Discussion: Theoretical Answers to Time Vault

[AmbivalentDuck]

In other threads, a variety of answers to Time Vault have been discussed, from printings to DCI action.  In this thread, I just want to collect suggestions that have been cluttering up other threads for discussion of efficacy.

Goblin Curator 1R
Creature -- Goblin, 2/2
Sac: Destroy all artifacts.  Each artifact destroyed this way deals damage to you equal to its converted mana cost.

Nerfs Vault and Tinker on turn 1, requires creature bounce or removal prior to going off, making Tinker a two card combo and vault a 3 card combo.

Extract-est UU
instant
split second
search target players library for a card and exile it. they shuffle.
draw a card

Guarantees vault removal.  The straight Tinker and Oath plans are much more manageable.  Very playable as it will often 2-for-1 via card draw and countering a topdeck tutor.

That's the best of what came out of the Oath thread.  I'll add other ideas to this post as they're pointed out.  The idea here is to have a pre-considered, printable  cookie cutter answer to Time Vault that makes life easier on WotC that we can advocate for.  This forum doesn't allow B/R list change debates...but I'm not aware of any rules regarding possible printings.

[Matt]

In my view, it is more or less in Vintage's nature to have a "best strategy". It's a natural consequence of not being able to ban development mistakes.

Furthermore, I don't think any serious printing is going to solve the problem. If you don't want to lose to Vault, the hate already exists. It's as someone said many years ago: why is it acceptable to have a format where you maindeck 4x STP, but everyone considers it a problem when the format encourages you to MD 4x Disenchant? Block Affinity could be beaten, but very few people were willing o do what it took to do that.
 
That said, something to keep in mind is that there are certain benchmarks an anti-vault card must have. When designing a purely reactive card, there has to be a reason to play it over:

-Extract. Pretty much up and solves the problem for .
-Pithing Needle, which isn't as sure an answer, but can be played in every deck.

[AmbivalentDuck]

If you don't want to lose to Vault, the hate already exists.

Really?  I'm unaware of any 60 card pile that could go >60% against Vroman Oath and Tez even in a Tez and Oath-only meta.  No matter how many Null Rods and Pithing Needles you have on the board, a single Rebuild completely destroys your board position.

Qasali Pridemage and Seals of Cleansing/Primordium are arguably *much* stronger deterrents to Vault.

It's as someone said many years ago: why is it acceptable to have a format where you maindeck 4x STP, but everyone considers it a problem when the format encourages you to MD 4x Disenchant? Block Affinity could be beaten, but very few people were willing o do what it took to do that.

It's similar to the unrestricted LoA idea: if you unrestrict LoA, you force combo/control decks to choose between a strong matchup against one another and a strong matchup against the rest of the field.  Maindecking Affinity hate nerfed other matchups. 

That said, something to keep in mind is that there are certain benchmarks an anti-vault card must have. When designing a purely reactive card, there has to be a reason to play it over:

-Extract. Pretty much up and solves the problem for .
-Pithing Needle, which isn't as sure an answer, but can be played in every deck.

Extract and Pithing Needle are both 'solved' by measures that Time Vault decks run against one another.  Ie. the 'ideal' list requires no changes to beat this 'hate.' 
Split second instants require a higher than optimal number of Duresses (and mulligans into Duress!) while an x/2 creature requires taking damage from Thoughtseize.  Also, Extract takes only one win condition at sorcery speed.  It's a guaranteed loss in card advantage terms that leaves you vulnerable an alternate kill strategy.  The strength of Hide//Seek vs Gifts was its ability to nerf one kill strategy while countering a topdeck tutor while weakening the other.

Arguably the best Vault hate right now is Sadistic Sacrament (for first turn win-ness) followed closely behind by Bitter Ordeal as a difficult to counter 2nd turn answer.

[Matt]

I think you're missing my point. Even if they print some fantasy hate card, so what? The format will be Vault vs. Vault hate...how is that different from how it is now? Or is your goal to get people to not even put Time Vault in their decks?

Qasali Pridemage and Seals of Cleansing/Primordium are arguably *much* stronger deterrents to Vault.

