New wording for Time Vault announced

[Smmenen]

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.

With Ponder, Scroll, and Brainstorm restricted, the restriction of Flash is ludicrous, in my view.   The restriction of Brainstorm alone seriously hurt Flash.   Even Chapin, who was a huge Flash advocate, thought that the loss of Brainstorm was enough to make Flash worse than the next great deck. 


 

[ashiXIII]

All I have to add to this discussion is that Rings of Brighthearth and Time Vault are still an infinite turn combo. Not a very good one, but you can still get infy turns.

[bluemage55]

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.

A 5cc mana cost and being required to pass the turn is conditional.  You're really not going to want Tez (or worse, multiple Tezes) in your hand during the early game.  And tapping out to cast him without FoW backup is likely to be a poor idea against many decks as well.

[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.

Powered by Ponder?

Every single one of his lists had 4 Brainstorm.

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

Well yes, but every deck with blue except some fish lists ran 4 brainstorm.  Obviously it would feel the loss of three good cards.  However I'm not sure that would have rendered it unplayable.  You're right to say the GushBond engine wouldn't perform as well without Brainstorm but I'm not entirely ready to say that the loss of 3 Brainstorm would entirely hamstring the deck in a field of other decks with 1 Brainstorm.  Both of us wrote off pitch long after the changes and were proven to be largely incorrect.  Gush storm lists did not suffer from the classic pitchlong issue of incompatible hand configuration to nearly the same extent.  I don't think it's a stretch to say a less brainstorm-reliant deck than that could be retooled to win again.

Flash without both Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll *is* trash, though.

[Stamford]

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.

Dont forget that Tezzeret is blue. A very good thing. Additional copies or in the early game, when you cant really cast it, you can always pitch Tezerret to Force of Will or MisD.

[desolutionist]

A 5cc mana cost and being required to pass the turn is conditional.

RTFP, I never said it wasn't.  I meant compared to other good win conditions, this one is much less resource demanding.  It's easier to play Tezzeret as a threat than it is to actually win with it.

You're really not going to want Tez (or worse, multiple Tezes) in your hand during the early game.

I think you're still underestimating how quick a Tezzeret win is.  You DO want multiples.  (And as Stamford mentioned, they get pitched to Force and MisD)

And tapping out to cast him without FoW backup is likely to be a poor idea against many decks as well.

Well, fuck.  Don't be dumb and run your good cards into Force of Wills.  With a 4-of it doesn't even matter.

[bluemage55]

RTFP, I never said it wasn't.  I meant compared to other good win conditions, this one is much less resource demanding.  It's easier to play Tezzeret as a threat than it is to actually win with it.

Less resource demanding than Tinker, Welder, Yawg, Painter's Servant, Oath, or Necro?

I think you're still underestimating how quick a Tezzeret win is.  You DO want multiples.  (And as Stamford mentioned, they get pitched to Force and MisD)

Tapping out and passing the turn makes it no less dangerous than a variety of existing wins.

Well, fuck.  Don't be dumb and run your good cards into Force of Wills.  With a 4-of it doesn't even matter.

That wasn't the point.  Do you really want to tap out and let your Long opponent go off?  Or allow your Slaver opponent to cast Tinker -> Mindslaver/Trisk?  Or drop Servant?

The reason I see it as less effective than existing win conditions is precisely due to the necessary resource investment, and the fact that you need to pass the turn afterward.  Both the 5cc mana cost, and the fact that it require 2 blue (reducing further the chance you can have Drain up) are significant drawbacks.

[desolutionist]

RTFP, I never said it wasn't.  I meant compared to other good win conditions, this one is much less resource demanding.  It's easier to play Tezzeret as a threat than it is to actually win with it.

Less resource demanding than Tinker, Welder, Yawg, Painter's Servant, Oath, or Necro?

Tinker, no.  (to be fair, Tinker is a turn slower) All the others, yes. 

Tapping out and passing the turn makes it no more dangerous than a variety of existing wins.

Correct.  The difference is Tezzeret comes in the color blue.

That wasn't the point.  Do you really want to tap out and let your Long opponent go off?  Or allow your Slaver opponent to cast Tinker -> Mindslaver/Trisk?  Or drop Servant?

Once again, that will only matter if you don't know how to play Vintage.  You don't need to pass the turn with Drain up every single turn. 

