Teferi, Time Raveler
Legendary Planeswalker — Teferi
Each opponent can cast spell only at any time they could cast a sorcery.
+1: Until your next turn, you may cast sorcery spells as though they had flash.
-3: Return up to one target artifact, creature, or enchantment to its owner's hand. Draw a card.
|Have (2)||Smokingclays , gildan_bladeborn|
|Want (5)||CosmicDragon , wongdeck , poug , , Jebanator|
Printings View all
|Secret Lair (SLD)||Rare|
|War of the Spark (WAR)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
- Teferi, Time Raveler + Wishclaw Talisman
- Ashiok, Dream Render + Narset, Parter of Veils + Teferi, Time Raveler
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Teferi, Time Raveler Discussion
3 days ago
To answer your question, no, this is not standard practice and is a relatively new thing to have this amount of regular bans. Too much money and too much interest in MTG is pushing Hasbro to run WotC with an iron gauntlet
The largest problem has been card design. After 2017, Wizards sacked the Play Design team after the copycat combo slipped through the cracks, and replaced it with a team trying to embody the F.I.R.E. design
F - Is it Fun? I - Is it inviting? R - Does it give lots of replayability? E - Does it excite the players?
Since adopting this new slogan, R&D has been putting out dumpster fire set after dumpster fire set, which have led to some of the least fun, inviting, replayable, or exciting games.
Many of the issues Wizards claims "We couldn't playtest it fast enough, there's just no way we can playtest everything!"
Hasbro is a billion dollar company. I understand that WotC is feeling pressure from the Hasbro suits to perform, but if they need to hire play testers than there is no excuse. Hire play testers. Wizards never even bothered to test Oko, Thief of Crowns +1 on opposing player's permanents, they thought it would entirely be used for food tokens. Wow, remember how fun the game was when Oko was running rampant?
Or the "hope you didn't want to interact ever" Teferi, Time Raveler? Not being able to interact doesn't make the game more exciting Wizards!
Or the 1 card combo Karn, the Great Creator who pulls the hard lock piece from your sideboard?
Or companions, a mechanic so absurdly busted that Mark Rosewater rejected the idea during the Tempest block, and even wrote a long piece clearly showing he knows why the mechanic is a crack smokingly bad idea
So how does this all relate back to bans? Simple. Wizards is now relying on bans to shore up the weaknesses in their sets, since they are either too lazy or too incompetent to put out finished and polished products anymore.
The bans are also being weaponized to sell packs. Look at the Modern format, and the bannings that came after MH1 was released. Citing the extreme power of the Whir of Invention and Urza, Lord High Artificer decks, they decide to ban Mox Opal, mostly because its an older card and Urza is currently the chase mythic in the MH1 packs.
Or the companion rules errata, in which Wizards is too afraid of an outright ban because Ikoria is in paper right now.
Wizards will always try their hardest to keep the newly printed cards off the ban list, and will instead destroy tons of decks in formats while avoiding the problem cards that they just printed. Look how many new cards are shaking up eternal formats? The entire point of Modern and Legacy and Vintage is that they don't rotate, and they slowly change over time, not an entirely new format every 3 months for 2 years.
Ask Wizards to abandon FIRE, sack the entire design team, dropkick MaRo to the curb, and reign in the ridiculous powercreep printings. This game will perish if we continue with these printings and required bannings.
3 days ago
I think you and I have a very different definition of what "jank" is in the context of Modern. I know "jank" is a very subjective term and what is jank to me may not be jank to you. To me, jank refers to decks that can appear like they are fragile or inconsistent, but under the right circumstances, and with correct tuning and tweaking, can actually stomp the competition in the right metagame. I think UB Mill is a fantastic example of a deck that is generally regarded "bad" or "janky". It's unconventional, it's a weird way to win the game, there's a "strictly" better deck in the form of Burn, but people like building & playing mill because there's a novelty/jank factor to it. But put it in a room full of Control, Tron, and Combo decks, and it's going to sweep the floor with all of those.
So, to answer your sarcasm-enfused question, the answer is: no, we don't "aim" to make jank competitive, but we want to create an environment in which lower-tier strategies can be viable again. Emphasis on the word "can". In the current Modern meta, right now, if you're not playing a Tier 1 or 2 deck, you're gonna get annhiliated. That's the fact of the matter. No, seriously, go play a Modern league right now on MTGO. It is absolutely sickening. If you're not doing the most degenerate stuff you can do in Modern right now, you're going to get overwhelmed and you're going to lose.
With Project Modern, an explicit goal of the format is to make a format that players enjoy. We're not hesitant to cards that have either been enablers for oppressively dominant strategies or have been a precedent for what is Wizard's new card design philosophy, which is, well, overpowered. And we're being as liberal as we can be with the banlist.
