[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Jacob Orlove]

Oboro Envoy

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

Does it matter? Far more new players are going to actually see an Envoy than will see a Vault, and apparently Wizards cares less about them than they do about making the card work the way they want.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Oboro Envoy

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

Does it matter? Far more new players are going to actually see an Envoy than will see a Vault, and apparently Wizards cares less about them than they do about making the card work the way they want.

Now hold on, Oboro Envoy was an actual printing error. There's no ambiguity about it. Using that as an example is like telling Wizards to allow Spanish Melokus to produce 2/2 tokens for the sake of the new players. That's not a valid argument in the least bit.

[Jacob Orlove]

Oboro Envoy

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

Does it matter? Far more new players are going to actually see an Envoy than will see a Vault, and apparently Wizards cares less about them than they do about making the card work the way they want.

Now hold on, Oboro Envoy was an actual printing error. There's no ambiguity about it. Using that as an example is like telling Wizards to allow Spanish Melokus to produce 2/2 tokens for the sake of the new players. That's not a valid argument in the least bit.

Spanish Meloku/Japanese Cursed Scroll/whatever is a completely different issue because those cards actually have a different wording for those specific languages. The Envoy's printed text is consistent across all languages. The only reason it's even considered a "printing error" is because Wizards said so and errata'd it.

[Smmenen]

Oboro Envoy

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

Does it matter? Far more new players are going to actually see an Envoy than will see a Vault, and apparently Wizards cares less about them than they do about making the card work the way they want.

Now hold on, Oboro Envoy was an actual printing error. There's no ambiguity about it. Using that as an example is like telling Wizards to allow Spanish Melokus to produce 2/2 tokens for the sake of the new players. That's not a valid argument in the least bit.

Actually it is.

Wizards stated policy is that R&D intent is irrellevant.  All that matters it the text on the card.   Buehler cites a rumor that Rancor was supposed to cost 2G, but that is not relevant.  This is a very similar situation. 

[Smmenen]

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

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

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

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

Remember, Buehler articulated the actual reasons for the decision and endorsed the utilitiarn position.  Gottliebs emails fit the logic that Buehler put forward. 

You are right, the cards are supposed to work correctly.  But that is errata when the cards don't work under the rules.  LIke Mana Drain when they eliminated INterrupt, or LED when the changed the rules. 

That's different than what happened here. 

[Smmenen]

You are arguing about what people should think, but anyone who read this thread can tell you that not everyone is convinced by these arguments, and the fact that you are arguing at all suggests that your claim is far from self-evident. 

One would think that putting Black Lotus in a deck would also be self-evident, but people can make arguments for anything, not matter how stupid or wrong.  (see the ichorid thread)

My argument is that Gottlieb is wrong on every point.  But my argument has two thrusts.  First, he is wrong about the text.  And second, even if he isn't, this was a bad decision because the costs outweighed the benefits. 

All your article shows is that the language of Time Vault, when deconstructed by a trained lawyer with an axe to grind, can be made to appear ambiguous.  Fine, granted.  The fact remains that when read by players who are looking for the meaning of the card, not looking to obscure the meaning, many come to the conclusion that the most natural reading is the one now reflected in the errata.  So far as we know, none come to the opposite conclusion.

That's a classic fallacy.  So far as you know, no one reads the card in a certain way and thus that is not the natural reading? 

There is no natural reading of TIme Vault.  The card is a rorshack test. 

Let me put it this way.

The text says:

Time Vault does not untap normally during the untap step; to untap it, you must skip a turn.

The meaning of this sentence turns on the word normally, imo. 

There are two reasonable interpretations:

1) Time vault only untaps once per turn
2) time vault may untap at any time, if you satisfiy the condition

NEITHER reading is precluded by a strict reading of the card.  Why?  Becuase the word "normally" could mean it doesn't untap normally - i.e. it untaps unusually on untap

or it could mean, that normally you'd untap on untap step, but you will not here.

(as a side note) someone should look through alpha to see if the word is used in other cards)

JP was right.  The actual symbolic form of this text is:

A doesn't B normally during C; to B A, you must D. 

