[Free Article] On Power-Level Errata

[The Atog Lord]

Steve and I teamed up to write this one. We think this is an important issue. Hopefully it will generate some good discussion and some good thought.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11926.html

[Katzby]

Good article, as always.

I couldn't help but notice that a lot of what was said in this article seems to also show up in what somebody else said in this post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=28113.msg414808#msg414808.  I'm not delusional enough to think that just because I thought of it, nobody else could have thought of it first.  Then again, I'm quite sure I was the first person to say it. 

I obviously don't expect "a cookie" every time somebody builds upon something I said, but I've noticed that a lot of Vintage articles that show up on SCG often borrow heavily from tmd posts and ideas without recognizing or referencing the original author.  Whenever I write a post or an article (and not just about magic), I typically make it a point to give credit to everybody that even got me thinking on the topic to begin with. 

(I honestly am not trying to be a jerk about this, and I'm not the least bit put out here.  I also fully accept that the authors of this article might not have even read my post.  Though, I still thought I should say something this time.)

Anyway, good article.  Freebies are always appreciated.


Katzby

[sean1i0]

It was a really good article, very concise, informative, and compelling, although to be honest I have agreed with this for about a month I suppose.  It would be awesome to have the original functionality of some of these cards back.  They would spawn some really neat control-combo/combo decks, too.  Like you all mentioned in the article, it's not as if the already powerful Vintage and Legacy formats plus their respective restricted and banned lists couldn't handle the removal of power level errata.

[Evenpence]

Basalt Monolith + Energy Bind = GG.

It's 10x more useful than Flame Fusilade + Time Vault, and on color.  It's also at the same cost.

Time Vault + Energy Bind = GG.  One mana cheaper.

Time Vault + Voltaic Key = Infinite turns.  You of course have to kill your opponent with something, so the combo might as well be three or four cards, but it fits into every deck because both pieces are colorless.

Would you answer this by simply restricting the pieces?  That's alot of combo.

Imagine this deck:

4 Time Vault
4 Basalt Monolith
4 Energy Bind
4 Voltaic Key

4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain

4 Thirst for Knowledge

All the brokenness that accompanies Vintage Magic, especially acceleration.

Magic would not be fun for a while.  If power-level errata was done away with, every one of those cards would have to be restricted, and they would still be broken as all get out.

But I DID like the article, don't get me wrong.  I liked it alot, and actually wish it would happen, just to see what the enviroment would be like - and to see how it would affect Magic.

EDIT:  Actually, this intriques me.  I'm going to think about putting on a tournament around here for a mox or something where power-level errata doesn't exist to see what would happen.  Jacob, would you allow that tournament to be posted on the tournament forums?  It might get some attention from Wizards as well, especially for them to see the winning decklist - if it's absurdly broken or not.  It'd also be a nice change of pace for creative deckbuilders here in Vintage Magic.  The gears are turning in my head...

[UR]

I couldn't agree more. Just last weekend I tried to stifle the 'comes-into-play'-trigger on a Phyrexian Dreadnaught only to sacrifice my board and receive a warning for an illegal play because somebody had issued more errata I'd never read. Cards should do what they say that they do...

[The Atog Lord]

Evenpence, perhaps you were referring to Relic Bind, instead of "energy bind"?

Sad to say, as ELD pointed out to me, that combo will not work. Relic Bind was reprinted in 4th edition with the "fixed" text. Therefore, since the card has been printed with a new wording, changing it would be outside the scope of what this article calls for. Errata made on an updated version of a card should stand, as trying to revert to an old wording will simply cause massive confusion regarding the new version.

[Evenpence]

Oh.  My bad.  Yeah, I meant Relic Bind.  Not exactly sure why I thought it was Energy Bind.  I did just wake up.  Didn't know that happened with 4th edition.  We used to use it all the time back in the days of Unlimited/Revised.

EDIT:  Hey, why does Basalt Monolith have any errata at all now?  I can't think of a combo that's abused by Basalt Monolith tapping to untap itself 50 times a turn.

