Yes, there is something you are misunderstanding.

You are reading a one sentence blurb on a website from a European Group, and then ascribing that specific elements to the broader universe of communities with similar interests.  Why are you citing that website to support what *you* like about Old School Magic?

There are many reasons that people play Old School.  But, for the communities of interest that I am aware of and interact with, the element you deem to be "most important" probably does not even make the top 3.  

See: http://www.vintagemagic.com/blog/back-to-the-future-an-introduction-to-old-school-magic/

As I said:


There are many reasons that people play Old School.  I would rank (in no particular order): 1) flavor, 2) nostalgia, 3) different metagame dynamics than exist in modern Magic, 4) an interest in history, etc., 5) original art aesthetics as all more important than the "struggle" to acquire cards.  


By "The Format" you are referring to Swedish 93/94, but that is not the same thing as "Old School Magic."  

I define Old School Magic as follows:


As I said in my article, that is merely one of an infinite number of expressions of Old School magic.  They disallow Revised for flavor reasons as much as exclusivity/elitism.  Revised detracts, in their view, from the full richness experienced when playing the format because it is not as aesthetically attractive.  They are in the minority view on that point.


Because that wasn't true for everyone.  I played in a community of players from 1993-95 where everyone in my group - about a dozen high school friends of mine - had every card we wanted. I never really faced resource constraints of the kind you described.  I had a fully Beta variant of The Deck I played (and designed myself) in 1994 and 1995 in many tournaments in the midwest when I was just 14 and 15. I can remember playing in many local and regional tournaments, like Orb Con, prepubescent, with a fully powered and Beta-fied UW control deck.  

Moreover, it's not about what is "supposed" to or "not supposed to."  Your incredibly rigid and narrow view of what's happening here is I think part of the problem.  There are many different goals and many different ways of achieving those goals.  Some communities emphasize scarcity; some don't.  Scarcity is by definition part of the format, but Revised was released in 1994, even before the Dark.   For those communities that wish to emphasize the other goals first and foremost, then permitting Revised is a perfectly reasonable trade off, and not a "bastardization."   That's just ridiculous.    


Yes it is.  But your error is assuming that every Old School community seeks the same goals.  There are many reasons to play Old School.


You are entitled to your subjective opinion on that point - but you are not entitled to conclude that any other format is just a "bastardization" of what Old School is or should be.  That's just your opinion, and not an objective assessment.  

Personally, I think CE/IE are really nice.  The cards tend to be of higher quality condition, and have the rich flavor that brings Alpha and Beta into the format.  I would much rather look at a CE Black Lotus than an Unlimited one.  Don't others agree?  

I thought this was the new NYSE playmat for a second.

I thought we were discussing the differences between the formats and which we preferred?  That's why I started posting in the thread.

Just because you don't agree with me- and I'm well aware that my opinion about this puts me in the extreme minority- isn't a good reason to tell me to stop posting.  Doing that doesn't change my opinion.

Yeah, so you should just stop posting in this topic, since we're here to discuss the wonders of Old School Magic, "hardcore" or not. Enforcing only original editions also helps the price boom we're witnessing, and makes the format even smaller. If you want exclusivity go to a VIP club or something.

About the Armageddon Clock rule, is it meant to be balanced or just fun?
I wonder if there isn't a way to cheat that. Mirror Universe would become pretty good on extra time.

No, I don't think you are right.  Is there something you think I'm misunderstand here?

http://oldschool-mtg.blogspot.com/p/historik.html?m=0


Furthermore, if you don't think artificially high barrier to entry is an intended feature of the format, I'd love for you to explain why it is that the Swedish rules disallow stuff like Revised.  If you think it's all about "pimpness" as you've said above, then why not allow, say, FBB?  That was certainly considered pretty fancy back in the olden days that I can remember.