Untap is a mechanic that normally occurs in the untap step, but doesn't always (see Ley Druid or Twiddle).  The untap step is just a phase that is named after what the phase normally does. 

The problem is that neither reading is precluded by the text of the card.

THUS, we reach the question:

How the hell can you have an ambiguity of this magnitutde and a naturally intuitive reading?  That doesn't make sense.

To have a naturally intuitive reading REQUIRES an inference about the meaning of "normally." 

And once you admit that there is an ambiguity, the whole structure of Gottlieb's argment collapses because NEWBS will not be pissed when they find out the Time vault untaps at any time upon reading the text and find that this is one reasonable interpretation of the text.

I don't know why you keep missing the latter. 

[PucktheCat]

Wow, you are completely ignoring the point.  It doesn't matter if the card theoretically supports two wordings, because most players will still conclude that the best interpretation is the one we have now, or simply reach no conclusion at all.  Objective, ontological meaning doesn't matter.  What matters is the conclusions actual players are likely to reach.

That's a classic fallacy.  So far as you know, no one reads the card in a certain way and thus that is not the natural reading?

I think I'm willing to stand by the proposition that if no one reads a card in a certain way it isn't a natural reading.  Call me crazy.

Answer me this: if the card is completely ambiguous, with no way to choose between the two readings, why does no one think that the card unambiguously untap multiple times a turn?  Why did you say in your article that, if you were focused on original intent, you would have made the same decision Gottlieb did?  Why, in short, does everyone seem to agree that on the first reading one possible meaning asserts itself more strongly than the other?

[Jacob Orlove]

(as a side note) someone should look through alpha to see if the word is used in other cards)

I did a search for "normal" to try to get a full understanding of the word, as used in alpha:

Animate Dead:  Any creature in either player's graveyard comes into play on your side with -1 to its original power.
If this enchantment is removed, or at end of game, target creature is returned to its owner's graveyard.
Target creature may be killed as normal.

Basalt Monolith:  Tap to add 3 colorless mana to your mana pool.
Does not untap as normal during untap phase, but can be untapped at any time for 3 mana.
Tapping this artifact can be played as an interrupt

Blaze of Glory: Target defending creature can and must block all attacking creatures it can legally block.
For example, a normal non-flying target defender can and must block all normal non-flying attackers at once, but it cannot block any flying creatures.
Controller of target defender may distribute damage among attackers as desired.
Play before defense is chosen.

Fog:  Creatures attack and block as normal, but none deal any damage.
All attacking creatures are still tapped.
Play any time before attack damage is dealt.

Meekstone:  Any creature with power greater than 2 may not be
untapped as normal during the untap phase.

Nether Shadow: If Shadow is in graveyard with any combination of cards above it that includes at least three creatures, it can be returned to play during upkeep for its normal casting cost.
Shadow can attack on same turn summoned or returned to play.

(note: Shadow became "free" as of Revised, in what looks like an error due to a templating switch)

Paralyze:  Target creature is not untapped as normal during untap phase unless 4 mana are spent.
Tap target creature when Paralyze is cast.

Simulacrum:  All damage done to you so far this turn is instead retroactively applied to one of your creatures in play.
If this damage kills the creature it can be regenerated; even if there's more than enough damage to kill the creature, you don't suffer any of it.
Further damage this turn is treated normally.

Wild Growth: When tapped, target land provides 1 green mana in
addition to the mana it normally provides.

Edit, just in case people complain:

Time Vault:  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.

Mana Vault:  Tap to add 3 colorless mana to your mana pool.
Mana Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must pay 4 mana.
If Mana Vault remains tapped during upkeep it does 1 damage to you.
Tapping this artifact can be played as an interrupt.

[Smmenen]

Wow, you are completely ignoring the point.  It doesn't matter if the card theoretically supports two wordings, because most players will still conclude that the best interpretation is the one we have now, or simply reach no conclusion at all.  Objective, ontological meaning doesn't matter.  What matters is the conclusions actual players are likely to reach.

