Please clarify, why does it not do any damage?  I thought it would infect a 2/2 creature with 2 counters (-1/-1) and then trample over 9 damage (poison counters) to the player.

That's my feeling, based purely on the fact that the Vintage community like myself has gotten older, and real life responsiiblities have replaced MTG.

The only thing that would allow me to play again is Vintage On-line that is fully supported by WOTC: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=41515.0.

So, for the foreseeable future my P9 paper cards will sit and collect dust.  But, hopefully not lose value as collectibles!

OK, I'm back.  My thoughts on Scars for Vintage:

There will be a Top Poison deck in Vintage.  But, it will get the same bad PR as Flash decks did and something will get neutered.
Leonin Arbiter will become a Fish staple.
Kuldotha Forgemaster will have some success in Shop decks.
Prototype Portal will be tried with minimal to zero success in Shop decks.

Legacy:

Secretly hoping that Copperhorn Scout can make Opposition decks viable again!

I'm with Klep on this.  A fun card, yes.  But, a useful card, no.  I don't see it having an impact on Vintage.

If I have to choose between this and Null Rod, I choose Null Rod.  If I have to choose between this and other spots in a non-Null Rod deck like other utility, Counter Spells, or Draw.  I don't choose this.

There will be at least one Vintage Star in Scars.  The question is which one.  The Mox will be $$$.  But, not too impactful.  I'll get back to you on my thoughts.

I'm missing something here.  What's so great about Liquimetal Coating?

It taps to turn a perm to an artifact until EOT.  Cool, but not great in Vintage.  What did I miss?

A good read. And I think you / Steve are definitely on to something with Bolt.  I don't know which deck it is best in.  But, Bolt answers a lot of creature threats right now.  I'd love to see it come back to Vintage!

The tempo of just the creatures/walker cards alone in the winning deck is so good.  And in the hands of an expert it's almost unstoppable.

It reminds me of when I used to face expert "The Deck" players back in the day.  No matter how well I played or what non-Mirror deck I brought, the best "the Deck" players would beat me with their skill and relying on "The Deck's" tempo every time!

Dark Confidant-->Trygon Predator-->Jace...wow!

To quote Cadet Kirk, "enlighten me".  Or in this case us.  Seriously though, while we eagerly await a place to discuss the B/R topic of this article, an explaination of DCI vs Rules Team vs OP seems reasonable.

I'll admit I'm not 100% clear on the differences.  I'll give it a shot and ask for corrections.  Since, I'm not aware of a place where both are defined.

The Rules Team governs card wordings (errata), rules of the game (i.e. The Rules Book) .

The DCI governs B/R list decisions and tournament protocols.

Is that the gist of it?

Just a disclaimer, let's set the proxy / non-proxy issue aside.  Abiding by strict DCI rules about no proxies or ignoring those rules to increase player attendance has little or no barring on most of the major points being discussed in this article / thread...


So, are you advocating for the removal of Vintage as a DCI governed format?  Are you lobbying for a fully player managed format and B/R list?  That's fine if you are.  But, I think the fracturing of the community that concerns you will happen even more quickly if the format becomes "casual".

If you are not advocating for a player governed Vintage, then concessions have to be made.  And unfortunately they will be one-sided, by us!  Why?  Because Vintage is less than a blip on WOTC's radar compared to the other formats.

So, the concessions I speak of are that we are at the mercy of the DCI to structure their policies around 4 Archetypes and then having them make decisions within those guidelines.  From time to team they may reach out to experts like Steve M, and others to get a "feeling from the players".  But, this will amount to basically a "Beer Summit", to use a semi-current event analogy.  For the most part the DCI will decide what they feel is best for the format, PER THEIR DEFINITION OF THE FORMAT (e.g. 4 archetypes).

I think your passion to grow the format is admirable.  But, the article you wrote, which I commented on, speaks more to your disagreements about the B/R list than it does about growing the format.  So, I think you have found a topic for your next article.  Keep them coming!

Like it or not, as far as the Public Vintage community knows Tom's article from last June is still the DCI's current approach to managing Vintage: http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/44

The key take-away from the article is this:
The four tournament Vintage archetypes that we have identified revolve around four cards: Dark Ritual, Force of Will, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Mishra's Workshop. In the current Vintage metagame, Mana Drain is by far the most powerful unrestricted blue card other than Force of Will, so almost all of the Force of Will decks are also Mana Drain decks. In order to keep a diverse metagame, all four of these archetypes need to have a real shot at winning a match and the archetypes need to stay distinct.

So, when "Matt's" questions are viewed within the boundaries that the DCI has defined; the questions he posed are very simple to answer:

Is it really fair for people who want to play Gush to be pushed out of the format, while Dredge is allowed to warp the format because of some need to prop up all of the “pillars”?
Yes.  See 4 Archetypes comments above.

Who made the decision that Gush decks didn’t make up a sixth pillar?
The DCI.  See 4 Archetypes comments above.

