Is type 1 fun anymore and is 60 cards enough?

[Oath of Happy]

            While talking with a Type 1 Buddy of mine recently who has been trying to get me to play legacy, he brought up how successful Legacy has been as they average crowds that trump vintage and can support prizes like 40 dual lands plus a Black Lotus and an Ancestral.  We tried a game of Legacy, and although I am a Vintage and have always been, I noticed that the format was much more skill intenseive as you had to pace your way through the game by developing board resources while improving your hand.  It reminded me of the way Vintage was about 5 years ago before everything went bonkers as Wizards saturated the format with broken cards.  It was played at a more relaxed pace as you battled a game out involving a plan that built up over many decisions.  Now, Type 1 is so fast that decks are played like loose cannons starting turn 1 and 2.  You can easily die to a Storm Deck, Get Locked out by a Workshop Deck throwing down multiple spheres/throns and chalice followed by turn 2 smokestack, wire, or wasteland, or you can get trounsed by a load of mana accelerant and draw spells which build up a hand of counters, more draw spells to keep the cycle going, and followed by a fast combo win that will finish you off in 1 to 2 turns.

             As we all know, the minimum deck size for Magic used to be 40 cards, but was raised to 60 cards many years ago.  At the point we are at with vintage, 15 years have gone by since the start of vintage, and as time goes by and more cards are printed, decks get better and better.  Right now type 1 may be a slight bit slower than it was before the restrictions of gush and flash, but it is still a format in which deck pack the 60 cards consisting of nothing but broken bombs, aside from a few non broken necessities like and island or two.  With such a small deck size and so many broken cards, this leads to an average of about 10 or less card choices that the deckbuilder has left to test out different card choices if they are to run an optimized list.  This leads to a lack of freedom in choosing cards, as people have no choice not to run the restircted bombs, as well as the best 4 of's int he game. 

              About 95 percent of decks, if not more, start with 4 of either mishra's worksop, dark ritual, mana drain, or bazaar of baghdad, with the playstyle of the deck usually revolving around these cards.  The remaining 5 percent are based around 4 null rods/chalices and 4 wastelands, which are decks that are not as powerful as the rest, but are hate decks that are designed specifially to kick dark ritual and mana drain decks where it really hurts.  This leads to a high occurence of duels that are not terribly fun, because of 2 things that often happen in tournaments:
              1). You or your opponent has a hand that is overly broken and will automatically win before the first turn even starts.  The format is so fast, that even if a players deck has no theoretical way to win on the first turn, they still have a hand that will shut the opponent out of the game, by either racking up enormous amounts of card advantage and counters, or by throwing a ton of lock pieces on the board.  This means that players must build decks that can match the speed of the format by using decks that can play out in "crack mode" starting turn 1, as well as be able to stop the opponent starting turn 1, something that players can not always do.
              2.) Another problem that such small deck sizes lead to is an extremely large amount of inconsistent hands.  So, people that are playing decks that can get broken hands and seal the game before the opponent can do anything are going to unfairly blow the opponents out of the water early on some games, but other games will get hands that are unkeepable, for example: mox pearl, mox jet, mana drain, gifts ungiven, merchant scroll, mindslaver, vampiric tutor.  As you can see, this deck is using some of the most powerful cards in the game, as they are all restricted except mana drain which is one of the 4 defening bombs of the format, and mindslaver which is a win condition, however, due to its high quantity of bombs, the hand is unkeepable because of the lack of blue mana.  In a slower format, such as legacy, the two moxes might be something like fetchlands.
             
            Unless I'm incorrect, no one likes taking mulligans, and no one likes sitting across from an opponent while helplessly starring down a board and handfull of acceleration and bombs starting turn 1.  On days when I don't enjoy myself at a tournement, it's because the days if filled with those 2 occurences.  The speed of the current metagame forces players into playing decks where your often going to be practicing those two scenarios, or your opponent will be.

