[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Methuselahn]

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.

Personally, I think that this errata is -just as- damaging to the card now as the 1996 errata was to Animate Artifact/Twiddle & the Beta Gang(tm.).  Errata made the card worthless then and it's making it worthless now.  And it is all because of ambiguous text.

Also, if some future card or mechanic were to actually make Time Vault degenerate, then I have to believe that they would follow the same path as Mind's Desire by releasing it, let the Vintage kids play with it, and then read about the chaos on the internet to figure out what to do.  Then again, maybe they ARE heartless bastards.

[policehq]

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.

I think most people had mixed reactions towards Trinisphere's restriction. Yes, it could be followed up by nasty artifacts turns 2 and 3 that were game-winning, but decks were still able to adapt, if only hanging on by their nails.

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

I've asked this several times: What are you arguing for? The Twiddle combo or the Time Bandits combo?

Why are you guys whining about the Time counter now? It's been there for ten years, and originally your argument was against the upkeep and the timing of his statement. The timing only sucks (in my opinion) for people that were concerned about the financial value of the card. The upkeep clause holds true to Paralyze and Mana Vault. I have already said I wish they would put a Mana counter on Mana Vault to end this thing. Maybe that's the argument they'll read and go with.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

I've asked this several times: What are you arguing for? The Twiddle combo or the Time Bandits combo?
 

I'm not arguing for the combo in particular--I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of their reasons for the errata.  Trying to synch up MV and TV because their text is the same, but then not doing it.  The hypocrisy of saying they want to make the card work like it was written so new players don't have to look up the oracle--but they still do to know that it doesn't work with Voltaic Key.  The hypocrisy of claiming to not to power-level errata, but this new errata still contains a power level errata in the form of the time counter.  Yes, it was there before, but this is still a new errata and they supposedly don't do power level errata on new errata.

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).

Time Bandits in Vintage.  FlameVault in Vintage.  FlameVault combo in Legacy in combo, stasis, and Stax ecks.  5 viable decks--not just a 2 card combo.  Personally, I wish they would go back and re-errata things that were given power level errata like Great Whale.  I see no reason to not change them since they are going back to old cards anyways.

[dicemanx]

I think most people had mixed reactions towards Trinisphere's restriction. Yes, it could be followed up by nasty artifacts turns 2 and 3 that were game-winning, but decks were still able to adapt, if only hanging on by their nails.

Yes, you've just described the effects of distortion. Distortion does in fact limit diversity, but in ways more subtle than outright dominance.


 

[Harlequin]

I'm not arguing for the combo in particular--I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of their reasons for the errata. Trying to synch up MV and TV because their text is the same, but then not doing it. The hypocrisy of saying they want to make the card work like it was written so new players don't have to look up the oracle--but they still do to know that it doesn't work with Voltaic Key. The hypocrisy of claiming to not to power-level errata, but this new errata still contains a power level errata in the form of the time counter. Yes, it was there before, but this is still a new errata and they supposedly don't do power level errata on new errata.

Time Bandits in Vintage. FlameVault in Vintage. FlameVault combo in Legacy in combo, stasis, and Stax ecks. 5 viable decks--not just a 2 card combo. Personally, I wish they would go back and re-errata things that were given power level errata like Great Whale. I see no reason to not change them since they are going back to old cards anyways.

If they did that, then Vault would likely be banned.  Is that what you want?  At least this way it still exsists in the card pool.

Also, Hypocracy is not the same as comprimise.  You're only seeing this errata in terms of abosolutism.  You need to see each errata BOTH card for card, and as groups of templated wordings.  Theres no reason to take the time counter off Time Vault, and no reason to add a counter the Mana vault... other than "I'm only happy if everything is 100% standardized."  

This errata is a mixture of Three ideas, all of wich would not work if taken with 100% absolutism:
"Path of Least Resistance" - ie change as few errata's as possible
"Power level" - TV would be too good, and likely banned if it was counterless
"Standardization" - they have explored original wordings vrs current erratas and found that TV was 'out of standard' when it came to how the card printed text aligned with other cards, and how errata's aligned with other errata's.