And are those being used? (I know QP is, but apart from that.) If not, I don't see anyone granting your wishes for a new card, because the format isn't using the anti-TV cards it already has.

I recognize that you could load your WG deck up with both Seals and QP (and Rod and Needle, maybe) and probably never lose to Vault, but that such a deck would lose to a deck that didn't pack all that deadweight. But printing new TV hate cards won't change that. It will still be TV.dec vs Hate.dec vs PreyOnHateCards.dec. Maindecking TV hate nerfs other matchups.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Or is your goal to get people to not even put Time Vault in their decks?

Precisely.  You print hate *so* brutal that despite its power, its questionable if it should be included at all.  Ie. A Time Vault trap that specifically searches your opponent's deck for the card on turn 0 and causes a game loss when you find it.  It makes for a much more interesting meta.

Qasali Pridemage and Seals of Cleansing/Primordium are arguably *much* stronger deterrents to Vault.

And are those being used? (I know QP is, but apart from that.) If not, I don't see anyone granting your wishes for a new card, because the format isn't using the anti-TV cards it already has.

As far as I know, ICBM GR Stax runs Seal and QP sees play in two of the premier aggro-control strategies.

I recognize that you could load your WG deck up with both Seals and QP (and Rod and Needle, maybe) and probably never lose to Vault

I disagree and that's the issue.  A 4 cc, two card combo is too easy to assemble and defend from hate.

But printing new TV hate cards won't change that. It will still be TV.dec vs Hate.dec vs PreyOnHateCards.dec. Maindecking TV hate nerfs other matchups.

Except that versatile, brutal hate shouldn't have that problem.  Ie. An uncounterable version of Earwig Squad still has plenty of utility in other matchups.  If it had ninjutsu or something, it'd be way better.  Or the Time Vault trap that makes you lose the game if you run it...it's certainly no more costly than Cold-Eyed Selkie.

[Anusien]

Or is your goal to get people to not even put Time Vault in their decks?

Precisely.  You print hate *so* brutal that despite its power, its questionable if it should be included at all.  Ie. A Time Vault trap that specifically searches your opponent's deck for the card on turn 0 and causes a game loss when you find it.  It makes for a much more interesting meta.

If by interesting you mean random and stupid, then sure, more interesting.

Competitive tournament Magic is a long history of people not making the choice that seems obvious.  See for example the entire history of Affinity in Extended.

[AmbivalentDuck]

It's no different than the role of Ichorid in the meta now.  It's a deck that can only be reliably answered with brutal hate (which luckily exists), and its prominance in the meta is entirely determined by how much hate is run.

[Nehptis]

Or is your goal to get people to not even put Time Vault in their decks?

Precisely.  You print hate *so* brutal that despite its power, its questionable if it should be included at all.  Ie. A Time Vault trap that specifically searches your opponent's deck for the card on turn 0 and causes a game loss when you find it.  It makes for a much more interesting meta.

It's no different than the role of Ichorid in the meta now.  It's a deck that can only be reliably answered with brutal hate (which luckily exists), and its prominance in the meta is entirely determined by how much hate is run.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Very strong hate hasn't removed Ichorid from the meta game.  So, why do you expect it would happen with Vault?

I agree with the arguement posted earlier.  Even if they print the strongest, most targeted hate for Time Vault the end result will most likely be either:

1) A meta that is more Vault vs. Vault-hate than we have now.

OR

2) Vault decks find an answer and continue to dominate.  Remember Vault decks have access to Duress and Thoughtseize.  Those cards go a long way to stopping alot of the fantasy hate cards described above.

If you want the best answers to this terribly boring and non-diverse meta that we have been suffering through for months now, I suggest you check out some people's sigs.

[Killane]

First of all, I'd like to say that I really hope they never print anythign like Extract-er

UU
Split Second
Extract
Cantrip

As mentioned above. This card is unfun. It is not just a Tiem Vault nerf, it woudl be one of the strongest combo nerfs ever printed and virtually destroy an entire archetype. How coudl you run a legit combo deck if people are porting 4 of these in their sideboard? Combo decks rely on a high density of fast mana, tutors, and card draw into one big, game-ending threat. This makes any combo deck basically NEED 4 x  Duress 4 x thoughtseize which is excessive and counter-synergistic.


