[Article] Ascending the Vintage Learning Curve: An Introduction to Vintage Magic

[Machinus]

I thought this article was very good. Thanks to Steve!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/374

[Liek]

Hooray! My Fish deck is given some recognition!

"Great for beginners" is actually pretty deceptive. Hand this deck to someone that hasn't played Vintage and they won't know what to do with most of the cards (Meddling Mage and Chalice of the Void, namely.) However, I will agree that it's easier to play than Long or Gifts.

[brianpk80]

Hooray! My Fish deck is given some recognition!

"Great for beginners" is actually pretty deceptive. Hand this deck to someone that hasn't played Vintage and they won't know what to do with most of the cards (Meddling Mage and Chalice of the Void, namely.) However, I will agree that it's easier to play than Long or Gifts.

Agreed, Vial Fish with Chalice doesn't play intuitively right off the bat.  It's a deck whose strength grows in proportion to the pilot's knowledge of the field.  Aggro-Oath of Druids is probably the easiest deck to play for someone having no knowledge of the format. 

-B

[TopSecret]

     Thanks for the article!
By the way, where did the average number of 4.5 turns per game come from?

[Dante]

     Thanks for the article!
By the way, where did the average number of 4.5 turns per game come from?

You do realize that Steve (Smemmen) is still banned from TMD and can't respond right?  Maybe one of his teammates will chime in.

Dante

[Royal Ass.]

I thought this was a good article for someone interested in getting into type one.  However I think it should have been mentioned that most all type one tournaments are proxy tournaments.  If I didnt know that already, and reading this article, I might write off vintage as a possible format to play because of the cost to entry, especially seeing that every deck runs black lotus.  I'm sure most people can figure it out on their own that proxys are allowed in most major tournaments, but it should have been mentioned.

 The only reason I could think that it wouldnt be mentioned is that perhaps Wizards didn't want it in the article since they don't support proxys.  It seems that they have taken a decriminalizing approach to proxys.  They won't condone them, but they aren't really punishing the tournament sceen built on a proxy infrastructure.  Putting articles like this on their website send mixed singals about proxys.  On one hand they say we can't use proxys and get DCI points, but then on the other hand they congradulate us for building a thriving type one scene and just ingnore the fact that proxies are part of the glue to that structure!

Does anyone else find this strange?

[forests failed you]

Steve probably got his average of 4.5 turns from his testing.  Gifts V. Grim Long.  I think that number is extremely short.  Most of my games with Slaver play out to an average of about eight turns per person.  I find it hard to believe that the average when incorporating all decks is that low.  Especially when you consider that Stax, Slaver and Fish make up a large percentage of the Metagame... and that of those decks not very many have the ability to kill consistently before turn 4.5.

[dicemanx]

Steve probably got his average of 4.5 turns from his testing.  Gifts V. Grim Long.  I think that number is extremely short.  Most of my games with Slaver play out to an average of about eight turns per person.  I find it hard to believe that the average when incorporating all decks is that low.  Especially when you consider that Stax, Slaver and Fish make up a large percentage of the Metagame... and that of those decks not very many have the ability to kill consistently before turn 4.5.

Well, he could very easily mean the average point at which a T1 deck gains near complete control that all but assures victory for the competent pilot. Stax might need 10 turns to actually win, but the win could really have come as early as turn 1.

I think that Steve could have done a better job selling the format in a mtg.com article. The article has a number of inconsistencies, and half the time you'd be easily forgiven in thinking that he's trying to dissuade people from even trying T1. Read the forum response by Telluric - he raised the kinds of questions I thought a non-T1 player would raise after reading that piece. Mentioning things like "set openings" was particularly bad, for instance.

[forests failed you]

Fair enough, Peter.  However saying that a Vintage game lasts on Average 4.5 turns, and saying that most Vintage decks can achieve their objectives in 4.5 turns are very different things.  With all of the powerful cards in the format it is possible to break out of almost any lock or any unfavorable situation.  Just so long as you are not dead.  ESG, ESG, Crack Delta Rebuild EOT.

[Dante]

I thought this was a good article for someone interested in getting into type one.  However I think it should have been mentioned that most all type one tournaments are proxy tournaments.  If I didnt know that already, and reading this article, I might write off vintage as a possible format to play because of the cost to entry, especially seeing that every deck runs black lotus.  I'm sure most people can figure it out on their own that proxys are allowed in most major tournaments, but it should have been mentioned.

 The only reason I could think that it wouldnt be mentioned is that perhaps Wizards didn't want it in the article since they don't support proxys.  It seems that they have taken a decriminalizing approach to proxys.  They won't condone them, but they aren't really punishing the tournament sceen built on a proxy infrastructure.  Putting articles like this on their website send mixed singals about proxys.  On one hand they say we can't use proxys and get DCI points, but then on the other hand they congradulate us for building a thriving type one scene and just ingnore the fact that proxies are part of the glue to that structure!

Does anyone else find this strange?

Don't forget that most NORTH AMERICAN tournaments are proxy.  Most (or a significant) European metas are fully sanctioned and thus non-proxy.