A) You have offered absolutely no support to prove that there is a best interpretation.  How do you know that?  Because people in this thread have said so? 

It simply baffles the mind that you claim that most players will reach that there is a "best" interpretation or reach no conclusion at all.   If you ran a study of standard players and asked them, then I'd believe you.   But at this point, it's only guesswork.  There is no hard evidence ot support the contention that players would read the untap only on upkeep as the "best" interpretation or no conclusion at all.  I have suggested that one reason that people might actually reach a conclusion of untap on upkeep is custom, but not the text of the card itself.  WE should not confuse custom with text.

B) If players reach no conclusion at all, then Gottlieb would realize that this is an exercise of raw power.  He honestly believes that there is only one "naturally intuitive reading."   

C)  I offered three arguments against the best reading of TIme Vault point in the article, but even if there is a best reading, then the whole thin STILL fails for one critical reason and the most important argument in my article:

Rational decisions are cost/benefit decisions.  The change has made lots of people unhappy, upset dealers, faith in wizards, and upset people who didn't even care about Time Vault with no benefit and making very very few happy (only a few here who have some sort of fleeting happiness at having consistency with mana vault or because they enjoy arguing about this). 

Most importantly, and the point you continue to ignore and that i've stated directly to you multiple times:

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

That's a classic fallacy.  So far as you know, no one reads the card in a certain way and thus that is not the natural reading?

I think I'm willing to stand by the proposition that if no one reads a card in a certain way it isn't a natural reading.  Call me crazy.

Answer me this: if the card is completely ambiguous, with no way to choose between the two readings, why does no one think that the card unambiguously untap multiple times a turn?  Why did you say in your article that, if you were focused on original intent, you would have made the same decision Gottlieb did?  Why, in short, does everyone seem to agree that on the first reading one possible meaning asserts itself more strongly than the other?

Custom.  But I completely disagree that everyone seems to agree with your position.  I haven't found that to be the case at all!  Lots and lots of people agree with me. 

[Methuselahn]

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

Laughable dude.  Let me go on record saying that if you can find a viable new use for my set of  Time Vaults with this horrible new errata, then I will eat my words, and Steve's.

Time Vault is horrid and narrow in stax.  It's even worse without the combo.  Why the hell would you want to win more by playing this card with a ramped smokestack?  Sorry man, this card is dead under this great new 'revision.'

[PucktheCat]

There is no hard evidence ot support the contention that players would read the untap only on upkeep as the "best" interpretation or no conclusion at all.

Ah, I see.  You can claim that no one is made happy based on internet discussions, but when your argument is discredited based on those same discussions you don't like it at all.  In fact, as we have seen, people were made happy by this decision.  We still have no evidence that anyone legitimately thinks that the card unambiguously states that it can be untapped multiple times a turn.

The arguments that Time Vault is better read as untapping once a turn have been made more than once in this thread.  I really don't want to clutter the thread with repetition more than it already is, but here are a few:

-jpmeyer's recent argument
-the analogy with Mana Vault
-the tendency of old cards in general to have untap decisions on the upkeep

Custom.

Why is custom an illegitimate basis for a decision?  A custom nearly as old as the game itself, given binding effect by over a decade of rulings and official text, seems a very good reason to make a ruling.  Especially when the custom in question is as well known and understood as how Mana Vault works.

Our legal system certainly gives a lot of weight to custom.

But I completely disagree that everyone seems to agree with your position.  I haven't found that to be the case at all!  Lots and lots of people agree with me.

The people who agree with you think the card is ambiguous.  No one thinks that it is unambiguous and untaps multiple times a turn.

[dicemanx]

The people who agree with you think the card is ambiguous.  No one thinks that it is unambiguous and untaps multiple times a turn.

This is false. Before this whole errata was issued. Almost everyone I know who played with/against Time Vault, myself included, believed that Time Vault untapped multiple times, and not just once on untap/upkeep. We also most certainly didn't like the time counter in terms of matching the card's intent - its appearance came to avoid certain outdated three card combos which landed TV on the banned list in the first place. And for all I know, we outnumber you tremendously.