I'm supporting narrower, more focused time vault hate with limited applications in other formats and vs Time Walk:

Time Trap
UUU3
Instant
Split Second
If an opponent has taken three or more consecutive turns at any point during this game, you may pay U instead of the CMC.
The next time an opponent takes two consecutive turns, they loose the game.
U: return this card to your hand. Play this ability only  if this card is in the Exile zone or the Graveyard and only during the upkeep of an extra turn taken by an opponent.


This is a somewhat interesting and potentially flavourful card. It does not make Vault auto-loose, but it is more powerful hate than anything that currently exists. It is immune to duress/thoughseize, extract, and counterspells. It has some potential applications in standard if anyone can ever make a Time Seive deck that isn't at least partial Jank. It can win you the game vs Time Walk, but only at a very high mana cost. It's not broken, and doesn't nerf any of the other combo archetypes. It's also not silly and not impossible for the vault player to win through, but close enough that it woudl put a huge dent in the archetype.

[Matt]

I'd rather see something that was more generally useful in other formats.

Referee

Creature - Human Adviser
2/3
At the beginning of each end step, each player who drew three or more cards during that turn discards his or her hand.
Whenever a player plays a land, if it wasn't the first land that player played this turn, that player sacrifices a land.
Whenever a player takes an extra turn, that player skips his or her next untap step.
Alright, I want a good clean fight.

Or something maybe a little more subtle:

Seedborn Apprentice

Creature - Human Shaman
2/2
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, you may untap another target permanent you control.

That would at least get the mana to maybe break the lock. Also has utility against Stax.

[Darkenslight]

What about this card design?

Nullifier 
Artifact

 , pay 2 life, Sacrifice Nullifier: Counter target activated or triggered ability.  If an ability countered this way came from a permanent, destroy that permanent.

[Wagner]

What about this card design?

Nullifier 
Artifact

 , pay 2 life, Sacrifice Nullifier: Counter target activated or triggered ability.  If an ability countered this way came from a permanent, destroy that permanent.

This would be worse than Null Rod against Vault, but it would make a kickass card on it's own.

[SpencerForHire]

Think of cards that have general applications instead of directly hurting Time Vault.  Also, you should consider using different strategies than another artifact to harm it, that redundancy does not help.

[Darkenslight]

What about this card design?

Nullifier 
Artifact

 , pay 2 life, Sacrifice Nullifier: Counter target activated or triggered ability.  If an ability countered this way came from a permanent, destroy that permanent.

This would be worse than Null Rod against Vault, but it would make a kickass card on it's own.

I thought about other card interactions. such as Dark Depths; the flavour of the card is that you need to power it using your own lifeforce, and it negates an ability and also damages the source.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Unfortunately, it's probably only printable as 1U or 1B with the opposite color to pay the activation cost. 

Thoughts on the Goblin Curator design?  Honestly, it seems the most general and printable so far.

[JACO]

Why don't you just play a good deck, instead of something like B/R Goblins? The deck I played two weeks ago to Top 8 at Xtreme Games with Sadistic Sacrament in it beats both Tezzeret Vault and Iona Oath Vault pretty easily. If you actually build your deck to beat what you expect to face or have problems with it works much better than just playing cards you like. The requisite hate cards already exist. It's up to you to actually use them effectively.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Veering widely off topic...  Jaco, you realize that I primarily played Doomsday combo before switching to goblins as a meta solution?  I try to play the "objective" best deck for a given meta, not necessarily the best deck for, say, Gencon.   I really don't want this thread to be about me, but if you look at what I've played over the years, it's all trying to score cheap wins off unprepared opponents.

