[Premium Article] The History of Vintage: 2003

[Smmenen]

After months of working on this article, I'm extremely proud to be able to share with you the final product. This was a challenging joy to work on.  I hope you enjoy it as well.  And fans of the series should be pleased that I've demonstrated a commitment to continuing to tell this story.  I'm eager to hear your reaction. 

http://www.eternalcentral.com/schools-of-magic-history-of-vintage-2003/

Here's the free excerpt:

[Begin Free Excerpt From Schools of Magic: History of Vintage – 2003]
Many Vintage players active in 2003 look back on that year with a special fondness. There was a dynamism that was sometimes approached since, but never equaled or surpassed. To many, including myself, it was the Golden Age of the format. What made 2003 so special was a convergence of factors that could not be replicated, and would be undesirable to repeat. The audacity of the new mechanics and shocking printings certainly generated interest in the format, from Mind’s Desire to Chalice of the Void. But it was not these printings that gave 2003 its dynamic energy. It was the innovations from within the format, the surprising discoveries, the untapped synergies, and the narrative coherence that created a diffuse sense of excitement and discovery. Rather than merely borrowing or importing technology or ideas from other formats, the innovations within Type I in 2003 were often generated from within it, evidencing a maturity that the format had heretofore lacked.

2003 was the flowering of a format that had been marginalized and dormant for many years. When green shoots emerged in the early part of the decade, it was the Type I community, organized through web-based communities, that connected far-flung enthusiasts from across the globe. The Type I tournaments at GenCon and Origins provided a place to compete on an annual basis, but it was the community-based tournaments that revived the format at the grassroots level. When these pockets of activity reached a critical mass, then they became the nodes of regional competitions such as The Mana Drain Open (aka The Waterbury), which in turn, helped make events like the Type I Championship a success. Given the lack of support from Wizards, the Type I format, far more than other formats, was a bottom-up rather than top-down format.

The dramatic changes in the format in 2003 were not always welcomed, however. In many quarters, there was a sense of whiplash, of too much change too fast, of instability and even brokenness. Long-time players could be forgiven for feeling that way, but it found a prominent expression in Oscar Tan’s 2003 State of the Metagame report in late October. Oscar articulates a perspective that seeks balance between the competitive dynamics now evident in the format and the stability, diversity, and fairness that he felt made the format unique. Calling for a host of restrictions, including Mishra’s Workshop, Oscar polled a number of other players with similar sentiment. The table he published, featuring the viewpoints of the format’s most prominent voices, illustrates the spectrum of opinion on what to restrict and why, with Oscar and Brian Weissman on one extreme, and myself on the other.

In an article published around the same time, I attempted to surface the dynamics that were playing out in the format, and the schism between the more casual “Old School” players and the more progressive, tournament oriented “new school” players. I wrote: “Tectonic plates are moving in the Type One community. The fault lines run deep, and a series of quakes – culminating in the debates over Mirrodin – have exposed them.”

Without sharing notes, Oscar offered a similar assessment: “Mirrodin comes at the height of rapid, radical changes in Type I, both in the metagame and in the community. All these changes and a new set with some very powerful cards have combined to bring very strong-and divided-opinions about the state of Type I to the fore.” One aspect of this debate was the prevalence of net decking. Old School players felt that it undermined the diversity and overall health of the format. I was, and remain, in the camp that net decking, far from a negative, was a sign of a maturing format, and allowed the metagame to cohere in ways that were healthy. Ultimately, Oscar called for changes that would slow the format down. As he concluded, “Type I is too fast, and that proposing to slow it down is not a move to make Type I less competitive.”

Oscar was initiating a debate that has never fully resolved, but that no longer simmers. The consensus that won that debate, perhaps by historical default rather than persuasion, was that the speed of the format was a result of its increased competitiveness. This view took the position that the genie could not be put back into the bottle; even with massive restrictions, which might undermine the incentive to innovate and potentially reduce the diversity of the format, the format had fundamentally changed and evolved beyond the casual confines that had defined Type I play for many years. The DCI’s decision not to enact another restriction wave, only targeting Burning Tendrils, set the format on a clear course, indicating that they were comfortable with the speed of the format so long as the format was sufficiently interactive and strategically diverse.