[bluemage55]

Once again, that will only matter if you don't know how to play Vintage.  You don't need to pass the turn with Drain up every single turn. 

Your arrogance notwithstanding, the important fact is that it reduces the number of situations in which you would rather have Tez over a different win condition. 

Given the choice between a win condition that requires tapping out and one that does not, which is superior?

[LordHomerCat]

Once again, that will only matter if you don't know how to play Vintage.  You don't need to pass the turn with Drain up every single turn. 

Your arrogance notwithstanding, the important fact is that it reduces the number of situations in which you would rather have Tez over a different win condition. 

Given the choice between a win condition that requires tapping out and one that does not, which is superior?

That's not the choice though.  If you had a sorcery that just said "Win the game", of course it would be better.  But none of the stuff you listed does that.  Tinker is probably better, sure, but you only get one of those (and you probably play it in the deck as well).  It's faster to win than Oath (and doesn't need Orchard or a bunch of creatures/blessings), Necro is restricted and requires a ritual to even cast, and it does stuff on its own unlike the rest of those cards.  That's the point.  If you just cast Painter, then congrats, you have a 1/3.  If you cast Tez, well, you get to win the game on your next turn.  I know which one I would rather have.

[Liam-K]

RTFP, I never said it wasn't.  I meant compared to other good win conditions, this one is much less resource demanding.  It's easier to play Tezzeret as a threat than it is to actually win with it.

Less resource demanding than Tinker, Welder, Yawg, Painter's Servant, Oath, or Necro?

Tinker, no.  (to be fair, Tinker is a turn slower) All the others, yes. 

Tapping out and passing the turn makes it no more dangerous than a variety of existing wins.

Correct.  The difference is Tezzeret comes in the color blue.

That wasn't the point.  Do you really want to tap out and let your Long opponent go off?  Or allow your Slaver opponent to cast Tinker -> Mindslaver/Trisk?  Or drop Servant?

Once again, that will only matter if you don't know how to play Vintage.  You don't need to pass the turn with Drain up every single turn. 

Agreed on all points.  Note also the restricted cards in the first quote require much heavier investments of nonmana resources to attempt to resolve and consequently risk a much bigger tempo swing in the event of failure, that none of the other cards end the game in isolation, and the massive inevitability factor of staring down an opponent with 3UU available who wants to start a counterwar on your end step, who wasn't obliged to tutor or otherwise telegraph he's holding his 1 card unrestricted combo.

[skrwbal]

y cant you tezzerret out something that would just slow down yuor opponent rather the going instantly go for vault?

[Yare]

Upon further reflection, I think they got it right regarding how Time Vault works, assuming that it is an untap/upkeep step only thing. Suppose Adam is playing Barry and Barry has a tapped Time Vault in play.

Adam: End my turn.
Barry: Um, I think I'm going to untap Time Vault.
Adam: ok
Barry: <?>

The obvious continuation, to me, would seem to be that Adam takes another turn, not that Barry proceeds to take a turn, which would be the case if Time Vault mirrored Mana Vault. Consequently, I think it's right, or at least as right as it can be under the rules.

[Smmenen]

Upon further reflection, I think they got it right regarding how Time Vault works, assuming that it is an untap/upkeep step only thing. Suppose Adam is playing Barry and Barry has a tapped Time Vault in play.

Adam: End my turn.
Barry: Um, I think I'm going to untap Time Vault.
Adam: ok
Barry: <?>

The obvious continuation, to me, would seem to be that Adam takes another turn, not that Barry proceeds to take a turn, which would be the case if Time Vault mirrored Mana Vault. Consequently, I think it's right, or at least as right as it can be under the rules.

Time Vault says:

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.

Alpha Mana Vault has the same template:

Tap to add 3 colorless mana to your mana pool.
Mana Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must pay 4 mana.
If Mana Vault remains tapped during upkeep it does 1 damage to you.
Tapping this artifact can be played as an interrupt.

I think the most natural read of both is exactly how we have interpeted Mana Vault: Somewhere near the beginning of your turn, you may untap it.  If you do, you must X.

Time Vault says, specifically, you must "skip a turn."   There is not one shred of evidence that suggests that it is intended to be THIS turn.   

Everything, and I mean everything, suggest that it is another turn, just as Meditate does and Chronatog.   

Gottlieb got it wrong.   Again. 

