First, I want to say that this article made me think more than anything I've read about magic in some time. For me, at least, that made it great. The fact that it promoted a format I enjoy is gravy.
...that doesn't mean I didn't disagree with a lot of its content.
Nit-picking:
The analogy is apt, as those things necessary to be successful in sport (skill, endurance, creativity) are very much present in Magic, and indeed in many games like it. To anyone who disputes this, I invite you to sit down and play a Grand Prix
The analogy is not apt. There is a large body of biological research that shows that Bobby Fischer didn't train like Ivan Lendl (for newbs, see: Ernahmngeddon). I'm not knocking training for mental competition, just the analogy to physical cross-training tactics is obtuse.
Picking up a different deck has so many benefits that it's almost no wonder that every single top-level player does it.
This is always 'fun'. It may be helpful for those who get in ruts. However, if you are in such a rut that you can't optimize your deck of choice (even if it's turbo licid), then you have larger problems than the author is talking about. I often playtest the topdecks in the format, not because I'm in a rut, but because I want to see, from the first person, how their strategies operate. This is entirely different from the focus (if not the practice) from what the author is talking about. In a set format there is usually a top deck and reasonable foils, regardless of your boredome with both.
and horribly misapply it
He's borrowing from set theory, which does have some application to Mtg, but he's right in his misapplication. Mathematics help a tremendous amount in Mtg, but don't think it'll come easy, or often. My experience in T1 is that you win most of your games in T1 through superior information, deck building, and sideboarding, all of which can be done without significant
number crunching.
Evidence
it is useful to play formats with a lower cardinality than the one that you normally play
This is one of my favorite recommendations of the article. I am a cloistered, close-minded, dyed-in-the-wool T1 player. That being said, I let myself be dragged into drafting, T2, etc when I can. It certainly helps. I've seen the results in deckbuilding across a number of instances. Teamates who dabbled in other formats (or hell, even other games) came back with different and BETTER perspectives on card (resource) interactions. Explore.
It's always a treat to watch someone who plays strictly Vintage try his luck in a Sealed Deck or, even better, a Draft event. Mispicks and distorted strategies abound, and then they send creatures into the Red Zone (I can just see the outraged forum responses now…). People, I'm not trying to stir up emotions, nor am I trying to call Vintage players bad, for I am one of you. The fact of the matter is that the combat step is all but non-existent in Vintage. We all started out playing Standard with the kiddies, so at one point we all knew how to attack and block effectively
I have trouble with this statement. I agree vintage players are bad as a whole, but intelligence is intelligence. I've seen Matt Snow (a little known T1 player) amble into a draft and OWN because of his analytic abilities. It's not that the skill set is strictly different, but stupid is as stupid does (contrapositive is often true).
However, I will say that some skills are almost almost mutually exclusive. Well-learned combat tricks will give you little marginal advantage in a Vintage tourney. Knowing the dragon stack, or how to attck Stax' prison will. Don't pretend these RULES of magic are ubiquitously necessary for players. T1, 1.5, X, 2, L.. skills are a range and your success in your field will be in your ability play your hand (or lawyer your case) depending on your proximity to what's necessary.
The strength of the deck is in the strategy, which has been around literally since the birth of Magic, so even if the power level of the individual cards isn't quite there, the deck is still solid
I just wanted to mention that since I know Weisman, and I can understand the strategy behind this draft-deck, I appreciate the comparison. Magic is extremely holistic in that it has a lot that is comparable at some level, but that developing some unifying theory is useless. This towes a nice line between nostalgia and the contemporary (eternal) card pool.
Let's be brutally honest here: Vintage players suck
I agree. What isn't as evident is that they suck for a reason: they don't want to invest time to win. I've seen 'Vintage' players school seasoned T2, Ext, whatever players because they have huge cocks and can play magic. While Vintage has gotten much more competitive, it's still the format of the weekend warrior.
On top of that, let's be REALLY honest, magic players suck at their own game. In general, almost ALL of us.
improvement is its own reward. It's the same reason why learning can either be fun or drudgery
Especially in the context of the monetary argument put forward by the author (it was useful, but...), many have pointed out that they play the game not for fortune, but for fame (or some reasonable facsimile). Vintage will always be a game for the idealogue, not the politician.
At its most severe. 2c