[Moxlotus]

When statements like "we won't issue power level errata anymore" are made--there is no room for compromise.  You either do issue them or you don't.  Its a binary decision, its quite simple.  When you say you won't do something, then you do it--that is the definition of hypocrisy.  To you it may be justified, but it is still hypocrisy.

Also, Hypocracy is not the same as comprimise.  You're only seeing this errata in terms of abosolutism.  You need to see each errata BOTH card for card, and as groups of templated wordings.  Theres no reason to take the time counter off Time Vault, and no reason to add a counter the Mana vault... other than "I'm only happy if everything is 100% standardized." 

The same "I'm only happy if everything is standardized" is one reason why the errata was issued in the first place and I disagree with it.  I disagree that they have to be standardized in the first place.  However, that is the reasoning given to us and they still didn't standardize it.

[dicemanx]

If they did that, then Vault would likely be banned.  Is that what you want?  At least this way it still exsists in the card pool.

No, focusing on the time counter is an attempt to expose the fact that they are not really achieving their goals. The best solution would be to retain the pre-errata functionality, leave the 3 vintage archetypes intact, but clean up that debt cost (move the cost to an effect).

Also, Hypocracy is not the same as comprimise.  You're only seeing this errata in terms of abosolutism.  You need to see each errata BOTH card for card, and as groups of templated wordings.  Theres no reason to take the time counter off Time Vault, and no reason to add a counter the Mana vault... other than "I'm only happy if everything is 100% standardized."   

You want compromise, then how about another alternative - leave the card the way it was pre-errata, and move the debt cost after the colon. This move would achieve the following:

1) It retains greater diversity in T1
2) It uses a possible textual interpretation in the oracle wording (the way it has over the years already)
3) It solves the debt cost issue in a manner identical to Chronatog and Meditate

Does that not sound like a very fair compromise, where T1 players are kept happy (1), and they achieve their goals (2.3)? What's wrong with this approach?

[policehq]

Well, I'm saying that you guys acting all betrayed and like WotC ruining the game is purely a result of this particular errata, when the Time counter has been there for ten years due to power reasons. Waylay still has its power-level errata, along with Brass Man and Great Whale. They said they do not want to issue errata based on power level anymore. Honest question, and not to start an argument: Did the Great Whale/Brass Man errata come after this statement?

I don't think Time Vault would necessarily be banned if Voltaic Key and the likes of Twiddle would act like Time Walk. If it were, it would be the first card in a long time to be put on the Vintage banned list for power levels, and if it weren't, Vintage would have to pack as much artifact hate as Standard did during Affinity's rise. At least shutting down FlameVault mid-combo gave you the reward of plenty of turns to win.

To end this, I'm disappointed that you guys are acting surprised and betrayed when the power-level errata was given ten years ago. If the statement was made after that, then the current erratas at that time could be understood as the framework from which they operate henceforth; thus, the Time counter stays.

If you find out the dates when they made the power-level errata announcement (since clearly it didn't happen before 1996), and the dates when Brass Man and Great Whale were errata'd, and then show me the threads complaining about the three of these erratas given from the Vintage community then, maybe I could say that you guys are being consistent. Yes, they said no power-level errata. But they already had it. They didn't take back their words on Time Vault then, and noone complained. This isn't a big shock.

I would buy into all of your arguments 100% if they were made before Gottlieb's announcement. It wasn't "sudden." It was ten years old (the Time counter part).

Seriously, you get my backing if this would be the third instance (after Great Whale and Brass Man) of WotC going back on their word.

-hq

[Harlequin]

@ Moxlotus.  what are you argueing about?  Its definataly not about the errata.  Based on your arguement, It seems like no matter how the change the errata going forward or backward doesnt matter to you.  Is your stance that Gottlieb should loose his job because he gave bad reasons?  If so, then sure I agree with your analisys - his reasoning was flawed.  I agree as much with the "therefore he should be fired" outcome as much as I agree with the "therefore the errata should change" outcome.  Your argument doesn't have any correlation with your proposed outcome (conclusion).

