Considering that...A.) Magic is expanding faster than eve...

[cobar]

I concur with the person who suggested gold-bordered World Championship decks.  Reprinting the top 4 decks from that year's World Championships is going to give the budget players access to a full set of power, a partial set of duals, and several of the expensive rares like Workshop/Bazaar/Mask.  Wizards could even pick out the most varied decks from the top 8 to get the broadest coverage of cards possible.

The point that's being missed here is that Wizards doesn't need to provide some sort of stamp of approval for these proxies.  (Besides, doing so would kill the values of the originals, since they'd be functionally equivalent).  You're simply going to aggravate a sizable number of powered players by mandating that they accept the proxies.    Instead, deal with it on a store by store basis.  Convince the store owner to allow gold bordered cards, and go from there.  That way the issue gets handled in a way that makes the sense for that area.  Were I running a tournament, I'd have no problem allowing Collector's Edition provided the player used opaque sleeves.  What Wizards is willing to sanction is fairly irrelevant since Type 1's rankings are essentially meaningless.

This also does a better job of protecting the value of the originals.  Since gold bordered cards wouldn't be legal in sanctioned tournaments, they would be less desirable just like Collector's Edition is.  The only difference would be that the gold bordered versions would be considerably easier to obtain.  In serious metagames where you already have a lot of powered players, they'll run sanctioned tourneys and only accept the real versions of the cards.  This is further supported by the fact that you'll need the real deal to play in the World Championships, T1 side events, and other Wizards sponsored events.

Frankly, I'd love to see them reprint, because with all my power, the only way I get to play is to either risk taking decks to PTQs and search for other T1 players, or proxying up a set of P9 and bringing an extra deck to the shop for a buddy to play with.  Lowering the barrier to entry would make it a lot easier to get other players in the area interested in T1, so that we could actually have T1 tourneys around here.

Cobar
(full set of P9, Workshops, etc.)

[BrokenDeck]

There is a really obvious solution to this problem, one that satisfies all parties.  Because everyone is complaining that reprints will drive prices down, we need a way to make reprints drive prices up.  How do we do that? Like city of brass, make some old cards type two legal.  Maybe not black lotus or moxen, but would reprinting mana drain really hurt type two if red elemental blast also got reprinted? I think type two would stay extremely balanced, but mana drain would be accessible to everyone.  IF they slowly introduced this concept into type two, perhaps the format could stay balanced.  I mean, if they reprinted bazaar of baghdad in type two, I don't know if anyone would use it.  There is just too much tempo loss for it when you play against goblins and affinity.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Quote (BrokenDeck @ Nov. 27 2003,13:00)There is a really obvious solution to this problem, one that satisfies all parties.  Because everyone is complaining that reprints will drive prices down, we need a way to make reprints drive prices up.  How do we do that? Like city of brass, make some old cards type two legal.  Maybe not black lotus or moxen, but would reprinting mana drain really hurt type two if red elemental blast also got reprinted? I think type two would stay extremely balanced, but mana drain would be accessible to everyone.  IF they slowly introduced this concept into type two, perhaps the format could stay balanced.  I mean, if they reprinted bazaar of baghdad in type two, I don't know if anyone would use it.  There is just too much tempo loss for it when you play against goblins and affinity.

This comment blows my mind. One of the huge points of Onslaught block was to finally make blue less-than-awesome. They took Counterspell out of 8th Edition specifically because they think it's too unfair a tempo-breaker...and you want something strictly better, which has in the past earned commentary to the effect of "R&D would have to be hit by a bus before we would reprint Mana Drain". I have no idea if Bazaar would be good were they to reprint it, but they've also stated explicitly that lands should produce mana and they consider early exceptions to this to be errors.

Reprinting old, good cards in Standard-legal expansions is simply never, ever going to happen, and bringing up the possibility is just going to discredit any other case for reprinting.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Prices will not go down substantially if reprints exist.

