[Free Article]The Most Dominant Engine in Vintage History: The March/April

[wiley]

And i'm sorry. But i think you're wrong on this " The data I have reflects the choices of hundreds and hundreds of players, with dozens of Fish decks represented.   If Fish decks were capable of winning tournaments, we would see at LEAST one tournament victory." because you don't analyse breackdowns but Top8 or tournaments winning decks only... And how a deck that finish 10th of a tournament is worst than the 8th ? That can't prove anything because of alot of factors. The 8th can have more avoided his bad matchups for example....

What do you think the top 8 represents?  It is the cream of the crop of all of the decks that entered the tournament that day.  I could understand if we were looking at 1 individual tournament and trying to make judgments based on that, but we are looking at 15.  The majority of those 15 look fairly similar with a bunch of aggro-control decks going up against a drain fueled vault key combo or 3 and the vault/key deck wins ... time after time after time.

You still say that vault key is under represented in comparison to fish strategies and I keep saying "but the vault key strategies are the ones that are being proven best again and again".  You, along with the rest of the French players, keep dancing around this by saying that you feel the meta is ok, while I keep saying the facts prove you wrong right now.  Feelings can kill a format too.

But i sware that even if you restrict both of them, people will still play Ub decks. Because they ARE Vintage.

The problem isn't what decks are played, it is what decks win.  If you look at Harlequin's post in th B/R thread and see his rock paper scissors argument you could say that Vault/Key is the demon fire and null rod fish is supposed to be the holy water.  Either people aren't playing enough fish (not true according to the French argument) or fish isn't a very good holy water (true according to the tournament results).

[nineisnoone]

Why do you want people not to play the best spells of Vintage ?
As i previously said, blue/black just pack the best cards ever printed. People play mana drain because it's just the best counterspell effect available. They play TFK because it's with intuition/AK the only remaining blue draw spell.

But i sware that even if you restrict both of them, people will still play Ub decks. Because they ARE Vintage.

Have to agree.  Anyone thinking that restricting Mana Drain will do anything is foolish.  What do you really think is going to happen here?  Was Mana Drain the card that lorded Tezz (or whatever) over Ichorid, Fish, and Storm?  Nope.  It does nothing against Ichorid, is slow against Storm combo, isn't really anything special against Fish.  It is strong against Shops, but it's not like blue doesn't have a dozen Shop hoser cards to play.  Or they ever needed anything other than, you know, tutor-> Hurkyl's Recall to be competitive.  Restricting Drain will do nothing, because Drain is only necessary for control mirrors, where it gets to completely unleash its raw power.  Other match-ups are about addressing specific threats where Drain doesn't help so much, whereas the control match-up is just about efficient accumulation of resources where Drain dominates.

As far as Thirst goes, I really don't think that'll have as big of an impact as we'd like either.  As noted, Thirst isn't always the best draw engine.  It's typically considered to be, but losing it will not change the fundamentals of the metagame, it will only cause some deviations in the top decks.  And I cannot honestly believe that will want to restrict a card just to see a 3-5 card deviation in Drain decks.  The archetype will not take any significant hit it'll just be a little bit different.  

It's frequently noted that Force of Will is the glue that holds Vintage together from being some degenerate combo-deck ridden coin-flip metagame.  However, I think that is only HALF the truth.  The other half is that combo was the other half of that glue that stopped Vintage from becoming some sort of control-deck ridden Mana Drain metagame.  

That's why I don't think any restrictions on the control-side of things will have any impact.  Because combo has been so weakened by the loss of Brainstorm that unless you hit control archetypes to the point where they are running crap like Cryptic Command, storm simply doesn't have what it takes to steal away the ground loss.  Nothing other than the emergence of a strong enough (i.e. threatening to break Vintage) combo deck will push the control archetype back to reasonable numbers.  And it is really rare that that happens.  Realistically there have only been 3, Flash, Tendrils, and Mind's Desire.  Either something needs to be printed at that level or unrestrictions need to occur, if the solution is to be had.