But that is beside the point, and its the part that I guess you will just not understand. We are saying that the card is ambiguously worded, because that is all we NEED to argue in order to invalidate Gottlieb's argument.

You pick apart at trivial details at this point. You are riding on fumes, and continuously dodge a very simple question that was asked of you: what is the basis of your happiness for the decision. If you want it to carry any weight in the discussion (your "happiness"), you must submit something concrete. Until then, your personal happiness is irrelevant and is trumped by our dissatisfaction, because it is associated with a very concrete and tangible loss.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Having played FlameVault against dozens of players both old and new, I had to explain the combo to pretty much anyone not intimately familiar with Vintage and had to get Oracle text and/or judge rulings multiple times. One guy lost the game because he didn't realize it untapped multiple times instantly and separately and couldn't be Stifled for any benefit. Another guy who was playing Vintage for the first time since 2000 insisted that all the old cards were once per turn only.

You're can play semantics with Gottlieb's arguments until hell freezes over and it will not change a thing. If Gottlieb had just said "I am issuing the errata because I believe that this is how the card is supposed to work, it acts like the other cards now, and it solves my concerns about single card debt. I can do this and there is nothing you can do about it." then most of your arguments go kaput.

[Moxlotus]

You're can play semantics with Gottlieb's arguments until hell freezes over and it will not change a thing. If Gottlieb had just said "I am issuing the errata because I believe that this is how the card is supposed to work, it acts like the other cards now, and it solves my concerns about single card debt. I can do this and there is nothing you can do about it." then most of your arguments go kaput.

That may be true.  However, that's not what he said.  He gave an explanation and we were able to poke all kinds of holes in it.  Whenever you do something in life you need reasons and if you give bad reasons you look like an idiot and sometimes change whatever you did.

[Harkius]

You're can play semantics with Gottlieb's arguments until hell freezes over and it will not change a thing. If Gottlieb had just said "I am issuing the errata because I believe that this is how the card is supposed to work, it acts like the other cards now, and it solves my concerns about single card debt. I can do this and there is nothing you can do about it." then most of your arguments go kaput.

That may be true.  However, that's not what he said.  He gave an explanation and we were able to poke all kinds of holes in it.  Whenever you do something in life you need reasons and if you give bad reasons you look like an idiot and sometimes change whatever you did.

Not to mention that it would defeat the purpose of trying to explain the errata. If you are simply going to answer, "Because I said so!", you may as well not answer the question at all. And, answering in this fashion is hardly going to inspire confidence in the players of any environment as to the rationality of Gottlieb and Wizards (and Big 'Bro), which makes everyone want to play less.

Harkius

[PucktheCat]

Before this whole errata was issued. Almost everyone I know who played with/against Time Vault, myself included, believed that Time Vault untapped multiple times, and not just once on untap/upkeep.

LOL, of course it untapped multiple times before the errata.  Do you mean you thought that the original text unambiguously suggested the card should untap multiple times?  Then why have you said so many times that you think the card is ambiguous? - it would have been much more effective to argue that the new wording was wrong than to argue that it was one of several possible readings.

But that is beside the point, and its the part that I guess you will just not understand. We are saying that the card is ambiguously worded, because that is all we NEED to argue in order to invalidate Gottlieb's argument.

You don't just need to argue it is ambiguous, you need to win the argument.  It would make your argument more plausible if you could offer one reason that someone would actually beleive that the card should untapped multiple times a turn, based on its text.  The best you can argue is that, if you look at nothing other than the text, there may be two readings.  But we have offered affirmative arguments why our reading is the correct one.

Until you offer one good reason why a player would come to the conclusion that the card is unambiguously intended to untap multiple times, why should anyone believe that a substantial number of real players will come to that conclusion?

what is the basis of your happiness for the decision. If you want it to carry any weight in the discussion (your "happiness"), you must submit something concrete. Until then, your personal happiness is irrelevant and is trumped by our dissatisfaction, because it is associated with a very concrete and tangible loss.

I have actually answered this, but I know that it is in your interest to keep the thread going in circles rather than have it conclude.

