New wording for Time Vault announced

[Anusien]

Am I correct in saying that there is no way to respond to the turn skip thing?  No one has priority there, right?

Yes.  More to the point even if a player did have priority there, you wouldn't know whether they want to skip or not before the resolution of the ability.

[Webster]

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may skip that turn instead. If you do, untap Time Vault.
{oT}: Take an extra turn after this one.

Am I correct in saying that there is no way to respond to the turn skip thing?  No one has priority there, right?

You are correct. Priority isn't passed when a replacement effect "happens" because at that point in time there is usually something resolving. In this case, a turn is "beginning".

[Smmenen]

It is actually ironic that the original campaign led by Smmenen to get rid of power level errata might have decreased Time Vault's playability - it is now reduced to a "finisher" with cards like Tezzeret whereas previously it was part of an exciting archetype (MUD combo).

But that's not a consequence of the errata so much as the restriction.   If Time Vault were unrestricted, I think it see alot more play than it would now.   And even now, I think it's going to be a huge format staple.   

It was predictable that the errata would lead to the restriction, which is why I was secretly hoping that the power level errata would not be removed at this point in time. I completely agree that unrestricted Time Vault in its current form would see a lot more play, but I also agree with the restriction. TV + Reliquat/Rings was fair, while TV + Key wouldn't be.

I didn't mention this before, because it didn't occur to me.

But maybe Rings of Brighthearth SHOULD work with Time Vault. (Notice that Mizzium still does).

The critical question is this:

When you untap TIme Vault, is it supposed to skip THIS TURN or your NEXT TURN? 

Gottlieb assumes that it means THIS Turn, that is, the one you've already started.  That's why they created a new rule.

The only difference between my predicted oracle text and the one that they came up with is my conclusion that it meant your next turn, not this turn.

Thoughts?

[Webster]

I didn't mention this before, because it didn't occur to me.

But maybe Rings of Brighthearth SHOULD work with Time Vault. (Notice that Mizzium still does).

The critical question is this:

When you untap TIme Vault, is it supposed to skip THIS TURN or your NEXT TURN? 

Gottlieb assumes that it means THIS Turn, that is, the one you've already started.  That's why they created a new rule.

The only difference between my predicted oracle text and the one that they came up with is my conclusion that it meant your next turn, not this turn.

Thoughts?

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may skip that turn instead. If you do, untap Time Vault.
{oT}: Take an extra turn after this one.

"that turn" refers to the turn that 'would' happen.

Time vault is very clear to me.
Perhaps you can explain why you feel there is ambiguity in its wording.


Rings of Brighthearth:

Whenever you play an activated ability, if it isn't a mana ability, you may pay . If you do, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

Rings of Brighthearth will still trigger when you use time vault's activated ability. You may opt to pay 2 mana when trigger resolves.

[TopSecret]

I actually don't agree with the restriction of TIme Vault.  I don't see why Time Vault + Key wouldn't be a fair.    Two card combos are inherently weak.   The strongest one ever used, Flash, was not even good enough to make up more than 10% of top 8s.   It was also blue, instant speed, had mad tutor support (Scroll + S. Pact), and is very difficult to stop.   But contrast, Time Vault + Key costs 4 mana, is sorcery speed, has crap for tutor support, and is easy to stop with a far larger swath of cards, from Krosan Grip, Rack and Ruin, to Null Rod.   

It's four mana.
Painter and Grindstone is six mana and it sees plenty of play.

Yes, but that isn't a pure two card combo deck.    Neither Flash nor Protean Hulk is very good alone.  Painter enables Red Elemental Blasts.   

Neither Voltaic Key nor Time Vault is good by itself.

In any case, it is difficult to imagine that unretricted Key and Vault would be that much better than Grindstone and Painter.   The two casting cost difference is more than offset by the fact that Painter is a great card by itself, and can get you to a position where you can win the game eventually.    Neither Vault nor Key do anything by themselves. 

And, if Grindstone/ painter is roughly as good as Key/Vault would be unrestricted, that is a powerful case for not restricting Time Vault.  

That's an interesting argument,
and it would be a very good case for unrestricting Time Vault if you could prove it.