As I type, we're having discussions over whether we should ban some of the "curse" planeswalkers printed in War of The Spark. There is deliberation taking place RIGHT NOW over Teferi, Time Raveler, Karn, the Great Creator, Narset, Parter of Veils, and Ashiok, Dream Render, and whether the constraints they put on certain strategies ruin format health and overall enjoyment enough to warrant a ban. Gauging whether to ban something ban something based on how universally reviled/unenjoyable it is can prove to set a really bad precedent.
There's also discussions about ax-ing Urza, Lord High Artificer, Faithless Looting, and a lot of other cards. Perhaps if you did some research and looked a little more into the format, you'd realize that we DO have a pretty extensive & repressive banlist, and we will as the format progresses forward. With a more liberal ban list, and Discord bots to keep track of archetype data and expose to the public eye which decks are dominating, I hope that we will foster an environment in which lower tiered strategies can potentially do well every once in a while.
And that's okay to differing opinions. I'm not trying to impose my defintion of "jank" on you, nor am I trying to make you believe the exact same things that I do. I'm just trying to clear up a discrepancy in what you may have read in my initial statement versus the environment we're actually trying to create with the format.
When you state that "It looks awfully like you're just making Modern, but a Modern run by what is effectively the same thing as the Commander Rules Committee", I think that's an oversimplification of how things actually are. I guess (?) you could say that the Power Nine is just a council of community members/players, sure. But a committee is better than no committee in my opinion. These are people that have discussions & can get multiple viewpoints on things from the playerbase on the daily.
Also, the open data approach I mentioned with the Discord bots is a great way to make sure that council members are making informed, data-reinforced decisions based on actual tournaments and metagames. Take that as opposed to the Commander Rules Committee, which doesn't make decisions based off of data, and just makes decisions off of common complaints about overpowered cards. They're informed decisions, sure, but due to the casual nature of EDH and how it's difficult to track who is winning when people don't really care who wins the game, the EDH committee can't really be informed about who wins most often, what "matchups" are good/bad, and so on.
3 days ago
When you state that "I don't think an extra Modern's gonna... work", I know a Discord server of 1,100 members who would stand to disagree with you.
If Wizards of The Coast is going to keep printing overpowered cards with obscene, format-warping mechanics, and then have to backpedal on their mistakes repeatedly, then YES we're gonna need a new format. Mistakes like Lurrus of the Dream-Den, Gyruda, Doom of Depths, and Yorion, Sky Nomad. And there's no sign of Wizards stopping either. Don't forget that Wizards is a subsidiary of Hasbro, a corporation, and they're not exempt from the "greedy corporation" rule. They print new cards and sell them so that, at the end of the day, the corporation can grow and make money and grow and make money and grow and... you get it. They don't really care about the player experience; they say they do, but deep down, they really don't. They care about profits. They care about growth. That was evidenced with the companions. They definitely didn't test those cards for eternal formats and guess what happened? They had to ban Lurrus & Zirda in Legacy/Vintage along with an errata to fix what they messed up. Take that as opposed to R&D doing their job and just not messing up in the first place.
People want something to look forward to in these dark times, not something they don't have to feel negatively about. We're already experiencing a lot of doom and gloom as a human race as is; we don't need a ravaged Modern format compounded on top of that. It's no secret that's Modern's in a pretty garbage position now - look at all these people making posts and writing articles about it:
And I think Project Modern is that very format that people want to look forward to. Both in terms of gameplay enjoyment and longevity. From the sheer effort that our computer nerds are putting in, from the work that our admin/mods are doing facilitating everything with tournaments and the card pool, it's pretty evident that a lot of people want this format to work out. At first, I was kind of skeptical like you; I under the impression that this format would crumble to the ground. But being in the server, partaking in the discussion, and playing some of the most actual fun games of Modern I've played in a long, long time has given me hope. There are some people out there that are genuinely passionate about this format, and they want to make things work.
On the topic of Splinter Twin - There's actually a group of 2 or 3 people actively testing the card out to see if it's right for Project Modern. I can put you in touch with them if you'd like. Here's a plug for one of our members playtesting vs. the Twin deck:
So I agree with you on the sentiment that many cards in WAR, MH1, ELD, TBD, and IKO are fun and enjoyable. I feel like you're under the impression that this format will be a time capsule and we'll keep the sets relegated to 8th Edition - Modern Horizons for the rest of the format's existence. This, however, is not the case. As much as some of us would like to relive the days before Teferi, Time Raveler was printed, we have decided that we cannot stay grounded in time. We will eventually add all the sets leading up to Ikoria and further. We are just staggering their inclusions in order to give it some time to work out the kinks. Hence the monthly set updates/B&R announcements. Our current roadmap for the next couple months looks like this:
June 1st: [WAR] + [MH1] + B&R
July 1st: [Core20] + [ELD] + B&R
August 1st: [TBD] + [IKO] + B&R
So we "release" two sets out to the public to play with, and simultaneously, we also ban any cards that were problematic as it pertains to that set's release. For example, yesterday, we made WAR and MH1 legal, but made the ban announcement of Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis, Arcum's Astrolabe, and Mycosynth Lattice.
