Some great lists this week! Very fun to see them all in action. Of course you especially gotta love Kelly's deck.
I've never known of Brian Coval before this year's VSL, but he seems like a very intelligent person and a very good player. However, I feel like he punted at least a few of his games this week, which I was a bit surprised to see.
Cut the Vault, keep the Tinker. Tinkering for Lotus is often a valuable play, and having it lets you run Bot in the sideboard for certain matchups.
So you want to play Tinker with no Time Vault or Blighsteel maindeck? That seems very loose.
I don't cards like these that mess with the rules (or the shelter if that makes sense) of the game - cards like the Leylines, Chancellor of the Annex and, especially, Serum Powder.
I don't think - and don't hope - that this is good enough to see play, but I'm sure it will be tested.
So much discussion is pretty crazy actually, but I guess most of it comes from a more general level than just this specific card. When the dust settles, I think we'll see this card in some sideboards (probably PO most likely) and that's about it. It won't see much maindeck play, it won't spawn new archtypes or push fringely played (playable?) archtypes like Hatebears or whatever you want to call them to become metagame staples.
Edit: I don't know why this is replying to @Khahan but for some reason it is.
TLDR: "X cant be done" cards are incredibly boring, dont take any play skill from both sides and are just very lazy and bad game design. The more cards like this see print, the worse MTG gets as a whole.
This is almost exactly how I feel, specifically the part about lazy game design. Non-symmetrical cards require much less thought and timing than others, especially when backed by 4 cavern of souls.
I play this game because of its intricacy, decision making skills, and interactivity, and personally feel that cards that diminish these possibilities are lazy at best, detrimental at worst. If this card said "players" instead of "opponents", I would have roughly 0 things to say about it and would consider it a well designed and legitimate (highly playable) card, but as it is, it is removing most of the thought process away from both parties. For example, imagine Ensnaring Bridge stating "opponents creatures". Or similarly for Tangle Wire, Sphere, etc.
I've got no issues with people playing their extremely hateful decks when said decks have had a thought process behind them, but cards that lend themselves to less interactive game states do not sit well with me, and I feel that this is one of the more egregious examples in a long time.
Well, most cards in Vintage are non-symmetrical from Island to Paradoxical Outcome. Why should it be different when it comes to creature?