              In order to keep all the most powerful cards that distinguish type 1 from other slower formats, decks will remain A). Overly broken and B). Extremely inconsistent.  By increasing the minimum deck size, this will change format in many ways.  First of all, people would have more free card slots to work with when designing thier decks.  Lets look at the typical cards that go into a Tezzeret drain deck:
1 Black Lotus
5 Moxes
1 Sol ring
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Lotus Petal
3 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
3 Underground Sea
3 Island
2 Tropical Island (or Volc)
1 Library of Alexandria
4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
1 Bounce Spell, lets say Echoing Truth to be generic
3 Duress
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Sensei's Diviing Top
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Fact or Fiction
3 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Regrowth
2 Intuition
4 Accumulated Knowledge
1 Tinker
1 Darksteel Colossus
2 Tezzeret the Seeker
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key

             So Right there we have 63 cards with the only cards that arent necessary being Library, Petal, Mana Vault, Vampiric Tutor, Sensei's Divining Top, 1 Counter, 1 Kill Card, and 3 of the Draw Spells.  This leaves us with 53 Cards, meaning you have 7 cards to work with.
If the minimum size for a deck were 80 cards, that would mean youd have 20 more cards to put in these catrogries.  Lets say 8 more go towards the mana base.  Here are some choices: Petal, Mana vault, Island, Sea, Flooded Strand, Polluted Delta, Tropical Island, Volcanic Island, Tundra, Library of Alexandria, Cabal Pit, Strip Mine Chrome Mox. 
         Now you have new choices including Cabal Pit and Strip Mine, which are mechanics that have never been played in a deck like this.  This would slow down the deck slightly, while addig consistency as you would have a higher proportion of blue lands, but would still draw artifact accelerants, just not as many and as often, the loss of speed would not hurt as much because you opponents decks would be slower as well, yet people would have decks that played out longer, mulliganing less, and going unfairly broken less.

             You'd want about 3 or 4 more counters, so you could choose from Duress, Thougthseize, Misdirction, Negate, Extirpate, Red Elemental Blast, Spell Snare, Pithing Needle, Tormod's Crypt and Mabey an aditional bounce spell like Rebuild or Cunning Wish. 

             About 7-8 more Cantrips would be nice to smooth the deck out, and since the format would be a turn or two slower, you could go with something to suppliment the Intution AK engine, like 4 Strategic Planning and 2 Deep Analysis, or go with some other awsome cards like Skeletal Scrying, which would work against opponents Welders by removing artifacts they target to get your win off the board.

             Lastly, you might or might not want to add 2 more cards to the win package like Transmute Artifact, Trinket Mage, Goblin Welder, Sundering Titan.

             Other types of decks that rely on the random bomb draws, like tps, or Ichorid would still be able to exist, however it would take them an extra turn or so to set up the win.  TPS could use cards like Windfall, Lim-Dul's Vault, extra Grim Tutor's etc.  Ichorid might need more help finding Bazaar so they mght try using more mana to get Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal, and Crop Rotation.  Of course it would take time for people to come up with the many new ways to update these decks, so these card choices I ahve come up wtih in this article are just examples and are no where near the limit of new choices and deck designs.

             So, in conclusion, I think that raising the minimum deck size would add more fun and skill to the environment, as well as greatly increase the amount of interaction between players.  By slowing decks down and making them less "broken" certain cards that people want to see off the restricted list such as Crop Rotation, Burning Wish, Fastbond, and Entomb might be worthy of coming off the restricted list and an be used to make new archetypes for the format.  I think this would be the best thing for vintage and would open the door for INNOVATION (yea I know everyone loves that word so there it is).  It would take time for people to adjust to the new proportions of card types in decks, but I dont think it would destroy any decks, it would just make them work harder as they battle it out for the win.

            Type 1 should not be a game of whose deck wins more coin flips, it should be about deckbuilding, playskill, interaction, and most importantly, fun.

