above. 


You keep thinking small. This isn't about a time counter. This is about finding ways to keep the card viable and playable in the format. It added nice possibilities when it functioned a certain way pre-errata. We claim that this was a good thing. Now post errata the card has been removed from the list of options, with little/no appreciable positive effects.


My priority lies with format health and diversity.

Your priority lies with...aligning Time Vault and Mana Vault text?

[Titanium Dragon]

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.

In WotC's defense, I do think that if they had had the concept of counters in Alpha they would have probably used them on Time Vault. Even so, I think the argument is at least somewhat bogus in that they didn't re-errata the time counter thing - they left that part intact from the original round of power level errataing which took place back in the early days. You can argue that they should reverse that old errata, but I doubt they will for various reasons, ranging from wanting to keep Basalt Monolith off the restricted list to not wanting to revisit that sordid era.

I think that they wouldn't want to reverse that for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is their policy of people getting to play with their cards. If they erratad Time Vault to not have the time counter, that'd be paramount to banning it from Magic - they'd be forced to restrict it in type 1 and ban it from legacy, and the fact of the matter is that WotC only supports Legacy - it cannot really support vintage at this point, at least as far as a Grand Prix or Pro Tour goes, simply on the basis of card cost and availability. As such, WotC is not eager to make it so a card is only usable in a format in which the average deck costs more than $1000, and even with 10 proxies some decks cannot be built for less than $500. It may suck if you own a Time Vault, but I'm pretty sure the legacy players wouldn't be terribly pleased if their card was errataed then promptly banned because of the errata. You think its bad now, I can just -imagine- the whining that would cause, not to mention the animosity towards the type 1 community it would create.

Most people would agree that banning cards is a bad thing if it can be avoided, and as few cards should be banned as is reasonable. In the end, having an unrestricted, Legacy-legal Time Vault is more important to people than having another broken card which can only be played in type 1 and which you can't even play in casual because it is too degenerate to be fun. I'm pretty sure WotC thinks that, and I think that is a very reasonable coporate position to take - and I think it is better for the players too, long term. Time Vault is still interesting, if not broken; you can still play with the card in two formats rather than one. In the long term, this is more important than the Flame Vault combo. Yes, that combo wasn't broken, but fixing cards is good, and keeping cards legal is good. It is hard to argue that a card should do something which it wasn't ever supposed to be able to do, not because of an unforseen interaction but because of poor errataing.

[policehq]

Your priority lies with...aligning Time Vault and Mana Vault text?

You got me. I'm Gottlieb.

My priority is to move on instead of whining about something that makes perfect sense. It isn't my job to change the wordings, but I understand why he did and am quite capable of moving on from Flame Fusillade and Time Vault.

Fortunately for you, both of our priorities are met, because the format didn't suddenly become undiversified. The format is still healthy with plenty of decks to choose from and a constantly changing metagame, sideboarding decisions, and tech from new or forgotten sets. The format is not in *any* danger of being ruined by Wizards of the Coast because Gottlieb decided to match Time Vault with Mana Vault. What other cycles do you see getting axed? The nightmare horror creature cycle for Dragon? I highly doubt it. Counterspells aren't going to change, Mishra's Workshops aren't going to change. Nobody has to worry (like the initial outcry) of all their valuable cards becoming useless.

-hq

[dicemanx]

I think it is better for the players too, long term. Time Vault is still interesting, if not broken; you can still play with the card in two formats rather than one.

The last statement is indeed strictly true - Time Vault can still be played in both formats.

However, competitive players in the eternal formats concern themselves with playable, tourney viable cards. After this errata, TV will fall off everyone's radar, making it analogous to "banning" the card in Legacy. Its like saying that you can play 5000+ cards in T1, and while that's strictly true, the reality of the situation is that the number of playable cards is limited to a much smaller subset (<500 most likely).

As such, I do not see this errata as benefitting anybody in the long term. I only see one casualty in this, and that is T1 in the short term. If there were compelling arguments that showed us that there would be long term benefits, I would refrain from arguing for a reversal at this point in time.

In WotC's defense, I do think that if they had had the concept of counters in Alpha they would have probably used them on Time Vault.

You might be right.

I would look at it this way though. This card had no happy place in T1. It was either too powerful (necessitating the banning initially, and then the introduction of a time counter), or too impotent (its current version). If I were a set designer, I would be unhappy with either state. However, the previous iteration of the errata showed something remarkable - Time Vault actually had a use in competitive formats, and it also wasnt dominant and distortive. It seemed like it finally found a happy medium!

Now let me play devil's advocate for a second, and let's say that I changed my view and felt that the card was simply "played wrong all these years". Well, I'd still be at a crossroads. It would seem that the players look to be enjoying the card's use. Sure there's some ambiguity, but the oracle is all powerful - whatever it says a card does, that's what the card does. And sure some would "hate" the combo, but thats par for the course. People love certain cards/combos/archetypes, and hate others.

My priority is to move on instead of whining about something that makes perfect sense. It isn't my job to change the wordings, but I understand why he did and am quite capable of moving on from Flame Fusillade and Time Vault.

Well, with all due respect, the priority you place on "moving on" isn't going to impact the feedback we're giving WotC. I respect that you want to move on, or that you don't want to deal with this issue. But don't force others to move on with you. We're not ready, because some of us still feel that a change is possible, albeit sleight.

I recall similar obstacles that I faced trying to get rid of Trinisphere. And frankly, arguing against this errata is a walk in the park compared to making a compelling cost-benefit analysis regarding Trinisphere restriction.  However, I stand by that restriction decision (WotC does listen), and I do feel it was the correct one in terms of increasing diversity. We have the benefit of many more decks now than I feel would be possible if Trini was unrestricted in the format. 

Fortunately for you, both of our priorities are met, because the format didn't suddenly become undiversified. The format is still healthy with plenty of decks to choose from and a constantly changing metagame, sideboarding decisions, and tech from new or forgotten sets. The format is not in *any* danger of being ruined by Wizards of the Coast because Gottlieb decided to match Time Vault with Mana Vault. What other cycles do you see getting axed? The nightmare horror creature cycle for Dragon? I highly doubt it. Counterspells aren't going to change, Mishra's Workshops aren't going to change. Nobody has to worry (like the initial outcry) of all their valuable cards becoming useless.

This is distortive. I don't want to hear something that I agree with. We all know T1 isn't going to live or die based on this one decision, and that diversity isn't going to disappear completely.

However, what I want you to do is either confirm or deny that removing Time Vault will decrease diversity. Because if it is true that diversity is decreased, AND you see no significant offsetting gain, then this errata was a mistake. A small one perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless.

[Moxlotus]

No-power level errata wasn't just referring to Waylay and Abeyance.  It was in the article discussing whether or not to errata Dragon, Trix, and Mask.  They said they won't errata due to power reasons.

The other problem with the explanation is saying the card isn't being played as it was intended.  Wizards has said they hope people play cards in ways that weren't anticipated!!!!!  Well, isn't Fusillade unanticipated?

I didn't own Vaults and never played Gifts.  I just want WotC to be consistant with their statements and reasoning.  When they have multiple options (change to how it is now or move skip a turn to an effect) I want to know why.  Since they said it relates closer to Mana Vault, I want to know why they don't fully make the cards essentially the same wording--counter and all.

[policehq]

This is distortive. I don't want to hear something that I agree with. We all know T1 isn't going to live or die based on this one decision, and that diversity isn't going to disappear completely.

However, what I want you to do is either confirm or deny that removing Time Vault will decrease diversity. Because if it is true that diversity is decreased, AND you see no significant offsetting gain, then this errata was a mistake. A small one perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless.

Quite fair for you to ask of me. Time Vault errata cuts off Mono-Brown combo. It cuts off the ability to skip turns while your opponent loses his field to a Smokestack. We can't use it as the kill in Gifts anymore (but that discussion would still be up in the air for a long time, I imagine), and my first Type 1 deck had Lodestone Myr and Time Vaults. It has sentimental value. I even foiled it out.

That said, Time Vault in its previous incarnation was very valuable to me. I took it to my first two Vintage tournaments.

Yes, we did lose diversity.

Gottlieb clarifies rules. He put a lot of thought into his decision and came up with the crap rare Time Vault was intended to be (in my opinion).