[thecman]

Edit: Wrong place

[klu]

nowadays, Ubased Control decks just pack the best cards of Vintage and most of them are restricted. Restricting all the good remaining blue cards will not mean those decks will become average. They will still be played a lot and they will still be a lot represented in top8s.

It would be interesting to have the breakdowns of the 15 tournaments you are based on. If 30-50% of the decks played are drain-based, then it would be normal that 30-50% of them are top8ing, since they are good decks. The interesting number would be :

breakdown :

(1)   % of the top8
        % played in the tournament

The result would give us a better way to appreciate DrainBased dominance.
If (1) >> 1 then, something may be done.
If (1) >= 1 then, lot of written lines for nothing
If (1) < 1 then all the energy spent there is just a waste of time.

[thecman]

You can make the same comparison using top 8s and tournament wins, as you can with the complete field and top 8s, and this data is already more accessible.  The rusults should be the same either way, except for the fact that in one case you will be looking at a smaller sample size.

[wiley]

It would be interesting to have the breakdowns of the 15 tournaments you are based on. If 30-50% of the decks played are drain-based, then it would be normal that 30-50% of them are top8ing, since they are good decks. The interesting number would be :

breakdown :

(1)   % of the top8
        % played in the tournament

The result would give us a better way to appreciate DrainBased dominance.
If (1) >> 1 then, something may be done.
If (1) >= 1 then, lot of written lines for nothing
If (1) < 1 then all the energy spent there is just a waste of time.

Zurich - http://forum.wog.ch/showthread.php?t=47618 (apparently has a beakdown somewhere in there, I didn't see it on the first page thoug)
Helsinki - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37553.0 (has a breakdown)
Chicago - ???
Levellois, France - http://solomoxen.com/forum/index.php?topic=9787.0 (not sure if this has a breakdown)
Empoli - http://www.tipo1.it/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10581&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (I didn't see a breakdown)
TMD Open day 1 - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37654.0 (I might've missed it, but I don't see a breakdown)
TMD Open day 2 - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37654.0 (I might've missed it, but I don't see a breakdown)
Catalan - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37663.0 (no breakdown)
Madrid - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37685.0 (no breakdown)
Zurich - http://forum.wog.ch/showpost.php?p=994156&postcount=47 (no breakdown)
Blue Bell - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37798.0 (breakdown in first post)
Breda - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37746.0 (no breakdown)
Madrid - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37836.0 (no breakdown)
Catalan - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37856.0 (no breakdown)
Zurich - http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37843.0 (breakdown in first post)

[Smmenen]

Why do you want people not to play the best spells of Vintage ?
As i previously said, blue/black just pack the best cards ever printed. People play mana drain because it's just the best counterspell effect available. They play TFK because it's with intuition/AK the only remaining blue draw spell.

But i sware that even if you restrict both of them, people will still play Ub decks. Because they ARE Vintage.

Have to agree.  Anyone thinking that restricting Mana Drain will do anything is foolish.  

If that were true, then why restrict Gush or Merchant Scroll?   Does that make the DCI foolish for restricting Braistorm?  People played blue decks before the restriction of Brainstorm and after.   That was foolish, right?

What do you really think is going to happen here?  Was Mana Drain the card that lorded Tezz (or whatever) over Ichorid, Fish, and Storm?  Nope.  It does nothing against Ichorid, is slow against Storm combo, isn't really anything special against Fish.  It is strong against Shops, but it's not like blue doesn't have a dozen Shop hoser cards to play.  Or they ever needed anything other than, you know, tutor-> Hurkyl's Recall to be competitive.  Restricting Drain will do nothing, because Drain is only necessary for control mirrors, where it gets to completely unleash its raw power.  Other match-ups are about addressing specific threats where Drain doesn't help so much, whereas the control match-up is just about efficient accumulation of resources where Drain dominates.

 If Drain were only good against Control mirrors, than why not sideboard Drains?  Why play them maindeck?