@ Dicemax.  theres nothing "Wrong" with that, its just that your mainly focusing on the integrity of the interation, while the people makeing the decissions are focusing ~more~ (but not 100%) on standizing the card text with other similar card texts.  They see Mana Vault, you see Chronotog.  I'm not, nor was I ever saying that this is the ONLY possibly comprimise.  We could sit around all day, and propose probably 10 different logical comprimises... and the "best" is all a matter of oppinion.  So ultimately the fact that you came up with an acceptable comprimise is again, not what we are debating.  We are saying what is illogical about what THEY chose as a comprimise.  Thats all that is really signifigant.

@policehq.   #1 Key Vault would be 1,000 times worse than FFVault ever was.  I would venture a guess that Gifts would be replaced with mono-blue or WU deck with 4 timevaults and 4 transmute artifact, and even possibly 4 Reshape.  then splash in Ritual of restoration, Orims chant (for protection) and even Golden wish and True beleiver to fight extraction.  Oh and ofcourse 4 force 4 drain.   Gifts pile of:  Recontruct, Ritual of Restoration, Time Vault, Voltaic Key.    {W}{U} = GG.
Minor point, you could not interupt FFvault mid combo.  No matter what you did mid combo, they could continue to combo out with your "stop loss" on the stack.  it more or less was :Untap ~this~ :deal a damage.  So you could attempt to weld in your urza armor... but in response to that, they could just deal you 100000 more damage.

[policehq]

1) Wizards's policy containing the word "again":
At the time of this announcement, the Oracle's text of Time Vault (which is Gospel, not the text on the card) contained a Time counter. The damage had already been done there, and there was no going back. Vintage moved on.

2) Wizards's policy containing the phrase "will not errata based on power-level":
Are you arguing that Gottlieb made this errata with the one and only, sole purpose of getting rid of Flame Fusillade and Lodestone Myr interactions? Gottlieb specifically said that he wasn't, and that his intentions were to match up the time of the untapping (whether there are Mana counters or Time counters or not) with the cards printed at the same time.

The errata was not based on power-level. The errata that effected Time Vault's power-level was given before the statement again. No policy has been retracted.

-hq

[dicemanx]

Well, I'm saying that you guys acting all betrayed and like WotC ruining the game is purely a result of this particular errata, when the Time counter has been there for ten years due to power reasons. Waylay still has its power-level errata, along with Brass Man and Great Whale. They said they do not want to issue errata based on power level anymore. Honest question, and not to start an argument: Did the Great Whale/Brass Man errata come after this statement?

Christ, why do you have to be so distortive. This isn't some great betrayal. T1 isn't going to end. A decision was made that removed some viable archetypes from vintage. A decision that wasn't really necessary, and it didn't achieve its objectives in the end anyways. What's so difficult for you to understand?

If you find out the dates when they made the power-level errata announcement (since clearly it didn't happen before 1996), and the dates when Brass Man and Great Whale were errata'd, and then show me the threads complaining about the three of these erratas given from the Vintage community then, maybe I could say that you guys are being consistent. Yes, they said no power-level errata. But they already had it. They didn't take back their words on Time Vault then, and noone complained. This isn't a big shock.

Look, this really isn't a tough concept. We are pragmatists for the most part. We have no cause for complaint if things are either working fine and are contributing to the diversity of the format (like the previous version of Time Vault) or if it concerns cards we don't care about (Brass Man).

But there's one very simple concept you're either refusing to understand, or are too thick to grasp. There was a decision to errata Time Vault, an errata that effectively removed the card from competitive T1. This was done to meet specific objectives. Those objectives were not met. Therefore, we question whether there was much wisdom to the errata in the first place.

@ Dicemax.  theres nothing "Wrong" with that, its just that your mainly focusing on the integrity of the interation, while the people makeing the decissions are focusing ~more~ (but not 100%) on standizing the card text with other similar card texts.  They see Mana Vault, you see Chronotog.  I'm not, nor was I ever saying that this is the ONLY possibly comprimise.  We could sit around all day, and propose probably 10 different logical comprimises... and the "best" is all a matter of oppinion.  So ultimately the fact that you came up with an acceptable comprimise is again, not what we are debating.  We are saying what is illogical about what THEY chose as a comprimise.  Thats all that is really signifigant.