Edit:
Congratulations to you guys on getting what you wanted (presuming this thing is real).  Be interesting to see how it turns out.
Double Edit:
I guess it wasn't real.

[Pave]

Paralyze: Target creature is not untapped as normal during untap phase unless 4 mana are spent.
Tap target creature when Paralyze is cast.

It find it interesting that Mana Vault wasn't worded thus.  Perhaps they just played fast and loose in those days, but when I first played with Mana Vault I assumed that you could untap it at any time, because the card didn't say otherwise.  I had to be told, and likely directed to Basalt Monolith, before I understood that I could untap Mana Vault only during my upkeep.  Surely the Alpha wording of Paralyze offers further support to Steve's ruminations in the article under 'The Basalt Monolith Conundrum'.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Whenever you do something in life you need reasons

With respect Phil, that is simply not true. He doesn't have to justify a thing. He is in charge of the Oracle stuff and can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't radically alter things enough to concern management on profit issues, which this does not. Needing reasons and needing justification are two separate issues.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Whenever you do something in life you need reasons

Why do you say that?

[EaterOfDreams]

I've stayed out of this debate for weeks partly because I've never really used Time Vault. The ONCE Or TWICE I had it IN a deck it was just proxied =). But anyway, from an Outside-Looking-In perspective, a few things are evident. One - Short of forming a petition to get the card changed AGAIN, no amout of petty banter will change what has been done. I've learned to keep my mouth shut especially after the new card layout a few years back *Shudders*. So many things have been changed in this game: The aforementioned Card Layout Change, The elimination of "Interupts" Etc. And as a player you just have to sit back and take it all. HOWEVER, The point which I DO feel makes the "Time Vault" situation total BS is from a collector standpoint. Two - A card dropping so much in price mere months after it became played and people began picking them up is apalling. These are the kinds of things that get players pissed off at. Now you're stuck with a border-line USELESS card that you'll be hard pressed to sell back. Another quick thing. Three - As I'm sure has been brought up, why the need for this change NOW? I suppose it's to uphold the "Integrity" and "Fairness" of the game. But you would think people in R&D would have caught something like this years ago. I know there are tons of cards coming through that could be abused but if the wording on "Time Vault" was SO off, why was it not changed previously. And besides that, This card was NOT breaking the format by any means, so if anything, why not just ban it? I'm sure that would have at LEAST caused less up-roar than their decision did..

[Godder]

Wizards don't care much about the secondary market, and the Reserve List is a chafing restriction. They keep it around solely because they consider the promise to be more important than the original intent of the list. Forsythe mentions the inconvenience surrounding Gift of Estates being in Ninth Edition (he wanted Tithe, but discovered it's on the Reserve List), and that's not the first time it has come up. Additionally, Mana Drain and Mishra's Workshop could be restricted in the next B&R announcement, and that would be a much bigger hit in the pocket for collectors and players. Complaints about the hit in the pocket are irrelevant to the argument simply because the B&R list has the potential to be worse, and is seen as a legitimate way of dealing with problematic cards, quite a few of which are very old, and therefore valuable.

I don't agree with the particular erratum, however, although I do think erratum was needed, and I'm happy that it happened, even if it's not how I would have done it. I think the trigger should be at the end of each opponent's turn, rather than at the beginning of the player's upkeep, since that would come closest to what I believe to be the intended functionality of the card i.e. choosing whether or not to skip your turn during the Untap Step.

[Moxlotus]

Whenever you do something in life you need reasons

Why do you say that?

If I go to school, I have a reason for doing that.
When choosing what career I want, I have reasons.
When I choose who to vote for, I have a reason for voting for that person.
When I decide what deck to play at a tournament, I have a reason behind that.

I can't think of a single thing in life you do without any sort of reason.

Reasons, opinions, and therefore actions can also change.  I'll give an example.  (I'm going to use a political example just because it is the easiest way, I'm not trying to get into a political discussion).