[Stormanimagus]

How can you compare a 2/2 for 2 exalted with seal of primordium, especially not considering the fact that Selkie has been printed since then ?
I really don't kid myself... Just Try Noble fish with Qasali, + rods + Stifle + Selkie and you'll see how it's easy to beat drain with this decks.
And actually, Noble fish did a really good showing in a 371 players tournament, going 8-1 in swiss and only loosing against the winning shop deck in the 1/4 final, savagely beating alot of drain decks in the swiss.
So no, i'm not kidding myself, but you just showing why Tezz is dominant in number and results : because people dismiss good strategies against those decks before testing them...

Fundamental Attribution Error.  The results in the data are not a function of a few individua's decision making.   The data I have reflects the choices of hundreds and hundreds of players, with dozens of Fish decks represented.   If Fish decks were capable of winning tournaments, we would see at LEAST one tournament victory.   

The French keeping invoking the fundamental attribution error.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
"In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) is a theory describing cognitive tendency to predominantly over-value dispositional, or personality-based, explanations (i.e., attributions or interpretations) for the" tournament outcomes. 

I'm actually forced to agree with you on this and Steve: I do NOT think Selkie-Strike is "The Solution" and I don't think I've ever posited that sentiment. I DO think it has a favorable Drain Matchup because of mana-denial in the form of Daze + Rod + Stifle + Waste. I do not think it has a favorable Oath Matchup or Ichorid matchup or TPS matchup and that is a problem for the deck in winning a major tournament. Do I think it CAN win a major tournament? Of course. But it needs to address the weak matchups in a game-swinging way and right now they have not printed an awesome anti-ichorid card in the colors so I am forced to resort to lesser answers like Tormod's Crypt or Relic of Progenitus.

@the thread in general- Why on earth are more people NOT trying TPS or Ad Nauseam Tendrils more in major tournaments? Those decks seem like a natural solution to Mana Drain Strategies while also being great against Ichorid. Is it because pilot error causes too many game losses? If that is the excuse than the vintage community just needs to up it skill level a bit. Those decks really should beat drain strategies as they are just plain faster and can still whip out a turn 1 Duress to protect themselves. Why is Turn-1-Tendrils NOT being attempted more? The cards that hate on Tendrils decks are all but non-existent right now:

1) Sphere effects
2) Leyline Of The Void
3) Chalice Of The Void (being run, but not usually over Null Rod)

The time for Storm Combo to take back the crown of Vintage has come!

[quentin]

@the thread in general- Why on earth are more people NOT trying TPS or Ad Nauseam Tendrils more in major tournaments? Those decks seem like a natural solution to Mana Drain Strategies while also being great against Ichorid. Is it because pilot error causes too many game losses? If that is the excuse than the vintage community just needs to up it skill level a bit. Those decks really should beat drain strategies as they are just plain faster and can still whip out a turn 1 Duress to protect themselves. Why is Turn-1-Tendrils NOT being attempted more? The cards that hate on Tendrils decks are all but non-existent right now:

I've been playing storm for about a year, and top8'ed at bom2 with it (alongside posting quite a few other tournmanets result. I was still playing (a different version but still) storm at bom 3, and I can answer your question very easily : mystic remora.
I went 5-3 (I had a bye) in facing 1 ichorid and all the rest was mana drain decks, losing to 3 remora decks.
There is basically no way that a TPS deck as they are designed today can win through remora, even less with commandeers entering the equation maindeck or post SB. I was myself playing an oath-tendrils build which tried to mitigate this factor (and in the meantime improve fish and stax matchups), but still the oath plan is too slow nowadays when facing vault/key combo and it's probably not the way to go facing remora. Maybe with 4 confidants...
Remora + vault/key are the factors that make TPS lose a matchup it was winning a year ago. A year ago, you'd win with TPS against a 4 drains / 4 fows deck, and would be fairly even against a 4 duress / 4 fows / drains deck, making control one of your favorite prays. But nowadays, control can win topdeck wars just as easily against tps thanks to time vault, and remora gives it an edge no tools in tps' box can fix.

[Smmenen]

Well put Quentin. 