The questions of speed and competition weren’t the only polemical debates that arose in the wake of these discussions. Matt Smith wrote another controversial article that built on these themes, but raised another concern: the degree to which authors such as myself or Oscar influence the metagame, and the degree to which the growing stable of format “experts” and pundits opine, correctly or not, about the future of the format. As he said:

“If there are any guarantees in life, this is one of them: There will always be speculation. You have to decide how much of what you hear is true. I think a recent example of this would be a call for the restriction of Chalice of the Void. Some people are asking for an immediate restriction. I, on the other hand, think it might do the format some good. I know that I would certainly like to see the card in action before I decide whether it needs restriction.”

Both Oscar and I were guilty, along with others, of overhyping some cards or alarmism at times, and certainly less than 100% accurate in our predictions about the future of the metagame. But Matt’s concerns also underscored another change in the format: the emergence of established voices that carried greater influence on not only the metagame, but the management of the format itself.

In my article addressing these issues, I closed by sketching my vision for the future of the format:

“Magic is in its early years, just reaching its stride. As time goes on, the game will continue to evolve, not only in terms of format, but presentation and content. We are seeing little glimpses of the future now – new card face, the popularity of Magic Online, and I imagine some thirty years from now Magic will not only exist, it will be so radically different from what it is now, that it would seem superficially unrecognizable, in much the same way that 8th Edition seems so foreign to Alpha. Unlike some of the great strategy games of antiquity such as Chess or Go, the strength, and a lot of the appeal of Magic comes from the change inherent in the game: New sets, new decks, new abilities, new mechanics, even new rules, and most of all new metagames. […]

As Magic grows older, its roots will become more sacred, more important. While change lies at the very appeal of the game, the foundation must be kept up. While Type Two, Limited, and Extended may be the money centers, Type One is the heart of Magic. It represents a spark of something original, the genius of human creativity. In spite of its gargantuan design flaws, perpetual imbalances, and powerful nature, it also demonstrates that chaos can be tamed. That the very nature of the game allows enough flexibility that nothing in Magic is so badly damaged it can’t be addressed.”

This is a vision of the game and the format I continue to embrace, but I was mistaken in one key respect: the cards may change, the decks may change, the sets may change, the abilities and mechanics may change, even the rules, but the core Schools of Vintage Magic endure. Those schools that emerged in the first few years of the format’s history evolved and revive with new iterations and new cards replacing old ones. 2003 is perhaps the best illustration of this, as almost every major new archetype serves as a historically prominent, if not pinnacle, example of each School. GroAtog for the Comer school. Psychatog Control for the Weissman School. Burning Tendrils for the Restricted List Combo School. Stax for the O’Brien School. And Dragon Combo for the Reanimator School. Each of the great Schools of Vintage Magic found new life in 2003, and the result was a vibrant, fascinating, and diverse metagame, the likes of which the format should always aspire toward.
[End Free Excerpt]

I write so infrequently these days (an average of 2 articles a year) that I hope you will give this a shot.  If you have never read this series before, I think you'll really enjoy it.  If you are interested in reading older articles in this series, you can find them all here:

http://www.eternalcentral.com/tag/history-of-vintage/

[Dice_Box]

This has been the one I have been waiting for. 03/04 I think was one of the more interesting times for magic.

Edit:
So after listening to the article on the train into work, I can only say this is quite enlightening. (I can not read in a moving vehicle without getting sick) The thing about all your other articles is that they have been about times before I started playing. So as I have read into some of the history in the past, I could kind of tick off what you are about to go into or be surprised when something I never knew about comes up. Onslaught is different, I was there, it was my start, my home. It made this article very different too. It was not so much an understanding of the cards or the events that I was having come to me but the contrast in the formats that I was starting to understand. As at the time I was playing T1.5 and T2, T1 had no real impact on me but I can remember what the formats where like at a macro level. I have something to contrast to. This made the article far richer than the past ones. Also being able to understand how powerful Vintage was at the one time I happened to be playing Standard is a very interesting window I did not ever think to look into before.

