[Free Article] On Vintage

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

I feel like some have really lost focus a little bit here.

First of all, regarding the article:

You wrote: "I would restrict Lodestone Golem; Jace, the Mind Sculptor; Oath of Druids; Mana Drain; Bazaar of Baghdad; Gush; Dark Confidant; and Standstill."

Brian, do you think restricting everyone's toy will increase or decrease player participation? I tend to believe that when the workshop player can no longer play his deck he will be upset. when the oath player cannot play his deck anymore, well, maybe he will play another deck, maybe not. If the BUG-player cannot play with confidant anymore, the drain player not with drains and the dredge player not with bazaar, the gush player not with gush and the control player not with standstill... It is my strong believe that many players would quit.

Do you think out of the 30something participants on a medium sized tournament we have today, more or less than ten people would stop playing?
Do you think these players would be replaced by others who say: "yes, finally the format is ____ (insert positive word)! Let's play vintage!"
I tend to believe that the exodus of old players would by far outweigh the influx of new ones. when there is no one to play, no one to teach the traditions of vintage, there will be no scene going on. I mean even less than today.

Look, it comes down to simple psychology: Do people like to have what they appreciate taken from them and being told: "Don't worry, you'll just have to adapt, i bet you'll like it!"?
I don't think so.

You claim that you would like creatures to be relevant. Yet, you state that balance would do less harm to these decks than oath of druids. this shows for me that you have not understood creature decks. Just one thing: I believe 4xoath is far weaker against creatures than 4xbalance. I'll explain why:
- Oath hits the board. Nothing happens. If trygon predator/qasali pridemage are on the board, the card does niente, but hit the graveyard in quick fashion.
- In the turn after the oath is busy doing nothing, the creature player has the following options: A: destroy the oath with one of the following choices: abrupt decay, qasali pridemage, nature's claim, just to name the "good" answers. B: the player can do anything of the following: play grafdigger's cage or true believer, or attack for lethal.
- Balance resolves: all creatures are wiped. possibly the creature player has to sacrifice lands. possibly the balance player has to discard a few cards. Plays to circumvent that: none.
(other than counters which work on oath just as fine).

Yes, balance is more difficult to leverage into a win turn 1. Unless there is a deck built to do exactly this.

You know who yould actually profit from your suggested restrictions in my opinion (if there are still people playing)?
Belcher, Storm, Show and broken, and vintage goodstuff. Big blue would be insane, because they don't have to spend many sideboard cards against dredge and MUD to a lesser degree anymore. they could play 1 thirst 1 confidant 1 gush 1 gifts 1 jace... you know, it doesn't really matter what cards blue plays. Of course, if they can play 4 jace, they will, but it's not like they couldn't replace it.

And yes, no one cares about time vault anymore. I don't care if it's banned or not.

One thing about MUD: while it's frustrating to lose to the bigfat on the draw and while yes, MUD games are a bit coin-flippy, MUD decks serve a role in the metagame:
they prevent that sick combo decks that just roll over to MUD on the draw take over the thing. Because the argument people bring up whenever some crazy combodeck is brewed is: "but you roll over to MUD on the draw". It serves a role in the metagame like dredge serves a role in the metagame.

All in all, i have to say I think this article is what you say you'd be accused of: whining.

Maybe the timing was just a bit off, just a few days after BUG fish has won the biggest tournament of the world. (A deck which couldn't be played anymore with your suggested restrictions)

Creature decks don't need restrictions, they will grow stronger with every new set.
---

On others, talking about unrestricting library or other stuff like that and saying that the DCI shouldn't be concerned with card prices etc.:
what is your goal? Are you trying to prove something to someone? What is the potenial benefit of unrestricting a card that costs 120$ now? What are the risks? What are the possible benefits? who even WANTS this? What benefit is there to any cold, unflinching understanding of game dynamics and interactions when it's just alienating so many people, and when most of all, it is completely uncalled for?
In my opinion, the players and their sense of tradition are what they are: the ones who play. if the game is perfect, but no one is there anymore... I start repeating myself.