Ernham Djinn is still worth $15 from AN, right?  Beta Sengirs are still worth $15+, right?  Yet both were reprinted recently.


Why are Beta duals worth more than Revised ones, when they do the same thing and are both tourney-legal?  Because many people prefer Beta to Revised.  If powerful T1 cards are reprinted, values will not dive, as people will still want the originals.

[centroles]

exactly gun slinger. argueing that reprints will drive down prices is a cop out point that is simply untrue. as i've already stated, there are far far more people that collect magic cards and are looking for alpha, beta or unlimited copies of power than there are copies of power to go around. thus, prices won't go down due to reprints, atleast not significantly.

there is no arguement not to reprint these cards for type 1 use. the format will grow and expand in a healthy way. tournaments wins will be skill based, not resource based. wizards will make a ton of money on the reprints. and since vintage players are the most loyal of all magic players and often go out of their way to recruit more players, the expansion of vintage will make magic more mainstream and give magic a much stronger foundation.

[Loci]

Well to all those people thinking and claiming that the Reserved List is cast in concrete and will not be meddled with without lawsuits and such here is a direct quote from Randy Buehler's article on MTG.com:

Quote Several people in R&D thought it would be cool to reprint Clone in Onslaught, but it was on the Reserved List (of cards that Wizards has promised never to reprint). We could have just done it as “Balshan Clone” for  or some such, but none of us thought there was any good reason the original should be reserved. We decided what we really needed was to know how important the Reserved List was to the general public. So I laid out the issue and then called for a vote. “Change the policy” was the overwhelming choice and a few weeks later that’s exactly what we did.

And if this does not provide enough proof they can change it at will:

Quote
I already told this story earlier in the article, but it’s definitely worthy of a place in the Top 10. All of the non-rares from Alpha that had been on the Reserved List were removed. In addition to putting Clone into Onslaught, this change has allowed us to put Invisibility and Dwarven Demolition Team into Eighth Edition. (And we might not be done yet.)

Might?

BTW I am not saying that the will reprint everything. It's just to show things can change if they want to.

[rozetta]

Quote Prices will not go down substantially if reprints exist.

Ernham Djinn is still worth $15 from AN, right?  Beta Sengirs are still worth $15+, right?  Yet both were reprinted recently.

And what competitive decks are either of these cards being used in (in any format)?

I don't think that's what people are discussing here.

Almost all non-competitive beta rares which saw continued rotation past the unlimited->revised transition cost $10-$15. This is to do with collectibility, not playability (people making beta sets, AN sets and so on).

I'd venture to say that if you even explained the situation to a non-magic player and asked them if reprinting the older powerful cards would devalue the existing ones, they'd agree that it would. It's that obvious.

[Corvel]

I only own one pice of power (a Jet) and still I would not be happy to see reprints. The way I look at it if you want to play with the broken cards you should buy them. Anyway most of the big T1 tournies allow 5 proxies, with the exception of world championships!

[rhox505]

I love magic for the strategy, and the strategy I like most is powered T1.  Competetive magic is about making the best out of a large card pool that is the same for everyone...so when most players can only afford the bad cards, its no longer an equal playing field.  I have been dreaming of playing T1 competetively for about 6 years, but I don't have the money to throw around on power cards, and so I'll probably never be able to make it.  So I stick to online play.  I haven't bought a single magic card in over 5 years, because there is just no point in trying to make a deck when i cant get the important cards.  If they were to release those cards, I would start buying them, as well as the other cards I needed.  Some people like it expensive because it makes them feel special and they can beat better players just because their deck is more expensive; I think that is lame.