[dicemanx]

Oh.  My bad.  Yeah, I meant Relic Bind.  Not exactly sure why I thought it was Energy Bind.  I did just wake up.  Didn't know that happened with 4th edition.  We used to use it all the time back in the days of Unlimited/Revised.

EDIT:  Hey, why does Basalt Monolith have any errata at all now?  I can't think of a combo that's abused by Basalt Monolith tapping to untap itself 50 times a turn.

Power Artifact. But I'd support getting rid of the power level errata and enable the combo. If it proves to be too powerful (unlikely), we can always restrict Monolith. Better to have a restricted card that is more useful than have it gather dust in our boxes/binders.

[Juggernaut GO]

I get the feeling that if they were to remove the time counter wording on vault, every deck would run voltaic key/time vault. 

Wouldn't that be unbalancing to the format?

Is that what this article is wanting wizards to do; To remove the errata from time vault, as well as other cards that got nerfed,  and return it to how it was originally printed? 

Or to be more clear, are you advocating that all errata issued to limit a cards power be removed and for errata  to be used strictly for the purposes of clarity in understanding how the card works.  I understand that people from wizards have made statements against what they seem to have done, but, does this really matter?  Alot of people in the world are hypocrites, and change their views over time. 

What I really want to know is what the root of your problem with wizards' decision to change time vault. 

[kombat]

Here's what I want to know: How much longer do we have to endure the whining and complaining before people will stop wasting their energy crying about their pet combo that got canned?  When can we stop beating this long-dead horse and actually start talking about some new innovations in Vintage?  When will people just let it die and move on?  It's not the end of the world, and I am thoroughly sick of hearing about it.  I'm sure I'm not alone.

[dicemanx]

Here's what I want to know: How much longer do we have to endure the whining and complaining before people will stop wasting their energy crying about their pet combo that got canned?  When can we stop beating this long-dead horse and actually start talking about some new innovations in Vintage?  When will people just let it die and move on?  It's not the end of the world, and I am thoroughly sick of hearing about it.  I'm sure I'm not alone.

Here's what I want to know: how much of your useless whining do we have to endure in return? You're welcome to not participate in the discussions or read this thread. It's your prerogative. We don't make it our business to post in every thread on this site warning people how futile their efforts are or how lame the discussions might be. How about if you follow suit?

it's just getting annoying to periodically have people think they are making some point with these "stop your whining!!1" verbal spews.

I get the feeling that if they were to remove the time counter wording on vault, every deck would run voltaic key/time vault.

Wouldn't that be unbalancing to the format?

Possibly, but Vault specifically would probably have to be restricted. Once restricted, I seriously doubt it will be any problem - if anything, it will just add to the list of viable options.

Or to be more clear, are you advocating that all errata issued to limit a cards power be removed and for errata  to be used strictly for the purposes of clarity in understanding how the card works.

I thought our goal is to maximize the number of viable cards in the format. However, WotC apparently won't budge on certain issues - they feel compelled to have all printed texts and oracle texts match-up as closely as possible for example. Fine. Let's do that then (dump the power level errata), and in the process make about 5-6 cards possibly useful again. With the exception of Time Vault (which will likely need restriction) its a pretty safe bet that removal of power errata from many of the cards won't lead to anything dominant or distortive. Unless you think otherwise? Are we missing something?

What I really want to know is what the root of your problem with wizards' decision to change time vault.

The root of the problem is that at some point the alignment of oracle and printed texts superceded the playability in importance, with little to no benefit from our estimation. Think about why Time Vault was errata'd to include the time counter in the first place - to remove the card from the banned list and actually make it playable. in other words, their priority was to have a functional, playable card in the format, and if they had to veer away from written text to do so, then so be it. I don't recall reading any complaints about putting playability at a higher priority than matching oracle wording with written text. People like to have a lot of options - why would they complain about a decision that increased diversity?