Thank you.

[Grand Inquisitor]

You claim that you would like creatures to be relevant.

That's why my earlier post was so suspicious.  If Brian is sincere then he has a gross misunderstanding of past and present vintage environments.

The restrictions he recommends have a high probability of moving the format in a highlander direction.  There have been highlander vintage events and they are completely dominated by combo.

[personalbackfire]

@Brian
Thanks for writing this article.  While I have my opinions/criticisms with some of things you were pushing for overall I liked the article and appreciated that you wrote it. I would be interested in hearing or reading more about your thoughts on vintage in general, as opposed to reading articles about specific match ups or vintage set reviews.

[Prospero]

Brian, thank you for writing this piece.  I may not agree with everything that you've written, but it's heartening to see someone taking the time to write about the format, engaging the community, and working on theory and deckbuilding.

[Shax]

I personally think Mana Drains are improved with the Unrestriction of Regrowth.

Regrowth with Mana Drain allows you to do neat things like use Cunning Wish(s) multiple times regardless of if they get countered or not, and the Wish targets being vastly improved because of extra Mana Drain mana.

[DubDub]

I personally think Mana Drains are improved with the Unrestriction of Regrowth.

Regrowth with Mana Drain allows you to do neat things like use Cunning Wish(s) multiple times regardless of if they get countered or not, and the Wish targets being vastly improved because of extra Mana Drain mana.

Recall, if Cunning Wish doesn't get countered, then it exiles itself during resolution.

[rilegard]

I enjoyed reading your article. Currently I'm not playing T1, but I try to stay connected to the format as much as possible. The discussion about what defines or should be a healthy format can be endless providing how subjective this term may be. Some people even think that vintage shouldn't be expeted to be healthy because this is somehow inherent to the format.

Unfortunatedly it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to attract new players to Vintage just based on restricting/unrestricting/banning decisions.

[DubDub]

Unfortunatedly it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to attract new players to Vintage just based on restricting/unrestricting/banning decisions.

Agreed.  Imagine that Brian got his way, and massive changes were made to the restricted list that powered-up relatively creature combat and creature interaction etc.  Let's assume that this makes for a much more fun format that objectively more people would like to play.

Well, we still have a problem.  We have to tell newly interested players either: you can play with proxies in local/regional tournaments, but never a GP or a tournament series like the SCG $5K Opens, or...

...you have to shell out several thousands of dollars for power (broadly speaking) over and above what's needed to play Legacy to play non-proxy Vintage, which basically gets you access to non-proxy events primarily held in Europe, and the Vintage World Championships.

Who's going to do that, or more pointedly, what mass of people is going to do that?

At a minimum, the expensive cards that one would need to go from Legacy to non-proxy Vintage in that situation are: BUG-colored Moxen, Mana Crypt, Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall and Time Walk.  More or less, right?  Which is $3,000 at least, right?  (Without an influx of demand that this situation would rely on.)  "Hey, Jace is restricted here, that saves you $300!"  Not.  Compelling.

Restricted list considerations are basically irrelevant in the face of such a price barrier.  The format can't meaningfully grow while the Reserve list, and the larger shadow-policy endorsing high price barriers to eternal formats, remains in place.

[voltron00x]

I think my main issue is I feel the author presupposes the problems with Vintage can be fixed somehow by better or different management of the B&R list.  I don't agree.  While I did write an article criticizing the DCI for being far too safe in their management of the list, they've done a much better job since that time, beginning with adding Gush back into the format.  **Note that I am not in any way attempting to say I influenced this change, just that it occurred and happened to align with what I asked for, which obviously I think is great.**  The problems Vintage faces - card cost and availability and the proxy issue, competition with two other Eternal formats, the popularity of the game and resulting saturation of events, aging of the format's player base, no aligning format on MTGO, etc. - do not go away if the format has a different B&R list.