However, it does not convince me that Vault-Key would be fair.
My experience has led me to believe that four mana for an urestricted two card combo
with no relevant deck-building constraints would be too good for Vintage, currently.

I think that four mana versus six mana is a big enough difference to push it over the edge.
A land and a mox could enable the combo by the second turn,
and a Workshop and a mox could enable it on the first turn.
This is not the case with Painter-Grindstone;
in many situations, Vault-Key is a full turn faster to cast and activate.

I think that posing hypotheticals is interesting,
but I do not see how it is productive.
New cards come out all the time, and players are, with few exceptions,
consistently bad at judging how good cards will or would be in the Vintage format.

The only ways I know of to verify Time Vault's merits are:
a) unrestrict Time Vault and see what happens
b) build a busted deck with more than one Time Vault to prove that it would be busted
c) provide evidence that Vault-Key (or however Vault will be used) is strictly inferior to something else that's already available

Personally, I won't be convinced that Vault-Key is fair until one of the above criteria is met,
so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.


Addressing your comments about the comparison between Painter-Grindstone and Vault-Key:

Voltaic Key is not entirely useless by itself;
in combination with Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, or Mana Vault it can add mana.

I do not like the argument that Painter's synergy with red blasts puts Painter-Grindstone on par with Vault-Key.
This compares the strengths of a known deck against
the strengths of a two card combination that does not have it's own context yet.
I do not think it is productive or accurate to compare a deck to a two card combo; they are different things.
If we could somehow make an accurate estimation of the optimum Vault-Key deck to compare with the Painter deck, that would be more convincing,
but I don't see how that is to be done.

Also, you're neglecting that Time Vault is good with Twiddle,
much the way that Painter's Servant is good with Red Blasts.

If we want to start considering synergies outside of the immediate efficiency of the combos themselves
this discussion will get very convoluted very fast.
I don't want to spend an exorbitant amount of time looking through Gatherer
or trying to fit Trickster Mage into a control shell.

[Smmenen]

I didn't mention this before, because it didn't occur to me.

But maybe Rings of Brighthearth SHOULD work with Time Vault. (Notice that Mizzium still does).

The critical question is this:

When you untap TIme Vault, is it supposed to skip THIS TURN or your NEXT TURN? 

Gottlieb assumes that it means THIS Turn, that is, the one you've already started.  That's why they created a new rule.

The only difference between my predicted oracle text and the one that they came up with is my conclusion that it meant your next turn, not this turn.

Thoughts?

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may skip that turn instead. If you do, untap Time Vault.
{oT}: Take an extra turn after this one.

"that turn" refers to the turn that 'would' happen.

The time vault question seems very clear cut.

A replacement effect: If 'A' would happen, do 'B' instead. --> You would begin your turn with time vault tapped, but instead choose to skip it and untap time vault.     The opponent starts his turn. You have time vault in play untapped.


Rings of Brighthearth:

Whenever you play an activated ability, if it isn't a mana ability, you may pay . If you do, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

Rings of Brighthearth will still trigger when you use time vault's activated ability. You may opt to pay 2 mana when trigger resolves.

I am confused by the organization of your post.  You quote my post and then Tobi's, and I'm not sure why.I can only assume you are using Tobi's post to answer my question.

If that is the case, it doesn't make much sense.  

First of all, of course Rings will still trigger, but you used to be able to untap Time Vault, skipping your next turn, and then Tap Time Vault and activate Rings, thus negating the skipped turn, but getting a free one.

In any case, my main point was not clear from your response.

I will blame myself for not explaining fully, and assuming that everyone knew what I was talking about.

Of course Gottlieb's new errata would be consistent with his assertion that Time Vault's untap requires you to Skip THAT turn, not your next turn.

But almost every single previous errata on Time Vault say "next turn."   I've bolded the word "next" for visibility:

2004 Errata:

Time Vault
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.
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.

First 2006 errata, circa May:

Time Vault
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.
T, 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.

2006 Errata, Circa July 16

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
If Time Vault would become untapped, instead choose one - untap Time Vault and you skip your next turn; or Time Vault remains tapped.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

Now, Gottlieb claims that Time Vault was intended to make you skip the turn in which you untap it:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/092408&page=1

If you decide to untap Time Vault during your untap step, you're supposed to skip that turn. The one you already started.