Honestly Harlequin, what are you talking about. I'm trying to go with a decision that would salvage playability of the card. The best decision isn't just a matter of opinion. It is very reasonable to argue that the best decision is the one with the most concrete gain. Retaining 3 viable archetypes in vintage is a concrete gain. This is what makes the decision "illogical" - once you start looking at the benefits of each possible decision, it become difficult to find any concrete benefits in what Gottlieb elected to do. This has been explained a countless number of times in this thread and in the article.

[dicemanx]

The errata was not based on power-level. The errata that effected Time Vault's power-level was given before the statement again.

We know this. However, examine the objectives here regarding why errata was issued:

1) Match written intent with textual intent
2) Align Mana Vault and Time Vault in their wordings/interpretations

Neither objective was fulfilled because of the time counter. Why wasn't the time counter removed then? Because of power reasons. In other words, the errata issued is taking into consideration the power level of the card by not removing the time counter, but in doing so it fails to meet the two objectives above. So then what was the purpose behind issuing this errata in the first place, if it doesn't meet the outlined objectives?

See the point?

[policehq]

Neither objective was fulfilled because of the time counter. Why wasn't the time counter removed then?

The Time counter was in the Oracle wording from which Wizards started to make the new errata. Why would they go back to the original card text to start all over with errata? Like I said, Oracle is Gospel. They worked from Oracle, where there was a Time counter issued before 1996.

2) Align Mana Vault and Time Vault in their wordings/interpretations

This has to do with the upkeep phase, and they succeeded in making Time Vault only untappable during the upkeep phase, no?

1) Match written intent with textual intent

Card text or current Oracle text? The current Oracle text was what we were working on during the current tournaments, and where Wizards began to work with a new errata, and its textual intent has been met.

2) Align Mana Vault and Time Vault in their wordings/interpretations

They both have to be untapped during the upkeep at a cost, since the original card texts were vague as to when you could untap them.

Success! Both objectives are completely met.

And if you sit here and try to tell me that noone has complained about the financial value of Time Vault and that noone has told me that this is the first step towards Magic's end, take one minute and simply skim the pages here. You don't even have to read very much at all during the early pages. So these comments:

What's so difficult for you to understand?

too thick to grasp

Apply to yourself more than me. Comments about betrayal, the ruination of Magic, and the value of Time Vault have all been addressed. You're acting like I'm just communicating to you only on an open forum.

-hq

[Dante]

The errata was not based on power-level. The errata that effected Time Vault's power-level was given before the statement again.

We know this. However, examine the objectives here regarding why errata was issued:

1) Match written intent with textual intent
2) Align Mana Vault and Time Vault in their wordings/interpretations

Neither objective was fulfilled because of the time counter. Why wasn't the time counter removed then? Because of power reasons. In other words, the errata issued is taking into consideration the power level of the card by not removing the time counter, but in doing so it fails to meet the two objectives above. So then what was the purpose behind issuing this errata in the first place, if it doesn't meet the outlined objectives?

See the point?

For those of you who don't seem to get Peter/Steve's argument, let's try a non-magic situation:

- the city you live in has always allowed everyone to paint their car whatever color they want.
- you like green, so you paint your Mazda green.
- out of nowhere, your city passes an ordinance that allows them to seize all Mazdas and repaint them blue.
- the reasoning for this is - "we want all Mazdas to be painted blue so that they are standardized and because that was the orignal intent in Mazda's design [they roll off the factory blue]"
- but then instead of painting your car blue, the city ends up painting it purple.

So now you have something you don't want (a purple car/unusable Time Vault) and neither of the so called "objectives" of  the ordinance/erratum are met - all the Mazdas/Time and Mana Vault still are not standardized in addition to the car/card text not being anything close to the designer's intent (if you can even fathom what that was).