I understand that you hate the Flame vault combo. But you know what, I hate Tinker, Welders, and YWill, with Oath really annoying me the most. Other people hate cards A through Z. However, your personal likes or dislikes, and my own, take a back seat when it comes to the needs of the format - format balance and deck diversity. If Flame Vault led to any sort of dominance or distortion, I would totally support you in your desire to get the card removed from the format. However, any cards that add to the diversity at little to no cost, no matter how much I hate them or lose to them, are cards that I'd fight to keep in the environment.

[yespuhyren]

Yeah, I was honestly sad to see it go.  I loved that combo, and I personally wouldn't play it.  It just meant there was another "deck to beat" and I didn't mind that.  I haven't been killed by the combo that many times anyways, and the times I was just made me think "Ok.  How do I beat this next time I play it?" 

All that happens when there is more diversity is it makes me a better player.  I learn more, think more, and try and analyze all of the options all of the time.  This is a shop player saying I'm sad to see it leave.

[Smmenen]

This is just MY opinion now - not Rich's.  I speak for myself, but I think:

Basalt monolith combo is fine and fun.

Zodiac Dragon, once restricted, will be perfectly fine.   

Time Vault will be the most busted of all - but restricted it should be fine.  If it is truly a problem, ban it.  But errata is not the appropriate way to deal with it.

[Mr. Type 4]

Is it so terrible to want there to be new decks in this stagnant format?  Is it sad that was excited to work on Ichorid just because we finally had something new that was competitive?   Seriously, the push for working on MeanDredge before Richmond was some of the most exhilirating times in recent memory.  Since it is clear that Wizards isn't going to let more than a handful of Type 1 playable cards escape R&D each year (and let's face it, more than 75% of them only have sideboard potential) then why not release some power errata on a few cards that MAYBE could have an impact on a format that they really couldn't care less about anyway. 

Basalt Monolith - Totally Fair
Great Whale(and it's ilk) - EXTREMELY FAIR - unerrata this TODAY - These cards are being held back from people being able to build some enjoyable casual decks.  Let's not take that away from them.
Time Vault - Sweet - Restrict it, ban it from Legacy and let's start Twiddleing. Forget Fusillade, this is way more fun.  If it's too good, ban it, OR ban Voltaic Key.

Zodiac Dragon - Very Powerful, but not as degenerate as Yawg Will or Tinker.  Ban from Legacy, Restrict in Type 1.  I want to play a Zodiac Dragon real bad, there's lots of fun design options there.

@Kombat - STFU!  This isn't whining on any level, this about two things: Motivating Wizards to do what they say they want to do and giving us a chance to innovate new decks, because that is FUN.  You want to "actually start talking about new inovations in Vintage" well, "HELLO!" You have clearly failed to realize that this is what we need for new innovations to occur beyond "Put Shattering Spree in my sideboard"  You want to talk about that? because I really don't.

How long until everyone get bored of Slaver vs Fish vs Stax vs Gifts vs Storm? How much discussion can we have about tuning those decks if they remain the same into next year?  Can we count on Coldsnap and the following Snap-Crackle-Pop block to give us new archtypes?  I don't know about you, but I'm a bit pessimistic about that. 

Releasing power errata would be good for everyone.  It makes the game easier for casual players and allows serious players to dust off some oldies-but-goodies and explore new avenues of design.  If a person's only reason to disagree here is because we're "whining" then he needs to realize that he is the only whining, while the rest of us are interested in making the game better.  If someone wants to offer reasons why this should not be done, they should be encouraged to offer constructive critism.  Complaining that people are whining about this is stupid and is to no one's benefit.

Let's examine how cool it was to allow us to play Portal cards.  This could be EVEN BETTER.

[Smmenen]

Amen.  AAAAAMEEEEN! 

[Moxlotus]

If TV was restricted, I doubt that combo would be dominant.  You need it and another restricted card (Key) to work.  Hell, single restricted cards (Will, Tinker) win the game anyways, I don't see why a 2 restricted card combo would be more broken.