6 days ago
There are a couple points I'd like to touch on that you addressed, TypicalTimmy. I'll try to do this in as much of a civil manner as possible.
Let me address your first point about sets. You are correct in that 8th Edition - Modern Horizons is what a lot of people refer to as "traditional" Modern. We initially picked Ravnica Allegiance as an arbitrary starting point because that's the set right before War of The Spark was printed. In other words, that's the last set before shit really hit the fan. You are correct about Modern Horizons and War of The Spark not being added yet, but that's going to occur very soon at the beginning of June. Actually, according to our current roadmap, we'll be doing an addition of two sets every month for the next couple months, along with a banned and restricted announcement concerning problematic cards from each added set (cards like Mycosynth Lattice, Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis). This way, we don't have to waste time stress testing the format for cards we already know are busted out of the window.
I can't read your mind, because you didn't type it out, but I can infer that you're concerned that this format will be a time capsule, and we'll keep the sets restricted to 8th Edition - Modern Horizons for the rest of the format's existence. This, however, is not the case. As much as some of us would like to relive the days before Teferi, Time Raveler was printed, we have decided that we cannot stay grounded in time. We will eventually add all the sets leading up to Ikoria. We are just staggering their inclusions in order to give it some time to work out the kinks. Hence the monthly set updates/B&R announcements. Our current roadmap for the next couple months looks like this:
June 1st: [WAR] + [MH1] + B&R July 1st: [Core20] + [ELD] + B&R August 1st: [TBD] + [IKO] + B&R
As far as the inclusion of new sets past Ikoria: We will be giving a month's grace period from the set's release date until they are legal in Project Modern. This is so that we may do extensive testing and acknowledge any cards that need to be weeded out before the set ever gets "released" to our format.
Now to address your point about weekly tournaments. Yes, you are correct that in a bracket style tourney, there will fundamentally be a single winner and several losers. And because of that, people will want to always build the most competitive deck they can. Competitive meaning "built to win". But, that is only if we were to implement a bracket system, which we don't. We implement swiss style tournaments, which is a style in which competitors are paired using a set of rules that ensures that each competitor is paired with someone of a similar winning (or losing) record, and makes it so that each competitor play cannot face each other more than once. You can read more about swiss on Wikipedia, but we don't use a bracket system.
Using your own words, you come to the conclusion that "weekly tournaments incentivise the exact same thing you aim to go against".
Let me differentiate something for you that I think you might be confused about. We're not aiming to go against people playing with powerful cards. We want that to happen. That is how a meta in Magic develops. X beats Y, Y, beats Z, and Z beats X. In reality it's a lot more complex than those three options, but all in all, we're trying to make sure that for every Y deck that X beats, there is a Z deck that can beat X. We don't really care so much about power level as much as balance. We're aiming to have a stable meta that can get shaken up every once in a while, not every set.
The specific reason that I mentioned being able to play with your tier 4 strategy again is because of the absolutely ridiculous power level of the current Modern. Not too many years ago, maybe in 2017/2018, Modern used to be a format in which you could play your borderline casual Treasure Hunt/Seismic Assault deck at FNM and have decent success. Such is no longer the case. Even if you were to play a tier 3 deck like Mono U Tron today, you're gonna get destroyed. Project Modern is going to focus on regulating the environment of the format so that lower level strategies such as Mono U Tron can adapt to the meta and find competitive success.
In 2020, I think the last thing that players, specifically Modern players, want is a gigantic meta shake up. Modern, for a long time, has been recognized as the format where you are able to buy a deck, play it for a little bit, and set it aside for an extended period of time without fear of your deck being outdated. For example, let's say you theoretically had a spouse that typically prevented you from going out on Friday nights and playing FNM. Let's say this theoretical spouse leaves town for a work trip, and you're suddenly alone, bored on a Friday night. You could merely grab your Modern deck, make zero adjustments to it (or make a couple sideboard adjustments) and go back to your locals and play at FNM. This is no longer the case. There are meta shake ups on the regular, and there's now a good chance that your Modern deck you bought 4 years ago is useless. A lot of Modern players, me included, are really really tired of this. In order to stay even somewhat relevant in the meta, you need to buy new cards pretty much every new set in order to improve your deck or buy a whole new one. Modern's become a lot like Standard in that regard.