Historical zero-proxy meta in Livonia (goal: beat monoblack and monoblue control, TnT, and Dragon)
--Manland Oath with Living Wish
Champions/Betrayers-era meta RIGHT before Meandeck Oath debuted (goal: beat random jank and rampant 5C tinker-control/slaver)
--UW fish with 4 maindeck Old Man, I was apparently one of the first to run SB Jittes.
Ravnica block-era I played SS. It was widely viewed as a strong meta solution, and that stayed true until Coldsnap forced me into creature combat with 4/4s.

When Gush got unrestricted, I played Doomsday since Gro was absent from the St. Louis meta and Vroman-tested/built decks hated Gro to hell.  Nobody could deal with a deck that won the game off the top card of its library (Balance away my hand...eh...whatever) and ignored grave hate.

After leaving St. Louis, I screwed around with Selkie Slam online, but didn't have free time for tourneys for a year.

I was playing Goblins not because I think it's a fun deck but because I believe that it best supported the meta's best hate: Null Rod, Goblin Vandal, and Earwig Squad.  Increasingly, I'm finding that Bitter Ordeal is probably superior to Null Rod. 

If I went to an event tomorrow, I'd probably bring Iona Oath since it's leagues better than anything else in the format.  I'm thinking it'll get Oath restricted or Mana Drain decks running Bitter Ordeal main (since it's so easily supported by fetches).  I have no particular love of Fish decks, I play to win.  Oftentimes, that means bringing a deck people are unprepared for NOT the best deck for a generalized meta.

[JACO]

Veering widely off topic...  Jaco, you realize that I primarily played Doomsday combo before switching to goblins as a meta solution?  I try to play the "objective" best deck for a given meta, not necessarily the best deck for, say, Gencon.   I really don't want this thread to be about me, but if you look at what I've played over the years, it's all trying to score cheap wins off unprepared opponents.

Historical zero-proxy meta in Livonia (goal: beat monoblack and monoblue control, TnT, and Dragon)
--Manland Oath with Living Wish
Champions/Betrayers-era meta RIGHT before Meandeck Oath debuted (goal: beat random jank and rampant 5C tinker-control/slaver)
--UW fish with 4 maindeck Old Man, I was apparently one of the first to run SB Jittes.
Ravnica block-era I played SS. It was widely viewed as a strong meta solution, and that stayed true until Coldsnap forced me into creature combat with 4/4s.

When Gush got unrestricted, I played Doomsday since Gro was absent from the St. Louis meta and Vroman-tested/built decks hated Gro to hell.  Nobody could deal with a deck that won the game off the top card of its library (Balance away my hand...eh...whatever) and ignored grave hate.

After leaving St. Louis, I screwed around with Selkie Slam online, but didn't have free time for tourneys for a year.

I was playing Goblins not because I think it's a fun deck but because I believe that it best supported the meta's best hate: Null Rod, Goblin Vandal, and Earwig Squad.  Increasingly, I'm finding that Bitter Ordeal is probably superior to Null Rod. 

If I went to an event tomorrow, I'd probably bring Iona Oath since it's leagues better than anything else in the format.  I'm thinking it'll get Oath restricted or Mana Drain decks running Bitter Ordeal main (since it's so easily supported by fetches).  I have no particular love of Fish decks, I play to win.  Oftentimes, that means bringing a deck people are unprepared for NOT the best deck for a generalized meta.

I'm not sure how you could say with a straight face that 'Manland Oath with Living Wish,' 'UW Fish,' 'Selkie Slam,' or Goblins are the "objective best deck" in any situation. They aren't.

There is ZERO chance of Oath of Druids getting restricted, and there is about a 1% chance that any serious tournament player would play Bitter Ordeal in a Mana Drain deck. While a pretty good deck in the hands of a good player, Iona Oath still struggles with the same problems that every other Oath deck has since Brainstorm's restriction:
- Finding and playing Oath before your opponent does something relevant
- Finding and playing Forbidden Orchard before your opponent does something relevant
- Drawing your 1-2 creatures and not being able to put them back consistently

The same cards that helped combat Oath before still work, and even more have been printed (Krosan Grip, Seal of Primordium, Sadistic Sacrament, Qasali Pridemage, etc.). Once people adjust the hype on Oath will die down, and hopefully the asinine threads like this with it.