[LordHomerCat]

What is you and Rich's opinions on Portal cards, Steve?  Basically all of them have errata that doesn't strictly match the printed wording, and many of the Sorceries that can only be played on an opponents turn got turned into instants.  Also, like Zodiac Dragon, it seems it was printed as it was since there weren't any effects in the portal universe which would cause a problem, so you don't need the "from play" clause on him as it would never really come up.  What do you think should happen to them? (the sorcery-turned-instants, in particular)?

[Smmenen]

I just want the cards to reflect the text as much as possible.  I'll let rich answer before giving a more detailed response. 

[Nastaboi]

If TV was restricted, I doubt that combo would be dominant.

Is that because of people spending their free time outdoors instead of watching telly all day?

Couldn't resist.

About the subject: I hope that Mr. Type 4 writes what he just states to Wizards so that they have to address it. Why, I am already exited just about the dream that this could be possible some day. Let's make this our new "Allow Portal!" argument.

[zeus-online]

Guess abeyance would get restricted aswell?
While i definetly like the idea, i dont think i'd be all good in practice.....Portal cards for one, is a huge mess when it comes to magic rules!

/Zeus

[Katzby]

Guess abeyance would get restricted aswell?

No, I don't think Abeyance's erratta should be considered "power level" erratta.  The reason for this is because the first time that Abeyance was nerfed, it was actually done so through the use of a clarification of game rules.  After Abeyance started going crazy in type 2, a clarification was handed down that said that 5th edition mana sources couldn't be stopped by abilities that "didn't let a player use activated abilities."   This is just about the only time I can think of in Magic's history that in order to stop a broken card, game rules were updated instead of any errataing or restricting or banning, etc.

Note that Abeyance did eventually recieve erratta later, but this was because the above rule was dropped from later revisions.  So, it seems to me that based on this, the errata on Abeyance is really there to make it work under the original game rules (despite the fact that they were updated shortly after its printing) and not for actual power level.  This difference is made clear in the article that we are discussing.

Zodiac Dragon, once restricted, will be perfectly fine.   

I certainly invite opinions on the contrary, but I also consider Zodiac Dragon's erratta more of an erratta to clarify its original intentions, rather than a "power level" errata.  The erratta on Zodiac Dragon seems a lot to me like the erratta on Impulse.  That is, it's obvious that the card was printed incorrectly, and erratta was given very quickly after the set's release to correct the wording.   And it was done to correct a blatant misprint on the card, rather that in response to in any broken usage of that card.

This example of errata is better illustrated by considering the errata on Impulse.  If there were no erratta, the card would have you first put cards on the buttom of your library, then shuffle your library.  Since that would be pretty screwey, it's easy to see that a mistake was made in printing the card.  I see Zodiac Dragon in the same light, though its case is much less obvious.

Note that the erratta of "from play" on Zodiac Dragon has been around long before Portal was even made legal for Vintage and Legacy, long before there was any way to break it in any format.  That should be a testament to the fact that it was decided that this card was printed incorrectly, and that's why the erratta was issued.  Again, it was errattad apparently to fix a misprint on the card rather that in response to broken usage of the card.  That's not really the same as "power level erratta."


Katzby

[Mr. Type 4]

I think that, to a degree, the massive errata on Protal cards to make them playable in tournament Magic is not really dissimilar to the massive amount of errata that was required when the game updated the entirely of the rules and created things like "The Stack", because essentially they re-wrote the rules of Portal so that the cards would gel with regular cards.  SO - Changing a sorcery that can only be played on an opponent's turn to an instant really isn't power errata, it's "let's make this card make sense" errata.  What we want to address here are cards that have errata that has been put in place specifically to nueter the effectiveness of a card that may have been too powerful in bygone era of the game.  Rec-Sur decks were dominant a long time ago so they neutered Great Whale with power errata.  That's what we want undone here.  

While it is somewhat debateable as to wheather or not Zodiac Dragon's text was over simplified so that it would be easy to understand in the realm of portal, I'm pretty sure that it is indeed Power errata.  In fact, I think I remember there being some concern about it before Portal was legalized.  Impulse is an interesting example of "fix a mistake" errata, as is Wall of Junk (which forgot to be a wall), but for the most part, when Wizards screws up they let it go.  I encourage open discussion about Zodiac Dragon, because I could see it from both sides, although I really can't remember them issuing errata on it before they created Oracle for Portal cards, which was done a few months before they legalized it(and was the big tipoff that they were going to do it).  If they had errtated it before that, how would we have known if the cards weren't listed in Oracle?
 