I believe people should help each other.  I think the rich should provide for the poor.  Therefore, I vote Democratic one election.  Between elections, I realized that people from the lower class can rise to the upper class on their own merit.  I also notice that people are taking advantage of government handouts.  In the next election, I vote Republican.  Why?  The reason is new information (that may be new, or simply more important to me now) persuaded me to change my opinion.

With respect Phil, that is simply not true. He doesn't have to justify a thing. He is in charge of the Oracle stuff and can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't radically alter things enough to concern management on profit issues, which this does not. Needing reasons and needing justification are two separate issues.

This is true.  Bush can decide to send troops and attack Beijing tomorrow too without giving any justification (for 90 days at least before he has to ask Congress for an extension).  That said, it looks better if you actually can justify actions and it pisses less people off.  Generally a business wants to try to piss off the least amount of its customers as possible.

[policehq]

which makes everyone want to play less.
Harkius

You can't seriously want to stop playing Magic because of the loss of one established viable combo that is easily replaced by ANY two-card combo that wins the game.

Generally a business wants to try to piss off the least amount of its customers as possible.

You aren't really much of a WotC customer, if you are like most Vintage players. [EDIT: Please note that this is hardly my main argument backing Gottlieb's move.]

I am happy to see that Gottlieb created an errata that creates absolutely NO confusion about how the card works and that is consistent with the functionality of cards printed at the same time where the intent has been established (and unrivaled) for many years now.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons that make me unhappy about the decision, but you guys wanted reasons for happiness, so there you go.

-hq

[brianpk80]

My argument is that Gottlieb is wrong on every point.  But my argument has two thrusts.  First, he is wrong about the text.  And second, even if he isn't, this was a bad decision because the costs outweighed the benefits. 

I've read your article and the thread it spawned and have a little bit to add.
I think you're dead on with your assertion that Gottlieb's litany of justifications for the errata trips all over itself and can be thought of as specious at best.  That said, I think there are better reasons for this change which he simply did not say, for whatever reason.

It's no secret that for over a decade, Wizards has made cards that appear "intended" to do one thing but, by virtue of some (usually) unforeseen mechanical subtlety or rules change, can be exploited for some other bizarre purpose, often in conjunction with some other nonobvious card or set of cards.  Dragon combo most quickly comes to mind, but it's certainly not the only case.  Sensei's Divning Top was presumably "intended" for efficient library management, not an infinite storm count.  Hermit Druid was "intended" as a mana base developer (and incidentally another incentive for players to use basic lands, back in the days of WoTC's hate parade v. nonbasics), not as a cheap trick to get 4 Ichorids into play.  Other uncanny uses of cards have routinely led to strong results: Illusions of Grandeur, Squee, Goblin Nabob, Forbidden Orchard, Food Chain, Daru Spiritualist, etc.  These are, by and large, incidences where cards have been bent beyond their initial or intended theme, flavor, and purpose and thrust into an unintended context for effective results, but while still complying with the card's initial language.  Upon discovery, Wizards has no real recourse short of banning except to say, "Oops, we missed that.  We'll try harder next time."  Now, Time Vault and Flame Fusillade would fit into this category except for the fact that I find that the combo derives not from a reading of the Vault's initial language but rather from its errata.  To compare:


Alpha/Beta/Unlimited Time Vault
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.

1996 Errata Time Vault
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
Skip your next turn: Untap Time Vault and put a time counter on it.
T, 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.
 

The errata more readily enables a reading that supports the idea of limitless untapping.  By nature, Magic players are groomed to regard an activation cost that does not requiring tapping to be something that can be used as many times as possible during one turn.  "Skip your next turn: Untap..." just plain looks, on its face, like something that can be used as many times as a player has a "next turn." This is especially true when considered along with Rule 300.6 ["Some effects can give a player extra turns. They do this by adding the turns directly after the current turn. If a player gets multiple extra turns or if multiple players get extra turns during a single turn, the extra turns are added one at a time. The most recently created turn will be taken first."] which confirms that Wizards contemplates drastic alteration of the ordinary turn sequence.  In tandem, this errata and this rule have supported the combo-friendly reading of Vault we've been enjoying (or dreading) for the past several years. 