I do not agree that you cannot skip turns that you may not have, activating Flame Fusillade 20 times. I'd get into Schroedinger, but that's a mess. The Time Vault nor the game know how many turns you will have. For example, if I play Meditate, have to discard to 7 cards, and weld in Eater of Days, I could lose the next turn. Did I ever play those cards? Yes. Did I have those turns? No. Should I have been able to play those cards? Yes. Thus, logically, if Time Vault weren't limited to my upkeep, I should be able to skip as many turns as I please.

I don't think the Time Counter is the issue of the current power-level errata, but the use at the beginning of the upkeep. I see a minor benefit in Time Vault matching Mana Vault through the course of a turn. Still, I think it's an irrelevant issue since Time Vault will most likely not be played because that similarity was deemed necessary.

I think that skipping turns to get a benefit such as 1 point of damage to the opponent is reasonable. You are sacrificing a turn, and you are "going off."

I believe it is both minorly helpful and a small mistake.

Now, a counter-question for you: Do you feel that your decks are threatened even while explanation outside the realm of power level was given for the current errata of Time Vault? What cards do you feel are in jeopardy? You do see logic, albeit not beneficial to the Eternal formats, behind the errata, correct?

What I am attacking is the senseless outcry that Wizards are going to start reprinting power, Force of Wills, duals, etc. because they "broke a precedent." Gottlieb put ABU language into today's terms, with colons meaning you're paying an activation cost and establishing the fact that you must pay to receive, since that is a logical interpretation of the card. I attack the people that are worried for Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Illusionary Mask, Bazaar of Baghdad, Worldgorger Dragon, and Squee, Goblin Nabob. Why would they change these cards, even if they do exactly what one could interpret upon the reading of the card? How would they change them?

To those two questions, Time Vault had an answer. These other cards do not.

That is altogether where I stand. I loved my powerhouse Timmy Lodestone Myr + Time Vault combo. I haven't analyzed the different methods of getting Time Vault to work as it should without being broken. It seemed like it stood in a grey area between excellent and not useful. Gottlieb didn't like the wording on Time Vault, Whippoorrwill, or Darkpact. He changed them to have an Oracle layout similar to his interpretation of the card (and not asking our interpretations) that made it unuseable.

I stand behind you in your decision to get him to reconsider. Turns can be spent even if you can't promise to have them.

I do NOT stand, nor can I tolerate, whining about financial value or other peoples' pet decks/cards getting axed because they think Wizards are out to get them or something.

No-power level errata wasn't just referring to Waylay and Abeyance.  It was in the article discussing whether or not to errata Dragon, Trix, and Mask.  They said they won't errata due to power reasons.

I believe we're referring to different interviews/quotes. I read an article primarily on Abeyance, when mana abilities could not be countered (except by Null Rod, which confuses me).

Worldgorger Dragon and Illusionary Mask/Phyrexian Dreadnought cannot be errata'd without straying from the original intent. If they were to errata these cards, it would both be to reduce the power level and to change the flavors of the cards altogether. Though this is aside from the point, I feel like they *could* change Illusions of Grandeur, and I would never flinch.

-hq

[Hillboy]

I've only seen a time vault combo once, just once. However even that first time I thought that seemed really weird so I asked the player to explain how it worked, which he did and I thought okay fine no big deal.

So on the confusing argument I would say no.

On the spirit of the card argument. I can't remember the exact errata something about counters and untapping to get one and removing them to take another turn. The card is FUBAR as far as errata is concerned anyway.

So on the spirit of the intent issue, um no don't think so that doesn't fly with me either.

If this combo is such a thorn in the side of wizards they have other ways to stop it via restrictions and bannings. Legacy already has a combo that has been banned because worldgorger dragon is banned there.So if time vault is so nasty in that format (which I don't really know if it is or not just to be honest) there is a solution right there, ban it, or flame fusillade because other than time vault noones gonna miss it.

Unfortuneately wizards has already done the unthinkable and to go back on thier word would be a horrible solution. Why? because if they unerrata time vault because some players complained about it pretty soon players will start asking them to do other stuff. Say a faction of MTG players wants Worldgorger errata'd so they start a campaign to do so.

Essentially I'm just saying that for wizards to go back on thier word would be a bad move because pretty soon other problems will show up and people will say "hey, you guys unerrata'd time vault why can't you blank this blank.

I hope that makes sense.

In my opinion the best thing for wizards to do would be to remember this in the future so that if something comes up that they don't like they can errata it before so many players invest thier time and money into it.

That's just what I think.

Jed

[dicemanx]

Now, a counter-question for you: Do you feel that your decks are threatened even while explanation outside the realm of power level was given for the current errata of Time Vault? What cards do you feel are in jeopardy? You do see logic, albeit not beneficial to the Eternal formats, behind the errata, correct?

The errata is 100% logical, but not from a cost-benefit point of view (our central argument). The card certainly does match a possible textual intent.

What has lead to so much unpleasantness was that we were forced to argue about details - policy, lack of textual intent, time counter inconsistencies etc. However, these details are really not that important in terms of the big picture, and in terms of tangible gain. What I see is a very real loss (3 decks gone!). I struggle to see how I'm supposed to be gaining by this decision.


By comparison, I don't care about the Brassman errata. It is also logical, and has fairly straightforward cost-benefit analysis - minimal cost, minimal benefit. In other words, nobody is voicing their opinions or objections, because unsurprisingly, no one cares. There is neither tangible gain nor tangible loss. And that's fair.

What I am attacking is the senseless outcry that Wizards are going to start reprinting power, Force of Wills, duals, etc. because they "broke a precedent." Gottlieb put ABU language into today's terms, with colons meaning you're paying an activation cost and establishing the fact that you must pay to receive, since that is a logical interpretation of the card. I attack the people that are worried for Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Illusionary Mask, Bazaar of Baghdad, Worldgorger Dragon, and Squee, Goblin Nabob. Why would they change these cards, even if they do exactly what one could interpret upon the reading of the card? How would they change them?

I think this decision to errata has served to reaffirm something that worried us a long time ago - there never really is any security when it comes to our investment. In other words, WotC can say "we will abide by A, until we decide A no longer holds true". They said no card will be reprinted off the reserved list, until they say otherwise. they say Animate works the way its supposed to, until they say otherwise. Perhaps the next rules manager after Gottlieb will decide that certain interactions, such as those associated with Mask or Animate-WGD, should not exist from a rules stand point. The reasons can be manufactured very easily actually, and every decision will slip into a de facto argument. "We decreed it to be so, and therefore it is correct".

Now I don't really care to make slippery slope arguments. They are pointless,especially since because none of us are fooled into believing that things are not subject to change. WotC is not bound by law to follow its own policies, so if it wanted to get crazy the next day and reprint everything as commons, they can do so. This decision to errata is a step in that feared direction though.

Gottlieb proclaimed that errata should be free of secondary market consideration (and by extension, free of player "wants"). In general, I think this is a good policy to have, so long as you work towards making the game better and more appealing.

However, that doesn't mean that exceptions cannot be made, especially those that are highly ambigious to begin with and are associated with older cards that do not see play in any of the major WotC sanctioned formats save legacy. Time vault is really a unique case, one that is better handled by *considering* player wants. T1 is a world away from MtG as it is recognized by the majority of the magic playing crowd. We play with cards that are an absolute disaster - we play with cards that grossly violate original intent. And we love it. It is what makes the format unique and exciting. So if you are going to be making decisions that drastically impact one of those tragically ambiguous cards in the format, why disconnect the decision from player consideration.

in other words, the format is a mess. Its a mess that we love to have. Any attempt to "tidy" that mess is in danger of having an undesired negative consequence. T1 players care more about playing with brokenness while maintaining format balance, and having diversity, than caring about some satisfactory rules "tidying".

[policehq]

Wizards wouldn't necessarily going back on your word; they would make a new errata, just like amendments to the Constitution.

I see what you mean, though. If enough players speak out, Wizards will make the change. That could be a precedent established in this scenario, but I've been active on this forum for quite some time, and I don't feel like these players would ask for unreasonable measures to be taken.

Does anyone know how the reading "If Time Vault would untap, you may skip your next turn. If you do, put a time counter on Time Vault and untap it" would work with Twiddle? I imagine you'd just have an untapped artifact that couldn't do anything until it were tapped again and you paid the cost.