Now let's go back to your suggestion. Making Ultimate Masters, Commander 2014, Battlebond, Unstable, Conspiracy, and Commander Anthologies would be an absolute shake up. And while I personally think that would be spicy, and it would be enjoyable for a while, I do not think such a format would be sustainable for the long term. Additionally, most Modern players want to play Modern with Modern's card pool, not Legacy's. I think your proposition is an interesting idea for a whole new format; but you would have to garner a lot of interest to make it a real thing. Having said that, I don't think it's something Modern players would enjoy. Source: I am a Modern player. It's pretty evident from your comments that you aren't a Modern player, or haven't played Modern in a long time. So please, before you type a comment that is only going to embarrass yourself, I recommend you do some research beforehand.
1 week ago
Felidar Guardian is unfortunately banned. I looked there first. Charming Prince brings the piece back at the end of the turn, so the ozolith interaction is not as seamless since counters can only be removed from it and placed back on creatures during the combat step. Saheeli though could be interesting, I’m not opposed to a shift to Jeskai.
Right now I have a direct 1 cost flicker in Void Snare that can target any non-land permanent, Teferi, Time Raveler’s minus ability, Yorion, Sky Nomad as a mostly guaranteed companion play, and I feel like one more full set would finish it.
2 weeks ago
kbouma: My Aminatou, the Fateshifter arrived today, along with my Oko, Thief of Crowns and Teferi, Time Raveler. Excited to decrease the CMC of the deck a little bit, but not sure what to cut for Aminatou!
2 weeks ago
Add Grand Abolisher for redundancy maybe? Would you be up for the idea of Dragonlord Dromoka in the 99 instead? I ask because I think adding blue would help your intended strategy so you can add Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, and Teferi, Time Raveler among others. As for a bant commander I cannot say at this time... I meant to read before bed not really make responses XD.
2 weeks ago
Control player here. I've talked at length elsewhere about how much I hate Teferi, Time Raveler, but this article has some good history and exploration on Teferi cards so let me try and present a more encompassing viewpoint.
What Teferi does, in context isolation, isn't an issue. It's existed before - on Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir - and that's considered a fine card. The beautiful aspect of Magic design is that practically every aspect of gameplay is open to attack - that's why we have spells like discard, land destruction, and so forth. The stack is no different in this regard.
3feri is a collection of smaller problems that adds up to one major problem:
- His static is asymmetrical. Prison static effects are usually symmetrical (Winter Orb, Thalia, Guardian of Thraben) for balance reasons - it means you can't just jam them into any deck, you have to build your deck to carefully break the symmetry of the prison. Now, asymmetrical static effects are a fine thing to have too, but have generally been higher costed (compare Leonin Arbiter and Aven Mindcensor) to account for this. 3feri is costed incredibly well for his power - years ago, a 1WU instant that matched his -3 would probably have been Standard playable!
- He comes in WU colors. This is a major point that I think is overlooked by many. If he was 1WG or 1RG instead of 1WU, we'd probably be looking at a card fair creature decks could board in against control decks. Which is totally fine, control hosers have existed forever and fair creature decks are always a welcome sight in Magic. But instead he's 1WU, so coupled with the asymmetry of the static, that means that this supposedly anti-control card fits into control shells. This has several unpleasant implications, including the once-amazing mirror matchup now being reduced to "resolve 3feri first ez game".
- He protects himself on the board with his -3. This gives him an amazing floor of being a pseudo 3cmc Time Walk, which is part of why he's so widely seen - because even against decks that don't particularly care about the static, he can still reset a threat while maintaining card neutrality (if they kill it with board presence) or advantage (if they use a spell to be rid of it). Contrast to the other widely-maligned curse walkers, Narset, Parter of Veils and Karn, the Great Creator - these do not protect themselves on board, making counterplay to the board much more feasible and the walkers themselves less of an auto-include.
- He doesn't say "opponents can't cast spells on your turn" like Dragonlord Dromoka or Grand Abolisher. He literally says opponents can cast spells only at sorcery speed. This has the side effect of shutting off a ton of random stuff like suspend, cascade, and other mechanics that were clearly never intended to be shut off by the static, but are anyways.
3feri isn't "broken" in the traditional sense of the term, and doesn't deserve a ban (most likely) on raw power level concerns. But he's one of the faces of this new, post-WAR era of Magic and is an unpleasant, constant thorn in gameplay across every format from Standard to Vintage. Even if you're playing a fair creature deck that cares little for the passive, he's a card-drawing bounce that serves as a strong tempo play (or, if he survives, you're now vulnerable to instant-speed wraths and discard), and if you're playing a stack-interaction deck, you either answer this guy on the stack yourself or you probably lose.
tl;dr He just represents everything that I (and many others) hate about the current design era of Magic.