[Pitlord]

               ...In order to keep all the most powerful cards that distinguish type 1 from other slower formats, decks will remain A). Overly broken and B). Extremely inconsistent...

So you are proposing to make decks less inconsistent by making them bigger? Adding more cards means that your deck, by the nature of probability, becomes less consistent. This arguement just doesn't make sense.

Also, as someone who plays fully-powered 5-color quite a bit, I must say that making the games less consistent makes them even less fun. If you think it's bad now being blown out by a hand full of moxen, just imagine how fun it is when you don't draw any of your own insane acceleration or bombs. Does it happen less often? Yes, yes it does. But also makes it infinitely less fun when it does happen.

Lastly, who exactly do you honestly think would support this? The DCI and WOTC surely aren't going to make a move like this, and the vintage community has been adamant in the fact that they will stick with the DCI's decisions. This isn't the first call to separate the community from most of the rest of the Magic world, and I'm sure that this will end up no different.

[eightywpm]

Actually this would kill several of the archetypes that run everything as a 1of, and I think that is the point of what is being said in the post above.  The point is that there are only 7 slots up for even borderline discussion in many decks and the idea is to raise that from 7 slots to 27 slots.  This means rethinking some strategies and by thinning out the percentage of broken plays you could actually revive other strategies that simply cannot function in the current metagame.

What this does is bust things wide open for new ideas and decks and that is always a good thing.  Everybody could say "oh but storm wont be playable anymore!" and those would be offset by the people that would no longer be "bored by the return to a previous metagame" which I have been reading about on these boards for some time.

This would actually allow the dci to unrestrict brainstorm and ponder and to take the unfairness of flash out of the equation.  The odds of the unfair busted "unbeatable" hands would go face down.

On aonther subject, I think that type1 has quite a few decks that are flat out not fun to play against.  Does anybody enjoy playing against ichorid turn 1?  How about walking into a counterwall for the first 5 turns that is incredibly consistent followed by a 20 minute yawgwill turn while I sit back and wonder if I should be spending money on women instead of cardboard (and yes I realize for some of you the two are one in the same).

Other unbearable situations include watching a combo player see if he can hit storm of 40 before playing the stupid tendrils in his hand or playing against 7 resolves spheres in the first 2 turns against a stax deck.  These are exaggerations but we have all been there.

By dilluting the availability of these cards we could make the format actually FUN again.  I think that adding 20 cards to the deck size would be met with resistance by most players simply because they would have to recalculate probabilities and learn new mana ratios, which is much like what happened with the restriction of brainstorm and ponder.

There are many many ideas which could shake up the format and make it more fun.  Why would adding cards not help in this endeavor?  And this isn't a call to secede from DCI or whatever, its just an idea being thrown out to make people think.

[LordHomerCat]

Sorry but I can't help but point out some rather major errors in the original poster's assumptions.

First of all, decks do not become more consistent by playing more cards.  If I could play a 40 card deck in Vintage, I would in a second because it would go broken much more often.  By adding a bunch more cards, you are going to mulligan MORE and your deck's opening hands will vary much more widely.  It sounds like you are complaining more about the fact that people run colorless mana sources (or off-color) than anything else.  If that's such a problem, don't run off-color moxes and you will not mulligan hands as much (although you will have a slower deck).

Second, as the Five Color player above noted, increased decksizes make it even harder to deal with a broken opponent.  They still will randomly start with Black Lotus, and your chances of being able to answer that are reduced because your deck will draw much more varied hands.

It sounds like you should just keep with Legacy if you have such a problem with people playing non-land mana sources and running decks that aren't all 4-ofs.  I honestly don't think any of that post is very close to reality.  Like every complaint is about how your opponents always out-draw you and you don't get to use your awesome skills to actually make games interesting, particularly compared to Legacy.  If that's your problem, well, why don't you just stick to Legacy, as Vintage does not seem to be suited to your interests.

[Oath of Happy]

Sorry but I can't help but point out some rather major errors in the original poster's assumptions.