Given that Time Vault is now part of the format, would Gush decks, as we knew them before, still be at the forefront of competitive Vintage?
2 different points.  Gush decks can no longer be assessed "as we knew them before", the format has changed.  If you are asking would Gush be a powerful Draw spell if it was un-Restricted?  Test it in any Blue Combo/Control deck and I think you'll find the answer to be Yes.

Would Brainstorm’s unrestriction be too beneficial to Oath and Tezzeret decks, or would it do more to prop up TPS and Drain Tendrils than it would for control decks?
It would help both.  The bottom line is that BS would prop up 2 of the 4 Archetypes and distort the balance the DCI is trying to create and maintain.

Given the relatively low percentage of Storm decks in most modern Vintage tournaments, would Ponder help juice up that deck, or is it really too broken?
Ponder is not as simply answered as BS.  Although I think it's a powerful spell, it was dismissed by the DCI too quickly.

The restriction of Thirst for Knowledge helped show a number of things, such as the fact that other decks could still function in a Tezzeret/Time Vault world, and that Tezzeret decks would keep finding draw engines no matter what cards were restricted. Now that Dredge, Noble Fish, and MUD have footholds in this format, would Thirst for Knowledge still be too powerful?
Yes, TFK allows Blue Based strategies to exploit a resource that is common in Vintage, Artifacts!

The DCI seems to be managing Vintage out of adherence to a set of principles rather than listening to what people playing the format are saying.
That's a good thing!  Principles allow for consistent decisions to be made.  The vocal minority's opinions can change like the wind!

Is it really impossible to pull 100 Vintage players together?
Very close to being, Yes.  US geography is a barrier.  TO risk in running a large tournament that would attract 100+ is a barrier.  Lack of WOTC support is a barrier.  The US Vintage community size itself is a barrier.  We are not growing.  Players are getting older, work and family priorities are getting stronger.

Comparing Koo's List to Carp's I favor the heavier draw/hand sculpt strategy of Carp.  Consistency in draws, followed by protecting the Enchantment before you Oath has historically been the main challenge of the Deck.

Not leveraging powerful draw and hand sculpting tools like TFK, Top, and even Jace is a mistake.  The Show n Tell plan is OK for the SB.  But, that's about it.

And I think once it starts showing results See Beyond will find a MD spot, as well.

Based on your recent tourney report and list, I'd have to agree that you cut nothing!  But, if your list keeps winning then in a few months you'll have 3 open spots to fill once the DCI Restricts Oath!

Seriously though..... I think this dilemma is what makes Vintage the most intriguing format. 

Although more close in function to NW and Impulse, I think See Beyond is going to take the same path to glory as Ponder.  Meaning mostly a luke warm coming out party, followed by moderate to heavy usage as a 2-3 of in U decks.  I can't imagine that See Beyond would ever have the same fate as Ponder.  But, I would have never predicted Ponder's restriction either!

The jury will be out for a while on whether See will make the cut in non-Oath decks.  I think it will as a 1 or 2 of.  Library / Hand manipulation with a shuffle effect is a powerful Vintage tool at the right CC.

But, for Oath decks, the question becomes should the build focus on the See beyonds (4 of) and forego the recent strategy of using Show and Tell?  I say YES.  See Beyond is never a dead card.  And IMO, the best "reasonable" answer to the Restriction of BS that Oath players could have asked for.

The Sorcery type is a downer and 1U instead of U is, too.  But, look at the silver lining, at least See beyond avoids COTV at 1!!!

Well said.  WOTC should unburden themselves from the Reserved List.

I haven't seen a convincing arguement, with examples, to persuade me that reprints would have a sustained negative impact on collectible card value.

I have seen countless examples to support the opposite view that reprints would in fact not negatively impact value in the long run.

I don't want to see my UL Power or Set of Revised Lands plummet in value.  But, the burden of proof is on the folks who believe that an abolishment of the RL will in fact cause that to happen.

On a positive note, solid attendance at a Vintage event is very important.  Regardless of the diversity of the metagame, good attendance shows sustained interest in the format; this is critical to its longevity.

However, I think we have a LONG way to go until we escape from this Dark Age of Vault / Drain domination.  A quote from the Article:

"Time Vault continues to be a part of the format, but is not really dominating the format like it had been; both Tezzeret and Oath decks have had to adapt to Noble Fish, Dredge, and Lodestone Golem."

The problem historically is that anti-meta decks like Fish are always playing catch-up.  What we are seeing today is a minor dip in Vault/Drain domination, because players have gotten both a little complacent and a little bored with Vault/Drain.  Meaning, they were riding the wave and were not innovating as the much as the other decks were.  So, Vault / Drain lost some ground.  Also, boredom set in.  So, some Vault/Drain players switched to other decks.

Unfortunately, for the format this complacency will subside, Vault/Drain strategies will soon be re-invigorated and in-turn, players will drift back to Vault/Drain due to renewed interest.  Fish and the other strategies will then have to play catch up all over again.

It's a difficult cycle to break.

And to end positive, congrats to the Top 8 and to the Tourney Host on a job well done!