What I'm asking is: is he correct?  

Here is the actual text on 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.

Unfortunately, the text doesn't seem to answer that question.   I suppose it could depend on what the definition of "a turn" was in the rules.    

I'm inclined to think that it cannot refer to the turn that you are now within when you untap Time Vault.  Why?  Here's why:  The text of time vault says that it doesn't untap normally during the untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn.   Identical text, except for the name of the card and the cost paid to untap is found on Mana Vault.  In fact, this was the motivation for killing the FF combo.  

That means that you are supposed to do this at the beginning of the turn.    If we interpret, backwards, Mark Gottlieb's assertion that you are supposed to skip the Turn you are already within, and NOT your next turn, then that means that you get a free untap in 1994.   Time Vault would have functionally said: Untap Time Vault, skip your next turn, but untap all of your other permanents as well.

That can't be right.

The fact that every single other modern errata refered to your next turn is pretty strong evidence that Gottlieb is wrong that Time Vault was intended to skip THAT turn rather than your NEXT turn.

There is one source I would be remiss if I overlooked, and that is the 1996 errata:

"Does not untap as normal.  If Time Vault is tapped and does not have a
time counter, you may skip your turn to untap Time Vault and put a time
counter on it.  {tap}: Remove the time counter from Time Vault to take an
additional turn immediately before the next normal turn."

This errata is revealing because it suggests how they viewed the card at the time, although grafted with the obvious power level errata.

This errata is not revealing either way.   It doesn't say "next turn," though, it does refer to "your turn."   It's not clear to me how that functioned.

There is one other thing to remember.   Gottlieb's May 2006 errata, killing the FF combo, was an attempt by him, according ot his own claims, to restore the original functionality of Time vault's untap, although they kept the power-level errata intact.  

If Gottlieb  was right then, then he is wrong now.    I think he was right about the untap then.   All of the evidence seems to suggest that he was.  

Also, you're neglecting that Time Vault is good with Twiddle,
much the way that Painter's Servant is good with Red Blasts.

Excuse me, but LOL.

In any case, in all of my articles on Time Vault this year, of which I've written more than one, I've extensively analyzed the potency of TIme Vault.

Would anyone argue for Time Vault's restriction if Flash was still unrestricted?  It would be absurd.  I don't think Flash should be restricted (it's really bad, esp. with Brainstorm and Scroll restricted), so of course I don't think Time Vault should be restricted. 

[Yare]

That means that you are supposed to do this at the beginning of the turn.    If we interpret, backwards, Mark Gottlieb's assertion that you are supposed to skip the Turn you are already within, and NOT your next turn, then that means that you get a free untap in 1994.   Time Vault would have functionally said: Untap Time Vault, skip your next turn, but untap all of your other permanents as well.

That can't be right.

This is the critical point, imo. There is no way that Time Vault caused all of your permanents to untap then. That being said, however, Time Vault is much closer to its original text than it was before, so I obviously applaud the move. The fact that it doesn't jive with Mana Vault is still kind of disheartening, but I can understand why it might happen (namely, the idea that there are multiple competing interests in issuing errata, such as a card reflecting its most recent printing, a point I previously argued against but now concede, as long as future printings in order to issue errata are not condoned or encouraged). The long line of errata suggesting that Time Vault causes you to skip your next turn would seem to suggest that skipping your next turn is the appropriate errata. However, this might also be a case like Interdict, where there is just no way to reconcile the card under the current rules of the game; perhaps how Time Vault is now is just the best we can do. I personally feel Time Vault reflecting Mana Vault is the best errata, but this isn't bad. I have to applaud Gottlieb for this move overall.

Regarding the restriction issue, yeah, I think it's possible that four might not be broken. However, if you recall, we got all upset about the Time Vault/Flame Fusillade thing in part because of the disruption in the market value. By keeping the card restricted for the time being, the change in the market value will not be very abrupt. Additionally, for a future announcement or two, an unrestriction would probably be considered "fair" from a market standpoint. So, while in practice Time Vault may end up being an acceptable candidate for unrestriction, for the moment I have to agree with restriction. Essentially, one step at a time. Based upon a quick examination of eBay, the price seems to have gone from $40ish to $120ish since the announcement.