First of all, decks do not become more consistent by playing more cards.  If I could play a 40 card deck in Vintage, I would in a second because it would go broken much more often.  By adding a bunch more cards, you are going to mulligan MORE and your deck's opening hands will vary much more widely.  It sounds like you are complaining more about the fact that people run colorless mana sources (or off-color) than anything else.  If that's such a problem, don't run off-color moxes and you will not mulligan hands as much (although you will have a slower deck).

Second, as the Five Color player above noted, increased decksizes make it even harder to deal with a broken opponent.  They still will randomly start with Black Lotus, and your chances of being able to answer that are reduced because your deck will draw much more varied hands.

It sounds like you should just keep with Legacy if you have such a problem with people playing non-land mana sources and running decks that aren't all 4-ofs.  I honestly don't think any of that post is very close to reality.  Like every complaint is about how your opponents always out-draw you and you don't get to use your awesome skills to actually make games interesting, particularly compared to Legacy.  If that's your problem, well, why don't you just stick to Legacy, as Vintage does not seem to be suited to your interests.

Thanks for your inspiring advice.  Actually I've played 1 game of Legacy in my life and that was 2 days ago, so it might be kind ofhard for me to "stick with it."  And no, I'm not bitching about people constantly outdrawing me in fact its the other way around.  I smashed the entire Gush meta-game by getting 2nd place at the pre-June restrictions Travis tournament with a deck that was pretty well thought out.  I've been playing Vintage since 2002, so yes, it does suit my interest, I just thought I'd post an interesting topic for people to think about and did not know it was such a terrible idea but thanks for politely letting me know.  As far as the colorless mana goes you said it yourself: "(althought you will have a slower deck)," so yea I don't see a way to not running off colored moxes unless playing a hate deck or Ichorid

[eightywpm]

Sorry but I can't help but point out some rather major errors in the original poster's assumptions.

Extraneous apology is under consideration.  I fail to see why anybody would apologize for disagreeing or trying to shine light on a subject, but that's just me.  Please do not apologize to me if you wish to dissect my response; I welcome the criticisms.

Allow me to clarify what is being said as I understand it, as it seems a few people have msised the point entirely.

First of all, decks do not become more consistent by playing more cards.  If I could play a 40 card deck in Vintage, I would in a second because it would go broken much more often.  By adding a bunch more cards, you are going to mulligan MORE and your deck's opening hands will vary much more widely.

See, this is where the confusion comes into play.  If you play a deck with 4 of a single card, you are going to see that card in more games than if you played with 1 of them.  Logic/math/etc will tell you this.  This is not really debatable, and it is not the point.  The point that I see being made is that vintage is at a stage where it is "too broken" and that the fun factor diminishes significantly as the starting 7 restricted bombs lead to near 100% win chances. 

Now that your eyebrows are raised as fuzzy math, let me show you a couple examples of this happening.  The best example would be an opening trinisphere followed by a smokestack and crucible when your opponent has no force of will or other answer for any of the aforementioned cards.  In this case, you are helpless and the game is not fun.  Wasn't that the reason trinisphere was restricted in the first place?

Another example is a turn 1 kill taking 20 minutes and pretty much wasting everybody's time who bothered shuffling cards in the first place.  Don't get me wrong, it's cool to watch the first 20 times it happens but evnetually it gets old, right?  Can we agree that the seconds tick more slowly when your opponent builds up lethal storm before you make a land drop?  I realize that the probability of this happening is low, and I realize that by playing decks that do not pack 4 FOW I open myself up to these possibilities.  What amuses me is that decks that do not play 4 leyline open themselves up tot he same thing from ichorid and ichorid sees so much hate on these boards, but I digress.

Second, as the Five Color player above noted, increased decksizes make it even harder to deal with a broken opponent.  They still will randomly start with Black Lotus, and your chances of being able to answer that are reduced because your deck will draw much more varied hands.