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I agree with what quentin said. Xantid Swarm molests combo's mana base against Fish (which now has more tools than ever to destroy combo like Teeg/Canonist) and still doesn't 100% garuntee a win. I mean if you fizzle there is no second chance and draw-7s are just suicide. Echoing what I've been saying all along banning Vault would take away the "oops I win" from Remora decks allowing more time for combo to sculpt a hand that can win with Xantid. It all comes back to Vault.

[Purple Hat]

Ad Nauseam decks can play Chains of Mephistopheles in their sideboard instead of Xantid Swarm to neutralize Remora.  Draws off Ad Naus and Necro are not technically "draws" and letting your commandeer packing opponent cycle lots of cards isn't anywhere near as harmful as letting him draw lots of cards.

[nineisnoone]

Why do you want people not to play the best spells of Vintage ?
As i previously said, blue/black just pack the best cards ever printed. People play mana drain because it's just the best counterspell effect available. They play TFK because it's with intuition/AK the only remaining blue draw spell.

But i sware that even if you restrict both of them, people will still play Ub decks. Because they ARE Vintage.

Have to agree.  Anyone thinking that restricting Mana Drain will do anything is foolish.

If that were true, then why restrict Gush or Merchant Scroll?   Does that make the DCI foolish for restricting Braistorm?  People played blue decks before the restriction of Brainstorm and after.   That was foolish, right?

I probably piggy backed the wrong comment, as the person I quoted isn't saying exactly what I mean.

I would unrestrict Scroll, Flash, Gush, and Ponder.  But not Brainstorm.  So I would say that those first 4 restrictions were foolish because they were unnecessary and ultimately detrimental to the metagame.

Side note: Scroll is probably very controversial, but I feel Scroll + Gush is not strictly better than Thirst for Knowledge.  It's probably generally better, but Scroll being a sorcery leaves open times where Thirst would be preferable. 

What do you really think is going to happen here?  Was Mana Drain the card that lorded Tezz (or whatever) over Ichorid, Fish, and Storm?  Nope.  It does nothing against Ichorid, is slow against Storm combo, isn't really anything special against Fish.  It is strong against Shops, but it's not like blue doesn't have a dozen Shop hoser cards to play.  Or they ever needed anything other than, you know, tutor-> Hurkyl's Recall to be competitive.  Restricting Drain will do nothing, because Drain is only necessary for control mirrors, where it gets to completely unleash its raw power.  Other match-ups are about addressing specific threats where Drain doesn't help so much, whereas the control match-up is just about efficient accumulation of resources where Drain dominates.

If Drain were only good against Control mirrors, than why not sideboard Drains?  Why play them maindeck?

Why play them main deck?  Isn't the resounding conclusion of all the data that Mana Drain, and it's various deck designs, are dominating the metagame?  So why on earth sideboard them?  Sideboarding Mana Drain in this metagame would be like sideboarding Null Rod in this metagame.

And I don't mean to say it is only good in control mirrors.  I'm just saying it is great and necessary in control mirrors. 

Its sort of like Tarmogoyf.  If you are aggro, you can win without Tarmogoyf.  Sure.  But if they run Tarmogoyf, and you don't you are going to have a hard time winning.  That's because Aggro match-ups are about getting bodies down and dealing damage.  If you have better faster bigger guys, you will win.  You *can* lose, but typically you will win.  And Tarmogoyf is the best, and if the match-up is just about turning things sideways, then you are shooting yourself in the foot if you do not run him.

But of course that is not to say he isn't good in other match-ups, but he is not always the optimal choice because in other match-ups the solution isn't always "deal more damage quicker."

Same thing with Mana Drain.  You can play it and its fine against anything for the most part.  But if you are playing an opposing control deck, and they have Mana Drain and you don't have Mana Drain then you are going to have a hard time winning.  Because control mirrors are about accumulating resources and Mana Drain is the best card at accumulating resources (aside from the restricted list of course).

So while Mana Drain might be good against a storm deck, there are other cards that might be better  because the fact that you have more resources than him won't matter because he just won the game.