[Purple Hat]

i don't understand why they insist on continually changing this card to not do exactly what mana vault does except with "skip your next turn" as the untap cost.  The rules clearly allow some wording that results in this or chronatog wouldn't work.  Until they make this change or people give up on the whole "the card should work the way it seems to work based on the wording and similar cards" I forsee an endless stream of eratta to this card.

[Liam-K]

I completely disagree, that's essentially the only reason to restrict something: X invalides A, B, C, and D. 

But every good deck invalidates something else.   If that were true, then there would be no limit to the number of restrictions.   

I see your point but I think it is also fair to say that if a deck invalidates several healthy, competative archetypes estimated to be at the appropriate power level, it is by implication not estimated to be at the appropriate power level and may warrent curbing.

I'm not claiming this is neccecarily the case with vault and painter (it probably would have been fine to give the vault a trial run) but at the objective level, knocking out good metagame components due to better performance is a clue the deck may be inappropriately strong for the metagame.


At the logical extreme of this scenario Wizards prints Nonsense Card X which pushes Long so far over the top it's trashing everything left and right to an excessive degree.  Restricting Nonsense Card X and bringing Long back down to a level where other decks can win tournaments is logical from this place.  As long as you accept this hypothetical, you must accept the sliding scale of invalidating decks/being too good gets marked somewhere along the line of how many legitimate options you have in terms of deck selection.

In fact a commonly accepted restriction criterion (metagame warping) is a phase of this process.  From a top-down view, warping the metagame is actually the problem deck forcing all other decks to dilute their strategy, since they must run increasing amounts of hate to have an acceptable matchup against the problem deck.  The point at which a deck's metagame impact is to actually weaken its competitors objectively by forcing them to hedge excessively is the point at which that deck becomes an issue and the title of metagame-warping is assigned.  If that process were to continue past that point, said competitor decks would be so diluted and inefficent due to the loss of slots to the hate package that they no longer function well and make no sense to play.

[jro]

The fact that every single other modern errata refered to your next turn is pretty strong evidence that Gottlieb is wrong that Time Vault was intended to skip THAT turn rather than your NEXT turn.

I think you've out-thunk yourself on this one.  Every other modern errata also had crap about time counters.  All of those errata are inappropriate by today's standards, for a complicated nest of reasons involving original intent, templating challenges (under both old rules and new rules), rules updates, and power level errata.  I think Gottleib is absolutely correct in his reading of the card, and the new oracle text is about as close to a perfect implementation of the original wording as can be expected with modern templating; every player I knew back when I first started playing in 1995 interpreted Time Vault to mean "Instead of taking your turn you get an untapped Time Vault."  In practice, it was like this:

Bob: "Okay Alice, your turn."
Alice: "Nah, I'm untapping my Time Vault instead."
Bob: "Okay then it's Carol's turn."

"Next turn" made sense in the 2004 errata because it allowed you to emulate this functionality by activating the turn-skipping ability during your opponent's EOT.  The word "next" was almost certainly propagated forward from there with less concern for matching the original function and more concern for stopping the Flame Fusillade combo without allowing Twiddle to combo again (which was what prompted the 1996 errata-- Time Vault had been banned before that, and I remember a then current issue of The Duelist saying that Twiddle was removed from Revised due to power level concerns!), all the while operating under the strictness of current rules.  The word "next" was only ever introduced, then, to get Time Vault to work under the rules, since you couldn't skip a turn you had already started.  Since the rules have been changed, the word "next" no longer is useful in reflecting the way Gottleib, myself, and every Magic player I knew in 1995 thought Time Vault was supposed to work.

[bluemage55]

The point at which a deck's metagame impact is to actually weaken its competitors objectively by forcing them to hedge excessively is the point at which that deck becomes an issue and the title of metagame-warping is assigned.  If that process were to continue past that point, said competitor decks would be so diluted and inefficent due to the loss of slots to the hate package that they no longer function well and make no sense to play.

The question is how you define "excessive" hedging.  After all, virtually every combo deck has to hedge against Force of Will in one way or another.  Likewise, most decks need to build their manabases in such a way that deals with Wasteland.

So at what point do you consider a card sufficiently format warping to merit restriction?  After all, many powerful 4-ofs define and shape Vintage.