Also, I think Vintage is more fun right now than it has been in some time, but obviously this is just one man's opinion.  Some recent printings and the player base (at least locally to me) opening up the deck selection beyond Dredge, Shops and anti-Shops has made the format much more enjoyable for me; this is because I prefer a diverse and evolving format far more than one that most players feel is "solved" and is in rock/paper/scissors mode for an extended period. 

As an example, the top 8 of the last TDG tournament had six different decks in the top 8:  Dredge x2 (after there were zero players even on the deck the previous month), Burning Oath x2, Landstill, Merfolk, Christmas Beats, and Martello.  Looking at the previous event, where Empty Gush made top 4 and BUG and Bomberman made top 8, there is great diversity running the gamut from budget creatures attacking to combo to pure control.  Merfolk won both tournaments!   

I can't imagine Balance and Burning Wish both being unrestricted as a good thing.

I still think TFK should come off the list, and if it proves too good, move it back.  It wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.   Probably the #1 card that needs to be monitored for Restriction, in my opinion, is Griselbrand.

To echo what Steve said, this article is definitely too long and too broad, but, it has sparked conversation so that is a good thing.  Glad that you're still writing about Vintage at all given your success in other formats.  Even if I don't agree with much of this article, I'm still glad it exists and thank you for writing it.

[rilegard]

I have always wondered why Type 1 tournament organizers in conjunction with players don't propose and test slight variations of the banning/restricted lists for specific tournaments. In fact, given the poor support that WOTC has traditionally provided (at least in Europe) I can't see no reason to go ahead; if vintage is still alive it's thanks to the people that has maintained it and played it along the years.

In this way, t1 players would have a more dynamic format that:
-checks periodically which cards could be safe to be played with (more than one copy).
-provide us with real results that, of course,  won't be quite accurate to predict the future dominance of a "old/new archetype", but the alternative is to theorize about what would happen if...
-it's more resistant versus speculation (who wants to invest in cards that can't be used week after week).

Many players love casual non-sanctioned formats and variants (highlander, only commons,...). Why shouldn't we
use this kind of experiences to help improve T1?

[Samoht]

I have always wondered why Type 1 tournament organizers in conjunction with players don't propose and test slight variations of the banning/restricted lists for specific tournaments. In fact, given the poor support that WOTC has traditionally provided (at least in Europe) I can't see no reason to go ahead; if vintage is still alive it's thanks to the people that has maintained it and played it along the years.

In this way, t1 players would have a more dynamic format that:
-checks periodically which cards could be safe to be played with (more than one copy).
-provide us with real results that, of course,  won't be quite accurate to predict the future dominance of a "old/new archetype", but the alternative is to theorize about what would happen if...
-it's more resistant versus speculation (who wants to invest in cards that can't be used week after week).

Many players love casual non-sanctioned formats and variants (highlander, only commons,...). Why shouldn't we
use this kind of experiences to help improve T1?

We almost ran a no restriction event. We only signed up 6 players. It was pretty cool to see what people came up with. One guy wanted Flash, the rest was a mix of Storm and Shops.

[DubDub]

I can't imagine Balance and Burning Wish both being unrestricted as a good thing.

Why?  Enlightened Tutor and Oath of Druids are both unrestricted now.  Forbidden Orchard even offers an excuse for having a way to produce white mana.

Or are you worried about an aspect of Balance besides the creature control?

[voltron00x]

Creature control is the least of my concerns with Balance.

[DubDub]

I guess I should have asked, what does Burning Wish have to do with it?

[voltron00x]

With a Balance in the SB, you effectively have like 1/6 of your deck being Balance, between 3 copies, 4 Wish, DT, Vamp, Mystical.  Even if such a deck wouldn't be abusive - and I think that it would - it would be really irritating to play against.  A likely scenario is the game resets to top-decking repeatedly because the board and hands keep getting leveled by Balance.  No thanks.