[centroles]

Would anyone like to compile all the reasons we posted here in favor of reprints,

how they would be done

how they would benefit magic and expand vintage

how integral a part the growth of vintage is to magic in general

how wizards would profit form doing so

why they can be done inspite of reserve list

addressing any of the other issues and complaints brought out against reprints

etc.

into one nice article and publish it at starcitygames.com

there are literally atleast a dozen new reasons posted on each of the seven pages. and they can be quoted directly from the people who said them as well.

if well done and through (including all the reasons and facts presented in the thread) such an article is a shoe in to win the $50 price for the week.

and more importantly, such an article would serve to unite all the vintage players out there in need of power as well as all those with power interested in seeing vintage expand and competitive metagames where skill decides victory rather than finances towards one single cause.

[centroles]

Phantom Tape Wurm

Quote Type 1 should be combo, and combo hate, period.  And if you take a close look at the current decks to beat, I think you'll find that is exactly the case.  If you want a breakdown of the metagame ala the old "rock, paper, scissors" you first have to start by classifiying each deck by whether they are themselves combo, or combo hate.

Fish: combo hate
chalice keeper: combo hate
Long.dec: combo
dragon: combo
workshop: combo + combo hate

Basically, every deck that is neither combo, nor combo hate, has become unviable and has dropped off the metagame and cannot seriously be considered to be a deck to beat.

This is perhaps the strongest argument for leveling the playing field for all and probably restricting cards like Mishra's Workshop and Lion's Eye Diamond since both Workshop and Long decks unlike Dragon and Mask decks, are very resilient and difficult to hate out and won't die or disappear even if two of the key cards/tempo breakers are restricted.

[Montana_Gamer]

I am not in favor of reprints. People have no right to complain about the costs of power 9. In most competive arena's it costs lots of money to be competitive. I enter both skiing competitions and golf tournaments.
    
Both are FAR more expensive than type 1 to compete. The price of a season pass for both is around 500 dollars a year.... It would be more but I get college discount. Then there is the cost of equipment, I will use ski equipment because i buy more skiing equipment than golf equipment. In a typical year I buy new skis, 500 dollars, I transfer my old bindings over half the time, so i only buy bindings every other year at about 180 dollars. I buy boots every 5 years at a cost of about 500 dollars, or 100 a year. I ski 50-70 times a year and the ski place is 20 miles away, and my vehicle gets 20 miles to a gallon. So gas costs me about 75 dollars a year, with my ski partner picking up the other half. The total cost for being a competitive skiier is around 1200-1300 a year. This is also before tournament fees, and the initial investment in other equipment. This cost does not compare to the price of being a competitive type 1 player.
    Maybe the cost of type 1 magic should be compared to other competive hobbies, instead of type 2.

Edit: I buy alternate between buying trick and powder skis every year, so i actually get 2 years of skiing out of each ski.
And i have won ski product, and have recieved free skis from sponsors.\n\n

[centroles]

magic is a card game though. wouldn't you take more satisfaction from your victories if you knew it was a level playing field, if you knew everyone has access to power, if you knew the reason you won was because of skill, not how much money you spend on the game?

[centroles]

btw, how would you guys respond to the dci simply errataing the SoLoMox to read Legendary artifact. That would reduce the reliance on power, reduce the gap between budget and nonbudget players and lower the speed of the format without hurting the value or powerlevel of the cards, or having to print reprints.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Quote (centroles @ Dec. 05 2003,18:24)btw, how would you guys respond to the dci simply errataing the SoLoMox to read Legendary artifact. That would reduce the reliance on power, reduce the gap between budget and nonbudget players and lower the speed of the format without hurting the value or powerlevel of the cards, or having to print reprints.

That makes no sense at all. How would that reduce reliance on things that are already restricted? The only effect of this nonsensical "errata" would be to *increase* the importance of going first--exactly opposite of what we want.

I totally don't understand why you would suggest that.

[centroles]

I think you misunderstood what that means. You can only have one legendary artifact in play at any one time. So if you open a sol ring, mox jet and mox pearl, you would only be able to play one of them. (I'm almost positive that's how it works, On the very small chance that I'm wrong though, maybe they could be erratated to say legendary mox so that it does work like that).