To put it another way, if you look at the evolution of certain Control/Combo decks (like Gifts or GAT), you'll see that as they progressed towards focusing more heavily on the combo aspect of their decks, they tended to cut Mana Drain from their lists.  Why?  Because as they focused more on combo, the match-up became less a control mirror, won on resources, and more a combo versus control mirror which is more won on answers, disruption, and explosiveness.  Mana Drain isn't efficient for this effect.  As blue control "with a combo finish" transformed into blue combo "with control elements" Mana Drain left the metagame.  When combo steps back up to a more threatening level, Mana Drain will slowly move away again.

In my opinion, an unrestriction of Ponder would have a greater impact on reducing prominence of the control archetype than than a restriction of Mana Drain.  It's a suitable Brainstorm replacement in combo decks and was even arguably better in certain situations. 

[Troy_Costisick]

@Troy :
How can you compare a 2/2 for 2 exalted with seal of primordium, especially not considering the fact that Selkie has been printed since then ?

Easy.  How many life points does a control player need to win?  Answer: 1.  Having a 2/2 or a 3/3 or even a 10/10 to shove into a fish deck over some other creature is not going to the key to turning the tide against Drain decks.  Drawing extra cards with Selkie is nice, but it's a two card trick that suffers from summoning sickness.  What's Drain deck's two card trick?  Tinker-Leviathan.  Guess which is easier to assemble and protect. 

I compare the Pridemage to Seal of Primordium because the P/T of the creature is irrelevant.  It's interaction with Selkie is only marginally relevant since both have to be in play at the same time.  However, it's ability to destroy Time Vault or kill an artifact that can be sacrificed to Tinker is highly relevant.  Once Tinker resolves, that's game- whether it's for Leviathan or Time Vault.  A Drain player can ignore practically everything a Fish player does- even Null Rod for the most part- so long as they drive their play towards casting and protecting Tinker. 

I'm not trying to disrespect the new archetype.  I happen to think it's pretty cool and was impressed with it the last time I went to my local tournamnet.  The guy was new to playing Fish decks and still did a great job piloting it.  However, that one card is not going to dethrone Drains from 40%+.  If it does, then I'll be happy to eat my words, but I sincerely doubt I will.

Peace,

-Troy

[klu]

Helsinki :
33 players, 12 drain decks.
36.36%

drain decks in top 8 : 1
12.5%

(1) = 12.5/36.36
(1) = 0.3437

Blue Bell :
44 players, 21 drain decks
47.72%

drain decks in top8 : 3
37.5%

(1) = 0.786

Zurich :
54 players, 19 drain decks
35.2%

drain decks in top8 : 3
37.5%

(1) = 1.065

Levalois :
52 players, 24 drain decks
46.2%

drain decks in top8 : 4

(1) = 1.08

We got an average of : (33*0.3437+44*0.786+54*1.065+52*1.08) / 183 = 0.9197 < 1

I've done the calculation on the few tournaments for which i could find a breakdown (thx Wiley for help). As you can see, the result show us that a lot of players bring a drain deck to tournaments. But the ratio in not that good for those decks.
Even me thought that (1) would have been generaly far more than "1.00", but it appears it's not significant.

I have to admit that my sample may not be significant since it's only based on 4 tournaments. The study deserves to be extended to a bigger sample.

Lots of drain decks. Lots of top8's.
Is there a real problem ?
Or is all this just a new blabla ?

[fury]

Thank you, kLu, for having illustrated our arguments with some figures including the breakdown. It is obvious that the metagame has integrated the Drain deck "dominance", has begun to adapt to the fact that it is massively played in tournaments.

So we lost time to argue on the subject

[Diakonov]

Christ, this thread is on fire.  I look away for two days and it's almost 4 pages longer.

I'll admit, I skimmed through the last page and a half, but I'm hoping it's a new point anyway:

I agree, Steve, that Force can't independently herald a "defining archetype" the way that guy you mentioned claims it does, since it is often used alongside Ritual.  Instead, I would prefer to break it down like this:

Ritual
Workshop
Bazaar of Baghdad
Control strategies coupled with Force
...creatures...