[dicemanx]

Fair enough, Peter.  However saying that a Vintage game lasts on Average 4.5 turns, and saying that most Vintage decks can achieve their objectives in 4.5 turns are very different things.  With all of the powerful cards in the format it is possible to break out of almost any lock or any unfavorable situation.  Just so long as you are not dead.  ESG, ESG, Crack Delta Rebuild EOT.

Exactly. In fact, even if your opponent has gained sufficient control to win, you can still try to maximize your options as far as outs are concerned and make it more difficult for your opponent to win a won game - its not unusual to mount comebacks even when the situation looks grim, but to increase chances of such success requires some skillful play/focus and not having a defeatist attitude. It would have been nice for Steve to elaborate on that, because people new to the format will look at that number (4.5) and be dissuaded. This is almost as bad as talking about Vintage decks having a "fundamental turn of 2" - to the uninitiated, that sounds particularly unattractive when considering trying the format.

[forests failed you]

Agreed.

I went to SCG VA with a few friends this weekend.  And one is a pro standard player named Phil Cape, who had never been to a big Vintage event before, or at least not an SCG.  On the ride home I asked him what he thought about Vintage, compared to Standard.  His response was that

1. The games went longer than Standard games.
2. The games were swingier than Standard games.
3. There was much more opportunity to outplay people in Vintage because of the complexity and difficulty of the decisions.

This is comming from a pro tour standard player, and as a pro player myself, I agree with his analysis 100%.

He also asserted that in standard by the end of turn 4 you can tell who is going to win the game 80% of the time with about a 75% degree of certainty.  Which, given Steves statistic of 4.5, seems to be about the same.

I thought the article was good, and insightful, but probably could have likened Vintage to the other formats a bit more.  The biggest concern about Vintage by players who don't actually play is that it is broken, unfair, expensive, and uninteractively luck based.  If I had written the article I would have spent more time directly addressing each and every one of those concerns, rather than in some ways reinforcing those existing beliefs. 

[GrandpaBelcher]

A young couple came to the most recent Sandusky tournament packing Academy Combo and Test of Endurance and won a combined 1 match even though they each played all five rounds.  I've heard that they're planning to come to the next tournament as well, which is awesome, but I'm afraid that if they don't play more competetive decks they'll lose the enthusiasm they have and won't come back ever again.  I initially thought maybe I could refer them to this article to inspire them with other options, but I don't think I will because I don't want to intimidate them and scare them away.  So I'm going to try, over the Internet, to suggest some Vintage ideas without sounding like a know-it-all and saying, "Do it this way or you'll never win ever."

It's difficult to make Vintage an attractive option for players who have only heard that it's expensive and broken.  I like reading Menendian's articles for the same reason I like reading George Will's columns--they talk up to me and make me feel smart even while teaching me something new.  My guess is that's not the typical Magic reader, though, and less so the typical reader of Wizards.com.  A young player who might honestly want some new way to play the game he loves and approach the article optimistically might just as easily be turned away by the four-syllable words in the second paragraph.

From my limited experience, Vintage is every bit as challenging and back-and-forth as any other format, just in a different way (e.g. creatures being used as utility rather than a dedicated win condition).  Plus, with proxies and some budget decks, you can budget as much or as little for either format as you see fit.  In other words, Vintage can be a format for anyone, as long as they're not intimidated and are willing to try it.  Somewhere it should have been said that Vintage is still Magic, just a different way to play; if you enjoy Magic and want to try something new, try Vintage.

Rather than being a primer and saying, "Here are some good ways to get into Vintage:  1.  Find a nearby tournament..." the article says in a lot of places, "Look at all of these insane plays and expensive cards you could use if only you would try to understand them, you Standard-minded simpletons."  It has to be a turnoff because it plays right into what prospective players already believe.  Saying essentially, "think of the possibilities" after presenting a Force of Will, representing Mana Drain opening does nothing for people unfamiliar with a format that's "unfathomable" and "mind-boggling."

[shrugs]  I think one of the posters at Wizards said something about this being an odd Monday front-page and chalked it up to being a short week and "better now than never."  That's really what it seemed like.  I, and I'm sure others, would have appreciated a "friendlier" article, but it's probably good just to get Vintage mentioned at Wizards without someone saying, "Oh, broken, broken, buy some Time Spiral instead."

[Machinus]

2. The games were swingier than Standard games.
3. There was much more opportunity to outplay people in Vintage because of the complexity and difficulty of the decisions.

I think these two statements contradict each other, and I would disagree with the third one. When victory depends less on the power of your cards and more on the tightness of your play, then skill is rewarded. Flores and Smmenen sort of discussed this already at SCG, but I think this is less true in Vintage than in other formats, simply because the sum of the advantages gained by playing intelligently is outclassed by the sum of dice rolls and restricted cards a significant amount of the time.

Anyway, I'm glad to see more publicity for Vintage. It's a good thing when pros enjoy the format.

[Dante]

Steve's TMD status isn't appropriate for this thread, I'll split off a new one, check Basic User Community.