If they let Abeyance prevent you from tapping land for mana, then Restrict it, but that's fine by me.  Although, I do remember this being a casualty of a game-rules update. 

[dicemanx]

I certainly invite opinions on the contrary, but I also consider Zodiac Dragon's erratta more of an erratta to clarify its original intentions, rather than a "power level" errata.  The erratta on Zodiac Dragon seems a lot to me like the erratta on Impulse.  That is, it's obvious that the card was printed incorrectly, and erratta was given very quickly after the set's release to correct the wording.   And it was done to correct a blatant misprint on the card, rather that in response to in any broken usage of that card.

This example of errata is better illustrated by considering the errata on Impulse.  If there were no erratta, the card would have you first put cards on the buttom of your library, then shuffle your library.  Since that would be pretty screwey, it's easy to see that a mistake was made in printing the card.  I see Zodiac Dragon in the same light, though its case is much less obvious.

Yes, there is agreement that the cards were mistakes in terms of what ended up in the text box. However, it would be much better to forget about RnD intent here and go with what the text says to do. That way, you wouldn't need to be aware of any corrective oracle wordings that attempt to reflect RnD intent. I think the average player cares more about knowing what his cards do from the text of those cards rather than whether the cards match the designers' original intentions.

[LordHomerCat]

In terms of textual basis, relating to Portal "instants":

If we want the cards to be as close as possible to the actual text, as this article claims, shouldn't they remain sorceries?  Take Mystic Denial for instance (1UU, counter a creature or sorcery spell).  It was originally a sorcery, but is now an Instant.  If I have one of these in my sideboard, and play burning wish, I should be able to grab it, if we are trying to go with As Close To Text As Possible.  It says sorcery on the card, and its not like you can't make the rules work for it, so that it can be a sorcery and still functional.  You can't make this an instant without making a rather large change to the card.  I would like to see the time counter removed and Great Whale back to normal, but there is a lot of baggage that goes with that decision (especially in terms of Portal).  Unfortuneatly, even though yours may be the best approach Steve, in an ideal world, there are so many niche cards and rulings and sets (Portal) that it may not be feasible to implement that solution, and hence a slightly different policy should be adopted.  I do agree that the current stated policy and actual actions do not match, and SOMETHING should change.

[emidln]

If TV was restricted, I doubt that combo would be dominant.  You need it and another restricted card (Key) to work.  Hell, single restricted cards (Will, Tinker) win the game anyways, I don't see why a 2 restricted card combo would be more broken.

It would be one more option for a potential Gifts pile. Plus, I only heard of a few people working on decks running more than one TV in the first place. I think diceman said he was working on one in one of the threads after neutering.

[jro]

There are many cards whose errata addresses more than just one of the categories this article identifies.  Let's first consider intent and power level.  Waylay is a classic example where a failure of the intent of the card (to create surprise blockers) resulted in the card being too powerful (acting like a white Ball Lightning).  But perhaps this oversight can be attributed to unfamiliarity with the then-new 6E rules.  A more recent example would be Oboro Envoy: the card was supposed to say "until end of turn".  Was it errata'd to match the intent, or was it errata'd because it was too powerful (in limited, obviously)?  Even for the case of the Urza block free spells, the errata serves to both match the intent AND correct the power level.

This same dual function exists for rules change errata and power level.  A good example of this is the Weatherlight lands Scorched Ruins and Lotus Vale.  Without their rules change errata, they would be very powerful cards.  On the other hand, the Visions Karoo lands were recently de-errata'd to their original wordings, making them slightly more powerful.  I would maintain that this is a good thing, as it follows the simple principle that cards should behave as they read.  But this power boost hardly matters as they were made obselete by the Ravnica common guild lands.  Should the Weatherlight lands be treated the same as the Visions lands?  It's impossible to consider this question without taking into account every reason the card is errata'd: how the card operated under pre-6E rules, the intent of the card, and the power level.