I think these are the points on the metaphorical "Star."  Again, it is impossible to ever to make a group like this and expect it to be 100% accurate, but this is as close as I can make it.  To defend my claim and explain what I mean, here is an alternate way to view it:

"Win Now" (Ritual, some Bazaar)
"Stop it! Then Win" (everything else, including some Bazaar)

Or, yet another grouping:

"Win Now" (Ritual, some Bazaar)
"You Go Ahead, but I'm Holding Force" (control/combo)
"I'm Going to Play Annoying Permanents" (Workshop, creatures, some Bazaar)

As I said in the other thread, sometimes it is certain cards that are the culprit and sometimes it is a strategy, so no single grouping is always the best way to rationalize whether or not a restriction is necessary. 

I think the problem we're having is specifically "Control decks" more than any particular card, which really boils down to an interaction between Force, some draw spell, and some other counter.  Again, this is a simplification of what it means to be "control," because really it also relies on a type of mana base, tutors, etc., but for the sake of discussion it's easier to look at those three main components.  In your explanation, in order of importance (this is my opinion), those would be Force, Thirst, and Drain.  Therefore, I agree that restricting Thirst might be enough to neuter Control as a dominating archetype.

Separate Topic:

This is really theoretical, but since you now have tons of data, Steve, you might be able to look at this.  Should we expect that the time of year has something to do with the degree of innovation?  I would bet that once summer hits we might see a rise in other archetypes, simply because college and high school players will have more time for Magic, and by consequence, more innovation.

[Smmenen]

I canvassed the various points made in this thread, organized them into several categories, and responded to them in my article this week.   My attempt was to clearly and concisely answer the points raised. 

[Odd mutation]

I canvassed the various points made in this thread, organized them into several categories, and responded to them in my article this week.   My attempt was to clearly and concisely answer the points raised. 

After reading the posts made in this thread and both your articles on the subject, I'm still convinced that Time Vault is the problem. Not Thirst for Knowledge, not Mana Drain. Time Vault with Voltaic Key/Tezzeret is put together too easily, for too small a mana cost, is not as easily disrupted as other kills and requires no playskill in itself (compared to a Tendrils of Agony kill, like in the Gifts Ungiven decks of some time ago for example). As you said so yourself in the article, Time Vault has unified a lot of different Drain Decks (Bomberman, Painter, Drain Tendrils, Control Slaver). Where diversity used to be, now only (or mostly) Time Vault remains.

I would like to see the effect of Time Vault banned. If the problem then remains, I would be interested in looking at other possible actions and Time vault could be set free again if necessary. I don't have a problem with reversing decisions if they have proven to be wrong/inadequate.
Note: of course, the DCI should never make decisions on a whim but rather only after thorough consideration and study. Vintage bannings and (un)restrictions aren't an exact science, even though all the numbers do bear their significance. Statistics is a wonderful science/tool/art if used and interpreted correctly. Changing/forcing the metagame through bannings and (un)restrictions can be dangerous and annoying, so handle with care and only if truly necessary.

Robrecht

[wiley]

I've been having a hard time finding it but I know that back in 2000 when Mind Twist and Channel were finally unbanned they put out an article that expressly said that they would never ban a card from vintage for power reasons again.  This is why the only important fact that comes from pinning time vault as the culprit is that you have to take it into account when you start looking at other cards to balance the field against the card.  It doesn't help to restrict the other two pieces of the combo (key and tez), as they are run as one of as it is.  So either finding a way to damage the shell it currently resides in or creating a new viable archetype that preys on it and other decks are the only solutions.

[Bongo]

Vault/Key is not the problem.

Even if they banned/re-errataed the combo, people would simply switch to this: http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=26095

[kalisia]

The combo you are showing (Painter - Grindstone) is not as strong as Key - Vault.
And a simple card like Gaia's Blessing is annoying for this deck, forcing to assemble a 3-card combo (add Tormod's Crypt or Extirpate).