Who all is arguing that the errata should return to bearing potential to combo with Flame Fusillade? Or are you asking Wizards to remove the Time Counter, making it work with Voltaic Key, etc.? I think if you are going to use an argument that would ask Wizards to text the card as closely to the original wording as possible, both combos would work. Are you going to try and meet them half-way? If you offer that compromise, would Time Vault be playable? For example, if they removed the upkeep limitation, the card would still be functional with Stax components, Stasis, etc.

What are you aiming to get here? I'm asking that sincerely just so I can give it a think.

Now I don't really care to make slippery slope arguments. They are pointless,especially since because none of us are fooled into believing that things are not subject to change. WotC is not bound by law to follow its own policies, so if it wanted to get crazy the next day and reprint everything as commons, they can do so. This decision to errata is a step in that feared direction though.

I highly disagree. This is simply a step in unifying cards' functions. Decks were hurt, slaughtered, and outright taken away from the game from friendly fire. I feel that this is in no way an indication that Wizards could back up on any policy, since this particular fiasco is not backing up on a policy. It is of no interest to you, but it maintains consistency within the game. I can't believe that anyone would read this and be worried about any card in their collection except for Time Vault.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

Now, a counter-question for you: Do you feel that your decks are threatened even while explanation outside the realm of power level was given for the current errata of Time Vault? What cards do you feel are in jeopardy? You do see logic, albeit not beneficial to the Eternal formats, behind the errata, correct? 

I feel that this sets the precedent for the next rules manager in 8 years to say that Gorger and all the Nightmares weren't meant to interact with animate effects (like Vault wasn't meant to interact with Key or Fusillade--or Recurring Nightmare wasn't meant to combo with Great Whale) and since it is a similar 187 effect to Great Whale, errata it so it can match its text.  The "integrity" of the card is getting a big creature in play and removing all of your perms--not to participate in a rules loophole.  Besides, it is tougher for newer players to understand the combo (heck, its tough for judges!) and this decision would benefit future Type 1 players.  Illusions of Grandeur was never meant to be switched to your opponent.  The original intent behind the card is to gain an emergency temporary 20 life and either win or cast other lifegain before you can't pay the upkeep anymore.  It is not being used as it was originally inteded to and therefore is errata'd. 

EDIT:  Removed example that is no longer relevant.

[dicemanx]

I see what you mean, though. If enough players speak out, Wizards will make the change. That could be a precedent established in this scenario, but I've been active on this forum for quite some time, and I don't feel like these players would ask for unreasonable measures to be taken.

We know they listen. We've argued before and got what we want. Just as long both sides don't view this as some ego competition, or categorize this as "us versus them", we can make some progress. I just want a rich, diverse, fun, T1 format.

Who all is arguing that the errata should return to bearing potential to combo with Flame Fusillade? Or are you asking Wizards to remove the Time Counter, making it work with Voltaic Key, etc.? I think if you are going to use an argument that would ask Wizards to text the card as closely to the original wording as possible, both combos would work. Are you going to try and meet them half-way? If you offer that compromise, would Time Vault be playable? For example, if they removed the upkeep limitation, the card would still be functional with Stax components, Stasis, etc.

What are you aiming to get here? I'm asking that sincerely just so I can give it a think.

I would personally like to have the oracle text return to the text pre-errata, but with the necessary shift of cost to effect associated with paying a turn. (And yes, yes, it doesn't completely make sense flavor-wise, but tell it to the guy that equips his BoPs with Sword of F&I).

However, I'd take any wording they would give us that would retain the card's viability.

I highly disagree. This is simply a step in unifying cards' functions. Decks were hurt, slaughtered, and outright taken away from the game from friendly fire. I feel that this is in no way an indication that Wizards could back up on any policy, since this particular fiasco is not backing up on a policy. It is of no interest to you, but it maintains consistency within the game.

Yes, card functions are unified. Yay. Is there some sort of tangible gain apart from aesthetic considerations? Remember, I'm trying to pull away from generalizations here. I agree with that approach in general, but in this highly specific case of TV, I think deck diversity and player happiness with that diversity should be of primary importance.

[nataz]

I don't really feel like arguing, so I've kinda put off posting this, but I do feel like it should be mentioned.

first, a couple of caveats:
1) I care very little about Time Vault
2) I think  Mark made a logical argument
3) I think Steve brought up some very interesting points
4) I dissagree with when the errata was issued

The errata is 100% logical, but not from a cost-benefit point of view (our central argument). The card certainly does match a possible textual intent.

The only reasonable answer is a two-letter word. The decision to errata Time Vault made no one happy. Some people didn't care, and some people were neutral, but the way this went down left a bad taste in the mouth of even those who felt that the Time Vault combo should not exist. This was a lose-lose decision.

These two quotes (although not the only ones) serve to highlight what in my mind was a critical flaw in Steve's argument. While I haven't passed the Bar, and I don't plan to hit law school for at least another 6 months, I have done a lot of pre-law and legal theory work over the past 5 years, so its not like I'm totally in the dark with legal theory.

I think there are two ways to look at Steve's article. The first is to view it simply as a well written counter argument, founded squarely within the context of Consequentialism (and thus what I lovingly term "Posner-esq) legal theory. Cost-Benefit analysis is neither new, nor unattractive, especially when dealing with this kind of issue. This reading of Steve's work I think is perfectly acceptable, and he should be commended for bringing his viewpoints so eloquently to light. It is a contentious issue, and certainly a little dialoged and feedback can't hurt when we are dealing with a company as responsive as WOTC (and lets not kid ourselves, WOTC is way more responsive to us then say WalMart).

However, it is the second, and im my experience the much more common reading of Steve's article, that I take issue with. In this reading people either forget, or are unaware of other competing legal theories that counter balance Consequentialism, and in ignoring those arguments read Steve as Gospel (with all the negative connotations which that word entails.) When taken out of the consequentialist framework, and presented simply as "theory" -> good argument -> truth, I call foul. It's all well and good to accept Steve's article as a well written counter-point, but to suggest that it is the only possible reading is unfair, untrue, and narrow minded.

for instance, take as an example this:

[quote = "steve"]Mark, there is no particular way that Time Vault was meant to work. It was unclear from day one. Its printed wording reflects this ambiguity. Is it really so hard to accept that a card can be unclear? Embrace this reality and further accept that clarification necessarily eliminates one reasonable reading of a card in favor of another

Let me propose another way to look at the decision While the language may be imperfect, it is not automatically true that the law must exist ambiguous, left to be defined by later generations. A common secondary reading may suggest that there may very well be a "true" meaning somewhere under that language, and with each legal revision its understood that we are overcoming the inherent flaw of imprecise language, regardless of the shits that language (and therefore interpretation) may take, as long as it is with in the reasonable bounds of precedent (see black lotus example, i.e., a lotus will always make mana, but will never draw a card). Here, happiness/consequences are very much *not* a factor and it is assumed that there in fact one correct reading of the law.

Another reading could argue that there is a "correct" reading of the law, depending on specific time and place circumstances. Take a Dworkin-esq view for instance. According to Dworkin in his famous chess example, Judges do not have any discression (even in the most ambiguous if cases), and in fact  even goes so far as to caution against the use of that word. Instead they have "conceptions" built upon experience and culture. I tried reading your argument in this kind of constructivist light, but then I continuously ran into the problem of you *not* adhering to the principle of right answer at the right time. In other words, you can't have the reality be "unclear", it must have some sort of a correct answer (although you are free to argue that *your* answer would be correct).  

Again, this is not to take away from your article, just to point out that if someone really had the time and ambition you could probably write fairly convincing arguments that fell within the theories of constructivism, concequntialism, and positivism. What it really comes down to is that I find outright attacks on Mark's logic (by anyone) a bit of a red herring. Like it or not, good arguments can be made for both sides, and shouting *rawr* "happiness clause" *rawr* again and again just seems to waste time.

I wish the debate would center more on the timing of the announcement. Honestly, if the announcement had come with the legalization of flame vault, what little concerns I have now would be non-existent.

[Titanium Dragon]

However, what I want you to do is either confirm or deny that removing Time Vault will decrease diversity. Because if it is true that diversity is decreased, AND you see no significant offsetting gain, then this errata was a mistake. A small one perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless.