So in the end, you have two stated objectivesfor making a significant change, but the way the change was implemented didn't do anything to make either objective happen.  The only people who could possibly benefit from this are the people who didn't like green Mazdas/didn't like playing against Time Vault, since neither of the objectives were met.  Counter that with the loss of choice of painting your Mazda green and some pissed off people who have Mazda's.  Also don't forget that people are now going to be hesitant about buying a car because who knows what the city will come up with next that shakes things up with ZERO tangible benefits.

[The Atog Lord]

Why would they go back to the original card text to start all over with errata?

Because they said they were restoring the card to match its on-card wording.

Like I said, Oracle is Gospel.

If that were the case, they would not be changing the oracle wording. Which is exactly what they did.

[policehq]

I won't go into how many holes that metaphor has, or how completely impractical it is; all I will say is this:

Both objectives were reached.

Gottlieb noticed that the Oracle text of Time Vault was different from that of Mana Vault obviously because he was looking at The Oracle. He wasn't looking at the card itself. He may have had to look at the two to see if the wordings were the same, and thus he could standardize the time at which they could untap, but he had to begin that standardization from The Oracle's text (which comes before card text in rulings), not ambiguous and confusing, out-dated card text.

If that were the case, they would not be changing the oracle wording. Which is exactly what they did.

Yes, erratas do that.

Yes, they wanted to restore the original card's wording, but they already had errata to deal with when working on the card. What they wanted to fix about The Oracle's wording, though, to maintain standardization, was the time at which it could untap, which has also been defined.

Time Counter was defined. Time at which it could untap was defined. Now The Oracle's text successfully meets those definitions. Wizards doesn't have to remove the Time counter because they issued that errata before they ever said the word 'again.'

-hq

[The Atog Lord]

The problem with your argument, police, is that the objective given by Mark and friends was to restore the card to working _as written_. This means that the entire purpose of their tinkering with the card was to restore it to how the card was written on paper.

It doesn't even make sense to "restore" a card to its oracle wording. Its oracle wording is how it is written right now. Therefore, to restore it to its oracle wording, you simply do nothing. As for oracle being "gospel," were that the case, there would simply be no errata ever -- because the definition of errata is a change in the oracle wording of the card.

[policehq]

The problem with your argument, police, is that the objective given by Mark and friends was to restore the card to working _as written_.

Yes, they wanted the functionality of the untap had to coinside with its ambiguous and later errata'd precedent Mana Vault.

What I meant by the Oracle being Gospel was that it was Wizards's reference point from which they could work to make the new errata.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

Yes, they wanted the functionality of the untap had to coinside with its ambiguous and later errata'd precedent Mana Vault.

What I meant by the Oracle being Gospel was that it was Wizards's reference point from which they could work to make the new errata.

But the Oracle wasn't Wizard's reference point.  The test written on the card was.  They said this errata would be easier for players to follow becuase they could just look at the text.  Obviously, this still isn't true and they did not accomplish that objective.

@ Moxlotus.  what are you argueing about?  Its definataly not about the errata.  Based on your arguement, It seems like no matter how the change the errata going forward or backward doesnt matter to you.  Is your stance that Gottlieb should loose his job because he gave bad reasons?  If so, then sure I agree with your analisys - his reasoning was flawed.  I agree as much with the "therefore he should be fired" outcome as much as I agree with the "therefore the errata should change" outcome.  Your argument doesn't have any correlation with your proposed outcome (conclusion).
 

I am arguing that his reasons were terrible and if he cannot explain his reasons for an action in a matter that doesn't have tons of holes then the errata was bad and therefore should be reversed. 

Both objectives were reached.

The objective of making the card work in the exact same way as MV, since they were printed in the exact same way, was definitely not reached.  Key works with one and not the other, just like Vault worked with one and not the other.  They do not work the same.

[policehq]

Yes, they wanted the functionality of the untap had to coinside with its ambiguous and later errata'd precedent Mana Vault.

What I meant by the Oracle being Gospel was that it was Wizards's reference point from which they could work to make the new errata.