As a very long term player of Legacy, moving into Vintage has been very much a coming of age event for me. Learning the past, meeting and talking with people who happened to be there or have insight into the events that I myself missed. That branching into new worlds and more interesting effects. I am thankful to have had this series at hand for the ride and I do look forward excitedly to the sets I remember being mentioned and revisited. This is a very useful tool and I thank you for taking the time to write it.

[Islandswamp]

I haven't read this yet, but I am planning on it. As soon as I have the opportunity, I will do so. I've liked everything else that I read of yours.

[LotusHead]

I too re-entered Magic during 8th editions/Mirroden block.  I had just come to terms with how the rules currently worked (The Stack? Whu?) as I had only 5th Edition/Mirage era knowledge of the rules.  Also, 2004 is when I was first introduced to TheManaDrain and found a Vintage Metagame (NorCal!)

Great job Stephen!

[Smmenen]

So after listening to the article on the train into work, I can only say this is quite enlightening.

Do you have a document reading device or app?  If so, I'm very curious as to what it is.  

Thanks to everyone for their interest in this article.  Magic players, by and large, tend to be 'presentists' or future oriented, so I'm glad that this article and this series has garnered some interest.  Please share your stories and your reactions.  

Which story did you find most interesting?

[gribdogs]

Another nice addition to the series, well done! 

[lizardking1545]

I just got this and the first ten years and I'm so excited to start reading.  I love the lore and history of the game and want to learn more about Vintage, thank you so much Steve for writing this!

[brianpk80]

I look forward to reading this.  The History of Vintage is your best work, IMO.  Glad to see it's progressing! 

[Smmenen]

I appreciate the encouragement and support (although I think my primers are of equal quality ).  Your interest in this article is a signal to continue this project (which is RIDICULOUSLY time intensive).  Writing these articles takes far longer than strategy content.  

I forgot to thank Ray Robillard, JP Meyer, and Rich Mattiuzzo in particular for their time in helping me get all of the facts straight for this article.  I'm sure I've forgotten others who helped.

Please share your favorite segment/stories in this chapter, as that will help me understand what folks found most compelling for future chapters.  Also, if you have memories from this year that aren't in this article, or aren't in the sources I used for this article, I encourage you to share them as well.

[wiley]

Unfortunately I remember this period much more through type 1.5 and 2, since I had recently moved and not found any vintage scene near me.  The biggest part that I do remember were the various survival decks live venguer mask and TnT being incredibly fun to play.

From the type 1.5 perspective Dr Teeth was insane.  You could play a hard control roll laying out artifact mana like thran dynamo to power various counterspells and draw cards until you land upheaval, replay your board and Dr Teeth and counter your opponent's next turn 1 drop then swing for lethal.

Also, for about a 2 year stretch I don't think I saw a single Psychatog not altered.  They all had top hats, canes, monicles, cigars, glasses of wine or something ridiculous like turning his head into a balloon carried by a small child sharpie'd on them.  If it wasn't for the fact that it was an uncommon I would marvel at seeing an un-altered one today.

8th edition marked the last time I played standard (with the exception of affinity for a short while because it was only $200 to build at its peak), as it was the last time force spike was legal in that format, but the years from urza/masques through oddesy/onslought were pretty fun (except when legions was printed, I almost quit the game entirely).  While there were a lot of deck ideas that coalesced solely in vintage for vintage, I remember many people attempting (and some succeeding) to port various standard and extended tech, if not whole strategies.

I was incredibly happy that you did the first 10 years of vintage, because much of that history has been trapped in dusty old magazines and ancient usenet boards which I can only imagine look like some ancient dungeon out of the original Castlevania.  To have all that information in one place is definitely worthwhile.

This series of the next 10 years is great for an entirely different reason; there are an order of magnitude more people that remember these times and get to look back and clear up the lens of their memory as they reminisce on the tech and metagames they poured hours into testing and studying with friends, the tournaments they were a part of and the lengthy discussions they had that contributed to shaping our format.  It also helps to chronicle the non-player forces on our format like the DCI, Wizards R&D and the tournament organizers, which are all just as important as the growth made inside the metagame and many of us won't know or won't remember with any clarity what these forces were doing at the time.

[Smmenen]

I still have not received much feedback on this article, so please be sure to post or send me your thoughts/reactions if you've read it.  

