New wording for Time Vault announced

[Tobi]

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/092408&page=3

New Oracle text:
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.

[Chill79]

Get your Twiddle,Voltaic key or coming Filigree Sages ready for fun

[blee1149]

complete garbage, you can't even combo it with rings of brighthearth anymore.
well, it's a two turn before combo instead of one.

[zeus-online]

Works for me! Tezzeret and voltaic key will be happy to see their new friend.

/Zeus

[Razvan]

complete garbage, you can't even combo it with rings of brighthearth anymore.
well, it's a two turn before combo instead of one.

i am not sure why... i understand what the card does, but what was the combo with rings before that's not possible now?

[blee1149]

With the old wording, you play it like this with rings:

Vault comes into play tapped:
Untap it on untap step (or use key to force it untap): skip your next turn
Activate time vault, rings duplicates the vault's ability, then pay it.
so you take 2 extra turns, but you skipped your next turn, net resulting 1 extra turn etc.

With new wording, you have to skip a turn before you start abusing it, so you got to wait 2 turns before you pull infinite turns with rings.

looks like twiddle etc. is the way to abuse it nowadays

[dicemanx]

It makes absolutely no difference whether Time Vault combos with Rings anymore. The significant part of the rewording is the restriction of Time Vault that it has generated. 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).

I'll be honest - I backed Steve's arguments after Time Vault was errata'd to kill the Fusillade combo, but once Rings of Brighthearth and Mizzium Transreliquat entered the picture I secretly hoped that Steve would fail in his quest to remove the power level errata. Of course one might ask whether it was the correct decision to preemptively restrict Time Vault before the new wording takes effect, but I agree with that decision - the combination of 4 Vault 4 Key would be just as stupid, unimaginative, and boring as Flash combo was before the restriction.

[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.   

[dicemanx]

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.

In any case, what's done is done, and it is time to direct our attention to Time Vault as a finisher, especially with Tezz. It is just unfortunate that it will likely be in the context of a Drain archetype instead of a Shop archetype.

[vartemis]

complete garbage, you can't even combo it with rings of brighthearth anymore.
well, it's a two turn before combo instead of one.

Use Mizzium Transreliquat instead.  Still, I am all for returning it to the original twiddling intent rather than one of the various combos that should have never worked in the first place.

j

[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 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.  

[Xyre]

I'm kind of disappointed that the formatting doesn't resemble that of Mana Vault (which would have made it something like "Doesn't untap during untap step; at the beginning of your upkeep, you may skip your next turn, if you do, untap Time Vault"), which would have been slightly better than this.

At least the Tezzeret combo works as expected.

[HoPe]

At least the Tezzeret combo works as expected.

can some one explain me this combo?

[wox2]

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 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.   

Vault + Key is weaker than Flash, can be easier attacked, has no instant speed and has no tutor support. But honestly in shops is won´t work so bad and the second thing is that Flash is restricted. Thing I am really surprised it won´t work with fussilade. I think that Fusilade+ Vault won´t be better than Grindstone+Painter.

[Xyre]

At least the Tezzeret combo works as expected.

can some one explain me this combo?

You can use Tez's second ability (search) to go grab Time Vault. The next turn, you can untap it using his first ability, then tap the Vault to take another turn. Repeat for infinite turns, including drawing your entire deck, playing all your cards, combo-killing your opponent, and attacking with an army of 5/5 dudes.

[DarkfnTemplar]

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.  

Flashes weak top 8 showing was not due to "inherent" weakness. I would argue that most players refused to play it because of a variety of factors. Looking over the overall flash participation, there wasn't a whole lot of top players. Perhaps the low input made winning less important? I guess this also applies to ichorid.  (This is just one speculation. Some people have been playing the same deck for 6 years.)
I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that two card combo decks are not inherently weak. Although I see what you mean by saying two card combo's are weak.

 But in the case of tezzeret, he is a one card combo in the deck. The question is, how much better can the deck get with playing more vaults? I don't see any more than 2 being the best number. However, I still think its a bit unfair being able to tooth out two wins while your opponent (with one scroll) has to find two answers.

[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.
Costing two mana less is huge.
Wizards likely thought that an unrestricted four mana combo with no other deckbuilding restrictions
would be too easy to pull off.
I am inclined to agree with them.

Flash is not a great comparison,
since Flash needed to play a lot of dead cards for the combo
it was forced to try and win in the first couple turns.
Key and Vault could be played in a decent control deck,
and unlike Flash, could also be cast off Shops and Dark Rituals.

[Smmenen]

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.

Does anyone think that Painter/Grindstone is unfair?   

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.   

Flashes weak top 8 showing was not due to "inherent" weakness.

I disagree.  At the 2007 Vintage Champs, Flash was, by far, the most played Archetype, with Gadiel Slzifer and Pat Chapin piloting the Archtype.  Not a single person with Flash top 8.

[Harlequin]

Right, but Tezz -is- a win by itself.  Vault/Key more closely play the role of Revlark/Fanatic not flash/hulk.  The Vault is NOT required to be in your hand for Tezz to simply hit the board, pass 1 turn, and win the game. 

Now I'm not saying its as busted as Flash, because by that logic Door to Nothingness is as good as Tezz (which also technically wins the game by itself after passing a turn).   Time will tell if Tezz is competatively costed enough, and protectable enough to prove to be a reliable primary win condition.

But Costs aside:  Flash/Hulk < Tezz < Door to Nothingness 

* Also, Vault/Key is strickly better than Revlark/Fanatic in that if you randomly draw one peice, you are actually happy... you're just a black tutor away from winning the game for basically 3 mana.  Drawing Revlark only ever made winning -more- challenging.