How is diversity decreased? What major decks are killed by this errata in Vintage? The only one killed in Legacy was Flame Vault, and it wasn't a huge part of the meta (at least partially due to the inavailability of Time Vaults, along with their expense). Diversity is not the only thing you need to pay attention to.

It cuts off the ability to skip turns while your opponent loses his field to a Smokestack.

No it doesn't; you can still ramp up smokestack and skip a turn, so your opponent has to eat Smokestack twice. But you can't make him eat it an infinite number of times. Not a huge deal; it was stronger the other way, but Stax is strong without it.

I do not agree that you cannot skip turns that you may not have, activating Flame Fusillade 20 times. I'd get into Schroedinger, but that's a mess. The Time Vault nor the game know how many turns you will have. For example, if I play Meditate, have to discard to 7 cards, and weld in Eater of Days, I could lose the next turn. Did I ever play those cards? Yes. Did I have those turns? No. Should I have been able to play those cards? Yes. Thus, logically, if Time Vault weren't limited to my upkeep, I should be able to skip as many turns as I please.

Indeed, the problem is skipping infinite turns is probably going to go degenerate somehow plus it doesn't really make much sense.

Worldgorger Dragon and Illusionary Mask/Phyrexian Dreadnought cannot be errata'd without straying from the original intent.

You could errata Illusionary Mask in at least one way to make it closer to original intent; the flip conditions. You could also do some other things to it, but I think the current wording is simplest.

If this combo is such a thorn in the side of wizards they have other ways to stop it via restrictions and bannings. Legacy already has a combo that has been banned because worldgorger dragon is banned there.So if time vault is so nasty in that format (which I don't really know if it is or not just to be honest) there is a solution right there, ban it, or flame fusillade because other than time vault noones gonna miss it.

The problem is you're letting people convince you this has anything to do with the combo; it does not. This errata was not done to "kill the combo"; killing the combo was a side effect of the errata. WotC has stated this was not done to kill the combo, but because the card Time Vault had erroneous Oracle text. This is 100% correct and I don't think it is reasonable to dispute that WotC errataed it to fix the card rather than to kill the combo. WotC has said they did not in fact do it to nerf the combo, and if they found the combo degenerate they would have banned something.

Unfortuneately wizards has already done the unthinkable and to go back on thier word would be a horrible solution. Why? because if they unerrata time vault because some players complained about it pretty soon players will start asking them to do other stuff. Say a faction of MTG players wants Worldgorger errata'd so they start a campaign to do so.

Essentially I'm just saying that for wizards to go back on thier word would be a bad move because pretty soon other problems will show up and people will say "hey, you guys unerrata'd time vault why can't you blank this blank.

This is an entirely reasonable argument as to why they shouldn't re-errata it.

In my opinion the best thing for wizards to do would be to remember this in the future so that if something comes up that they don't like they can errata it before so many players invest thier time and money into it.

I think they will, and they were planning on doing this two months before they did.

I think this decision to errata has served to reaffirm something that worried us a long time ago - there never really is any security when it comes to our investment. In other words, WotC can say "we will abide by A, until we decide A no longer holds true". They said no card will be reprinted off the reserved list, until they say otherwise. they say Animate works the way its supposed to, until they say otherwise. Perhaps the next rules manager after Gottlieb will decide that certain interactions, such as those associated with Mask or Animate-WGD, should not exist from a rules stand point. The reasons can be manufactured very easily actually, and every decision will slip into a de facto argument. "We decreed it to be so, and therefore it is correct".

It actually wouldn't surprise me if they did change the RFG rules in some way at some point, but I really doubt they will due to memory issues; everything coming back into play normally makes sense.

Now I don't really care to make slippery slope arguments. They are pointless,especially since because none of us are fooled into believing that things are not subject to change. WotC is not bound by law to follow its own policies, so if it wanted to get crazy the next day and reprint everything as commons, they can do so. This decision to errata is a step in that feared direction though.

Not at all; this has nothing to do with that, and you're trying to incite hysteria via it. You're simply wrong, because this has nothing to do with it. This is a pretty isolated incident dealing with an old, poorly errataed card; thus, only such cards are at all vulnerable to it.

in other words, the format is a mess. Its a mess that we love to have. Any attempt to "tidy" that mess is in danger of having an undesired negative consequence. T1 players care more about playing with brokenness while maintaining format balance, and having diversity, than caring about some satisfactory rules "tidying".

No, you do in fact care about format balance; trust me. You may think you don't, but you do.

I think if you are going to use an argument that would ask Wizards to text the card as closely to the original wording as possible, both combos would work

Mana Vault (the card) says otherwise; the Flame Fusillade combo shouldn't work with Time Vault.

I highly disagree. This is simply a step in unifying cards' functions. Decks were hurt, slaughtered, and outright taken away from the game from friendly fire. I feel that this is in no way an indication that Wizards could back up on any policy, since this particular fiasco is not backing up on a policy. It is of no interest to you, but it maintains consistency within the game. I can't believe that anyone would read this and be worried about any card in their collection except for Time Vault.

Yes, this "fiasco" (which isn't a fiasco, it is simply called such by a minority of Vintage and Legacy players) is actually WotC policy; make old cards work right.

However, I'd take any wording they would give us that would retain the card's viability.

This one does; it still works with Stax and Stasis, albeit not quite as powerfully.

Yes, card functions are unified. Yay. Is there some sort of tangible gain apart from aesthetic considerations? Remember, I'm trying to pull away from generalizations here. I agree with that approach in general, but in this highly specific case of TV, I think deck diversity and player happiness with that diversity should be of primary importance.

I strongly disagree; diversity is not going to be hurt by this. How many decks die due to this? Gifts can use another combo kill, Stax can still use it to skip a turn to double Stax their opponent, then ramp down smokestacks and take two turns in a row. Stasis can do the same. Only Flame Vault from legacy really dies, and it wasn't a major deck nor an important metagame factor.

I wish the debate would center more on the timing of the announcement. Honestly, if the announcement had come with the legalization of flame vault, what little concerns I have now would be non-existent.

Errataing is done at regular intervals, like banning. As such, they had one oppertunity to do it before now, and that was with Guildpact's release. They did not because they apparently weren't ready to for whatever reason, but they said now that retrospectively they should have pushed it for Guildpact's errata rather than leaving it for Dissension's. However, the timing is irrelevant IMO as long as it is the right thing to do; it is better to correct something late than never.

[nataz]

However, the timing is irrelevant IMO as long as it is the right thing to do

Unless of couse you subscribe to a Constructivist reading, then the time is very relevent.

[roberts91rom]

How is the original card's wording confusing? Go from this:

Tap to gain an additional turn after the current one.
Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.
TIme Vault begins tapped.

To this:

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
If Time Vault would untap, instead you may skip your next turn. If you do, untap Time Vault. (If not, then Time Vault remains tapped.)
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

The current wording is:

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn’t untap during your untap step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may untap Time Vault. If you do, put a time counter on it and you skip your next turn.
Tap, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability if only there’s a time counter on Time Vault.

In my opinion he just added a whole bunch of garbage into the Orracle text that A) Doesn't need to be there and B) Makes it look like he actually did something. Sketchy?

[jpmeyer]

You could errata Illusionary Mask in at least one way to make it closer to original intent; the flip conditions. You could also do some other things to it, but I think the current wording is simplest.

IIRC, during the development of Onslaught, they originally had flipping face-down cards use the stack but this caused unsolvable rules problems.  That's why the triggered abilities on Mask don't really work under the current rules.

Also, people aren't necessarilly making clear the difference between "intent" and the cards actually working the way that they are supposed to work.  R&D didn't intend for people to combine Worldgorger Dragon with Animate Dead (and at the same time, isn't one of the big complaints of R&D "They build our decks for us!"?), but the cards there are actually doing what they are supposed to do.  That's also why people shouldn't bring up Waylay here

[Moxlotus]

How is diversity decreased?

Easy.  A kill condition was removed from Type 1.  A deck was removed from Type 1.  2 decks were removed from Legacy.  No decks were created.  Multiple losses + 0 gains = loss ov diversity.  Its quite simple.

The bottom line is no good has come from this errata.  How has this benefitted the game?  It hasn't.  Buehler tried to say that it benefits future players, but his arguments are easily refuted since A) new players STILL have to look up the errata'd text and B) there are way more complicated interactions.  Nobody has been able to say how this benefits the game.  Why is it beneficial to the game to have TV work almost, but not quite, like MV?  I would love for anyone to tell me what good comes to the game from this errata.