This series of the next 10 years is great for an entirely different reason; there are an order of magnitude more people that remember these times and get to look back and clear up the lens of their memory as they reminisce on the tech and metagames they poured hours into testing and studying with friends, the tournaments they were a part of and the lengthy discussions they had that contributed to shaping our format.  It also helps to chronicle the non-player forces on our format like the DCI, Wizards R&D and the tournament organizers, which are all just as important as the growth made inside the metagame and many of us won't know or won't remember with any clarity what these forces were doing at the time.

I appreciate the kind words.

I think there are two major blind spots I've seen from most Eternal players, and I suspect this extends to most Magic players: 1) history and 2) data.  I think both blind spots stem from a common source.  

Magic players are overly 'present'/ future oriented.  That's the nature of the endeavor - a game between players.  Players compete in tournaments, and therefore the focus of each player is the next event, the next tournament, or the one in which they are currently competing.  

One expression of this is the old X-2 drop, leave the tournament site, and ignore coverage, or results.  If not ignore coverage, be relatively disinterested in it.  I can't tell you how many players who profess to 'love Vintage' couldn't care less what happens in a tournament after they drop.  Certainly, this is a lesser and more minor expression of the underlying principle I'm articulating, but it illustrates it nonetheless.  

Although this series is founded on the premise that players will eventually acquire a curiosity about the past, I'm not actually convinced that's true.  Certainly, players are interested in *cards* from the past, but perhaps only insofar as it services the future - forgotten or undiscovered 'tech.'

In contrast, Magic players exhibit an obsessive almost maniacal interest in the future as illustrated by the feverish speculation, attention, and constant site mongering - even breaches of contract (recall that WOTC employee that was leaking cards to MTGSalvation) - that accompany spoiler season.  The attention given to even the slightest of details - such as themes, settings, or even vague hints - about future sets, is really astounding in comparison to the paucity of interest in the past - especially the shrouded or forgotten past.  

In addition, I've observed that Eternal players, and Vintage players included, tend to be conspicuously lacking in rigor in their metagame assessments in terms of empirics and data.  In fact, it's not even just the astounding lack of rigor that's apparent; it's the total disinterest and general ignorance of data and empircal supports.  I can't count the number of claims that I've seen/read/heard that are completely unfounded by data.  That isn't to say that they aren't true, but I think we are now at a time and place where the Magic community should demand more rigorous, if not academic standards, for proof and support. I think one of the most valuable projects ever was the one started by Phil Stanton over a decade ago - and which I tried to continue until a few years back - aggregating tournament data.  Of course there are flaws in the project, in that metagame differences, card pool accessibility, etc all complicate that portrait.  

But we are in the era of big data.  Sites like FiveThirtyEight brilliantly exploit and organize around that fact, and now the presence of Vintage daily results give us a fairly large set of Vintage data to analyze, despite all of the limitations.  

I think the core or common feature that underpins both of these blind spots is a shocking solipsism among Magic players generally and Vintage players in particular. Fairly quickly, most players develop a mental framework/theory of the format/metagame, etc.  This is only natural.  But we know from human psychology how flawed cognitive processes tend to be, and the various biases and errors of thinking that pervade them.  Nonetheless, these personalized experiences and internal narratives dominate belief systems, and become epistemic filters that reject any data that doesn't, to borrow from both Howard Gardner and George Lakeoff 'fit the frame.'  It's the old axiom about political knowledge, that facts that don't fit one's worldview are either conveniently ignored or dismissed out of hand.  

Similarly - as you point out - even players who experienced history, encode it in terms of their personal experience, rather than a larger/broader, historical account of what happened.  That is not to say that tournament data or historical knowledge aren't the end all and be all of knowledge - but they are shockingly lacking in far too many cases.  

I do hope that this history does provoke/trigger the kinds of reactions/reminiscences you described, but I also hope that it can serve as a lens through which to view the present and to understand better the evolution and trajectory of the format.  Historical parallels have intrinsic value - both for the similarities and differences they help us see more clearly to the present.  