A nice little mainstream visibility for our fav little game:

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/magic-intricate-card-game-flourishes-in-video-game-era/1391085

Title in case link is broken:  Magic: Intricate card game flourishes in video game era

Put yourselves in their position for a moment. Consumer trust is important.  But, sometimes you need to take a fresh look at old "promises" that were clearly made within a very specfic set of circumstances and their market postion at the time.  That has changed.  And they will re-assess those promises in the best interest of their brand.


WOTC has no reason to be specific.  Details are what got them into this RL mess to begin with.


In theory it may be a decent idea.  In practice, the logistics of executing on that idea would be a nightmare.

Does anyone (not under an NDA) have an idea as to when we could see some movement from WOTC on the RL topic?

WOTC wouldn't be breaking their promise in a big way.  In a "big way" implies killing the RL completely.  I'm suggesting that they will re-vamp it to allow them the flexibility of prinitng certain cards in any set (e.g., high print runs) while "protecting" high value cards by only considering them for inclusion in special sets / promos (e.g., low print runs).  It is in their best interest to not box themselves in a corner any more.  They need to be able to re-use their IP at will.  They could soften that blow to collectors by suggeting that certain cards would be only part of low print run sets.


Sure he is, Ben reps the Collector voice.  Steve the Vintage/Legacy player voice.

This is my prediction as to what will transpire.

WOTC will announce an update to the Reserve Policy.

The update will allow them to remove certain cards from the list that could be re-printed in future "high print run" sets, including Dual lands.

It will also, re-assure collectors that rare cards like P9 will NOT be reprinted in "high-print run" sets.  But, these cards will be eligible to be reprinted in special sets / promos like FTV / Judge Awards.

The above will be justified by WOTC referencing their "voice of the customer" sessions (meetings with Ben and Steve) to assess the interests of the MTG player and collector communities.

------------------------------------
This type of re-action is typical.  WOTC sees the need to unburden themselves from past policies and promises that restrict their perceived future growth (e.g., the current Reserved List). But, they "spin" this change in policy in a way that seems to be a win/win/win.

Win 1 = WOTC unburdens themselves from currently not being able to re-use their own intellectual property.  E.g., Reprints!

Win 2 = Players will benefit by increased supply via reprints.

Win 3 = Collectors are assured that the rarest and most valuable cards will not be subject to "high print runs".

Obviously, Collectors assume the most risk in this scenario.  And WOTC assumes the least risk and gains the most benefit.  But, that's business my friends!


BTW, I own Full UL Power and a Full Set of 3rd Dual lands.  I think the RL should be abolished, and reprints should occur.  Format health>Collectability.

I agree with most except these considerations:

Explore - Could this fit into Vintage Elves!....?

Terastodon - Don't overlook the ability of a deck cheating or accelerating this out and targeting its own perms to have a 18 attack on the board very quickly.  BTW, I don't think Oath is the deck for this.

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.

Is Iona the element that is making Oath so competitive or is it the addition of the Time Vault win condition?

Cutting off an opponent from a color (especially Blue) is powerful.  But, I question if Aggro beats with Iona would perform as well if Time Vault wasn't part of the equation.

If your Oath list with Vault/Key begins to dominate Top 8s, is it the Oath components that are the strengths or the synergy with Key/Vault that is starting to put it over the top?

Another way of asking this is, if the Oath deck didn't include Vault/Key as a win condition, would it be slightly weaker of a deck or greatly weakened?

No arguement there.  However, vroman makes an interesting point.  If everyone at a 50 person event is in collusion except me.  Am I at any greater disadvantage than if no one was in collusion?

As odd as it seems.  I think the answer is no.  I'm not at any more disadvantage or advantage either way.  Correct?

Nice report and win.  But, more victories on the back of Time Vault should start waking people up.  I hope.

Wizards has 3 options:

1) Print Vault/Key hate in a new set - Worst option, it rarely has the intended impact.

2) Thin out the Restricted list in a huge way.  I'm talking to the extent of Troy's list in his "sig": unrestrict: Balance, Burning Wish, Flash, Gush, Imperial Seal, Library of Alexandria, Mana Vault, Ponder, Regrowth.  Then see if Vault/Key is still an issue or if we've simply created worse problems.

3) As was said above - http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/features/21_time_vault_marked_up.jpg

According to the Rumor they are NOT reprints.  They are just old cards put into Zen packs.

Vroman got this exactly right.  Put stats and metrics aside regarding which decks or cards are dominating.  Bottom line, Vintage is unfun due to the existence Vault/Key combo.

I'm usually a Drain or Combo player.  Sometimes Fish.  I have never played a Shop deck.  My point is that I hated the 4 x 3Sphere "moment" in Vintage history.  That was not very enjoyable for me.  But, I'd take that over where we are today with Vault/Key any day.

That's not the original intent of the card. Mask's ability is not to let you circumvent the summoning process (it is not Aether Vial).  It's ability is to "MASK" your summoning spell.  So, your opponent should be able to still counter your summoning spell.  He/She just has to make a decision based on limited information as to counter it or not.  Unlike an un-MASKED creature spell that the opponent knows what it is and whether or not to counter it based on knowing.