Again, the point missing is that with both players having 80 card libraries the chances of this happening diminish significantly.  You are still 4 times as likely to start with that force of will as they are to start with that yawgwill which has won so many games with an opening 7.  What happens is with 80 card libraries they become diluted enough to foster other strategies being employed than sstalling until a lethal yawgwill can be played as will becomes harder and harder to find.  The best cards will probably still be the best cards, but your decisions on turns 1 through 3 will affect the game in turns 5 and 6 and beyond.  OMG, turn 6 in vintage?!  Seriously?!

It sounds like you should just keep with Legacy if you have such a problem with people playing non-land mana sources and running decks that aren't all 4-ofs.  I honestly don't think any of that post is very close to reality.  Like every complaint is about how your opponents always out-draw you and you don't get to use your awesome skills to actually make games interesting, particularly compared to Legacy.  If that's your problem, well, why don't you just stick to Legacy, as Vintage does not seem to be suited to your interests.

It's not that I disagree, but as the boards are filled with stories of people leaving vintage and nobody is replacing their ranks, maybe its not a good idea to point people towards other formats? 

What is missing from most of these replies is addressing the "fun" factor.  I know that lots of people play the game specifically to win tournaments, and I feel sorry for people who cannot enjoy the game the way I do.  If I wanted hardcore tournament pro focus I would play type2, but I dont.  I enjoy the brokenness of type 1 to a certain extent, but I do believe that it is nearing a level which is dangerous to the preservation of the environment.  Honestly, the closer t1 gets to being coin-flip dependent, the closer I get to flipping quarters and using that money that would have gone into cardboard on something more interesting.

If type 1 becomes too broken, it will cease to be interesting.  If that isn't the point the OP is trying to make, then it's the point I'd like to make.

[LordHomerCat]

I guess I just don't have the 'too broken' problem he seems to talk about.  Most of my losses are from mistakes I made like misplays and mulligans I should have taken and didn't or deckbuilding or sideboarding errors.  There are of course games where I mulligan to 4 and die and stuff like that, but that isn't just Vintage, that's all magic.  I guess I don't see the format as any more coin-flippy than it has been for years.  There's still always times that people draw better hands than you.  But my experience is that hasn't really changed that much in a long time.  It might be slightly harder to hang on with an iffy hand against a good one without brainstorms, but I don't think I lose any more games now to getting outdrawn than I did then.  Any kind of concrete evidence of this phenomenon would be pretty helpful, or else it just sounds to me like whining because you can't see where you have been making mistakes that cost you games.  There's still plenty of skill to Vintage: look around at the top8s you see.  In this very format, remember that Vintage Nats top 8?  Obviously just a bunch of random lucky people.  Unless you can provide some actual evidence or something of how the format has gotten more luck-controlled, you can't just make that assumption and take it for granted.

[Samite Healer]

I've seen interesting suggestions and posts like this before, and I've always seen them being shot down by players stating "this is Vintage, if you don't like it go play format X, Y, or Z," which is unfortunate.  Whether or not increasing the minimum deck size increases or decreases consistency can definitely be a point of contention.  Sure, mathematically there is less of a chance to draw a restricted card like Yawgmoth's Will; however, if playing 80 cards means you are running 4 Lim Dul's Vault, 4 Opt, and additional tutors/searching you might have a better chance to find a particular card.

The question regarding increasing the minimum deck size is whether or not it will actually impact card selection and deck diversity to the extent to which it has been proposed here.  At some point, it is possible that enough testing will prove that there are certain additions to existing decks that simply turn Control Slaver from a 60 to an 80 card deck.  Assuming I had to add 20 cards, I would probably go back up to 4 Welders, add 4 Strategic Planning (if I didn't already run them), increase the mana base, and probably add another robot/trick card.  Now, which robot I added or which draw spell I added (maybe Impulse instead of SP, etc.) could be termed "increased selection," but that isn't much of a choice.