[Liam-K]

The point at which a deck's metagame impact is to actually weaken its competitors objectively by forcing them to hedge excessively is the point at which that deck becomes an issue and the title of metagame-warping is assigned.  If that process were to continue past that point, said competitor decks would be so diluted and inefficent due to the loss of slots to the hate package that they no longer function well and make no sense to play.

The question is how you define "excessive" hedging.  After all, virtually every combo deck has to hedge against Force of Will in one way or another.  Likewise, most decks need to build their manabases in such a way that deals with Wasteland.

So at what point do you consider a card sufficiently format warping to merit restriction?  After all, many powerful 4-ofs define and shape Vintage.

Grim Long's hedging against Force Of Will, in current incarnations, is 6 duress.  Pitch Long's initial incarnation hedged against force with 7 pitch spells, which in the latter days of the gifts/pitchlong meta was usually trimmed to 6.  While the presence of these spells in Long lists is obviously a result of countermagic's metagame presence, the vital point here is that the Long deck does not have to devote so many slots to overcoming FoW that the strategy becomes inoperable.

Long is quite possibly the best possible example, as it is exceedingly obvious when too much disruption inhibits the deck.  The correct mix of acceleration, bombs, and disruption is vital to the archetype.  If the archetype must neccecarily include so much disruption that the requisite saturation of the other elements cannot be achieved, the deck will not function and has been invalidated.

In simple terms, when Long can't beat Force without running so much Duress it can't draw bombs, the deck is not viable.


Wasteland is another good example.  Decks are able to hedge against wasteland in a manner that allows them reliable access to all of their colours in games that do not involve Wasteland.  Wasteland has an impact, but its impact does little to weaken other archetypes' objective strength.  Again, if for some reason a Wasteland based strategy forced other decks to run so many basics they could no longer reliably cast their spells, non-mono-colour strategies will be largely pushed out of the metagame.

Again, simple terms.  When Drain Tendrils can't cast its Will because all it ever sees are Islands, you can't play it; the metagame warping effect has weakened the deck to the point where it is bad.


There is a sublte threshhold between metagame adaption and metagame distortion.  Metagame adaption is occuring when decks are able to reinvent themselves to do their jobs in the face of a new threat.  Metagame distortion is occuring when decks begin cutting key pieces for hate and therefor become worse at doing what they are designed to do.

When not losing to a specific deck is more important than winning, there is a problem.


My arguement is that a deck invalidating other decks due to power level is not a binary effect and happens in shades of gray.  It is a lesser form of invalidating a strategy when a list intending to impliment that strategy has difficulty doing so because it is neccecarily overclogged with hate.  This occuring in a broad spectrum to top tier decks is metagame distortion and generally accepted as a reason to consider restrictions.



edit: while I feel what I've written in this thread is both correct and relevant, I feel the points I'm trying to make aren't properly coming together to support my arguement.  Let's try this another way.


(1)
premise: a healthy metagame includes a minimum number of top tier archetypes
premise: the deck or decks which significantly outperform all others compose the top tier
conclusion: a number of decks less than the above minimum significantly outperforming all others constitutes an unhealthy metagame

(2)
premise: a decklist which devotes too much space to not losing has difficulties due to this
premise: in the case of extremely poor matchups, hating the opposing strategy can yeild greater dividends than attempting to further your gameplan
conclusion: when metagame presense(s) push gameplan cards out of a list in favor of hate cards, that list becomes weaker

(3)
premise: non top tier decks directly weakened by the presence of top tier decks are not viable choices
premise: when the margin of advantage gained by playing a top tier deck reaches a certain threshhold, most or all non-top tier decks are subject to this effect (metagame distortion)
conclusion: deck(s) of a certain power level beyond all other choices are the only viable choices

(4)
premise: a top tier of deck(s) which render other selections invalid, which consists of a number of decks less than a certain minimum, cause an unhealthy format
premise: restriction is acceptable when used to improve the health of the format
conclusion: decks invalidating other decks due to power level, when those decks are not diverse enough to compose a healthy metagame in and of themselves, are (often) worthy of restriction


This is the basis for my claim that invalidating other decks is never a cause for restriction, and also my refuting the claim that restricting decks that invalidate other decks would lead to a quarterly beheading of the top tier.

