A very different (and late) view of Time Vault

[Erdrick]

I have not played for a while, so I was very surprised when last week I heard that Wizards had neutered Time Vault a couple of months back.  So, after reading many of the articles and posts here and at StarCityGames, I decided I wanted to write a letter to Mr. Gottlieb.  I actually had a lot of fun writting the letter and the result was very different than I had originally expected.  I welcome you to reply with your feedback as well.

Dear Mark Gottlieb , Magic Rules Manager:

   I was rather surprised when I recently heard about the current errata to Time Vault.  In disbelief I read through many articles on your website and other websites to learn more about why the change was made and what other players thought about it.

Like most other players, I disagree with the current errata.  Although, I apparently have different reasons for why I disagree as well as what I would recommend.  That is why I am writing you this letter.  I doubt that much of it is the same stuff you have been reading for the past 2 months.  In it I will be covering multiple points.  What I believe to be the implied intent of the card.  What my recommendation is for its errata.  What I think are the problems with the current and older erratas.

   First the stuff you already know, the original text in Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited:

Time Vault
2
Mono Artifact
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.

What is the implied intent with regard to untapping?
You must skip a turn to untap Time Vault.  (In particular, notice the word “must” and the lack of the word “next”.)

What is implied to NOT be intended?
You can untap it by other means in order to take free turns.  (Again, notice the word “must”.)
You can skip future turns to combo it with another ability.  (Again, notice the lack of the word “next”.)

When does it imply that you can untap it?
When you skip a turn.

   For the most part, the stuff I wrote above should match the conclusions you also came to.  Where you and I differ is in how to bring the card back to this original intent.  The closest translation into modern Magic terms that I can come up with is as follows:

Time Vault
2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn’t untap during your untap step.
If you would take a turn, you may instead untap Time Vault.
Time Vault can not be untapped by any other spell, ability, or effect.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

   Since there are no steps prior to the Beginning Phase, the replacement effect on line 3 would logically occur during the cleanup step of the turn just prior to the turn being skipped.  (See Comprehensive Rules section 314.3)

   Next, let us look at each of the current and other suggested errata:

Time Vault (Current Oracle reading)
2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn’t untap during your untap step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may untap Time Vault. If you do, put a time counter on it and you skip your next turn.
Tap, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability only if there’s a time counter on Time Vault.

   Although the time counters effectively deal with the “must” part, it is not intuitive to the reader of the card.  The real problem here is with when you untap Time Vault.  As previously stated, the implied time to untap Time Vault is when you skip a turn.  In other words, just before your Beginning Phase starts.  If you untap Time Vault during your upkeep, you are skipping a future turn that is at least 2 steps (Upkeep and Draw), 4 phases (Main, Combat, 2nd Main, and End), and 1 turn away.  This is possibly the furthest point away from when it was implied that you would untap Time Vault.

Time Vault (How people were playing it before it got banned.)
2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
Skip your next turn: Untap Time Vault.
Tap, Take an extra turn after this one.

   This version was banned for a reason.  There was no enforcement of the “must”.

Time Vault (after the 2004 errata)
2
Artifact
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.
Tap, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability if only there's a time counter on Time Vault.

   Just like the current errata, the counters are a less than ideal enforcement of the “must”.  The ability to untap whenever is not ideal, but besides someone using it to skip multiple future turns for a combo kill, only a newbie would skip their next turn at any other time then during their opponent’s End Phase.  The obvious problem here was that it could be used to skip future turns to combo it with another ability.

   In Summary, the way people were originally playing Time Vault was most definitely broken and deserved to be banned.  The 2004 errata gave back to the players a usable card (although not ideal) that was not initially broken.  But, it allowed players to skip future turns to combo it with another ability which was not part of the original intent.  In an attempt to return to the original intent of the card, the current errata gave players a useless “unfun” neutered card that fixed the skipping of future turns to combo it with another ability, but moved the timing of the untap to the furthest point away from its original intent.  The card needs to be fixed again to rectify this last point and make it a useable unbroken card the way it was intended.

Thanks for reading.  And please contact me with any feedback.

[xycsoscyx]

The only point I disagree with is at the end.

"and make it a useable unbroken card the way it was intended."

It's a freakin TIME VAULT!  TIME VAULT!  TIME, from the Latin Screw; and VAULT, from the Latin You!  The original intention of the card IS broken, it's a way to get extra turns.  The fact that future sets have broken that ability is just how things work in the game.

I was recently playing against a casual Highlander deck a little while ago.  The guy had just happened to put an Eternal Wittness on Soul Foundry.  Keep in mind, it was his only creature in hand, and he needed blockers desperately.  The thing he realized AFTER that is that he had Time Warp in his graveyard, at which point it started to take infinite turns.  Do you think THIS interaction was ever meant to happen?  Animate and Worldgorger, THAT was never meant to happen, and it has the same CC as Time Vault / Twiddle (Entomb/Animate = 3, Time Vault/Twiddle = 3).