For as amazing as Vintage is, it has many shortcomings as a format, which can't easily be solved without extreme changes.  The problem is, once you change a format so much it ceases to exist and you've created a new format.  I'd describe Vintage as "an exciting, broken format where incremental advantages in tempo can be overcome by game defining cards" rather than "an older format of Magic, where you get to play a deck using any card that has been printed."

While I don't think this will necessary "fix" the format, I do think it's important for people to constantly think of ideas and evaluate the current systems.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Vintage is actually much tamer than it was a year or two ago, and I can't recall it being LESS broken than it is now.  Remember Empty Gifts, Meandeck Tendrils, GAT, The Tropical Storm, Hulk Flash, Tyrant Oath?  There's nothing even remotely that good right now.   BUG Fish, Elves, all sorts of crazy shit is winning tournaments, and while yes, Tezzeret is doing well, it's not even close to as strong as those decks were.

[Grand Inquisitor]

There's nothing even remotely that good right now...all sorts of crazy shit is winning tournaments

This is much closer to how I see things right now.  It's a little confounding that attendance is down (at least in the NE), but I attribute this to travel costs, overall economic mood, people having life changes that preclude hobbies, and a community organizing crew that is dedicated, but in need of new ideas.

The metagame is one of the healthiest I've seen since starting to play in 2002.  I think this tournament from just after Shards' release is a good example of what's viable today.  It's really wide open and the tactical options available to combo, control, 'hate' and workshops are extremely diverse.

[Harlequin]

About 95 percent of decks, if not more, start with 4 of either mishra's worksop, dark ritual, mana drain, or bazaar of baghdad, with the playstyle of the deck usually revolving around these cards.  The remaining 5 percent are based around 4 null rods/chalices and 4 wastelands, which are decks that are not as powerful as the rest, but are hate decks that are designed specifially to kick dark ritual and mana drain decks where it really hurts.  This leads to a high occurence of duels that are not terribly fun, because of 2 things that often happen in tournaments:

So there I count 4 major architypes with a 5th less popular architype.  It sounds to me like this is ~more~ then when it was Combo v Control v Agro like it was "back in the day."  I mean you could rewrite that sentence: 95% of the decks are prison, storm-combo, control, or graveyard - with the last 5% being tempo. 

Whats the big deal?  With the size of our cardpool, there are bound to be a few "most power" cards in every architype that help define that nich.  The beauty of the eternal formats is that these architype 'must haves' are realatively stagnent.  The R&B list can help shape this - but no one is going to be running Cabal Ritual unless they already have 4 dark rituals because Dark Rit is for all intensive purposes 'strickly better.'  If you don't want to see certain cards dominate thier niches then you should seriously look at a format that rotates cards in and out = ie not an eternal one.

  I think this would be the best thing for vintage and would open the door for INNOVATION (yea I know everyone loves that word so there it is).  It would take time for people to adjust to the new proportions of card types in decks, but I dont think it would destroy any decks, it would just make them work harder as they battle it out for the win.

** note the following rant is not dirrected at anyone other than someone who complains about the following:  "Innovation is dead today, but if the DCI did '(insert: R&B change, format change here)', -I- could innovate!"

As a self-defined innovator the only contraint I feel on innovation is the NUMBER of tournements I can attend because I have MORE decks to play than tournements to play them in.  Innovation is something you create.  Here's whats going to happen, if they increase the deck size to 80 I can nearly gaurentee that the same people will be building the winning decks.  Unless you feel that you know something magical about the number 80 that everyone else doesn't.  Heres the script:
- change to 80 bla bla wah wah wah whine whine whine.
- those people quit
- wow this is great
-- 1,000 bad ideas occur
- people hold tournemnts
- the same poeple win with 80 card version of todays decks
- become comfortable in the new 80 decks and just tweek them
- whine about innovation being dead because every deck starts with the same 74 cards and you can only play with 6 cards.

Where did that get us?  To the same place.  Does this means I'm against an 80 card format? Not at all, beacuse I beleive it would be the same exact format.

Does anybody enjoy playing against ichorid turn 1?