[brianpk80]

The restriction may fall under a hybrid logic of power factor and "unfun" factor, like Trinisphere.  Peter raised a bright point; the effect of the restriction renders it a Drain piece rather than a four-set in a Shop build. 

I barely play much Magic these days as is (though the new format has made it more appealing) and a circus of infinite turns in *every* archetype would be a huge turnoff.  Even with Vault as a one-of, Time Vault + Key/Tez is ripe for dominance.  Very cheap, very effective, and very little risk involved (unlike Dragon for instance, which is still strong even despite potential risks).   

I am glad it functions as it did way back in the 1990's though.  The Fusillade combo bothered me because it didn't come from the card's intent at all but rather from a freakshow side-effect of the one particular way it had been errata-ed. 

[skrwbal]

simple question for all of you. Seeing as how the new wording on time vault works with tezzeret how long do you think it will be before the restriction of the blue planeswalker happens.

[Troy_Costisick]

simple question for all of you. Seeing as how the new wording on time vault works with tezzeret how long do you think it will be before the restriction of the blue planeswalker happens.

In the same announcement as the Painter's Servant restriction.

[Stamford]

A two-card combo is actually very broken.

Being able to Voltaic Key Time Vault and take extra turns = winning the game.
With Tezerret in the mix, Tezerret becomes a 3UU Suspend 1 : Win the game next turn.
unless Tezerret is killed/bounced or Time Vault is destroyed. Bouncing Vault will be useless when your opponent just plays it the next turn and untap it with Tez.

I fully expect some Drain Control deck to come up with 4 Tezerret and 1 Time Vault as one of their kill conditions.
Even without Time Vault, Tezerret has the power to win by himself since apparantly, attacking over with 4-5 artifacts that are 5/5s is powerful.

My take on this would be that Tezerret Drain Control will be one of the tier-1 decks in Vintage to stay and might even dominate the format due to the easy ways of setting up the combo and not being affected by splash damage like Flash was. Flash was affected by Graveyard hate. This combo isnt. A major point to consider.

We can already start building up the shell of the deck.

4 Tezerret
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
9 SoLoMoxCryptVault
4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Tinker
1 Darksteel Colossus

This is a blue shell, with 29 cards. Im thinking adding black for more disruption and tutoring.

1 Demonic Tutor
1 Yawmgoth's Will
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
4 Duress

Got to go back to work. Will post a list later...

[Oath of Happy]

I agree that Tezzeret, as well as many other cards, such as ad nauseum, are overly broken in type 1.  It seems as though wizards is printing cards specifically designed to affect our metagame.  Is it coincidence that tezzeret is preinted as time vault is unerrated, or that ad nauseum is preinted as chrome mox and diamond are unrestircted? and how about the deck known as ichorid? and (before restriction) flash, as it was improved over time with sliver, and then te instant speed kill with revialark.  It obvious that wizards is printing cards that are meant to make type 1 players go "holy shit the card is amazing" and it sucks.  Type 1 is dying, many excelent players have quit over the past 5 years and you wonder why.  If we wanted an unstable metagame that changed every 4 months why wouldnt we play type 2? At first i thought that the june restrictions were to slow down type 1 and make it more skill intensive, but with the new stupidly ffast broken cards it seems as though its nothing but a marketting scheme.  FUCK WIZARDS

[asi]

I'm actually happy that wizards seems to print more vintage-playables now than say, a year ago. Also, I don't think you should judge the cards so soon; Tezzeret will be played, but for every other card in the set, there seems to be the possibility that it just doesn't cut it.

I believe most, if not all, decks that are playable now will be playable when Shards is released, so I see no reason go be upset.

[Stamford]

I'm actually happy that wizards seems to print more vintage-playables now than say, a year ago. Also, I don't think you should judge the cards so soon; Tezzeret will be played, but for every other card in the set, there seems to be the possibility that it just doesn't cut it.

I believe most, if not all, decks that are playable now will be playable when Shards is released, so I see no reason go be upset.

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G
Ooze
Whenever you play a spell, it gets +x/+x where x = CMC of spell.
1/1

This card with 4 Gush format, would have been completely broken, possible running aside Dryad or replacing Dryad althogether.