[dicemanx]

How is diversity decreased? What major decks are killed by this errata in Vintage? The only one killed in Legacy was Flame Vault, and it wasn't a huge part of the meta (at least partially due to the inavailability of Time Vaults, along with their expense).

3 decks have been crushed by this errata:

HyperMUD
Time Bandits
Flame Vault (full combo, not Gifts)

All three managed top 8 performances at various points in time. You inserted the word "major" into your question. That is a little unfair. A major archetype doesn't have to be a victim for it to matter - a viable, competitive archetype being victim was enough. In fact, I was preparing 2 of those Vault decks for Rochester, intending to play 1 of them for sure.

No, you do in fact care about format balance; trust me. You may think you don't, but you do.

Read that statement I wrote again. I said we want to play broken cards, so long as balance is maintained in the format. So yes, I do care about format balance. If Vault caused an unbalance, I would be happy to see it eliminated from competitive play. But it didn't.

TD, what I'm curious about is what your motives are. Are you some petty sticker for detail, a rules lawyer, what? We are T1 players here, and those in favor of getting this decision hopefully reversed see things from a practical, tangible point of view, not an esoteric or aesthetic one. Convince us, why we should care about this synching up of Time Vault and Mana Vault text, and how T1 players specifically stand to benefit here. So far you've given us, along with Gottlieb, justification for the errata. Whatever. We want to see the bottom line. How is this supposed to be good? We need something tangible, not something vague like "its good for magic in general" or "its important to synch up similarly worded cards" How? Why? And don't generalize - this is a very specific, unique case. Show me how synching Mana and Time Vault is good for T1. Where's the benefit.

To make our case, all we needed to establish was that initial intent is impossible to determine. That's pretty easy. And if its accepted that the text is ambiguous, what justification is there for neutering 3 fair decks from this format? There better be a damn good one. We are STILL waiting.

[PucktheCat]

Finished my final and feeling much more right about life.  I've developed my thoughts a bit more on this issue.

My view of this issue is as follows:
1. WotC has a policy of working to make Oracle wording match the printed wording.
2. This policy is good for the game.
3. The errata to Time Vault was the best execution of this policy.

Discussion of these points:

#1 - This is clearly the case.  This is both stated WotC policy and reflected in their actual actions.  It isn't adhered to in cases of power level errata, because that wording has been "grandfathered" in to the modern game.  That is an inconsistency, but a justifiable one because of the problems these cards caused in unerrataed form.  If we want WotC to remove power level errata for good we should ask them to do so.

#2 - I think this is clear as well, but if there is anyone who disagrees this point can be explicated further.

#3 - This is the difficult point for many people.  Many arguments have been made with regard to this point.  Here is one more, and I think it is an important one.

The goal of WotC's policy is to have cards work in the way players expect them to when they read them.  There are two opinions on Time Vault's wording:

A. It clearly untaps only once a turn.
B. It is ambiguous whether it untaps once a turn or many times.

We can imagine a third position, but no one appears to be taking it:
C. It clearly untaps multiple times a turn.

In this thread, I would estimate that those that have expressed opinions are roughly half A and half B.  The exact proportion is irrelevant, but it is clear that there are a substantial number of people in each group.  There doesn't appear to be anyone in C.

If this is the case, then the wording chooseTn by WotC for the recent errata fits the expectations of a substantial group of people (in catagory A) and goes against the expectations of nobody.  The alternative wording fits with nobody's expectations.  The people in group A think it is the wrong wording and the people in group B think it is one of at least two possible wordings.

In other words, even if we credit the players who think that the wording is ambiguous, the wording chosen fits with the expectations of more players than the alternative.

-----------------------

On a different level, I think that the cost to the metagame is real, because I am sure that there were a lot of people messing with combo-Vault decks.  But I also think that it is the nature of big formats like this one for a new deck or card to fill the void.  Getting rid of a card can expand a metagame can broaden a metagame as easily as it can narrow it.  This isn't the core of my argument, because I think the decision should be evaluated as part of a coherent WotC policy, but it does seem worth noting.

[Moxlotus]

My view of this issue is as follows:
1. WotC has a policy of working to make Oracle wording match the printed wording.
2. This policy is good for the game.
3. The errata to Time Vault was the best execution of this policy.
 

I agree with many of the things you said in this post, but I would like to add a one thing to this list

4. WotC has a policy of taking into account "Fun-ness" in their actions

Their action of errata, while possibly being consistant with the transitive property you listed above, goes against this policy (maybe policy is too formal of a word, but you get the point).  I would encompass meta diversity in this "Fun-ness" category.  Their decision with trinisphere upset people and made people happy.  It is tough to see if that move made more people happy or sad (probably happy, but its still debatable).  TV errata is not debatable, it has clearly made people upset and next to noone happy. 

[Smmenen]

In other words, even if we credit the players who think that the wording is ambiguous, the wording chosen fits with the expectations of more players than the alternative.

--

Do you think I didn't anticipate or refute this argument in my article?  I did.

I said, mid article, "well, Gottlieb might come back and say, ok, so it's not the *only* reasonable interpretation, but its the most reasonable inter."

I strongly refuted that argument

BTW, I didn't throw this out there before,  but Gottlieb's argument is a weak inductive argument.

[Harkius]

Diopter:

First, thank you for actually making a logical argument. I disagree, but it is nice to see something that is not a tiger chasing its tail for a while.

One clarification, though. I think that you have overestimated your argument's efficacy. Granted, my training in formal and informal logic is probably not as good as yours, but I see a few issues.

First, it seems that a large amount of your post depends on the question of whether it is reasonable to untap Time Vault at times that are not your upkeep step. If the Gatherer pic of the Alpha card is correct, then a person who had never seen the card before and hadn't had any experience with the argument would probably make the intuitive assumption that the semicolon suggests that you must untap it during your untap step by skipping a turn. However, there is no clear reason to assume that you cannot untap it at any time. While Basalt Monolith has text that explicitly states that it can be untapped at any time, there is no good a priori reason to think that it cannot. An effective method could be argued either way, in my mind, and this is exactly what Smmennen was arguing. He is not saying that it must be the other way, but that it could be. It seems like a good argument to me.

Second, in your situations, which appear to be the basis for ruling that the one is objectively closer, it seems that all that you have accomplished is to say that H1 is closer to what Gottlieb is saying is correct, which I freely cede, and which you have clearly argued. But, I think that this is a moot point. You have set up your argument, cast your weapons and your dice into the fray, and failed to realize that you are arguing the wrong point. Smmennen wasn't (as nearly as I interpret it) saying that his understanding of what the cards said was as close to what Gottlieb is saying now as Gottlieb's interpretation of what the the cards said. Rather, he was saying that this is an invalid question, particularly because the argument can be made. The fact that you need to try to settle this and that one argument is not soundproof and the other foolish and cartoonish suggests that there was not a simply clear interpretation and an obvious intent, which were two of the claims that Smmennen had difficulties with.

Make sense?

It isn't that Smmennen is saying, necessarily, that Gottlieb's interpretation is incorrect (although he is certainly saying that at well), but that the intent and the functionality are not unambiguous.

Harkius

[Titanium Dragon]

4. WotC has a policy of taking into account "Fun-ness" in their actions

Their action of errata, while possibly being consistant with the transitive property you listed above, goes against this policy (maybe policy is too formal of a word, but you get the point).  I would encompass meta diversity in this "Fun-ness" category.  Their decision with trinisphere upset people and made people happy.  It is tough to see if that move made more people happy or sad (probably happy, but its still debatable).  TV errata is not debatable, it has clearly made people upset and next to noone happy.

Here's the thing though: you -claim- it has made next to no one happy, but it has made me happy, and others have said they are happy with the decision. You see, it is highly debatable, because you have absolutely no information whatsoever on whether or not this decision has made "next to no one happy". Have you done a poll of Magic players about the errata? This assertation is completely unsupportable, and I claim that it in fact makes lots of people happy. Do I have any more evidence than you? No really, other than that people tend to complain if they are unhappy, but tend to not say much if they are happy. As I'm not hearing much, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is not making most Magic players unhappy; indeed I'd wager less than 1% are made unhappy by this decision. No one has demonstrated otherwise.