[TopSecret]

Or is your goal to get people to not even put Time Vault in their decks?

Precisely.  You print hate *so* brutal that despite its power, its questionable if it should be included at all.  Ie. A Time Vault trap that specifically searches your opponent's deck for the card on turn 0 and causes a game loss when you find it.  It makes for a much more interesting meta.

If you want this to be the case,
you would need to print a card that would see a lot of play whether or not Time Vault was seeing play.

This would mean it would have to do some of the following:
1) Be so generally applicable that it's good against every deck
2) Be so good in the decks that see play that everyone will play it
3) Be so good as a new archetype defining card that it is just as or more efficient than whatever else is available (Time Vault)

So, if you wanted to print something that would nerf Time Vault, but didn't suck like most hate,
you wouldn't want it to directly reference Time Vault or the decks that play time Vault.
Otherwise, it would still be Time Vault decks vs. Anti-Time Vault decks, as already mentioned,
which is not a scenario where time Vault is nerfed at all.

Some examples (I haven't taken the time to balance power, they are just suppose to illustrate my point):


1)

Trinket Burst

Instant

You may exile an artifact an opponent controls instead of paying Trinket Burst's mana cost.
Counter target spell.
Ironically, it was the broken trinkets in the artificier's shop that caused the explosion.


2)

Ocean Charm

Instant

Draw three cards then discard two cards,
or draw two cards if an opponent controls an Island,
or exile an artifact with a converted manacost of two or less and draw a card.
As deep as an ocean and conveniently pocket sized.

3)

Griefer Bot

Artifact Creature - Griefer
While you are searching your library,
you may play Griefer Bot from your library.
If you do, Griefer Bot comes into play with a Grief counter.
Remove a Grief counter, exile Griefer Bot:
You win the game if you searched your library this turn
and you have no cards in your graveyard.
1/1
Griefer Bots eagerly enter the worst of fights. They are born with the urge to be broken.


(combos with Relic of Progenitus)

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'm not sure how you could say with a straight face that 'Manland Oath with Living Wish,'

Maher Oath *was* manland Oath.  This is a historical deck in a zero-proxy environment.  Please suggest something better suited to a meta of sui, burn, and parfait?  Remember that few people had the full P9 and couldn't even run the full "Deck."  Also, on the old BD forums before TMD, "Sapphire Oath" was widely viewed as on par with "The Deck" except that it took too long to win the matchup...you'd always end up going to time.

As the meta evolved, Living Wish got you Maze of Ith (for Masknaught!), Gilded Drake, and Sleeper Agent.  It also grabbed Wasteland just in case you needed to nail a Bazaar (fear Dragon!).

'UW Fish,'

Not worth debating.  It put up results in a historical meta and I netdecked an already-successful list.

'Selkie Slam,'

Recently took 3/4 top 4 spots at the French vintage cup.

or Goblins are the "objective best deck" in any situation. They aren't.

I'll happily demonstrate the favorable Gobs matchups against Tez, Oath, Ichorid, and Stax to you.  I remember similarly stupid claims that Dark Confidant only belonged in aggro decks and that it was completely unsuitable for use in the same deck as Drains.  I've tested the Tez match up *hundreds* of times in playtesting and I'll happily put $100 on beating you *personally* in 10+ out of 20 Gobs vs Tez matches.

There is ZERO chance of Oath of Druids getting restricted,

in fact it occurs to me, that if this deck is proven to be the best way to abuse time vault, and DCI continues to obstinately refuse to nerf vault, then the next half assed measure they might take could be to restrict oath. dont care!

While a pretty good deck in the hands of a good player, Iona Oath still struggles with the same problems that every other Oath deck has since Brainstorm's restriction:
- Finding and playing Oath before your opponent does something relevant
- Finding and playing Forbidden Orchard before your opponent does something relevant
- Drawing your 1-2 creatures and not being able to put them back consistently

Vroman has already addressed this elsewhere.