Can you imagine going
Fastbond, Manaplasm, Gush, Scroll, Gush, Gush? +17/+17?

And as for the Tezerret Drain Control decklist, I dont really know how to build an optimal one. So instead of embarassing myself, I shall only suggest the ideas of decks that can fit Tezerret Time Vault in.

First one up will be Control Slaver. Tezerret can be an alternate win condition that fits into the deck's shell.
Second, Tezerret Control with possibly Yawg Will Kill with Tendrils. Why not?
Third, Stax with Tezzeret? Can go search for a Trinisphere/Crucible, or just wait 1 turn, and then kill with Tezerret last ability.
Fourth, some kind of MonoBlue Control with Tez Vault kill focusing on countering and neutering every threat and drawing more cards until it finds Tez to win, Vault or no Vault.

The good thing about Tezerret is that it can help you win with Time Vault, or without Time Vault, as long as you have 4-5 artifacts on board, its blue, can pitch to FOW and MisD and it is easily castable with Drain

[bluemage55]

First one up will be Control Slaver. Tezerret can be an alternate win condition that fits into the deck's shell.

Tez would not be optimal for CS.  CS's win conditions (with the exception of Yawg) are all robots that can put into play with 3 mana (either TfK -> Weld or Tinker). 

CS already has plenty of strong robots in can play as win conditions that can be accelerated into play on top of being hardcasted off Drain.  Why would a CS pilot dilute their deck with a less flexible win condition that both requires passing the turn and diluting the deck with a dead card (Time Vault)?

[andrewpate]

Can you imagine going
Fastbond, Manaplasm, Gush, Scroll, Gush, Gush? +17/+17?

That actually isn't good at all because Manaplasm does not have haste.  The fact that its p/t does not transfer from turn to turn already makes it worse than Dryad, and having to pay an extra mana for it helps not at all.  I really don't think this has anything to do with Gush's restriction.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

[Implacable]

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

No, Gush wasn't very good.  But the printing of a 3-mana creature with 1 power that could abuse it would have destroyed the metagame.

In all seriousness: Tezzeret has problems with Painter, and Painter (as Mr. Shay demonstrates) is the best control deck in the format.  If the Painter problem can't be remedied, it'll be difficult for Tez' to find a place.

[Smmenen]

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

But you also saw more Scrolls and Brainstorms than Gushes.   

Gush is garbage without those two cards just as Trinisphere would be if Workshop were restricted.   

[Stamford]

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

What was meant by the sentence is that Gush is restricted because one of the reasons is the printing of Manaplasm.

Manaplasm is by no means, the main or the only reason, but it was definitely factored in.

Can you imagine going
Fastbond, Manaplasm, Gush, Scroll, Gush, Gush? +17/+17?

That actually isn't good at all because Manaplasm does not have haste.  The fact that its p/t does not transfer from turn to turn already makes it worse than Dryad, and having to pay an extra mana for it helps not at all.  I really don't think this has anything to do with Gush's restriction.

Dryad also doesnt attack the turn it comes in. I know Plasm has no haste. Im just saying how absurd it would be to kill your opponent so quickly with Manaplasm getting ungodly power pumps from spells you would cast. Im pretty sure Manaplasm would have been very good, im pretty sure some variant abusing Manaplasm, Gush, Scroll and Berserk would have appeared without the restrictions.

[Liam-K]

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

What was meant by the sentence is that Gush is restricted because one of the reasons is the printing of Manaplasm.

Manaplasm is by no means, the main or the only reason, but it was definitely factored in.

I highly doubt it was considered even remotely relevant next to the fact that the scroll/gush engine was already powering three "different" decks that were busy dominating the format.

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

But you also saw more Scrolls and Brainstorms than Gushes.   

Gush is garbage without those two cards just as Trinisphere would be if Workshop were restricted.   

I've seen you say this a few times, but is it hyperbole or honest belief?  One of Kobefan's gush storm lists didn't use Scroll at all, being powered instead by Ponder.  If neither Gush nor Ponder had got the axe, that deck could probably have been retrofit to at least perform on par with contemporary TPS.  Maybe not unfair, but doubtfully garbage.