But the Oracle wasn't Wizard's reference point.  The test written on the card was.  They said this errata would be easier for players to follow becuase they could just look at the text.  Obviously, this still isn't true and they did not accomplish that objective.

That is an objective with which I can agree had not been met with the current errata. The two objectives listed before, I believe, were met. I do remember reading that in his article, and it is very untrue that anyone could look at the card with any of the interpretations and simply know. 

Both objectives were reached.

The objective of making the card work in the exact same way as MV, since they were printed in the exact same way, was definitely not reached.  Key works with one and not the other, just like Vault worked with one and not the other.  They do not work the same.

"Work" is a broad word. When Gottlieb says "work in the same way," he is saying that he is using the same "does not tap during your untap phase as normal" to translate into "you must untap during your upkeep." Thus, the way that the two untap works the same way, which is why I believe that particular objective was met, whether they could both be abused by Voltaic Key or not.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm asking honest and sincere (not sarcastic) questions along the way so I can learn more about the argument and see where I stand. Right now I don't know. A few minutes ago I thought I knew, but I was reminded about a new player looking at the card and being able to know how it works based on its text. Please don't belittle me, because I am not necessarily against you. I just haven't been fully persuaded to be on your side since I find a logical reason in what he did that does not have to do with Flame Fusillade, Lodestone Myr, skipping "at the beginning of your upkeep phase" phrasings (Stasis, Stax), and other methods this may have been abused. I think those were collateral damage. I do not feel like the format has been swept from too much diversity that is not compensated for with clarity and standardization. I think, even, if you read through all of my posts, you could string them together for plenty of inconsistencies, but that is because I'm swayed by some arguments and not by others.

-hq

[Moxlotus]

"Work" is a broad word. When Gottlieb says "work in the same way," he is saying that he is using the same "does not tap during your untap phase as normal" to translate into "you must untap during your upkeep." Thus, the way that the two untap works the same way, which is why I believe that particular objective was met, whether they could both be abused by Voltaic Key or not.

Since MV and TV are identically worded (except their names obv) they should work the same in every way or so one could reasonably interpret from the call to standardization between the two cards.  Yet they don't work the same way.  Since they don't work the same way they have failed to meet that criteria.  Since it is already failing that, why not do what has been suggested by Diceman and move the skip a turn to an effect?  This would still be standardizing TV to something--to the way Meditate and Chronatog work. 

[PucktheCat]

So, just to be clear Moxlotus, it is your position that if WotC erratas any part of a card with power level errata they are bound by their policy to abolish the power level errata or it is 'hypocracy'?  How far does this extend?  What about global templating changes like the adoption of the "aura" language or creature type changes?

[policehq]

Since MV and TV are identically worded (except their names obv) they should work the same in every way or so one could reasonably interpret from the call to standardization between the two cards.  Yet they don't work the same way.  Since they don't work the same way they have failed to meet that criteria.  Since it is already failing that, why not do what has been suggested by Diceman and move the skip a turn to an effect?  This would still be standardizing TV to something--to the way Meditate and Chronatog work. 

This is a good argument.

The only problem I find with it is that both of the cards (even the original card text) can be interpreted to intend that you spend a resource to get that specific resource back. Even with Voltaic Key, you're spending mana to get mana with Mana Vault. Thus, though it may be a weak argument, one should have to spend a turn to receive a turn. After all, you do not get mana from Mana Vault by imprinting Time Walk onto Panoptic Mirror (I concede the weakness of this argument because Time Walk on a Panoptic Mirror means infinite turns without a Time Vault trick).

The two cards are functionally different in ways beyond just synnergy with Voltaic Key as well; Time Vault does not punish you for being tapped, and it comes into play tapped. The functional standardization that Gottlieb seems to have wanted to achieve is the ability to spend the specific resource (a turn/time) to untap both of the cards at the beginning of your upkeep, since Basalt Monolith's wording clearly states you can untap it at any moment. The functional differences between the cards by reaching that one standard are effected in a negative way. I have not yet decided where Wizards should go from here or what their optimal solution is, but I still believe that "we do not want to errata based on power level again" has been upheld in this decision, since the errata was given to an errata, and the intent behind the errata was not to detract from the card's power or synnergy with other cards, but instead to make it consistent with cards printed at the same time.