I agree that the format is intended to recapture the feel of the original early 90s MTG scene, as you say, but I fail to see why you seem to think this isn't supposed to include the dynamic of card scarcity and high required personal investment that was every bit a part of the format as getting Scepter-locked.  Granted, the $$$ isn't viewed as a good thing by many players (and I might point out that getting Scepter locked isn't very positive experience, either), but it seems to be pretty explicitly made clear in the part I quoted.

The US takes on organized old school Magic- formats that are only slightly more exclusive than Legacy- simply appear to have different goals from the Swedish one- a format far more exclusive than even Vintage.  The difference in exclusivity, primarily due to the difference in attitudes toward CE, make the US versions a lot less interesting to me, though. It might not surprise you that I've also never been a fan of Vintage proxy events, either.

No.  Old School Magic formats, including 93/94, were intended to give people a space to experience old school formats, whose metagames, strategies, and dynamics greatly different from that of constructed formats today.  The Swedish group indeed tried to maximize "pimpness," etc and keep the barrier to entry higher, but what you are saying is patently false.

Moreover, the Swedish groups have long encouraged various budget decks, like WW.


Well, that's your mistake - the US versions didn't arise as bad variants of Swedish versions.  The first US "Throwback" tournaments were held years ago, and without knowledge of the Swedish groups.  Nor is there only one "good idea." 

I'd argue, and I think more would agree with me than you on this point, that the point of the formats is to give players a feel for the metagames and power levels of Old School magic - formats that no longer exist - not to try to recreate the dynamics of money and investment that existed then and today. 


What's "hardcore" about the format isn't the barrier to entry - but the attempt to preserve the vision and feel of what the Type I metagame felt like in 1994 or 1995 or even 1996 (for those version that permit cards from those years).   It has to do with what it felt like with T1 Juzam or Hypnotic Scepter was a devastating play.  Or what it's like to be Sceptre locked.   It has nothing to do with budgets.  You miss the point entirely. 

Well, I haven't said anything about sideboard, but often 1 tasigur was out, when aggro was not supposedly relevant (storm) or when my grave was in danger (dredge). I cannot see tasigur as 3 or more, since it's a good card to play after 3/4 turn, or to combo, but being a legend you don't want 2. Besides it's a human, so it's supposed to enter the battlefield. If it's removed, auriok has more chances to survive.

Some asked: why tasigur and not mentor? There are more than 1 reason. The most important is that it allows instawin with infinite mana. In 4th round, when I had combo'ed, my opponent said "ok, go on" and I said: "well, you know, I draw all my deck, play vault key... I just won". He said that since I said I drew all my deck, I could have troubles in less friendly environment, and he is true. Being able to with without library is no problem with tasigur.
Another reason: answers. tasigur survives bolt and sudden shock. Sulfur elemental does not affect it. Illness in the ranks, engineered plague (well, just a little), abrupt decay, virulent plague, engineered explosives... nothing. Just swords and dismember.
Moar: body. Since I'm not chaining drawing spells, mentor would hardly get over 4/4, specially in opponent's turn. Tasigur is a better blocker, winning time to combo, and puts a decent clock if needed.
Moar: card advantage. if you don't know what to do with those 4 mana at opponent's eot, use his ability. at worst you are getting a mox, that can be used for thirst.
Finally: Tasigur searches for combo. if you haven't find lotus, he can dig further, nice combination with top`


So yes, I'd play 2 again, providing I'm not going back to red. Fayden plays a "similar" role as tasigur, being the mid game card that attracts removal or gets slow advantage. Pyrite also has a similar role, providing instawin. Chewers and wear//tear have no real replacement. But tasigur, tutors and deluge (if I remember to bring it), and maybe yixlid have no replacement too.


Edit: Btw, thank you very much for helping me with the sideboard the night before. All adjustments were for good, and helped me to understand better my own deck

I think he meant if people allow CE and IE.

Congrats on the finish!

Sounds like Tasigur was pretty good for you. Would you play 2 again?

Congratulations Xouman on the performance and the report.

Keep it up!