As kLu mentioned, the magic number is almost never above 1. So what is the problem with Drain decks.

I don' t agree people who say that Key - Vault has changed the power balance between combo and control decks.
Before, playing Tinker on Sundering Titan against TPS was sealing the game as Time Vault does now.

And a last point, if Mana Drain is restricted, for me, there will be no sense to continue playing MTG.
This card is one of the cards which are the symbol of Vintage and the reason to play Type One: Brokeness!!!!!
If people continue wanting to restrict broken cards, Vintage will really begin to ressemble to Standard! And it would be a pity.

[Bongo]

Well, the guy running this apparently "weaker" combo tore through a field of roughly 200 players. At that tournament, I'm pretty sure there were quite a few Tez lists, but they didn't make it. Even if this was a one-time performance, it shows that the power difference between the two combos is quite small. Hence, a banning/reerrata would have little to no effect.

It's the deck-shell that's the source of the power, not the win-condition.

[Nehptis]

I've been having a hard time finding it but I know that back in 2000 when Mind Twist and Channel were finally unbanned they put out an article that expressly said that they would never ban a card from vintage for power reasons again.  This is why the only important fact that comes from pinning time vault as the culprit is that you have to take it into account when you start looking at other cards to balance the field against the card.  It doesn't help to restrict the other two pieces of the combo (key and tez), as they are run as one of as it is.  So either finding a way to damage the shell it currently resides in or creating a new viable archetype that preys on it and other decks are the only solutions.

Banning is a simple solution with complex repercusions.  But, consider this as a thought experiment.  If the desired effect is to kill the Vault / Key combo then 1 solution is to ban Vault, or Key or going overboard both.  Desired effect met.  Solution 2 errata Vault, Key or again both so that they can no longer function together to create infinite turns.  Desired effect met.  So, if we want to avoid banning then let's consider errata.  Errata to Key, doesn't make sense.  So, let's errata Vault again.  I don't care what the precise language is as long as it prevents cards like Key from creating infinite turn combos.

Here's why, as Vintage players we have this philosophy that we should be able to play with "all" our cards and they should all function as close as possible to their original wording.   The second part of this ideal gets us in trouble time and time again.  Vintage didn't start out as Vintage.  Essentially it was a casual "Standard" scene.  There was a small set of cards like Vault that were created together to function together as part of a concise set of cards; very much the same design approach that developers take to new set releases for Standard.  Now to say that those same cards should still be allowed to function in a cardpool that is vastly greater than the original is frankly absurd.

For those of us who played back in the early days of MTG you know how Vault turns went.  One option was skip my turn to untap Vault so I can have 2 turns in a row to do something nasty.  Which back then usually meant swinging twice with some big dudes.  The other play was Twiddle on Vault to avoid skipping a turn.  That was it, that was what Vault was intended to do.  The sooner we start facing the reallity that some things from the past are just not meant to interact with things from the present, the sooner we can avoid falling into this snafu, over and over again.

I know this is a hard pill to swallow.  So many Vintage players are idealists.  We want everything; all our cards, all our original wordings, and a diverse meta game.  Unfortunately, that's having your cake and eating it too.  It just won't work.  One of those will impact the other.  For those who study Project Management it's almost like the triple constraint or PM Triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Triangle) of MTG.

[Smmenen]

But we had it!   That's the thing.  It would be one thing if there was no model of metagame diversity, etc.  But we had that a year ago, and all that was needed to improve it was a minor tweak, imo, restricting Scroll and keeping the rest of the metagame largely intact.   

[LordHomerCat]

The other play was Twiddle on Vault to avoid skipping a turn.

So let me get this straight.  It is ok to use Twiddle to untap Vault and take an extra turn.  But it is not OK to use Voltaic Key to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Are you serious?

Also, what Steve said.

[OwenTheEnchanter]

Painter+Grindstone is not the same as Key Vault, it isn’t even remotely close.

[LennonMarx]

The other play was Twiddle on Vault to avoid skipping a turn.

So let me get this straight.  It is ok to use Twiddle to untap Vault and take an extra turn.  But it is not OK to use Voltaic Key to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Are you serious?