You believe the world is like you which, though very common among humans, is not true.

Do you think I didn't anticipate or refute this argument in my article?  I did.

I said, mid article, "well, Gottlieb might come back and say, ok, so it's not the *only* reasonable interpretation, but its the most reasonable inter."

I strongly refuted that argument

BTW, I didn't throw this out there before,  but Gottlieb's argument is a weak inductive argument.

Your argument is incredibly weak and full of holes, simply because you fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that Magic is a completely arbitrary system. WotC sets the rules for Magic, and there is no one better to do it because -they- are the ones who make the most money off it, and thus will have the best long term interests in mind because it is they who will go under if they make the wrong ones; we can all move on to other games if we feel like it, so their decisions affect whether or not they make money. Moreover, they design the game and have a very deep understanding of what is acceptible and what is not, as well as having far more contact with the original designers of the game than practically anyone. They know more than you do, and in general know better. Yes, they made Skullclamp, but I'm going to come out and say that a Skullclamp mistake is inevitable; indeed, I'd wager 99% of Magic players don't really understand on a very basic level how to make a balanced set, much less on an advanced one. Part of the reason they have so many people work on a set is not because no one is capable of designing a set on their own, but because a single person may not notice some interaction or some function.

You argue that Time Vault's wording on the Alpha card is ambigous. I'm pretty sure no one would dispute that. You then go on to argue that several readings are equally valid. This is very, very, very false. The untap during the untap phase is the most common interpretation of it by a long shot, and indeed, most everyone will acknowledge that reading exists.

This is all fine, but then you proceed to claim that later reprintings cannot be trusted. This is simply ludicris and unreasonable. Magic revised its early cards by reprinting them with the correct wording (and, in at least two cases, the correct mana cost!). They later invented Oracle, and thus managed to errata cards which they were no longer reprinting by giving them "modern text". The way they did this was via comparison.

Mana Vault is the analogue of Time Vault; their wording for untapping is identical in Alpha, and Mana Vault, when later reprinted, had the correct text. Basalt Monolith had its wording in flux, but in Revised it settled on its modern reading, which was the same as the Alpha reading.

You simply are unwilling and apparently unable to accept this. This is simply silly. No. You're wrong. Time Vault's untap ability SHOULD work as Mana Vault's does, and it does now. This is quite clear simply by comparing the two cards, then looking at how Time Vault was clarified. Claiming the original alpha text is ambigious is pointless, because it no longer matters because of Time Vault.

Thus, half of your argument is baseless, and you try to cover it up in legalese (which isn't even hard to read if you're reasonably intelligent). You either know your argument is terrible, and try to cover it up, or just simply are unwilling to accept that this argument is wrong, because you know how weak the argument "I don't like the new way, I liked flame vault better" is, and how much stronger the textual argument is. But you fail.

Your only possible legitimate argument is that it is bad for the game, and frankly, it isn't. Only a very small number of people are annoyed enough to say something about it, and though vocal, they are a tiny minority. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Magic populace at large is at all dissatisfied with this decision. I know I'm not.

[Smmenen]

I'll deal with this midmorning. 

[combo_dude]

You argue that Time Vault's wording on the Alpha card is ambigous. I'm pretty sure no one would dispute that. You then go on to argue that several readings are equally valid. This is very, very, very false. The untap during the untap phase is the most common interpretation of it by a long shot, and indeed, most everyone will acknowledge that reading exists.

...

Your only possible legitimate argument is that it is bad for the game, and frankly, it isn't. Only a very small number of people are annoyed enough to say something about it, and though vocal, they are a tiny minority. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Magic populace at large is at all dissatisfied with this decision. I know I'm not.

Regarding the first statement I've left there (about ambiguity), if there *is* one most common interpretation that is so obvious (I assume you meant to say "untap during the upkeep step", rather than untap phase, since that's what we're arguing about), doesn't that mean that, to all intents and purposes, that it isn't actually ambiguous? I don't think you can acknowledge the lack of clarity and still claim that there is one most clear reading - it's not entirely contradictory, but it's close to it. Whilst I think that it is implicit that you should only be able to use it to skip one turn at once, that doesn't mean that you should only be able to skip it during the upkeep. It would have been changed along with Mana Vault, Brass Man etc. around 4th Edition if they really felt that they should have changed it for the integrity of the game, and only for the sake of integrity.

I know that point is a little vague, though. More important is the second statement: you're missing the point. Sure, those unhappy with the change are a tiny minority. So are the players who are happy with the change. The vast, vast, vast majority of people couldn't give a shit about it. So you're right in saying that "there is no evidence whatsoever that the Magic populace at large is at all dissatisfied with this decision". That's because it's common sense that 99% of Magic players couldn't care less, as in EVERYONE who doesn't go near Eternal, casual players, not to mention a fair chunk of Eternal players; it's down to the less-than-1% of those unhappy with it against the less-than-1% who are actually happy with it (not just supporting it because it's now the WotC stance, not just supporting it to try and create some helpful discussion, but actually glad that the Eternal metagames no longer contain HyperMUD or FlameVault) to argue it out. Right now, until someone shows me a good resolution for the time counter vs. no mana counter argument, or for that matter why they didn't announce it the moment they knew it was going to happen (and thus avoid pissing off a whole lot of players who assumed their combo was safe from errata, if not from the B/R list), I'm with the less-than-1% who aren't happy with this.

I think Smmenen can deal with the mostly unreasonable personal attacks himself.

Adam

[dicemanx]

Here's the thing though: you -claim- it has made next to no one happy, but it has made me happy, and others have said they are happy with the decision. You see, it is highly debatable, because you have absolutely no information whatsoever on whether or not this decision has made "next to no one happy".

You very likely have trouble discerning between ambivalence and happiness.

The burden of proof still lies on you to establish why this was a good decision - I think its absolutely fair to ask you to justify this "happiness". You have to provide something more tangible than a mere statement that you're "happy". How does losing diversity make any vintage player "happy"? What are the offsetting benefits? Why did you not demonstrate your unhappiness before the errata? Where was your passionate crusade to have the Mana Vault and Time Vault texts aligned? Oh, that's right, you couldn't care less, like the rest of us.

Unfortunately, when determining whether you are being genuine, you've already amassed some major strikes against you: you're stubborn, spew hyperbole, and enjoy being spiteful by your own admission. I can only attribute spite as your sole motivation at this point, because I fail to see what else drives you to post. 

You then go on to argue that several readings are equally valid. This is very, very, very false. The untap during the untap phase is the most common interpretation of it by a long shot, and indeed, most everyone will acknowledge that reading exists.

Do you mean very very VERY false? I don't think you have enough "very"s there. Remember, more hyperbole equals an even BETTER argument!

Your only possible legitimate argument is that it is bad for the game, and frankly, it isn't. Only a very small number of people are annoyed enough to say something about it, and though vocal, they are a tiny minority. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Magic populace at large is at all dissatisfied with this decision. I know I'm not.

This decision only affects a small number of people - those that play competitive T1. Yes, the "populace at large" isn't dissatisfied with the decision, because it doesn't impact them. It doesn't improve the game for them, because this decision concerns a solitary card that is legal only in the eternal formats. Therefore, the biggest weight should be given to those that actually have a vested interest in this matter and can demonstrate a tangible gain or loss here. The best you and others can offer is "I'm happy". Or "this decision is good". This is not something tangible enough to have sufficient weight in the argument.

[Harlequin]

....
Right now, until someone shows me a good resolution for the time counter vs. no mana counter argument, or for that matter why they didn't announce it the moment they knew it was going to happen (and thus avoid pissing off a whole lot of players who assumed their combo was safe from errata, if not from the B/R list), I'm with the less-than-1% who aren't happy with this.
....

I posted what I thought was a logical and concise arguement for the errata (the entire post apears about 3/4s the way down the 3rd page on this thread). 

Here is the Crux of the Arguement:

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.

From here on out, Lets all pretend we are On the Wizards staff for a second.  In no way do I mean to imply that what follows "Is" what happened.  But to me, It seems highly logical and highly probable.  I will post in a style that suggests this is what historically happened... but that is for the simple reason that I don't want to type "Likely" and "probably" and "IMO" in every sentence.  Its a waste of my time to type it, and a waste your time to read it.