[Smmenen]

Right, but Tezz -is- a win by itself. 

I'm not sure who you are responding to, but that doesn't support the restriction of Time Vault.   

As I said in my article, with Tez, the optimal number of Time Vault's approaches one.  It could be two, but it's probably not 4 or 3.   

[Harlequin]

ermm.. I guess I didn't read things clear enough.  I guess the "Right," was talking to myself.  I think if anything is "too good" I think its probably Tezz.  Again, I'm not saying outright "I THINK TEZZ SHOULD BE RESTICTED OMG!" but I think if anything should have been on the choppin block it should have been him.

Speaking from testing experiance, I think its probably best that timevault stays restricted... and its a deck that only actually runs 2 voltaic keys (however if I could run 4 vaults I would probably up that to 4 keys).  When it finds timevault, it can REALLY "oops I win" it, sometimes uncounterably.   I think there are just too many ways to untap artifacts/permenants that if you build a "combo" deck around it, it could practically invalidate other combo decks.  Compare Timevault to Goblin Charbelcher.

[Smmenen]

Speaking from testing experiance, I think its probably best that timevault stays restricted... and its a deck that only actually runs 2 voltaic keys (however if I could run 4 vaults I would probably up that to 4 keys).  When it finds timevault, it can REALLY "oops I win" it, sometimes uncounterably.   I think there are just too many ways to untap artifacts/permenants that if you build a "combo" deck around it, it could practically invalidate other combo decks.  Compare Timevault to Goblin Charbelcher.

That's not a reason to restrict.  Invalidating other combos decks...

[Harlequin]

I completely disagree, that's essentially the only reason to restrict something: X invalides A, B, C, and D.  In a perfect mtg-world, imagin there are true "Tiers" it would look alot like a pyramid, in that the number of decks at the peak of competativiness would be few, and as you decend down, you find more and more decks.  If that were true, no one would ever play any deck other than the deck at the apex, because it has no equal, and nothing above it.  By restricting cards to eliminate that apex, you uncover 3 equal decks.  Now you can choose between 3 decks that relatively equal in power.  But again, 3 decks is probably not enough choice to support a healthly, diverse meta.  So you restriction hammer those decks... uncovering 7 new decks of realatively equal power. 

As some point you have the optimal number of equal decks. 

If deck list "X" could make Storm, Belcher, Sensei, Worker-Staff, and Oath all "why play this when you could play X?" level of competativeness... that's how X get's restricted.

[Syvanis]

I'm just glad that my time vaults work with stasis again.

[Mr. Type 4]

I completely disagree, that's essentially the only reason to restrict something: X invalides A, B, C, and D.  In a perfect mtg-world, imagin there are true "Tiers" it would look alot like a pyramid, in that the number of decks at the peak of competativiness would be few, and as you decend down, you find more and more decks.  If that were true, no one would ever play any deck other than the deck at the apex, because it has no equal, and nothing above it.  By restricting cards to eliminate that apex, you uncover 3 equal decks.  Now you can choose between 3 decks that relatively equal in power.  But again, 3 decks is probably not enough choice to support a healthly, diverse meta.  So you restriction hammer those decks... uncovering 7 new decks of realatively equal power. 

As some point you have the optimal number of equal decks. 

If deck list "X" could make Storm, Belcher, Sensei, Worker-Staff, and Oath all "why play this when you could play X?" level of competativeness... that's how X get's restricted.

I'm pretty sure that the nature of Vintage actually excludes like infinite decks.  Why does no one play Heartbeat? Or The Rock?  What needs to be restricted to fix this problem?!?

Hyperbole aside - how can we make restrictions based on deck exclusion?  It just doesn't make sense.  Not that I whole-heartedly disagree with Time Vault's restriction, although I feel like it could be fine as a 4 of - but I figure it to be mostly a comprimise between us and Gottlieb atthis point. 

At least it's back to the way it should be.

[Smmenen]

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.   

[Harlequin]

Theres a sublte differance between a single deck invalidating many other decks, and many decks invaliding one (or many decks).  The reason Relentless_Rats.dec is unplayable isn't because of Grim Long.   It isn't because of Oath, or Staxs, or Fish ... Its not valid because ALL those decks beat the snot out of it.  In my pyramid example, you are only removing the top 3-4 layers, leaving a near infinite number of layers below.  The decks that make up the bottom of the pyramid are not competative assuming there are still any number of decks above it.  That's why I said an "optimal" number of playble decks.  That number is certainly up to debate (also the concept of how to count a "deck" for that mater). 

[LotusHead]

Well I'm happy about the skip THIS turn clause on Time Vault.  That means it again combos with Smokestack Tangle Wire and various lock peices. 

[emidln]

The new wording is really insane in a control mirror. If I'm reading this right, there is a replacement effect on starting your turn. If this is true, this really increases the strategic value of Time Vault. Under the wording that combined with Flame Fusillade it could be advantageous to skip your turn on your opponent's end step. This forced one of three scenarios:

(i) your opponent bounces/removes Time Vault with the ability on the stack stealing your turn (worst case scenario)
(ii) your opponent taps out to play something on their end step. You then tap Time Vault to take another turn with the enemy tapped out.
(iii) your opponent does nothing and doesn't fully utilize his or her available mana. You now have an extra turn that came at no cost to you to use at some point in the future.

The new wording kills the worst case scenario (i) and vastly streamlines (ii) and (iii) so that the burden of action is placed on your opponent. If they tap out, you don't skip your turn. If you they do tap out, you go ahead and skip your turn with no real loss.

[Mr. Type 4]

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