Ultimately, I support the idea of removing most of what we call power-level errata, but as a consequence of the principle that cards should behave as they are written.  But I think that what Vintage players (and all Magic players) should be advocating for isn't any particular change to certain cards, but rather a general clarification of why errata is issued, why it is removed, and what (if anything) will be done to bring past errata in line with WotC's current positions on errata.  What I would like to see is an "Errata List" process similar to the Banned and Restricted List process.

Incidentally, does anyone know where one can find lists of past errata?

[Mr. Type 4]

Lotus Vale is probably a game-rules type of thing, although if released, it would be pretty cool:

Lotus Vale - Banned in Legacy, Restricted in type 1 - The most fair Black Lotus effect.  Doesn't increase Storm, doesn't get used twice in the same turn with Yawgwill (unless you got Fastbond, or exploration, more power to you if you do)

I don't think that this isn't feaseable by any means.  I'm not asking for everything to have it's Oracle text match it's physical text box as close as possible, I just want there to be a good reason if it doesn't.  Sorceries that play like instants have a good reason as far as I'm concerned, Great Whale, however, does not.  Remember that a good number of these errata were to help fix things in the Type Two of the late 90's, which probably should have just banned the cards, but instead they nerfed them with errata.  It's many years later, and these cards aren't in Type 2 anymore... we can handle this in Vintage.

I think we really need to get past "intent".  Intent is pretty much irrelevant for these cards that are really old.  Trying to figure out the intent of a card that was made in like 1998 really takes it out of context.  And let's face it, some of the best stuff is far beyond the scope of "intent".  If the players couldn't figure out ways to "break" cards that R&D didn't notice (or we can always consider the possibility that they know and want us to figure it out, because we get excited about all of that) then there wouldn't be all kinds of cool combos.  No one intended World Gorger Dragon to make an infinite loop that wins you the game, but that's pretty interesting. 

[Glix]

I think that one must keep in mind that the recent errata to vault was not a power leval errata, it was a "clean up" errata on a power level errata, which was still coincidentally broken.

Regardless, I believe that power level erratas are a necessary evil, especially on cards like Time Vault.  Time Vault, with no errata, would be INSAINLY broken, even if restricted.  However, there are definitly cards that require erratas.  One must deside, would you rather play in a magic where cards like Time Vault could have infinite comboes with voltaic key?  Would you really find it fun to have someone could tutor out a Zodiac Dragon with a mongrel in play?  There would be worse consequenses, I'm sure.  In fact, why stop at doing away with power level restrictions just on text?  It doesn't say anywhere on ante cards that they can't be played?  Perhaps we should litterally interpret them and create a deck with all of them, and remove them for a 10 card combo deck.  But I digress.  It should be evident that power level restrictions are unwanted, and should be regarded as a last resort, but they are a necessity.  And I also believe that no one here is angry about Time Vault's power level restriction, honestly, but rather its "clean up" restriction.  You say that you want cards to be played as they are written, and yet you had no quams with the card when you comboed out with Flame Fussilade.  And if that combo didn't exist, would any of you even care about the recent development?

Regardless, are any of you flawless?  Wizards has, and my yet again, made mistakes.  This meathod of repairing them seems best to me.  Its not a matter of intent, from my view, but of necessity.  If you cut your arm, would you let it be or bandage it?  Would you let it bleed because you didn't want to interfere?  No, you would fix it with artificial means.  That is what is being done, at least in my opinion.

[Yare]

It should be noted that there are a few other types of errata that we should not concern ourselves with here. For example, errata is issued implicitly when an old card is released in a new set - the new wording on the card trumps the old wording; thus Spineless Thug became a Zombie through Ninth edition. In addition, not too long ago a number of creature types received errata.

I just want the cards to reflect the text as much as possible. I'll let rich answer before giving a more detailed response.