[Yare]

I'm not saying I'm sure I disagree with you, but let's start with this:

When would you pay to untap Mana Vault in 1993? Based upon my understandings of how things were (or, alternatively, were fuzzy) back then, I think "untap step/phase/whatever" is a possible answer to this question, aside from the other obvious possibility of "upkeep." So, answer that, and we can go from there. If I'm completely off base about this, I might be rejoining you again shortly.

Also, I suppose it's important to note that, regardless of whether the card is right with respect to this particular facet, the important part (works with Twiddle) has been fixed, which is what Vintage probably mostly cares about. I'm not saying that imperfection is something to be applauded; I just think that this is obviously a step in the right direction, regardless of how you feel about whether you skip this turn or next turn.

[Smmenen]

I'm not saying I'm sure I disagree with you, but let's start with this:

When would you pay to untap Mana Vault in 1993? Based upon my understandings of how things were (or, alternatively, were fuzzy) back then, I think "untap step/phase/whatever" is a possible answer to this question, aside from the other obvious possibility of "upkeep." So, answer that, and we can go from there. If I'm completely off base about this, I might be rejoining you again shortly.

Some interesting minutia:

It seems clear to me that Mana Vault's untap ability was intended to happen During the untap "phase" because Mana Vault says "If Mana Vault remains tapped during upkeep it does 1 damage to you."   The word "remains" refers to what happens if you didn't untap it on the untap step.

Island Fish Jasconius (and all of the other Arabian cards with the Time Vault/Mana Vault beginning-of-turn untap ability) is absolutely explicit about it (which supports this reading of Mana Vault):

"You must pay UUU during your untap phase to untap Island Fish."

Brass Man:

"Brass Man does not untap as normal; you must pay 1 during your untap phase to untap it."

Brassman is almost identical to Time Vault and Mana Vault, except that it tacks on "during your untap phase" specifically precisely when you may untap it.  I have no doubt that those cards are all supposed to work the same way.

Based upon all of these cards, it seems incredibly evident that you would untap Time Vault during your untap step, but lose your next turn.   After all, if you Tap Time Vault, you would then be canceling that out.   

[Skadrian]

The text "if mana vault remains tapped during upkeep" to me implies that it can be untapped during upkeep, otherwise it would have said "if mana vault is tapped during upkeep"

besides that, I really like the flavour of immediatly storing your turn in the vault, but that is another matter

[Godder]

Currently mana can't be generated during the Untap Step, so if Brass Man etc were given errata to be the same as their old wordings, they wouldn't be able to untap using their own untap methods. Those rules could change, but until then, the current wordings of cards involving mana payments to untap need to operate some time other than the Untap Step.

[Greistal]

This new wording about when you are supposed to untap Time Vault generated a rule question yesterday, as two friends of mine were playing in a control mirror.

Player A has a tapped Time Vault in play.
Player B passes the turn leaving mana open to counter or to play a draw spell in opponent EOT.
Player A announces at the beginning of turn that he will untap Time Vault and skip the turn.
As we see the rules, player B cannot use his mana to play his draw spell anytime before his next untap step, so that his mana open is wasted.

If it works that way (I would like a confirmation though), Time Vault may be nice to have in a control mirror!

Greistal

[Harlequin]

Currently mana can't be generated during the Untap Step, so if Brass Man etc were given errata to be the same as their old wordings, they wouldn't be able to untap using their own untap methods. Those rules could change, but until then, the current wordings of cards involving mana payments to untap need to operate some time other than the Untap Step.

But cards change rules:
Brass Man doesn't untap during your untap step.
If you would begin your Upkeep while Brass man is tapped, you may pay activate any mana abilities you control and pay , if you do untap Brass Man.

[andrewpate]

Currently mana can't be generated during the Untap Step, so if Brass Man etc were given errata to be the same as their old wordings, they wouldn't be able to untap using their own untap methods. Those rules could change, but until then, the current wordings of cards involving mana payments to untap need to operate some time other than the Untap Step.