[vaughnbros]

I just want to say I did enjoy reading this article and the debate that it has spurned.


I've been meaning to come and give a response to the misconception of vintage being a die roll format because of workshops.  

I'd like to take a look at magic in general.  What format is the die roll truly irrelevant?  Legacy?  Modern?  Standard?  Draft?  Sealed?  I personally feel like I'm at an advantage whenever I win the die roll in any of those formats.  Legacy, Modern, and Standard also almost always have their own die roll decks just as vintage does, usually in the form of either RDW or storm.

I think if we look at going first in a mathematical equation it makes a little more sense as to why it is such an advantage.  Essentially according to the rules of magic in order for the play/draw rule to be fair the following must be true:

Draw Step = Untap Step + Main Phase + Attack Phase + Upkeep + End Step

So basically a draw step has to be equal to all the other phases combined.  I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem like a balanced equation to me.


Now if you don't agree with me that this a fundamental problem with magic rules in general then I also have an argument for vintage specifically.  

In our current metagame Workshops isn't the only deck that is exploiting being on the play.  Burning long is also another deck that greatly benefits from winning die rolls.  However, from my experience outside of these two match ups the die roll is almost as irrelevant as it can possibly be.

When we consider a workshopless format you have to think about all the brutally powerful die roll decks that could and probably would flood into the format, Neo Academy, ANT, Griselbrand decks, and many many more.  The entire format would have to warp in order to protect itself from these decks.

So what do all these die roll decks do so well?  They can all produce exorbitant amounts of mana on turn 1.  How you may ask?  Artifact mana, more specifically moxen, black lotus, and sol ring.  In other words the most staple cards of vintage as a format.  They are in fact the culprits for exacerbating the imbalance of the play/draw rule.

[forests failed you]

I have always wondered why Type 1 tournament organizers in conjunction with players don't propose and test slight variations of the banning/restricted lists for specific tournaments. In fact, given the poor support that WOTC has traditionally provided (at least in Europe) I can't see no reason to go ahead; if vintage is still alive it's thanks to the people that has maintained it and played it along the years.

In this way, t1 players would have a more dynamic format that:
-checks periodically which cards could be safe to be played with (more than one copy).
-provide us with real results that, of course,  won't be quite accurate to predict the future dominance of a "old/new archetype", but the alternative is to theorize about what would happen if...
-it's more resistant versus speculation (who wants to invest in cards that can't be used week after week).

Many players love casual non-sanctioned formats and variants (highlander, only commons,...). Why shouldn't we
use this kind of experiences to help improve T1?

I really like this post and this idea.

Vintage is already a format that rarely gets sanctioned, so there is no problem with playing an alternate restricted list in a proxy event.  I think this would be really fun, the problem is that any time one starts playing with "house rules" they risk not getting as big of a turn out -- which i assume is why people don't do it.

It is at least a possibility though, which is cool.

[rooneg]

I really like this post and this idea.

Vintage is already a format that rarely gets sanctioned, so there is no problem with playing an alternate restricted list in a proxy event.  I think this would be really fun, the problem is that any time one starts playing with "house rules" they risk not getting as big of a turn out -- which i assume is why people don't do it.

It is at least a possibility though, which is cool.

The problem goes further than that though.  Yes, holding one event with an alternate restricted list will probably result in fewer people showing up, but worse than that it won't really tell you terribly much.  Best case scenario is someone builds a deck with the new card you're "unrestricting" and takes the event down.  You now know that it's possible to build a strong deck with the newly unrestricted card, but you don't know what happens as the metagame shifts due to people accounting for the presence of the new deck.  Without the time for the rest of the field to adjust you really haven't proven the card is safe to unrestrict, and in order to get that time you're now talking about running multiple events in a row that suffer from the (theoretical?) reduced attendance.

[pony16]

If Bazaar of Baghdad is restricted, I will likely quit. Until then, I will competitively Dredge in as many tournaments as possible because for me it is fun.