Yeah, that would be the solid engine.

And, it's a helluva good time to drive. I'm still going for the Honda, as far as value/longevity -- but for pure fun, the SHO will be the right call.

Whatever you choose to buy, check out this link (the best I could find):

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/

It'll give you a searchable database of TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins). Essentially, it's a database of known/common problems on any car. Often times a technician will go to the TSB's in the event of a tough problem to solve -- but they work just as well for predictions of what may come. Don't let it scare you, as not every problem will happen on every car... but it's good stuff to know.

In regards to what you've updated with, the Supercharger doesn't sound so bad, but it is a lot of miles. I'd still go Honda. Any idea what engine the SHO has? A few, as I understand, came with Yamaha engines that are pretty solid. The 4.6 isn't a horrible engine, but has common oil leak problems with age (a bit worse than could be expected of most cars).

Good luck with the hunt, if you should stumble across anything that I might prove helpful with -- don't hesitate to ask.

I'd go with the SHO or one of the Hondas.

As a little bit of background, I work as a Service Manager of a Firestone, so I see these things in all the time. Here's what I can tell you without looking at the cars:

The Thunderbird is a bad idea. Most commonly, the springs break on them -- and it's a fairly costly repair. More often than not, broken springs blow out the struts, and when you stick an alignment on top it's big bucks. The suspension isn't the greatest, as Ford always seems to have problems with tie rod ends, idler/pitman arms, and the like. If you know what particular engine is in it, I can give you more details on that -- but I haven't seen a Ford engine I've been impressed with in years.

The SHO is a sort of a gamble. The cars are a blast to drive, and though they come with similar suspension problems it's rare that they blow out springs. This route is best if you're some form of car enthusiast looking for a car that you can work on to pimp out. (Just think -- foil everything!)

Hondas, as much as I hate to say it, kick the ass of most domestic cars. The biggest fault is the interference engine (which the SHO may even have), which requires a timing belt replacement every 60-90 thousand miles. Beyond that, with basic maintenance (and a few unforeseeable repairs), they're solid. If I'm not mistaken, the most common problem with the early 90's Accords was that the body didn't last as long as the rest of the car.

Buy some Bondo

 - Jim

Edit: In regards to Juggy's Grand Prix or Grand Am -- do not buy one with a 3.1 or 3.8 engine unless the lower intake manifold gasket has been replaced. It's a very common problem, a 6 hour job to repair, and has been going on for a LONG time. This same problem happens in the 3.4's, but I don't believe either of the Pontiacs come with that engine.

Do you really think they would do Jester's Cap again, after it was in 9th? I'd think not, but then again, I'd think not on this entire situation.

Might I ask where you got your absinthe from? I know that the only absinthe that truly fucks with your head is the type with wormwood -- but as I understand it's illegal to sell in the US. Obviously, it can be purchased off the 'net -- but I've also heard of problems as it comes into the country.

Light beer is excellent. I'm a big fan of Blue Moon, as you are, as well as Hacker Pschorr. A good dark beer is good on occassion, but usually only as an Irish Car Bomb. PBR, of course, is genius... and I also can't get enough of the 'ole Rolling Rock.

I kind of like this idea. I'm not sure whether it's viable or not, but it's quite interesting.

I think it's important to note a few things:

A) This is not fish.
B) Though the title says turn 3, there's enough disruption that most Vintage games aren't fully decided by turn 3. Even if there's a huge swing (Tinker/Colossus), this deck possibly has the answer.
C) For the sheer surprise factor alone, this deck could do decently well.
D) You get to know what you're up against fairly quickly, game 1, and can adjust your play accordingly.

I think we're looking at it a bit wrong. If a turn one Thief gets online, it's a matter of removing threats.

Vs. Gifts: Colossus, Time Walk, Recoup, Yawg, Belcher... it's a player decision.
Vs. Slaver: Welders, Titan/Pentavus/Trisk/whatever. Slaver isn't such a huge deal if it can't be repeatedly welded, and can be countered.
Vs. Stax: Tough match, but removing Workshops or Crucibles could be a massive help.

The problem here, and the reason I think Recall was cut, is the 2 that you need to pay to use the Rootwater's ability. That can end up tying up a lot of mana -- mana most Vintage decks would spend drawing cards.

The other things to consider, here: Decks that still play wishes. Sure, they're few and far between, but they've effectively circumvented your strategy. I think we're looking at pretty much auto-lose against Stax, save for a very lucky draw. Something like FCG, or the other random decks you'll run across in a tourney will probably tear you up as well, on speed alone. I'm agreeing with whoever it was above, that the idea is interesting, probably not viable, but would work much better in a more "controllish" skeleton. With the ability to make the deck last more than 3 turns, you've got the ability to remove innumerable cards, and with proper defense (counter/STP) you might be able to drag out a game long enough to steal the win. I just feel that the proactive side of this deck is too retroactive, naturally, to make a big dent.


Actually made me laugh out loud.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~orlove/magic_stuff/Ray_T4/page%2020.jpg

Middle-left

At that same point, however, I think they might be beneficial. It's imperative in this format to last past the first three or so turns, and Keeper has traditionally been one of the best to do just that. Gemstone, in the early turns, will give you the flexibility to cast anything in your hand. Their drawback is problematic, however, even if one or two die -- you won't be missing a land drop towards the midgame. By the time it runs out, you'll ideally be pulling more, or would have already stalled on a land drop anyway. I couldn't realistically expect anyone to keep hands of Cities/Mines -- and I'm not sure I'd even advocate playing both -- but I think that the use of one three times should put you to a point where Crucible is playable, the opponent is 'paused', or you are in control. This isn't a land that you're going to tap every turn, and with the draw built into this deck, CoW shouldn't be terribly hard to find.

Realistically, I think Crucible could be huge in the deck. Not only is it good for fetchlands and strip recursion -- but perhaps it'd be viable to use Gemstone Mines. In a deck that can be very color dependant, I'd think this to be a massive advantage. Between City of Brass and Gemstone mine, with fetches, it shouldn't be hard at all to be at maximum 'mana efficiency'.

I wouldn't think so, it's a bit too expensive. At 3bb, I think most would prefer to use Scrying (as you said), simply for the flexibility of it. It's probably even too slow for reanimator or madness in any format as well. Sure, there's ritual and such -- but there's much better things in most cases to use that for.

For my old-school scrubby games. Yes, they were that bad, where I dominated with Mindripper and Megrim -- but damn, they were fun.

I'm also a big fan of:



The art rules, and I've always been a fan of the ridiculous nature of the card... as well as the old "Horror stories" of the "master flippers" who could take out entire boards with their skill.