Dante

[Moxlotus]

Even if 99.99% of people think the article sucks, those are people that wouldn't be playing Vintage anyways.  If anybody gets even the slightest interest in Vintage because of this article--it is a success.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Even if 99.99% of people think the article sucks, those are people that wouldn't be playing Vintage anyways.  If anybody gets even the slightest interest in Vintage because of this article--it is a success.

The immediate counter-argument is that a better article might have encouraged 0.02% to try Vintage, and not dissuaded the other 99.99%. 

I'm not saying Steve did that, the article wasn't bad.  But I think Moxlotus is using the wrong lens in terms of long-term format health.

[Implacable]

I felt that Steve did a good job in general, and I disagree with a lot of what was said in the official MTG forums, but I also think that he approached it the wrong way when he chose to outline specific plays.  What makes Vintage truly great, in my opinion, is the fact that it is so much more fluid than the other formats.  With more mana, cards, and power, you can make plays that vary widely from game to game, and the variation between your play is what separates the good from the brilliant.

[jcb193]

I liked the article, but I think one of the major flaws our community makes is trying to advertise this as "the format that supports 8,000 cards."  While this is technically true, I don't think it is very realistic for a new player to think that. 

Yes we can pull any card at any time, but the vast majority of decks will work with about 200 cards.  Trying to appeal to the casual gamer who likes playing unique decks/cards will not grow this format.

I think, as much as I hate to say it, Vintage needs to embrace the true backbone of our format.  It is explosive, it uses powerful cards, you can win with flair, and you can feel special about being a Vintage player. 

[Implacable]

I liked the article, but I think one of the major flaws our community makes is trying to advertise this as "the format that supports 8,000 cards."  While this is technically true, I don't think it is very realistic for a new player to think that. 

Yes we can pull any card at any time, but the vast majority of decks will work with about 200 cards.  Trying to appeal to the casual gamer who likes playing unique decks/cards will not grow this format.

I think, as much as I hate to say it, Vintage needs to embrace the true backbone of our format.  It is explosive, it uses powerful cards, you can win with flair, and you can feel special about being a Vintage player. 

That's a good point.  As elitist as it sounds, the only reason that I would want the casual players in my FLGS to play Vintage is to add to the prize pool.  Vintage will only appeal to tournament players from T2 and Extended looking for a different experience, and that's fine.

[meadbert]

A young couple came to the most recent Sandusky tournament packing Academy Combo and Test of Endurance and won a combined 1 match even though they each played all five rounds. 

http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=16589

If you want to win matches with Test of Endurance run the Well of Lost Dreams/Words of Worship combo.  Drawing 7 cards or gaining 35 life a turn is insane.
I think Dave went 3-4 (or maybe 2-3-2) with this list.  He got 78th but there were 148 decks so that was actually sort of middle of the pack.

[Komatteru]

Hooray! My Fish deck is given some recognition!

"Great for beginners" is actually pretty deceptive. Hand this deck to someone that hasn't played Vintage and they won't know what to do with most of the cards (Meddling Mage and Chalice of the Void, namely.) However, I will agree that it's easier to play than Long or Gifts.

Fish is the best transition deck for talented players coming in from other formats.  Hell, there are decks in other formats that even look like Vintage Fish does.  Creatures and tempo play a critical role in the other constructed formats, and Fish is all about those things.  Decks like Long and Gifts?  Not so much (well, tempo is important to everything, but neither of those are much for tempo-based decks).

[forests failed you]

2. The games were swingier than Standard games.
3. There was much more opportunity to outplay people in Vintage because of the complexity and difficulty of the decisions.

I think these two statements contradict each other, and I would disagree with the third one. When victory depends less on the power of your cards and more on the tightness of your play, then skill is rewarded. Flores and Smmenen sort of discussed this already at SCG, but I think this is less true in Vintage than in other formats, simply because the sum of the advantages gained by playing intelligently is outclassed by the sum of dice rolls and restricted cards a significant amount of the time.

Anyway, I'm glad to see more publicity for Vintage. It's a good thing when pros enjoy the format.

These two things do not necessarily contradict each other.  By swingy, it means they went back and forth; ie, it looked like one player was winning, then the next turn it looked like the other player was winning, et cetera.  In standard, Phil's arguement was that after turn one it is always very clear who is winning and aside from extremely powerful cards from control decks; wildfire, wrath of god, akroma, it is very difficult to sway the tempo of a game.  For instance in an aggro mirror, Bird on the play, into Call, into Glare, it is pretty clear who is going to win that game.  Or, Bird into Call, into Scryb Ranger, Call, and remand in hand... Once again fairly established who will win this game.  The arguement that I recieved was that Vintage takes more time setting up, and therefore has more opportunity to play out of grim situations as a result of the more powerful card pool.

As Steve states in the article:  X years of brokeness is balanced out by X years of Answers.

[Moriarty]

I thought this was a very good article with many valid points and well worth the read.
I especially liked the fact that, unlike so many North-american articles before it, it didn't bring up the subject of proxies at all, although I realize now that might be because Wizard 'discouraged' any mention of it. I did not like the reference to baseball personalities (was it? I'm not even sure) which means nothing to a European like me, nor did I like the link to paying-members-only articles on SCG.
Still, a very nice article. Thanks.