Yes, because it means I'm playing in a vintage format.  I may even be looking forward to it, If I'm properly ready to deal with it.

How about walking into a counterwall for the first 5 turns that is incredibly consistent followed by a 20 minute yawgwill turn ...

This never happens to me, because I scoop when it is apparent they cannot lose.  Now again, don't get me wrong... Every player has EVERY right to demand your opponent play out the game.  But as soon as you do: Shut the hell up about them taking a long time to do it!  YOU wanted them to.  If anything YOU are the person wasting the 20 mins.  Sure they 'could' mess it up - but you're the person trying to take advantage of that.  And there IS information to be earned. AND you should try to win every game by every means nessisary.  AND I have absolutly no problem with a person requesting a proper accurate and timely exicution of a win.  I only think you're out of line if later you get all uppity about how long it takes, or what you have to fantisize about while they do it. 

Sure, mathematically there is less of a chance to draw a restricted card like Yawgmoth's Will; however, if playing 80 cards means you are running 4 Lim Dul's Vault, 4 Opt, and additional tutors/searching you might have a better chance to find a particular card.

My response ranges from "No" to "That technically true but completely irrelevant" depeding on the sematics of the defense of that statement. But that aside:
If it were true that you could have increased consistancy at no cost to brokenness then today you'd see only 80 card decks even if the cap was 60.  Today, decks could easily be more consistant in finding and drawing cards at the cost of brokenness (see relentless rats.dec) but you lose overall your performance is hurt.  In any meta be it 60 cards, 80 cards, you'll always have to make choices between consistancy and brokenness.  There will be 80 card Ichorid or storm decks that throw consistancy to the wind for pure brokenness. 


The thing I love about vintage is that everything is very intense.  Every choice, every play, can either end up being totally correct or totally terrible.  One intance of this is when my brother sided in Oxidize against Combo.  In game 2 his opponent led with some mana and Lotus Petal.  My brother EOT oxidized the lotus petal: and face-palms went around room.  In a twist of fate, my brother ended color screwing his opponent and WINNING the match.  Much to dismay of his opponent.  Was oxidizing the lotus petal the "Right" play?  Was even boarding in the oxidizes the right play... 

My point is that vintage is fast-paced and has very little room for error.  As ELD says, there's always something -you- could have done differently to win the match.  It could be as distant as the deck you chose to play, or even makeing sure you had your wheatties before the event.  Sure other formats may have this same quality but the frequency of being able to totaly punt is what keeps me playing vintage.  To me, T2 and extendend are like a bicycle race, Legacy is like dirt-bike racing, and vintage is like high performace turbo-bike racing where everyone has samuria swords.  Same sort of mechanics and concepts, but you just pay much much bigger for seemingly trivial mistakes.  And that's not for everyone.

[LotusHead]

Topic: Is type 1 fun anymore and is 60 cards enough?

Type 1 is a blast! and has been since I started playing competetive Vintage in 2004 (post 5th Dawn).

Is 60 cards enough?
Most of us play with 75 cards.  Just thought I'd point that out.

[pierce]

i got convinced to play states this year. someone payed for me to play and handed me a t2 deck. i sit down, 3-0, for rd 4.

my opponnent asks me if I play a lot. I reply that I mostly play vintage, and abhor other formats, because vintage is where skill is most relevant. Everybody is doing such broken things, that the person who can consistantly have the best reads and best game plan will do better. I feel like there is less luck than other formats.

He says thats an interesting opinion and we start playing. He drops forest, llanowar elf. I drop gilt leaf palace, show you a llanowar elf, thoughtseize you--as I would hate to lose to a second turn bitterblossom. He shows me a hand of profane command, which i take, eyeblights ending (dead, elf mirror), two wilt leaf lieges he cant cast, and a swamp. I look back at my hand and think, how can I possibly lose this? He draws, and plays a bitterblossom.

What was I just complaining about? I laugh. Luck in other formats. Nice draw.