[brianpk80]

simple question for all of you. Seeing as how the new wording on time vault works with tezzeret how long do you think it will be before the restriction of the blue planeswalker happens.

I don't think it will be.  Tezzeret is a "win condition" and most top Drain/Storm decks run only two or three.  A deck with too many win conditions suffers more in situations where not everything is going as planned.  There's a much higher ratio of support cards to wins (as in a deck running Tinker or Tendrils as its sole paths to victory etc.)  I don't see him appearing in today's builds in multiples and even if it were restricted, it would have little impact on the types of deck shells running it, which have limited wins as is.

That said, this is by far the best win condition of the bunch.  There's nothing you can do to "defend yourself" from infinite turns unlike Tendrils (Stifle, True Believer, Kids, etc.), DSC (bounce, removal, Moat effects, etc.), Grindstone (Gaea's Blessing, Believer, or even something ridiculous like Welding in a Platinum Angel it puts in the yard).  The third ability means there's no need to run an additional kill, since the Planeswalker itself does the lethal damage.  

Time Vault will be very strong this fall.  

[Smmenen]

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

What was meant by the sentence is that Gush is restricted because one of the reasons is the printing of Manaplasm.

Manaplasm is by no means, the main or the only reason, but it was definitely factored in.

I highly doubt it was considered even remotely relevant next to the fact that the scroll/gush engine was already powering three "different" decks that were busy dominating the format.

Wizards unrestricted Gush and Gush went mad. I suspect one of the reasons why the restricted Gush again was because of the printing of

Manaplasm 2G

Huh.  I thought Gush was snapped in half without this card.  Guess all that Gush I was seeing in top 8s was a mirage.

But you also saw more Scrolls and Brainstorms than Gushes.   

Gush is garbage without those two cards just as Trinisphere would be if Workshop were restricted.   

I've seen you say this a few times, but is it hyperbole or honest belief?  One of Kobefan's gush storm lists didn't use Scroll at all, being powered instead by Ponder.  If neither Gush nor Ponder had got the axe, that deck could probably have been retrofit to at least perform on par with contemporary TPS.  Maybe not unfair, but doubtfully garbage.

Powered by Ponder?

Every single one of his lists had 4 Brainstorm.

Gush is unplayable if Brainstorm is restricted, let alone Merchant Scroll. 

[Troy_Costisick]

Powered by Ponder?

Every single one of his lists had 4 Brainstorm.

Gush is unplayable if Brainstorm is restricted, let alone Merchant Scroll. 

The same could be said for Flash.  Without Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm, it is significantly weakened and perhaps nigh unplayable.  Even if Ponder and/or Frantic Search were unrestricted, I don't think it would improve the card all that much.

[desolutionist]

I don't think it will be.  Tezzeret is a "win condition" and most top Drain/Storm decks run only two or three.  A deck with too many win conditions, it would have little impact on the types of deck shells running it, which have limited wins as is. suffers more in situations where not everything is going as planned.  There's a much higher ratio of support cards to wins (as in a deck running Tinker or Tendrils as its sole paths to victory etc.)  I don't see him appearing in today's builds in multiples and even if it were restricted

There is a difference between Tezzeret and Tendrils or Tezzeret and Mindslaver.  Tezzeret is a not very conditional win.  You can just tap 5 mana and win on your next turn.  The more Tezzerets you play, the more likely you'll draw one and the faster you'll win.  Having multiples is actually a GOOD thing since you can just play another after one has been countered.

That said, this is by far the best win condition of the bunch.  There's nothing you can do to "defend yourself" from infinite turns unlike Tendrils (Stifle, True Believer, Kids, etc.), DSC (bounce, removal, Moat effects, etc.), Grindstone (Gaea's Blessing, Believer, or even something ridiculous like Welding in a Platinum Angel it puts in the yard).  The third ability means there's no need to run an additional kill, since the Planeswalker itself does the lethal damage.

Lethal damage kills the Planeswalker, which stops infinite Vault untaps. (Lightning Bolt, Lava Dart, Fireblast, etc.)  There is also plenty of artifact removal in the format: Ancient Grudge, Rack and Ruin, Oxidize, Seal of Cleansing, etc.  Pithing Needle (Tez OR Vault) and Null Rod also shut down the combo.