You're an articulate and solid player, and I respect you as such.  But this smells like a personal attack and I don't know where it's coming from.  Since you seem like a great guy to be playtesting with, I'm willing to dump several hours into earning your respect and put $100 on the line to entice you to take the offer.  I've been winning tournaments with meta decks since before TMD even existed and I'll probably continue doing it long after.  Given foreknowledge of a given meta, the best deck for the meta is not necessarily the best deck for the format at large.

[JACO]

You're an articulate and solid player, and I respect you as such.  But this smells like a personal attack and I don't know where it's coming from.  Since you seem like a great guy to be playtesting with, I'm willing to dump several hours into earning your respect and put $100 on the line to entice you to take the offer.

It's not a personal attack, but rather an attack on your idea that Time Vault is some unbeatable juggernaut. I don't attack people, but rather ideas. If it is so difficult to deal with as you claim, then why would you also in the same breath be able to consistently beat it with Goblins? You can't have it both ways. I find it laughable when people claim there is any strategy in Vintage that is nigh unbeatable.

I've been winning tournaments with meta decks since before TMD even existed and I'll probably continue doing it long after.  Given foreknowledge of a given meta, the best deck for the meta is not necessarily the best deck for the format at large.

I agree that metagamed decks are often the best choice, but as an aside, I'm interested in seeing these tournament results for tournaments you've been winning, or even Top 8'ing. Feel free to PM me any links so I can see the decklists you've used to dominate the dojo, because I'm failing to find you in any local Top 8's in the Midwest or anywhere else. I'd encourage you to come out to play at some of the local tournaments that Xtreme Games, Ben Carp, or any of the other close tournament organizers put on so we can see you consistently beat me and everyone else who makes Top 8 every time they play.

[AmbivalentDuck]

your idea that Time Vault is some unbeatable juggernaut...I find it laughable when people claim there is any strategy in Vintage that is nigh unbeatable.

Odd straw man...  It's a vintage deck meaning that it has to contend with other forms of brokenness. Obviously, "Vault decks" will lose games to turn 1 Trinisphere + Crucible/Strip Lock, first turn Ad Nauseam with double Pact of Negation protection, and first turn channel-ball.  I'm not sure who ever made this point?  It certainly wasn't me.

Vault is just difficult to effectively answer since the best current answers are themselves easily answered and most require sticking a permanent.  Past combo decks fold more easily to dedicated hate.

I agree that metagamed decks are often the best choice, but as an aside, I'm interested in seeing these tournament results for tournaments you've been winning, or even Top 8'ing. Feel free to PM me any links so I can see the decklists you've used to dominate the dojo, because I'm failing to find you in any local Top 8's in the Midwest or anywhere else.

You won't find them.  Some of the Livonia players might remember me...but I seriously doubt it.  Nobody posted local results at the time. Though, the games were sanctioned...maybe I can look up records with my DCI number?

I did find them with my DCI#.

Note the consistent top 8's beginning fall of 2003 and undefeated streak against Justin Droba/JDizzle.  Since they stopped sanctioning the tourneys (right after he started playing again), only two matches of that are evidenced here.  There are 2-4 more.

The Doomsday decklist is in the vintage encyclopedia here.  Since StlMtg's forums crashed, there's no evidence that I ever played vintage there.  Just PM Vroman and ask how I did with Doomsday.

[zeus-online]

Here's my best bets, although i think it's rather pointless...vault/key will likely continue to be popular regardless of what hate cards are available.

Ugly Elf - 2G
Creature - Elf
You may play with 6 Copies of -This-.
Cycling - G
When you cycle ugly Elf you may choose an artifact an opponent controls, if you do that player sacrifices that artifact.
3/3
(Even gets around sphinx/inkwell like this)

Stifle-Wannabe - U
Instant
You may play with 6 Copies of -This-.
Counter target activated ability, if an ability is countered in this way it cannot be activated again for the rest of the game.

Über Extract - B
Sorcery
You may play with 6 Copies of -This-.
Search your opponents library for 1 card and exile it.
You loose 2 life.
Draw a card.