It might be possible to make a rule similar to 314.3 (the one that says you don't normally get priority during the Cleanup Step, but you do if something goes on the stack).  Make it possible to get priority during the untap step under certain circumstances, probably localized to these few old cards.  The fact that they didn't take this option suggests that this would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Liam-K]

Honestly I think the current wording of Time Vault matches the original intent.  It does not say "skip your next turn" (where time walk says "loses next turn) on the card itself.  In no other game does "skip a turn" mean "take your turn, but skip the one after that."  Also, no other cost in the game is a delayed to a later point than the effect it pays for up until the Pacts.  Untapping is the first thing you do in a turn; to me it seems implied you untap time vault then get time stopped, or it doesn't untap.  The only item of confusion to me with the original wording is whether or not you could untap everything else at the time you untapped the Vault, and the new wording clears that up.

[Smmenen]

Honestly I think the current wording of Time Vault matches the original intent.

If I had a dime every time someone said that a Gottlieb version of Time Vault matches the original intent, I'd be a millionaire.

When I was calling for Time Vault's restoration, the number one response was that the previous errata matched the original intent - that is, that you could never untap Time vault unless you skipped a turn first.   

What makes you think that your interpretation is more valid than that one, when all of the evidence seems to go against it? 

[Liam-K]

I guess it's a case of where you think the evidence points.  It would seem we simply have different readings of the original card.

[brianpk80]

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.

The more win conditions a deck runs at the expense of support cards, the less resilient it becomes to common oppositional strategies.  That may be a risk some players are willing to take, but I would be surprised to see the top names running 4 Tezzeret.dec.  It's a great card to see when things are running pristinely, but a player under a Tangle Wire lock, Sphered out, or getting hit by Wastelands every turn will be happy he/she included that extra Chain of Vapor or means to find Hurkyl's Recall. 

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.

It seems you missed the point I was making.  I didn't say "there's no way to get rid of a Time Vault or a Planeswalker."  I said that an opponent gaining infinite turns is an effect for which there is no defense in Magic.  We have abilities to the effect of "you can not be the target of spells or abilities this turn" and "prevent all damage" but nothing saying "prohibit target opponent from taking two or more turns in succession."  The distinction may be clearer for you now. 

[Smmenen]

I guess it's a case of where you think the evidence points.  It would seem we simply have different readings of the original card.

My point, though, is that there are always a few people who have tried to tell me that obviously wrong readings of the card were correct.    Just look at this thread:
http://forums.starcitygames.com/viewtopic.php?t=310991

The thread is six pages long, of people basically telling me that I was wrong and that Mark Gottlieb was right and me trying to show them why Gottlieb was wrong.   

This was my article: So Many Insane Plays – Dear Mark Gottlieb, Please Fix Time Vault
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16079.html

BTW, the article is now free. 

It got so heated that I had to write a follow up in the article the follwoing week:
  http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16108.html

I finally decided to ask Richard Garfield himself.  Which I did.

I am seriously tempted to write yet ANOTHER Time Vault article (not even because Gottlieb got it wrong, but because of my misguided sense that I have to correct every incorrect assertion on the internet), since apparently people only believe things that are official.

Do you think that would make me seem like whiner?

[madlucas]

Yo Steve rip that Gottlieb!! 
You should start a "Let's save Time Vault wording" campaign...
I hope that all of these discussions around Time Vault will not lead Wizards to ban it. 

[The Atog Lord]

I am seriously tempted to write yet ANOTHER Time Vault article (not even because Gottlieb got it wrong, but because of my misguided sense that I have to correct every incorrect assertion on the internet), since apparently people only believe things that are official.

I think, Steve, that the battle has been won. Time to put down the sword. Is it perfect? Well, it's as good as we could have hoped for when we wrote that Power Level errata so long ago.

[LordHomerCat]

I am seriously tempted to write yet ANOTHER Time Vault article (not even because Gottlieb got it wrong, but because of my misguided sense that I have to correct every incorrect assertion on the internet), since apparently people only believe things that are official.

I think, Steve, that the battle has been won. Time to put down the sword. Is it perfect? Well, it's as good as we could have hoped for when we wrote that Power Level errata so long ago.

I second this.  You've spent enough time and effort and have achieved a great success that most of us doubted would ever happen (me included).  Savor the victory.

[Smmenen]

I am seriously tempted to write yet ANOTHER Time Vault article (not even because Gottlieb got it wrong, but because of my misguided sense that I have to correct every incorrect assertion on the internet), since apparently people only believe things that are official.

I think, Steve, that the battle has been won. Time to put down the sword. Is it perfect? Well, it's as good as we could have hoped for when we wrote that Power Level errata so long ago.

I know, I know....  But, should we settle for second best when it can still be corrected?