By contrast, the combo doesn't flow so readily from Time Vault's original language.  While I grant that there may be a small degree of ambiguity in its initial text [You describe the ambiguous use of the word "normally," and I think the real ambiguity to be the phrase "during your untap phase."  Either that phrase is redundant (and hence, from a purely textual standpoint, Vault can be untapped at any time) or the phrase is designed to relate the entire sentence to the untap phase (and thus the Vault can only untap by skipping a turn then).] , I don't think it can plausibly be resolved in favor infinite untapping considering all circumstances.  Infinite untapping relies on the idea of turn debt, but when Time Vault was conceived, even assuming it could be untapped during any phase, there was no basis for believing an infinite number turns could be skipped.  Rule 300.6 did not exist and skipping infinite turns was not an existing concept with any purpose or functionality at that point; even using Time Vault infinite times only netted an exchange of one turn.  Rather, I think a straightforward reading of Time Vault indicates that in order for it to be charged, there must be some definite turn to give up, that turn being one which you are about to commence, which further supports a reading that it be used on or in lieu of the untap phase.  Thus, while neither reading is strictly precluded by its text, the lack of a turn debt concept when Time Vault was printed (and errataed in 1996) gives the non-combo friendly interpretation at the very least a preponderance of more credibility over its other reading.

That said, this isn't the case where Wizards can say "Oops, we printed it wrong," but instead a situation where a degenerate combo was enabled by its 1996 errata.  That makes this errata less grievous than killing a combo by modifying an essential functionality of the card as written (which they did 10 years ago for other reasons but that's another story).  I do think that despite assurances to the contrary, some future card or mechanic may have necessitated this decision.  That need for confidentiality may help to explain Gottlieb's jumbled reasoning (sanctity of the Time Vault!) in support of the move.  And the timing and surreptitious announcement were really off.  There's no excuse for that.   

As for utilitarian concerns, I don't think there is a reliable way of measuring total happiness, and even if we could, we're not sure who it is they are trying to please (fans? the market? shareholders? T2? Legacy? designers? nobody?).  I can say that I'm personally happy that Time Vault was errataed.  My favorite genre is U/W Fish and casting a Meddling Mage just got easier, True Believer got stronger, and this cements my decision to run Tormod's Crypt over Null Rod.  I don't think hate for a particular combo should be the impetus for banning or neutering it, but it cannot be said that nobody is happy with this decision (whatever their inappropriate biases may be).  And I do agree that Gottlieb got it wrong about our pressing need to shield new players from the horror of discovering that Time Vault doesn’t work the way “[they expect it to].�  What the heck is that?   
   
That's all,

-Brian (BPK)

[dicemanx]

I can say that I'm personally happy that Time Vault was errataed.  My favorite genre is U/W Fish and casting a Meddling Mage just got easier, True Believer got stronger, and this cements my decision to run Tormod's Crypt over Null Rod.  I don't think hate for a particular combo should be the impetus for banning or neutering it, but it cannot be said that nobody is happy with this decision (whatever their inappropriate biases may be).

This is certainly true to some extent, although such decisions must be reserved for the B/R list. I, for instance, personally hate Fish and fast combo decks like Grimlong and Belcher, but what overrides that dislike is the desire for as much deck diversity as possible in this format. We could, for instance, start neutering all of the top archetypes and make a LOT of individuals happy in the process, but then we wouldn't have an exciting, broken format to play in anymore. T1's appeal partly lies in the fact that we have disgustingly broken cards and combos. It does increase an element of chance to some extent, but that is the trade-off. If we wanted to minimize that luck element, I 'm sure many of us would turn to the Wizard's sanctioned formats instead.

[brianpk80]

...  I don't think hate for a particular combo should be the impetus for banning or neutering it, but it cannot be said that nobody is happy with this decision (whatever their inappropriate biases may be).