-hq

[The Atog Lord]

The only problem I find with it is that both of the cards (even the original card text) can be interpreted to intend that you spend a resource to get that specific resource back. Even with Voltaic Key, you're spending mana to get mana with Mana Vault.

No. With key, you aren't spending anything to untap Mana Vault -- you are using an activated ability. Insofar as twiddled allowed you to untap mana vault, twiddle also allows you to untap Time Vault as worded.

Besides, consider this. In Alpha-5th rules, tapped artifacts do nothing. They are without function. Therefore, an artifact with a restriction on how it untaps -- an artifact that says it cannot be untapped with twiddle -- would actually lose that text while it is tapped.

[PucktheCat]

In Alpha-5th rules, tapped artifacts ... would actually lose that text while it is tapped.

There may have been a brief period where the cards were interpreted that way, but Mana Vault worked fine for most of that period.  I don't remember how the rules made it work, but the card did what it was supposed to.

Since they don't work the same way they have failed to meet that criteria.

No wording of Time Vault will perfectly capture how the card worked during Alpha, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do what they can to make it closer.  In this case, the pre-existing power level errata and the fact that effects can't be played during the untap both keep the card from functioning exactly as it did 10 years ago, but the current errata gets as close as possible to that goal given the limitations that are in place.

Your absolutist position is really untenable.  You seem to be saying that if they can't do something perfectly it shouldn't be done at all.  For all we know Gottlieb has been expressly forbade from interfering with existing power level errata - at the very least he has a legitimate interest in leaving it there until the impact of removing it can be evalutated.

[Moxlotus]

So, just to be clear Moxlotus, it is your position that if WotC erratas any part of a card with power level errata they are bound by their policy to abolish the power level errata or it is 'hypocracy'?  How far does this extend?  What about global templating changes like the adoption of the "aura" language or creature type changes?

Personally, I think all power level errata should be rmoved, but even if I didn't think that lets examine the issue.

Errata issued on TV in ~96 was power level.

2003, make statement about no more errata containing power level

2006-new errata is issued.  Want to go back to close to text.  Start with text as base.  Add time counter to the base.  Add power level errata.  Hypocrisy

Your absolutist position is really untenable.  You seem to be saying that if they can't do something perfectly it shouldn't be done at all.  For all we know Gottlieb has been expressly forbade from interfering with existing power level errata - at the very least he has a legitimate interest in leaving it there until the impact of removing it can be evalutated.

What you are missing is that hypocrisy is existing.  To you it may be justified, but it is still there.  If I say "missing school is wrong," but go home sick I am still a hypocrite.  It may be justified to some, but the bottom line is I said one thing and did another--which is the definition of hypocrisy.  If he forbade interfering with existing power level I'd like to know.  In fact, I emailed him over a week ago and didn't get a response.  It would also answer other questions.  The lack of this statement in their explanation of the errata points to the assumption that this is not the case however. 

Something shouldn't be done if many holes can be found in the reasoning.  That shows that the reasoning is flawed and there is a good chance the action is wrong. 

[policehq]

Moxlotus:

Thank you for elaborating on the objectives Gottlieb was trying to meet where dicemanx had failed to mention one (no offense). This argument:

But the Oracle wasn't Wizard's reference point.  The [text] written on the card was.  They said this errata would be easier for players to follow becuase they could just look at the text.  Obviously, this still isn't true and they did not accomplish that objective.

2006-new errata is issued.  Want to go back to close to text.  Start with text as base.  Add time counter to the base.  Add power level errata.  Hypocrisy

Is the best I've seen against this errata. I believe that the current Oracle text should've been the starting point to word the new errata, but since a statement was made otherwise, Gottlieb's logic, which before your reminder I believed to be perfect, is flawed. I hope your voice is heard and that TMD and Gottlieb can reach an amicable agreement. Gather your facts together with the dates and sources of Wizards's (Buehler's and Gottlieb's) statements, present them, and let them know that they have not succeeded either in making players happy, keeping players' trust, or, most importantly, in my opinion, capable of holding their word.