I've now reached a place where my Vintage year in review articles take over (the first being 2004: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/245 ) .  But reading those articles, I now see them as merely complimentary, and not adequate substitutes, for this project.  Rather than look at a year through a calendar lens, my chapters are anchored around stories/events/tournaments.    Those Year in Review articles are good for folks who read this chapter, and want to now move onto the next year, but they were written as popular articles, not detailed histories.  

Also, for about a 2 year stretch I don't think I saw a single Psychatog not altered.  They all had top hats, canes, monicles, cigars, glasses of wine or something ridiculous like turning his head into a balloon carried by a small child sharpie'd on them.  If it wasn't for the fact that it was an uncommon I would marvel at seeing an un-altered one today.

That's interesting because - outside of 5 color - i don't recall the alteration movement taking off until some years later.  I do recall Ed Beard doing some alters, but I don't recall it being that common/prevalent.    

[gribdogs]

I still have not received much feedback on this article, so please be sure to post or send me your thoughts/reactions if you've read it.  

Sorry I don't have much constructive feedback.  Having left Magic during Exodus (apropos, no?) and returning for Worldwake, these are interesting historical writings.  I enjoy the decklists and classic commentary by the writers of the time (Oscar, etc), but otherwise I can only read and wish I had kept playing.  The constant grind of my playgroup in the 90s gravitating towards Type 2 only, and influx of sets combined with minimum wage hours financially drove me out of the game.  My entire nostalgia for Magic stems from the first few months of 1995 coming in with Ice Age, 4th ed, and Alliances.  I also remember being fascinated with the Mirage block dragons, because at that time we'd only seen Red ones, so spreading out to the other colors was beyond awesome for me. 

I rarely play anymore, and only keep up with Vintage tech just to 'be in the know' more than to actually play.  I've been up to the Team Serious tournaments in Columbus, OH several times, but I probably won't make it back for several years due to my enrolling in Law school this fall.  I may not even be able to play casual Vintage constructed either, so it's going to be writing like yours that will keep me involved during my endeavors. 

Keep up the good work, as I look forward to reading more.  I'd also ask to get this all in full print/bound some day when you finish your full 20 years, as that was your initial goal I believe (20 years, not so much a physical book). 

[Demagoguery]

Kind of a silly question, but what's up with the price increase on all of these? I saw the tag on this one and thought it seemed odd as I generally enjoyed these at the 2-3 dollar range as a fun little thing. Not sure if I remembered things correctly I went back and looked at some of the older publishing and noticed they weren't too far off this, yet when I went and looked at my transactions and receipts I noticed there was an increase in price across the board on newer chapters. For example, the 2001 chapter is currently listed at 3.99 but all of my records show 2.99, yet everything prior to that seems to still be listed under the original price.

[lizardking1545]

Steve-  I just finished the first chapter and wow things were different when the game first started!  I'm hooked on this series and can't wait to continue reading.  To add an interesting story, I spoke with Jeff Menges about a year ago and asked how he was chosen to do the art for Bazaar.  He said that he had done some work with Wizards before and he assumed when Arabian Nights was in development that he would be contacted to do some of the art.  Other artists were selected and they spoke to one another but when Jeff was asked what cards he was doing he replied, "I was never contacted."  Jeff called and asked if he could be apart of this set and the art designer only had one card left that wasn't assigned, Bazaar of Baghdad.  I thought that was an interesting story about an iconic card.

[Loukayza]

I just finished reading the 10 year compilation that was available in the past few days at work, and will be picking up 2003 here shortly.

It's been a fascinating read and It's been many years since I've seen some of those player's names and stories, some of which I remember reading back in Inquest and the Duelist in the mid-90s when I was 15, 16 years old.

Kudos for compiling this series!

[Prospector]

Stephen - when Power 9 was finally release on MODO I realised Vintage was the constructed format I wanted to play online. Sadly I missed the boat with paper, though intend to play in a few proxy tournaments provided they are within reasonably travel distance.  Your year in review articles were an incredible resource to let me pick up a sense of history a format I'd only really experienced tangentially up to now - the last paper vintage tournament I played in was 2002 and this was just an extended deck to which I added some restricted cards (only power was ancestral).  So I had no hesitation buying your 2003 article, which picked up where I left off - great to continue to see how the Vintage metagame evolved.