PRIMARY GOAL:
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.


So that leaves us really with 3 paths now:
#1 - Leave both cards the way they are, thus giving up on the original goal of standardizing the two cards. 
#2 - Change Both cards to Include "Vault" counters
#3 - Change one card, and keep the time counter

Assumeing we want to stick to our orginal goal, and we have dedicated ourselves to the time counter... that leaves us with #2 or #3.  This choice came down to Path of least resistance.  Why would you want to muck up Mana vault when it is not over powered, and it already has an acceptable errata that is both "close" to the original wording and accurate within the rules of the game?

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.


Then there is the "why now, why not when [insert timeline event]" arguement.  The reason it happened 'so late' is because wizards has more to worry about than 10 year old cards.  Flamevault brought this issue to the table, and escelated the decission 'more quickly' but it clearly was never #1 on thier priority list.  Why would you expect it to be??  I'm just glad is was on the Priority list at all.

[dicemanx]

Leo, you are so fixated by the details, why don't you look up and see the big picture. You also might give consideration to arguing something relevant - your whole contention is one huge straw man.

The net effect of the errata is the loss of one card and three viable, competitive archetypes. That's a tangible, significant loss. I want you to state unequivocally how we're supposed to derive any tangible gain from the decision. Let's look at your attempt below:

My view of this issue is as follows:
1. WotC has a policy of working to make Oracle wording match the printed wording.
2. This policy is good for the game.
3. The errata to Time Vault was the best execution of this policy.

Discussion of these points:

#1 - This is clearly the case.  This is both stated WotC policy and reflected in their actual actions.  It isn't adhered to in cases of power level errata, because that wording has been "grandfathered" in to the modern game.  That is an inconsistency, but a justifiable one because of the problems these cards caused in unerrataed form.  If we want WotC to remove power level errata for good we should ask them to do so.

You state this as if our proposals are inconsistent with this policy. Seriously now, can we stop this foolishness? 

1. The written text is ambiguous on Time Vault.
2. The original intent is irrelevant, by Gottlieb's admission.
3. Any acceptable interpretation of textual intent on TV would therefore be in accordance with the policy.

#2 - I think this is clear as well, but if there is anyone who disagrees this point can be explicated further.

OK, its good for the game. So what? Like I said, we are not straying from the policy in our proposals. But you know what, even if we *were* to stray from the policy, I would go so far as to argue that the benefits of straying easily outweigh any "negatives" within T1. But I know what you're trying to do - you are trying to generalize that adherence to textual intent is "good in general", and that "incoherence" is "bad". This is a straw man Leo. You make it sound like we are not in agreement with this. We are.   

#3 - This is the difficult point for many people.  Many arguments have been made with regard to this point.  Here is one more, and I think it is an important one.

The goal of WotC's policy is to have cards work in the way players expect them to when they read them.  There are two opinions on Time Vault's wording:

A. It clearly untaps only once a turn.
B. It is ambiguous whether it untaps once a turn or many times.

We can imagine a third position, but no one appears to be taking it:
C. It clearly untaps multiple times a turn.

In this thread, I would estimate that those that have expressed opinions are roughly half A and half B.  The exact proportion is irrelevant, but it is clear that there are a substantial number of people in each group.  There doesn't appear to be anyone in C.

You missed a fourth category, arguably the most important one.

D. Those who don't give two shits what the original or textual intent is, because they know they will need the oracle text to determine what the card does precisely anyways. Time Vault is NOT going to be an exception; and even so, the new errata fails in aligning textual intent and oracle text perfectly. This isn't particularly bothersome, because the format is filled with cards like this - vintage players have grown to expect oracle wordings that are different from actual text. New players will have to learn to accustom themselves to doing this as well; they might have certain expectations about what cards like Time Vault do, but having the oracle text not match that expectation is being made out to be more serious than it actually is. What these competitive vintage players DO care about, however, is whether their card is cool or playable in a competitive environment without being distortive or creating a dominant, unbalancing archetype.

I would say that the overwhelming majority of competitive vintage players are in this category. I say this because I don't remember ever holding any discussions on any forums or in real life about the importance of matching texts precisely in relation to making the game more enjoyable. I don't recall anyone being bothered that Mana Vault and Time Vault are not perfectly aligned. You know why? The answer to that question is painfully obvious. We are pragmatists. We are people that play a game that we love. If the game works, and it's fun, and it has richness and diversity, then DON'T MESS WITH IT.
 

But I also think that it is the nature of big formats like this one for a new deck or card to fill the void.  Getting rid of a card can expand a metagame can broaden a metagame as easily as it can narrow it.

Sorry, but you're reaching. Losing 3 archetypes is a very concrete loss. To suggest that they were masking the emergence of other archetypes that are now ready to "fill the void" is tenuous - and likely incorrect, given the fact that those decks weren't overly powerful and stifling. Unless you can demonstrate concrete gain, arguments such as this will not carry any weight.

[Smmenen]

A few words before I begin.   

First, I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that I have to almost rewrite the article in these forums.  Why, I wonder, have I had to do to this? Simple.  People here did not read the article, and if they did, they did not read it closely.  Hence, I had to start with puck the cat saying there was no ambiguity and then observe him move to the position that “ok, even if there is an ambiguity, then blah blah blah blah.â€� 

Second, I not only have to repeat basic points that I made in the article, but I am being forced to repeat these points over and over again.

However, do not mistake me.  I will not stop until every single person has gotten the message.  I will be relentless.

Third, this is an overall message to people who read my article:

I made a broad based attack against Gottlieb.  I took his reasoning and the reasoning that Buehler put up in support of this decision and I have attacked it at every single point.  If any one of my points is correct, Gottlieb’s decision is wrong.  But if anyone of my points is wrong, then that does not make Gottlieb’s decision correct.  Gottlieb would have to win every single argument I put up against him to be correct.

4. WotC has a policy of taking into account "Fun-ness" in their actions

Their action of errata, while possibly being consistant with the transitive property you listed above, goes against this policy (maybe policy is too formal of a word, but you get the point).  I would encompass meta diversity in this "Fun-ness" category.  Their decision with trinisphere upset people and made people happy.  It is tough to see if that move made more people happy or sad (probably happy, but its still debatable).  TV errata is not debatable, it has clearly made people upset and next to noone happy.

Here's the thing though: you -claim- it has made next to no one happy, but it has made me happy, and others have said they are happy with the decision.

You know what.  You are correct here.  It is clear that it has made you happy.  There are probably a half dozen individuals with absolutely no interest in Vintage or Time Vault who just get a smile on their face when things become, in their view, “more consistent.â€�  Moreoever, it might have made you happy because it has given you a forum to debate with me.  For those two reasons, I truly believe you are happier.

But you know what?  Your happiness is not relevant to this debate.

If you actually read Buehler and Gottlieb’s arguments two sets of happiness are relevant:
1) the happiness of “enfranchised players� (Buehler’s words, not mine)
2) the happiness of future newcomers to Eternal who discover that time Vault works as they thought it would based upon the text of Mana Vault

Was I possibly a little sloppy in saying it made “no oneâ€� happy?  Yes, but this is one of a very few instances in which I made a broader claim for the purpose of bringing home a point that still holds water. 

You see, it is highly debatable, because you have absolutely no information whatsoever on whether or not this decision has made "next to no one happy". Have you done a poll of Magic players about the errata? This assertation is completely unsupportable, and I claim that it in fact makes lots of people happy. Do I have any more evidence than you? No really, other than that people tend to complain if they are unhappy, but tend to not say much if they are happy. As I'm not hearing much, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is not making most Magic players unhappy; indeed I'd wager less than 1% are made unhappy by this decision. No one has demonstrated otherwise.

I’ll go out on a limb even more, I’d wager it has made less than  .01% of magic players unhappy.  But that still supports the arguments I’ve made.  The fact that you  harp on and on about this just demonstrates that you don’t understand the claims I’ve made.   First of all, the quantity of people happy doesn’t matter as much as the intensity of their happiness or unhappiness in aggregate.  The unhappiness of those who are unhappy far, far outweighs the trivial and fleeting happiness derived by people like you.  Second, and more importantly, the unhappiness of people like me and others like me far, far outweights the theoretical unhappiness that would otherwise be incurred by NEWB players who encounter Time Vault in a tournament and discover that it could untap at any time contrary to their *well founded* (scoff) belief that because of the *clear* (scoff) text of Mana Vault, Time Vault worked as they always suspected it did!  What a joke!