Well done. I don't give in much.

-hq

[PucktheCat]

If I say "missing school is wrong," but go home sick I am still a hypocrite.  It may be justified to some, but the bottom line is I said one thing and did another--which is the definition of hypocrisy.

This is exactly why your argument carries so little weight.  When real people say it is wrong to miss school, they recognize certain circumstances may override that goal, including illness, perhaps a death in the family, and so on.  The statement is broadly aspirational.  If, after making such a statement, one misses school, it is either not hypocrisy or it is trivial hypocrisy.  Either way, it is not morally wrong.  As a matter of definitions, of course, you can define a term any way you like.  But if you choose to define hypocrisy as broadly as you do above you rob the term of its moral content by trivializing it.  In other words, you can call WotC and the school-misser hypocrites, but that doesn't make what they did wrong.

2006-new errata is issued.  Want to go back to close to text.  Start with text as base.  Add time counter to the base.  Add power level errata.

There is no reason to think of errata that way.  In fact, errata almost never wipes a card clean and starts from scratch.  Far more frequently WotC modifies a part of a card but leaves the rest alone.  In this case they took an ability that had a clear correct templating under currrent rules and applied that templating to that ability.  Its no different than the Oracle updates that made local enchantments into Auras.

WotC will never print another creature with Banding.  According to your logic if they want to errata a creature with that ability they have to eliminate the banding as part of the process.

[Jacob Orlove]

2006-new errata is issued.  Want to go back to close to text.  Start with text as base.  Add time counter to the base.  Add power level errata.

There is no reason to think of errata that way.  In fact, errata almost never wipes a card clean and starts from scratch.  Far more frequently WotC modifies a part of a card but leaves the rest alone.  In this case they took an ability that had a clear correct templating under currrent rules and applied that templating to that ability.  Its no different than the Oracle updates that made local enchantments into Auras.

WotC will never print another creature with Banding.  According to your logic if they want to errata a creature with that ability they have to eliminate the banding as part of the process.

They do not "wipe the card clean", they look at the actual words printed on the most recent version of the actual card, and work from there to give it a functionality that matches the printed text. This has nothing to do with whether the card is printable today, or even how they would print it if they were making such a card today. Gottlieb's entire purpose here was to restore the card's functionality to match the printed text, and he did not do that.

The Aura errata is a completely different issue--there is a completely separate set of precedents for rules-based errata.

Your banding argument makes no sense.

[PucktheCat]

they look at the actual words printed on the most recent version of the actual card, and work from there to give it a functionality that matches the printed text.

Or, at least as often, they look at a group of cards with similar abilities, decide how they want to template them, and change those abilities without rebuilding the card as a whole.

Regardless, my point is simply this: a promise not to errata cards for power level in the future is not the same as a promise to eliminate old power level errata.  You, or at least Moxlotus, seem to want to say that the decision to errata Time Vault some how makes the old power level errata, which was unchanged, "new" power level errata.  You would effectively impose a rule on Wizards that if they want to errata a card that has old power level errata they must eliminate the power level errata.  That's a bad way to manage a policy.  Either maintaining old power level errata is a bad idea, in which case it should all be eliminated, or it is a good idea, in which case it should be maintained even if there are other changes made to the card.

If your approach prevails then one of two things will happen.  One option is that WotC will continue to errata such cards.  In that case, power level errata will disappear on some cards and not on others pretty much randomly, because some cards will require other errata but others won't.  The other possibility is that WotC will simply decide that it should never errata cards that have power level errata.  If they do that then real problems in wording will be ignored because they occur on cards with power level errata.  Neither of these is a desireable result.

Gottlieb's entire purpose here was to restore the card's functionality to match the printed text, and he did not do that.

Power level errata always has that effect.  It's regrettable.  If you want to get rid of power level errata, make arguments on that point, but make them general, because there is nothing distinguishing the power level errata on Time Vault from that on Great Whale.