I'm only about a fifth of the way through but I have one request - is it possible to hyper link your footnotes down to the references at the end of the document, please?  These are a great resource but it takes away a bit having to scrolling down to the bottom and back up each time.  My current work around is to have two copies open at the same time, with one open at the references.

Thanks for all your writings.  I look forward to the year when Young Pyromancer was released.

[JACO]

I'm only about a fifth of the way through but I have one request - is it possible to hyper link your footnotes down to the references at the end of the document, please?  These are a great resource but it takes away a bit having to scrolling down to the bottom and back up each time.  My current work around is to have two copies open at the same time, with one open at the references.

The last few versions of Acrobat Pro have a bug that screw up this functionality with exporting to PDF from Word. We're hoping they fix it in the near future, but it's been an issue for the past couple of years.

[Smmenen]

I just finished reading the 10 year compilation that was available in the past few days at work, and will be picking up 2003 here shortly.

It's been a fascinating read and It's been many years since I've seen some of those player's names and stories, some of which I remember reading back in Inquest and the Duelist in the mid-90s when I was 15, 16 years old.

Kudos for compiling this series!

Thank you!  I'm always interested in feedback from players who read the whole series in a long run.  What stood out?  More importantly, was my thesis persuasive? Did you feel as if these schools of Vintage magic exist? 

I'm glad I could bring back memories for you.  What's distinctive about this series, however, compared to other histories of Magic, is how this series is singularly focused on the metagame - the narrative of the evolution of the Type I/Vintage format as such. 

Steve-  I just finished the first chapter and wow things were different when the game first started!  I'm hooked on this series and can't wait to continue reading.  To add an interesting story, I spoke with Jeff Menges about a year ago and asked how he was chosen to do the art for Bazaar.  He said that he had done some work with Wizards before and he assumed when Arabian Nights was in development that he would be contacted to do some of the art.  Other artists were selected and they spoke to one another but when Jeff was asked what cards he was doing he replied, "I was never contacted."  Jeff called and asked if he could be apart of this set and the art designer only had one card left that wasn't assigned, Bazaar of Baghdad.  I thought that was an interesting story about an iconic card.

That's a good one!  Bazaar of Baghdad was my favorite card when I first started playing, solely because of its thematic allure!  I used to think it was a terrible card! 

I'd like to ask you the same question I asked the reader above.  Let me know your thoughts.  I will keep this series coming.  With 2004, we are going to be more firmly in the modern era. 

Kind of a silly question, but what's up with the price increase on all of these? I saw the tag on this one and thought it seemed odd as I generally enjoyed these at the 2-3 dollar range as a fun little thing. Not sure if I remembered things correctly I went back and looked at some of the older publishing and noticed they weren't too far off this, yet when I went and looked at my transactions and receipts I noticed there was an increase in price across the board on newer chapters. For example, the 2001 chapter is currently listed at 3.99 but all of my records show 2.99, yet everything prior to that seems to still be listed under the original price.

That's a fair question.  The price is really largely a function of length.  I've asked EC to price basically 10 cents per page, rounded down.  So 40 pages is 3.99, 30 pages is 2.99, and 50 pages is 4.99, etc.  I should mention that these articles take WAY more time to write than anything else I do, so this really is a passion project. 

@Prospector: Young Pyromancer's release is, unfortunately, a LONG ways away from where I currently am in this series - but we will get there eventually!

[mistervader]

Stephen,

I got your 10 years a few months ago and devoured that whole thing. Looking forward to getting this one, because I recall getting back into the thick of Magic around 2004-2005, when these cards from 2003 in particular were all the rage.

It also made me realize how fortunate I was to get most of my cards at the time. A set of Underground Sea for under $150, Black Lotus for $600, and so forth. While I never got Bazaars and Shops and probably can't get them now that they've nearly quadrupled from the price point I was willing to pay for, the cards I did manage to get over time as I tried to push my combo playing to the limit are now about to be touched upon in your succeeding articles.

After all, I got started down the road of combo decks when you told me to try Doomsday all those years ago. I will never forget that. Nor can I ever thank you enough for that. As we approach that time period, I am more and more excited to read it, 10 years or so removed from the fact.