Buffed lions - W
Creature - Ninja Cat
You may play with 6 Copies of -This-.
Opponents cannot take extra turns.
2/1

Über Shatter - R
Instant
You may play with 6 Copies of -This-.
Destroy target artifact.
Draw a card.
Split second.
(GG Stax, Sorry, you where innocent)

Unfortunetly i think all of these cards are waaay too powerfull. And people would probably still play with vault/key.

[JACO]

your idea that Time Vault is some unbeatable juggernaut...I find it laughable when people claim there is any strategy in Vintage that is nigh unbeatable.

Odd straw man...  It's a vintage deck meaning that it has to contend with other forms of brokenness. Obviously, "Vault decks" will lose games to turn 1 Trinisphere + Crucible/Strip Lock, first turn Ad Nauseam with double Pact of Negation protection, and first turn channel-ball.  I'm not sure who ever made this point?  It certainly wasn't me.

Do you even understand what a Straw Man argument or fallacy even is, without going to look it up? Your entire opening post is basically trying to come up with a "cookie cutter answer to Time Vault" that you "can advocate," and then go on to say "I'm unaware of any 60 card pile that could go >60% against Vroman Oath and Tez." Later on in this same thread you note that you'll "happily demonstrate the favorable Gobs matchups against Tez, Oath, Ichorid, and Stax." So first you essentially decry the lack of competitive options against Time Vault and Oath strategies, then you say that you have basically figured out the metagame and have favorable matchups against everything with your Goblins deck. I then proceed to point out the fallacy of your argument, which you somehow think is a Straw Man argument when it's based on your own two posits that you have stated.

I did find them with my DCI#.

Note the consistent top 8's beginning fall of 2003 and undefeated streak against Justin Droba/JDizzle.  Since they stopped sanctioning the tourneys (right after he started playing again), only two matches of that are evidenced here.  There are 2-4 more.

Based on the number of rounds in your posted results, we can gather that there are 16 or less people in all but two of those tournaments, if using normal DCI standards. For results I see finishes of 6th, 8th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 7th, 11th, 16th, and 10th. Color me impressed.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Do you even understand what a Straw Man argument or fallacy even is, without going to look it up? Your entire opening post is basically trying to come up with a "cookie cutter answer to Time Vault" that you "can advocate," and then go on to say "I'm unaware of any 60 card pile that could go >60% against Vroman Oath and Tez." Later on in this same thread you note that you'll "happily demonstrate the favorable Gobs matchups against Tez, Oath, Ichorid, and Stax." So first you essentially decry the lack of competitive options against Time Vault and Oath strategies, then you say that you have basically figured out the metagame and have favorable matchups against everything with your Goblins deck. I then proceed to point out the fallacy of your argument, which you somehow think is a Straw Man argument when it's based on your own two posits that you have stated.

Given that I dedicate 60 cards to doing it, I can beat Fish, Stax, and Ichorid 90+% of the time.  I can make the same claim against combo given that I win the die roll, but getting above 60% vs Belcher and Ad Nauseam when they're on the play relies heavily on Mindbreak Trap and FoW.  No imaginable 60 card pile can do that against Tez even if you get to neglect all other matchups.  Goblins is 55-60% hence my choosing 20 matches instead of 10.  The odds of losing despite a favorable matchup are pretty high: 26% for 10 matches, 25% for 20 at 55% chance of success.  Even if you assume it's as unbalanced as 60% in favor of goblins, the odds of losing are still 17% at 10 matches.

You're arguing against a strawman by using the language, "nigh unbeatable."  My claim is that brutal hate is unavailable, not that I can't get a better than 50% matchup.  You're leading the debate away from the original issue: the non-existence of brutal Vault hate.

Based on the number of rounds in your posted results, we can gather that there are 16 or less people in all but two of those tournaments, if using normal DCI standards. For results I see finishes of 6th, 8th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 7th, 11th, 16th, and 10th. Color me impressed.