Do you think I didn't anticipate or refute this argument in my article?  I did.

I said, mid article, "well, Gottlieb might come back and say, ok, so it's not the *only* reasonable interpretation, but its the most reasonable inter."

I strongly refuted that argument

BTW, I didn't throw this out there before,  but Gottlieb's argument is a weak inductive argument.

Your argument is incredibly weak and full of holes, simply because you fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that Magic is a completely arbitrary system.

OMG OMG OMG

This is just another example of the claim I made in my preface: people NOT reading what I write. 

I COMPLETELY agree!!!  Wizards IS an arbitrary system.  YOU, however, claim that I am not seeing this fact.  RIDICULOUS!  I not only agree, I openly embrace this fact.  My argument HINGES upon it!!!  I want you to tell Gottlieb this!  Because its true! 

Here is why I care that Gottlieb realizes this:

His decision was arbitrary: he choose one interpretation over another.  I don’t care about that.  Magic cards have textual ambiguity in many cases.  It is the job of Gottlieb to resolve that ambiguity by choosing one textual interpretation over another.   That decision is necessarily arbitrary.

Once he realizes this, instead of pursuing the misguided and foolish ideal of restoring the “integrity of the card� then the utilitarian point becomes clear:
It is only rational to errata a card if the benefits outweigh the costs.

If he thinks that he is not being arbitrary, but is sticking to the textual intent of the card, then the costs of this decision remain obscured. 

Gottlieb is exercising raw power.  That is his duty – to resolve ambiguities,  He needs to see that and not remain under the misguided belief that he is doing something else.

WotC sets the rules for Magic, and there is no one better to do it because -they- are the ones who make the most money off it, and thus will have the best long term interests in mind because it is they who will go under if they make the wrong ones; we can all move on to other games if we feel like it, so their decisions affect whether or not they make money. Moreover, they design the game and have a very deep understanding of what is acceptible and what is not, as well as having far more contact with the original designers of the game than practically anyone. They know more than you do, and in general know better. Yes, they made Skullclamp, but I'm going to come out and say that a Skullclamp mistake is inevitable; indeed, I'd wager 99% of Magic players don't really understand on a very basic level how to make a balanced set, much less on an advanced one. Part of the reason they have so many people work on a set is not because no one is capable of designing a set on their own, but because a single person may not notice some interaction or some function.

Is that why?  OMG, I never knew why they have lots of people working on a set.  I thank you so much for enlightening me.   

All very nice, but all very irrelevant or something which I agree with you on. 

You argue that Time Vault's wording on the Alpha card is ambigous. I'm pretty sure no one would dispute that.

HALLELUJAH.   HALLELUJAH.  HALLELUJAH.  HALLELUJAH. 

You then go on to argue that several readings are equally valid. This is very, very, very false. The untap during the untap phase is the most common interpretation of it by a long shot, and indeed, most everyone will acknowledge that reading exists.

I am going to assume you mean untap during the upkeep . 

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! 

You know why?  Because once you admit that the card is ambiguous, I win.  Period.

First of all, in a competitive environment, ANY ambiguity will be magnified and REQUIRE and DEMAND clarification because one player will choose a reading that supports their side and the other player will do the same.  Thus, Gottlieb must clarify and the act of clarification is necessarily an arbitrary act of raw power.

I would contend that most players, if pressed, woulud probably read Time vault as untapping on upkeep – I agree with you.  But most is not all.   

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.

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. 

This is all fine, but then you proceed to claim that later reprintings cannot be trusted. This is simply ludicris and unreasonable.

Not in fact it is not “all fineâ€� and no I do not claim that later reprintings cannot be trusted.  You, sir, are a moron.

My point had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether later printings could be “trusted.â€�  Later printings are not only trusted, they are the final word.   As Buehler said: later printings trump earlier printings.

That isn’t at issue.  What is at issue is the argument put forward by Gottlieb – which is that the reason Time Vault is being errated one way and not remaining as is – is because of the text on Alpha Mana Vault.  Thus, looking at later printings is irrelevant for this argument. 

Magic revised its early cards by reprinting them with the correct wording (and, in at least two cases, the correct mana cost!). They later invented Oracle, and thus managed to errata cards which they were no longer reprinting by giving them "modern text". The way they did this was via comparison.

see above.

Mana Vault is the analogue of Time Vault; their wording for untapping is identical in Alpha, and Mana Vault, when later reprinted, had the correct text. Basalt Monolith had its wording in flux, but in Revised it settled on its modern reading, which was the same as the Alpha reading.

Hahahahah!  When reprinted had the “correctâ€� text? 

No.  It did not have the “correctâ€� text.  What it had was the text arbitrarily chosen by the powers that be.  Now be very very careful.  When I say that, I am not disparaging wizards.  If you have read what I have written so far, you’ll know that I commend these decisions. 

You simply are unwilling and apparently unable to accept this. This is simply silly. No. You're wrong. Time Vault's untap ability SHOULD work as Mana Vault's does, and it does now. This is quite clear simply by comparing the two cards, then looking at how Time Vault was clarified. Claiming the original alpha text is ambigious is pointless, because it no longer matters because of Time Vault.

False, false, false false! 

This is Gottliebs whole argument.

This is called a weak inductive argument.  An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support a conclusion in such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false.

The argument is the same one I printed in the article

P1: Mana Vault untaps on upkeep
P2: Mana Vault and Time Vault have the same templating
C: Time Vault should also untap on upkeep

Even if all the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false.  A strong inductive argument is an argument where if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion could be false.  Even if it is  a strong inductive argument, I want to be clear here: this is not a deductive argument.  The conclusion does not follow strictly from the premises.  The key reason, among many, that the conclusion does not follow is that any conclusion of this nature depends on there being no more important compelling reason to NOT make the errata than the premises.  The utilitiarian arguments suggest far more compelling reasons than the premises to NOT make this change. 

You keep repeating the logic I have just articulated above as if I’m not completely aware of it.

Thus, half of your argument is baseless, and you try to cover it up in legalese (which isn't even hard to read if you're reasonably intelligent). You either know your argument is terrible, and try to cover it up, or just simply are unwilling to accept that this argument is wrong, because you know how weak the argument "I don't like the new way, I liked flame vault better" is, and how much stronger the textual argument is. But you fail.

I am going to be completely frank here. 

Never, in my entire experience in magic, have I ever, ever seen such a weak argument presented on the other side of an issue and such a strong argument for my side.  I am flabbergasted that people, like yourself, think there is any validity or cogency to the other sides arguments.   There are lots and lots of debates I’ve had over the years on magic.  On deck design, on restriction, on legacy, on whether to do one thing or another with regards to various policies like the legacy and vintage lists, etc.

But never have I encountered a rational so flimsy, so without support as Gottliebs.  I not only think that I have a fantastic argument, but I cannot think of another example where a debate is so lopsided in my favor. 

I couldn't[/color] 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.

[PucktheCat]

Steve: You "strong refutation" of that point in the article seems to be an two basic points:

1. Basalt Monolith raises questions about the "original intent" of Time Vault.

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.  Obscure points about differences between Alpha and Beta aren't what guide people's interpretation of cards, they are guided by their larger experience of how the game works in general. For many people, those experiences lead them to believe that Time Vault should work as it does not.  In your article you even note that you would view the card the same way:

If someone called me to a meeting and we sat around talking about how to fix “Time Vault� to reflect the original intent, I would probably come to the same conclusion.

  The most your article can accomplish is convincing a subset of the people that read it that the card is ambiguous, but many people that come across the card are still going to react the way that you and I, and many of the people in this thread would.

2. The Delusion of a Naturally Intuitive Reading

This is a silly argument.  I will quote myself:

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.

At the end of this section of your article you recognize this point:

Now, one might say: “whoa, that's a dangerous truth. Doesn't this give the rules team carte blanche to do whatever with the cards?� The answer is no. Remember, they are choosing among reasonable interpretations. They can't have Black Lotus draw you cards or remove cards from game. They have to choose from a finite number of reasonable interpretations.

I would agree with that, but I'm not sure it gets you anywhere.  How many reasonable interpretations are there?  I think in this case there is only one.