I can't really agree with this, particularly in light of the concept that cards "should reflect their text."  Though this may be seen as unimportant, simply dismissing this functional change of cards is not congruent with the concept that the text of cards should reflect the cards.  Sure, a creature's type is only marginally significant, seeing as how "Goblin" and "Wizard" are really the only creature types of consequence.  But how can you justify to the random player out there that Spineless Thug is a zombie, even though it says nothing about that on the card?  Guess since that's what the picture looks like?  In that case, to play devil's advocate, why can't Time Vault have a time counter?  That is a functional change, but there is nothing about it on the card.  What is the difference?  (Note: in general, do NOT turn this into a Time Vault thread.  The example was just the most obvious one).  Why are Flying Men not "Creature - Human Flying-Men."?

Regarding changing a bunch of cards back to their original text, I would question whether this is desirable.  On the one hand, you do have the benefit of cards being themselves rather than some bastard incarnation that we perceive to be more "correct" now.  On the other hand, this would completely redefine the format, possibly for good, but also possibly for ill.  Is it worth disrupting the precedent of the relatively stable vintage metagame in exchange for this gain?  The issue here is the risk of destablizing the format for a time, possible so much that it could lose part of its fanbase.  The issue is not whether the format could eventually be (re)stabilized; only if it could be done quickly enough so as to avoid irreperable damage.

One final question: Should a player shuffle his library after playing Impulse?  Obviously, the shuffle clause was a printing mistake, but that's what the card says, does it not?  The addition certainly does not make it non-functional.

In asking that question, that gave me a very interesting idea.  How can you justify saying that if a card is not reprinted that it's original wording should stand, but if the card is reprinted with new errata, then that errata is ok? (The creature example in particular).  Does the fact of the reprint make the errata ok somehow?

All that being said, I applaud you guys on the article for starting this discussion.  This is definitely something worth discussing.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Time Vault, with no errata, would be INSAINLY broken, even if restricted.

O rly?  I don't think so.  We are talking about a 2 mana artifact that has potential to combo for more turns with another card, but does effectively nothing at all on its own.  Cards that do nothing on their own suck, and must have an extremely broken interaction with other cards to make them playable, eg Worldgorger Dragon combo winning one the game, and even then the entire deck must be based around them and have good synergy.  Someone might make twiddle.dec based around 4x Time Vault, but I'm not sure that that would even be any good, and I doubt that Time Vault would make a large splash if it was restricted.

One must deside, would you rather play in a magic where cards like Time Vault could have infinite comboes with voltaic key?

I personally don't think it would matter than much, since both cards are terrible on their own.  Key is already restricted and Time Vault could be, too.

It doesn't say anywhere on ante cards that they can't be played?  Perhaps we should litterally interpret them and create a deck with all of them, and remove them for a 10 card combo deck. 

Actually it says so on the banned and restricted list, FYI, which is what advocates of removing power level errata suggest be used to keep cards in check.

And I also believe that no one here is angry about Time Vault's power level restriction, honestly, but rather its "clean up" restriction....
You say that you want cards to be played as they are written, and yet you had no quams with the card when you comboed out with Flame Fussilade.  And if that combo didn't exist, would any of you even care about the recent development?

Actually, I think that even without the original power level erratta time vault would have been able to combo out with fullisade.  Not only that but many people have wanted power level errata removed for years, before fullisade was even printed.

Regardless, are any of you flawless?  Wizards has, and my yet again, made mistakes.  This meathod of repairing them seems best to me.  Its not a matter of intent, from my view, but of necessity.  If you cut your arm, would you let it be or bandage it?  Would you let it bleed because you didn't want to interfere?  No, you would fix it with artificial means.  That is what is being done, at least in my opinion.

We are talking about making a card game as fun as possible, game mechanics, not somone's arm being cut off.  Wizards making mistakes and players breaking cards is part of what makes this game interesting, and thus fun.  If a card makes the game unbalanced and thus unfun, it can be restricted, but just because a card is used in a way not intended when it was designed does not mean that it should not be allowed to operate in that manner.