It would mean that you can only play one broken artifact per game. This will cut down on the high speed of the environment. In addition, it means that few decks would opt to run the full set of SoLoMoxen since after the first, the rest will be dead cards. Meanwhile budget players that never play any will have the advantage of never having to worry about having dead cards in the hand as a result. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Legendary permanents are determined by card name. Only one copy of a given Legendary cardname can be in play. Adding a type wouldn't make any difference to it unless you added a whole mechanic that specifically said "you may only have one Mox in play" and then added the "mox" type to the appropriate cards somehow.

Such "errata" would be more retarded than almost any other suggested change to Magic that I have ever heard. This is a waaaay more complicated way of applying the 'maximum number of restricted cards' suggestion to just one segment of the problem, and yours would be done by altering several cards in a major way--very ineloquent.

[ampeg21]

"I think you misunderstood what that means. You can only have one legendary artifact in play at any one time. So if you open a sol ring, mox jet and mox pearl, you would only be able to play one of them. (I'm almost positive that's how it works, On the very small chance that I'm wrong though, maybe they could be erratated to say legendary mox so that it does work like that)."
-centroles



this is why you have 346 posts and are still a "TMD user"
not that i really care though....

[lightning_bolt]

I'd personally love to see them reprint moxes.

Wait wait ... before you all jump on me ...

I mean, at the Worlds, the winner takes home a Foil Mox Jet, or something neat like that ...
I wouldn't want the Power to be reprinted, the prize would go down, and that would suck for most people (I don't own any, but I'd be pissed if I bought it and then they reprinted it)

Maybe its just hopefully wishing, but it would be very interesting.

[Ivantheterrible]

As much as I (unpowered) would love to see cheap power I have to resist. I feel that there are to many players who have saved up money to buy power and would be really pissed off if their beta lotus just went from $1,000 to $10.00. I do of course relize this is the most dramatic example but even unlimeted emeralds are going for over $200.00 now on ebay and I think that people whould still be very upset if they droped consiberally. I think that power is not even what keeps "Budget" aggro down. I think degenrat combo decks ( yes dragon is to degenrat for my taste) and workshop prison decks are the main culprets to suprssing aggros playability. So I think that there should not be reprints.

[Tuthikin]

Montana gamer, comparing things like skiing to magic is completely useless. Magic is a medium where the large percentage of the players are unemployed people who can't obtain hundreds of dollars for successful decks like keeper, whilst you obviously can.

 
whats the point of this one?

[Ephraim]

Tuthikin, I don't think it's a fair generalization to classify most Magic players as unemployed. It is just as fair as saying that all people who ski must be rich. I think that Montana's anaology isn't perfect, but for another reason.

For example, the reason that skis are so expensive is because good skis are expensive to produce. A "good" Mox Emerald is no more expensive to produce than a Chimney Imp. The reason the Emerald is expensive is purely a matter of economic supply and demand. Compared to skis, Mox Emeralds are extremely rare.

Making more skis wouldn't really drive down the price of skis. Making "New Mox Emerald" probably would drive down the price of Mox Emeralds. At the very least, it would provide a low-cost alternative to "Mox Emerald Classic."

I'm not sure if the reason for the high cost of good equipment is really relevant to the fairness of some people possessing better equipment than others. In general, I agree with Montana - that if you can't afford the necessary equipment to engage in an activity, then you're going to have to accept that you're probably not going to excel at that activity. In Magic's case, I suppose I'm all for leaving the old, rare cards as expensive. If they were cheaper (well, really cheap, I mean), it'd mean that I'd be facing them in casual play, too, and Magic everywhere would be just like Type I tournaments, nowadays.

[centroles]

you can't really compare magic to sking. that just doesn't work.