In a sanctioned meta, playing with a completely unpowered deck, I went 50/50 or better each time I played back in 2003.  Think that through: I was better than 50% in a meta where some players had full power WITHOUT USING ANY MYSELF.  And I beat someone fully powered (JDizzle) with a known, high level of play skill both times that I played against him.  Perhaps instead of considering me a good player, it's safer to say that Justin Droba was a poor player?  Anyways, you thought Living Oath was trash and I demonstrated 50%+ against the meta every week.  That's the point I was proving there.  Doing better than 50% every week also implies that the underlying overall likelihood of a win is something closer to 65%.  (Since 50% implies performing under 50% half of the time.)  Also, ignore everything before 7-29-2003, I was poor and the deck changed dramatically after an influx of cards/money from my birthday that year.  That would have been relevant things like Akroma (huge change for Oath), Stifles, and blue fetches.

The more relevant test of actual, *recent* playskill would be my ability to pilot a deck Steve considers "too difficult" and do well with a rogue version week after week in St. Louis.  Like I said, PM Vroman if you actually care about my ability and you're not trying to distract from the discussion about Vault answers.


Also, the card creation forum has a strong and interesting answer:

Shattering Monkey
{R/G} {R/G}
Creature - Ape Shaman
Whenever a player uses an activated ability of an artifact, that player sacrifices that artifact.
1/1[/b]

This might be suitably strong, but has severe issues against Yawg Will. Lotus Petal >> Moxen if you know you'll be Willing and winning in the early game.

[psly4mne]

I'm supporting narrower, more focused time vault hate with limited applications in other formats and vs Time Walk:

Time Trap
UUU3
Instant
Split Second
If an opponent has taken three or more consecutive turns at any point during this game, you may pay U instead of the CMC.
The next time an opponent takes two consecutive turns, they loose the game.
U: return this card to your hand. Play this ability only  if this card is in the Exile zone or the Graveyard and only during the upkeep of an extra turn taken by an opponent.


This is a somewhat interesting and potentially flavourful card. It does not make Vault auto-loose, but it is more powerful hate than anything that currently exists. It is immune to duress/thoughseize, extract, and counterspells. It has some potential applications in standard if anyone can ever make a Time Seive deck that isn't at least partial Jank. It can win you the game vs Time Walk, but only at a very high mana cost. It's not broken, and doesn't nerf any of the other combo archetypes. It's also not silly and not impossible for the vault player to win through, but close enough that it woudl put a huge dent in the archetype.

If this were printed, nobody would ever play time vault combo. The previous sentence is false.

[Darkenslight]

What about this design?

Time Freeze   
Sorcery
If an opponent has taken three or more consecutive turns, you may cast this card for  and as though it had Flash instead of its normal casting cost.

Target opponent skips his or her next turn.

[Matt]

What about this design?

Time Freeze   
Sorcery
If an opponent has taken three or more consecutive turns, you may cast this card for  and as though it had Flash instead of its normal casting cost.

Target opponent skips his or her next turn.

So your suggestion to neuter Time Vault is to unrestrict Time Walk. BRILLIANT, HOLMES!

I would just print a Choke for artifacts. It doesn't completely devalue TV since Tezzeret can still forcibly untap it, but it does make it play "fair" (costing and a turn). And as an enchantment, is the most difficult permanent to answer. Plus it has splash hate value on Moxes, etc.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Interesting idea:

Neuter Vault G
Enchantment
As ~ comes into play, name a card.  Cards with that name have protection from blue and artifacts in all zones.

Extremely playable, and not specific to vault.

[Wagner]

Quote from: Darkenslight on Today at 05:00:07 AM
What about this design?

Time Freeze   
Sorcery
If an opponent has taken three or more consecutive turns, you may cast this card for  and as though it had Flash instead of its normal casting cost.

Target opponent skips his or her next turn.
So your suggestion to neuter Time Vault is to unrestrict Time Walk. BRILLIANT, HOLMES!

I loled at this. Didn't see any problem with it untill I saw the real casting cost...

Yeah, let's all play 5 Time Walks!

Let's prettend the CMC is 5-6 like it should be, even the this isn't a very good solution, it doesn't remove the combo, it just gives you an extra turn to find an answer. Mogg Salvage costs the same thing and does more!

Also, after three turns, odds are they found a counterspell or you are already dead.