Also, what Steve said.

I think the point Nephtis was trying to make, was that there is a fundamental difference in using Twiddle compared to Voltaic Key. Twiddle is a cute trick. And when looking at the card pool from 1994-95, it was something that you could make a deck around with Regrowths and such, take some back to back turns, and beat down, or whatever. Key+Vault functionally wins the game, which at this point I think most will agree is far from "cute".

[Nehptis]

But we had it!   That's the thing.  It would be one thing if there was no model of metagame diversity, etc.  But we had that a year ago, and all that was needed to improve it was a minor tweak, imo, restricting Scroll and keeping the rest of the metagame largely intact.   

I almost went there in my post.  But, it was getting too long, is one reason I stopped.  Like most good and bad moments in time it's difficult to recognize what comprises them while we are experiencing them.  But, the "Golden Age" of Vintage that some TMDers spoke about a year ago was apparently upon us.  Or taking Steve's point a bit further; a minor tweak of probably restricting just Scroll may have transformed our Golden Age into a Platinum one.

Unfortunately, what we got instead were mass restrictions and a reintroduction of Vault which to me feels like we've been thrown into the Dark Ages, or sticking with the precious metal metaphor, the Aluminum age!

The other play was Twiddle on Vault to avoid skipping a turn.

So let me get this straight.  It is ok to use Twiddle to untap Vault and take an extra turn.  But it is not OK to use Voltaic Key to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Are you serious?

Also, what Steve said.

I think the point Nephtis was trying to make, was that there is a fundamental difference in using Twiddle compared to Voltaic Key. Twiddle is a cute trick. And when looking at the card pool from 1994-95, it was something that you could make a deck around with Regrowths and such, take some back to back turns, and beat down, or whatever. Key+Vault functionally wins the game, which at this point I think most will agree is far from "cute".

Exactly what Lennon said. And yes, I am serious.  And no they aren't the same.  One can be repeated over and over (Key) because it is a PERMANENT.  The other (Twiddle) can not be repeated unless you introduce some other card to bring back / reuse Twiddle.  That's why Twiddle was designed as it was as a non-permanent spell.  Can you imagine if in those early days Twiddle was instead Key?  Almost every deck would have run Vault/Key.  And then the metagame would have been boring and then players (like me and others on TMD) would be bored and stop playing Vintage.  That would have been awful...could you imagine if that had happened?.....oh wait....it is happening...now....damn you hypothetical history, I should have studied you so as not to repeat you!

[LordHomerCat]

But new card interactions are the heart of Vintage.  Pretty much every deck in the format is built on some combination of cards from vastly different time periods working together (Workshop + Mirrodin cards, Welder + TfK + Mindslaver, Dragon + Animate, Wasteland + Null Rod + Stifle + Strip Mine and so on) and so if some of those interactions are very powerful, like Key Vault or Painter Grindstone or Oath Orchard, that is not surprising.  That's the point!  None of the cards in those combos would be playable without the other, and in formats where only one is legal the other is usually useless without some other powerful combo part.  But here we get it all.  Magic WAS designed as a game of possibilities.  Garfield wanted interesting and even unforeseen interactions to be part of the game to allow players to explore and innovate. 

He quickly realized that new sets would be played with older cards mixed together and that this was an incredible boon for the game.  If you are somehow saying that everything should be insular, you are not looking at the right format.  Block Constructed restricts you to only playing cards with those specifically designed to interact with them.  Vintage is about everything mixing with everything.  That is the point.  So we have a permanent twiddle effect?  It was bound to happen at some point right?  I could use Galvanic Key, Fatestitcher, Isochron Scepter, any number of other cards to combo with Time Vault to take more than one extra turn.  Are all those things abominations too?  You aren't mad that it is permanent, you are mad that it is permanent and cheap.  Would you really have a problem with Iso Scepter + Twiddle + Vault?  Somehow I doubt you would be calling it the most powerful thing to ever see play and the first thing in modern vintage to necessitate power level banning.