[Binary]

Quote (centroles @ Dec. 05 2003,22:46)I think you misunderstood what that means. You can only have one legendary artifact in play at any one time. So if you open a sol ring, mox jet and mox pearl, you would only be able to play one of them. (I'm almost positive that's how it works, On the very small chance that I'm wrong though, maybe they could be erratated to say legendary mox so that it does work like that).

Sorry, that isn't what "Legendary" means at all.

"Legendary" means "only one permanent with this card's name can be in play at any one time." (Way back when Legends came out, it used to be even worse... a Legend was essentially restricted for deck construction purposes.)

"Legendary" doesn't mean "only one Legendary thing can be in play at a time."

It is 100% legal for me to have both Karn, Silver Golem (Legendary Artifact Creature) and Mindslaver (Legendary Artifact) in play at the same time.

Dr. Sylvan correctly pointed out that making the SoLoMoxen Legendary Artifacts would not fix the problem, but would instead create a huge swing for the player going first. Any one of the artifacts that player dropped would prevent the other player from dropping the same artifact. The speed advantage for the player going first could be almost crippling.

[Meddling Mage]

As a level 1 judge I can assure you that Binary and Dr. Sylvan are entirely correct on this matter. The legend rule reads as follows:

Quote 420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the subtype Legend or the supertype
legendary, all except the one that has been a Legend or legendary permanent with that name the
longest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called "the Legend rule." In the event of a
tie, each Legend or legendary permanent with the same name is put into its owner's graveyard.
(If two permanents have the same name but only one is a Legend or is legendary, this rule
doesn't apply.)

as you can see, the legend rule only takes effect when there are two permanents of the same name that are both legendary, So, if I play my "legendary" sol ring and my "legendary" mox sapphire, the legend rule would not come into effect at all, and my opponent could not play his sol ring or mox sapphire without them going to the graveyard as a result of state based effects.

[centroles]

There is previous precedence in restricting the number of restricted cards that can be played per deck.

Quote I'm not sure if you are aware that there is a precedent for this. Many players may not know that WotC has restricted the number of Restricted cards allowed in a deck before.

As a matter of fact there were slight tweaks to the play/draw rule. I ran across the actual info while doing research for my B/R list history (yes its ongoing but damn theres alot of holes in the info.)

These rules were imposed for AndCon '95, there were several changes to the B/R list in both T1 and T1.5 for this event and applied to both T1 and T1.5;

-----------------------------------------------------------
Experimental
Type 1 Super-Restricted
Tournament Format

A new class of cards is added, called Super-Restricted. Only one of each of these cards can be in a deck, and no more than four (4) Super-Restricted cards in total can be in a deck. In addition, at the beginning of a duel, each player must announce if they are using any of the Super-Restricted cards. If one player is, and the other player is not, the player without Super-Restricted cards automatically goes first.
Super-Restricted cards:

Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Falling Star
Time Walk
Timetwister
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mox Pearl

The Restricted list has the above cards removed, and the old-style Dual Lands added.

Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Experimental
Type 1.5 Tournament Rules
for AndCon '95
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

Type 1.5 rules are the same as Type 1 except as modified below:


The following cards are moved from the restricted to the banned list:
Ali from Cairo (AN)
Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Tutor
Falling Star (LE)
Library of Alexandria (AN)
Maze of Ith (DK)
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Sol Ring
Timetwister
Time Walk
Wheel of Fortune

The following Ice Age cards are added to the restricted list:
Zuran Orb

The following Ice Age cards had been added to the restricted list, but were removed on Wednesday, 13 September 1995. These are no longer restricted:
Enduring Renewal
Jester's Cap
Jester's Mask
Zur's Weirding

``Summon Legend'' or ``Summon X Legend'' cards are no longer restricted to one per deck, however the rule of no more than four of any card in a deck still applies. Please note that only one of a particular ``Legend'' card may be in play at any time.


Nota Bene

These rules apply only to the tournament to be run at AndCon '95: no determination has yet been made about which (if any) Ice Age cards will be added to the regular Type I and Type II tournament rules.


Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Just some history and perhaps some food for discussion.

Shawn

[centroles]

Broken Deck

Quote There is a fundamental problem with making a hate deck.  While it can win in a specific metagame, against a wide field of decks you have to be able to:

Remove graveyards from the game
Destroy artifacts and enchantments
Neutralize non-basic lands
Play spells that do not have a big target painted on them for mana drains
Play a diverse mana curve
Be able to keep a hand full of answers
Have a solid win condition

All of which are pretty hard to do by turn two.  The powered decks have the ability to just win before any of the hate comes down either way, so you will still lose half the time.  

Powered decks have it easier because they try and disrupt their opponent's strategy with cards that use large card advantage, and can only be played in the first couple of turns via expensive (monetarily) cards (mana drain, black lotus, workshop).

[centroles]

Godzilla

Quote I'm inclined to agree with the other responses here. What it comes down to is this: even if there are undiscovered viable budget decks out there - ones capable of winning major, fully powered tournaments, mind you - I think it's impossible for such a deck not to be somehow improved by expensive cards. As an example, I can't imagine a powerless budget build in existence that wouldn't be improved by swapping a basic land with a Mox. That's just the nature of Type 1 power, and what makes it so damned expensive.

The summation: even if thoroughly competitive budget builds are created and used to win tournaments, the most serious players will take them and improve them by adding power, in which case they are no longer budget decks - thus reinforcing the stereotype that you need to spend big bucks to be competitive.

The only way I could ever see this changing is if new cards are added to the card pool that make existing power inherently disadvantageous, thus giving a budget build the necessary means to be competitive in a fully powered field. I have a feeling that this was the original intent behind the design of Chalice of the Void. The obvious problem is that it is equally if not more harmful to most budget builds than it is to power. Additionally, it rewards the fully powered player by allowing them to play their power first, then shut down the opposing player's power by dropping it, so it really doesn't address the issue at all.

Another big hindrance to budget deckbuilding, in my mind, is Mana Drain. The budget player is now trapped between being unable to play a low and tight mana curve like Sligh, and is strongly discouraged to raise its curve for fear of falling prey to Mana Drain. Thus the only viable way to play with high cc cards is to use power like Lotus and Workshop to accellerate its plays before the control player has a chance to get two untapped Islands in play.

Basically, the environment is a very harsh one for any type of budget deck to flourish. In order for it to even theoretically  happen with any degree of success, the card pool would have to include some severe deterrent against the establsihed power. This is fundamentally difficult because power doesn't fall into a single card type, casting cost, or color. R&D could print 0cc artifact hate, but then cards like Workshop, Bazaar, Ancestral Recall, Timetwister, etc. would continue to run rampant. They could print even more non-basic hate, but Wasteland sort of has it covered, and it's not enough to keep Workshop.dec or Dragon from kicking ass.

It would be interesting if R&D were to begin designing a series of cards specifically with T1 power hate in mind, but given their admitted complete lack of understanding of the metagame, I find this highly unlikely. Hell, even if they did understand the meta, I doubt they could do it successfully.  

[Dr. Sylvan]

We have now received a once-again definitive answer from MaRo's new article. No rhetoric will convince them. Until and unless we can gather some kind of actual data that would override their views with hard numbers, this thread serves no further purpose. And you know that when *I'm* tired of the reprint argument that it is one deeeeead horse, because I absolutely believe that they are the right thing for everyone involved. (Just look at my posts earlier in this thread for evidence of that.) We should let it go until eventually WotC sees the light.

-Phil

[centroles]

I concur Dr. Sylvan.

Sorry for the confusion, I accdientlymixed up legendary and global enchantment. i remember before that if one payer has  nether void on the table, the other can't play abyss or something like that.

i was thinking something along the lines of errating the moxen to read, global artifact. only one mox in play at once.