I could rant on and on about Time Vault, but it's all been said.  As to your letter, I'm sure they WILL eratta it in a year or two, just because they like to dink with us.    Nice letter, though, it was quite elloquent and thought out, and well written (better then OMG You are the noobz for eratta'ing this mad techz!!!!!!).

[wraith985]

I like your proposed wording a lot. It makes a large amount of sense to me. I'm not sure if it passes rules muster, but it certainly seems to preserve the original intent of the card, as well as solving the "problem" of Twiddle + Time Vault. Kudos.

[GrandpaBelcher]

To quote a bowl of petunias, "Oh no, not again."

Anyway...

I too felt that the original, intended wording of Time Vault hinged on the word "must," and I'm glad someone realized there should be a way to include that necessary element without using time counters and without the wording being completely broken.  The only problem I see with your proposed wording is, when exactly does the "If you would take a turn" clause have to be fulfilled.  Is it the player immediately before you's end phase?  Is it during your untap step?  Is it that mystical step between turns when counters can be removed from Wall of Roots?  You say it would be logically applied during the end phase, but the card doesn't say that.  What happens if I untap the Vault during my own main phase?  What if I do it in an emperor game during the opposing emperor's upkeep?

There must be a solution to the wording, but I don't think we've found it yet, and unfortunately I haven't gotten it either.  We're closer, though, and I have a feeling that if we find something reasonable Wizards might consider doing something about it... again.

[Smmenen]

Ugh, I don't think there was anything good about this original post.  Loathesome.

[AngryPheldagrif]

But really, interpretation is just that: interpretation. Gottlieb interpreted it his way, others interpreted it a different way, and you apparently have another perspective. Gottlieb, however, just happens to be the guy in charge of making these decisions, so he wins.

Really, your view isn't very different at all. You just interpret it as allowing one to skip turns so that they never get an actual turn.

[Erdrick]

The only problem I see with your proposed wording is, when exactly does the "If you would take a turn" clause have to be fulfilled.  Is it the player immediately before you's end phase?  Is it during your untap step?  Is it that mystical step between turns when counters can be removed from Wall of Roots?  You say it would be logically applied during the end phase, but the card doesn't say that.  What happens if I untap the Vault during my own main phase?  What if I do it in an emperor game during the opposing emperor's upkeep?

Ideally it would occur between your opponent's end phase and your beginning phase.  Right as you were beginning to take your turn.  But, the current rules don't have a step in between turns.  It you waited until your beginning phase (untap or upkeep) you of course would have already started your turn so you can't skip it.  According to the current rules, the last possible moment for things to happen before a player starts their turn, is during their opponent's cleanup step.

Ugh, I don't think there was anything good about this original post.  Loathesome.

But, why?  I actually thought you would have liked it, well at least by comparison to the current wording.  I presented an alternative that does not use counters, it could appease the Wizards Rules Team, and it makes the card at least playable again.  Is it really that bad that it does not combo with Twiddle or Flame Fusillade?  And if nothing else, it bolsters your argument that there are multiple interpretations of the card.

You just interpret it as allowing one to skip turns so that they never get an actual turn.

What do you mean by "never get an actual turn"?  And by the way, nice gif.

[Komatteru]

Is this Time Vault thing still going on?  Time to give it up already.

[Smmenen]

my problem is that time vault WAS perfectly fair.  In fact, I want time vault to be used with Twiddle.  You have tried to nerf the card with your own interpretation.

[Erdrick]

my problem is that time vault WAS perfectly fair.  In fact, I want time vault to be used with Twiddle.  You have tried to nerf the card with your own interpretation.

It may have been perfectly fair.  But Wizards doesn't see it that way, and they make the rules.  Personally I would rather have a nerfed playable card, then the neutered unplayable card we currently have.  I guess the difference between you and I is, that I am willing to work within their perspective in order to get a playable version of the card.

[Smmenen]

gottlieb was very clear that they didn't errata time vault to nerf it.  you somehow missed that.

[Juggernaut GO]

I believe he is lying.


And I stole that fucking GIF, how awesome is that thing!!!

[Erdrick]

gottlieb was very clear that they didn't errata time vault to nerf it.  you somehow missed that.

I did not miss that.  He said stopping the combos was just a side-effect of the return to the original intent.  What you call nerfed, he calls original intent.  So, let me rephrase something from my last post:  Personally I would rather have a nerfed playable card, then the nerfed unplayable card we currently have.

[skecreatoR]

I like this more.

[Godder]

I mentioned it in the other thread(s), but I'm of the opinion that the current wording is fine, except that it should trigger at the end of any opponent's turn, rather than the beginning of the controller's upkeep.