This is certainly true to some extent, although such decisions must be reserved for the B/R list. I, for instance, personally hate Fish and fast combo decks like Grimlong and Belcher, but what overrides that dislike is the desire for as much deck diversity as possible in this format. We could, for instance, start neutering all of the top archetypes and make a LOT of individuals happy in the process, but then we wouldn't have an exciting, broken format to play in anymore. T1's appeal partly lies in the fact that we have disgustingly broken cards and combos. It does increase an element of chance to some extent, but that is the trade-off. If we wanted to minimize that luck element, I 'm sure many of us would turn to the Wizard's sanctioned formats instead.

It appears we agree then.  As I mentioned above, I wouldn't regard my hate for the Flame/Vault combo as a proper basis for banning it or errataing it out of existence.  If disgust for that combo were the sole reason the Vault was changed, I would disagree with the decision out of principle, even though, as a Fish player, if I would be an inadvertent beneficiary of it.  As it stands now, I see the errata as a fix of the 1996 Time Vault, not the original.  Therefore, I am ambivalent about the decision making process behind the change, but have benefited from the result.  I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

-Brian (BPK)

[Harkius]

which makes everyone want to play less.
Harkius

You can't seriously want to stop playing Magic because of the loss of one established viable combo that is easily replaced by ANY two-card combo that wins the game.

Wow...I had to reread that about six times to realize that I wrote it. Then, I had to go to my original post to see what I was talking about. To clarify, I wasn't kvitching about the loss of a two-card auto-win combo. Rather, I was kvitching about the lack of integrity on the part of Gottlieb and WotC. That is what I meant will hurt the game.

Brian:

Thanks for your addition to the thread. Your arguments were insightful and interesting. One note, though, is that they didn't return it to its original nature, but they tried to combine the 1996 errata with the original card. Cute, no? What, exactly, were they trying to do again (rhetorical question, everyone!!)

Harkius

[policehq]

Okay, Time Vault is ambiguous, their intent is, to you, ambiguous. That is why you believe they are sacrificing integrity.

However, Gottlieb is right on the money about the precedences that have been established (and completely unargued for ten years) and following them up with Time Vault. He has an interpretation of Time Vault matched. That is his intent. There is now absolutely no confusion as to how Time Vault works, just like Mana Vault, Paralyze, etc.

You call his move a bad one and one that doesn't make a lot of Vintage players happy (but then, not every move can make all Vintage players happy), and that is your interpretation of his intent, regardless of what he says his intent was.

It's kind of unfair to see both of these 'ambiguous' readings and argue that both are in your favor, so something must be changed. Everything has been explained in full. Really, all you have lost is a two-card combo, but not GIFTS. Gifts Ungiven is the win condition, and thus no diversity has been sacrificed (and, if diversity is the entire argument, Great Whale and Brass Man shouldn't be given into so easily).

As far as I'm concerned the game itself is completely unhurt, the format will still be healthy with diversity, and players will adapt just as we do to B/R announcements, the ~6 month preparation for Starter and Portal, and the release of new sets. Don't quit.

-hq

[The Atog Lord]

There is now absolutely no confusion as to how Time Vault works, just like Mana Vault, Paralyze, etc.

There isn't a Mana Counter or a Paralyze counter. So, they don't work the same at all.

[dicemanx]

It's kind of unfair to see both of these 'ambiguous' readings and argue that both are in your favor, so something must be changed. Everything has been explained in full. Really, all you have lost is a two-card combo, but not GIFTS. Gifts Ungiven is the win condition, and thus no diversity has been sacrificed (and, if diversity is the entire argument, Great Whale and Brass Man shouldn't be given into so easily).

Keep in mind that three archetypes were lost with the errata, not just a two card combo in Gifts.

And while "everything was explained in full", it doesn't mean the decision is irreversible. If Gottlieb had any common sense he might take into consideration some of the arguments we've made, instead of using his playground logic.

As far as I'm concerned the game itself is completely unhurt, the format will still be healthy with diversity, and players will adapt just as we do to B/R announcements

This is a given, but if a change isn't necessary, or there are better, alternate options, it shouldn't be made. The comparison to b/r decisions is unfair, because they are designed to INCREASE diversity. This errata has DECREASED diversity.