Sure that shit can happen in t1, but we have FOW for that stuff. Plus busted topdecks of our own. In a format like t2, where bitterblossom is easily the best card, there are nearly no ways to deal with it g1 turn 2. The best cards in vintage depend on the deck, unless you just say its lotus, which everybody runs anyway.


HOnestly, I think you are either overestimating your own play or playing too many tier two decks to have the opinion you do of the format.

[Akuma]

The metagame is one of the healthiest I've seen since starting to play in 2002.  I think this tournament from just after Shards' release is a good example of what's viable today.  It's really wide open and the tactical options available to combo, control, 'hate' and workshops are extremely diverse.

That tournament seems like an example of how Mana Drain decks are what is dominating now. I guess it's okay if Drains are the top half of a given top 8 (healthy) as opposed to Gush decks being half of a top 8 (unhealthy).

[God_Campbell]

I personally feel that vintage players love mana drain, and it is not just one specific deck that packs drains, it is entire archetypes like landstill, bomber man, Tezz, Mono Blue control or Control Slaver. These decks all win in a different manner using varied draw engines and win conditions to reign supreme over their opponents, while the card is seeing lots of play it fosters a healthy meta game as Stax is going to be out, as is combo and fish type decks, which means loads of options to play on any given weekend tourney.

The problem with the gush decks being 1/2 the top 8s is it was play gush or play a gush hate deck, there was no in between and that was the real problem, and then there was flash which just added to the stupidity of the format at that time.

I love to play vintage, it is the format I can play the best spells and enjoy an afternoon or evening with my friends, it is not about winning although it is the cherry on an otherwise awesome weekend if I got to see my friends who I see maybe once a month when we get together at the card store to sling the cardboard crack.

Could we survive by goign to a 80 card main deck? perhaps but I don't see it as something that needs to be done now, perhaps come 2015 or something then yes 80 might be the new 60 but then why play more cards if 60 is going to be the best cards to make your deck work.

[Juggernaut GO]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

[Smmenen]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

Then you will be very surprised.  I promise you that. 

I PROMISE. 

[Vegeta2711]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

I'd put 'in America' on that, since Europe has no such issues, but I agree with the sentiment.

[Smmenen]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

I'd put 'in America' on that, since Europe has no such issues, but I agree with the sentiment.

on what grounds? 

[Oath of Happy]

I think a reason why Europe has a healthier format than ours is that the Europeans play decks that are much more reactive.  Rather than playing interactive matches, I feel like playing in NE is like playing by yourself for the most part, vs an opponent whos's playing by his/her self.  For the most part, the game plays out like this scenario:  Blast your opponent to hell before they can blast you to hell.  Thats mostly how it is, whether its with a literal kill, or a double sphere plus smokestack stall which leaves the opponent helpless untill stax player gets a crucible or welder, or its vs a draw engine that uses force of will / mana drain to push their bombs through or stall their opponent from winning first, therefore giving them more power to go off faster, eventually leading to the game ending bomb.  European decks, from what I have experienced on MWS run cards like repeal and other cards while putting out small threats like Bob to chip away at the opponent while they attempt to hold them off with chalice, stifle, and counters.  I'm not saying that big kills like a yawgs will or a tinker are bad, but the amount of turn 1 and 2 plays that can swing a player way out into a commanding lead over the opponent is just ridiculous.

[Vegeta2711]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

I'd put 'in America' on that, since Europe has no such issues, but I agree with the sentiment.

on what grounds? 

Looking at generally dwindling tournament sizes over the past year or so as well as the notable decline of name players who used to attend many of these tourneys with no genuine replacements having yet arisen through the ranks. It's one thing to have someone enjoy the format and show up every six months and another to have someone who constantly goes to a significant number of Vintage tourneys in his / her area. Like one day my friend asked me how Vintage was actually fairing in the States and I went ahead and poked through the reports/results forum for numbers. Out of something like 15 events in the U.S. (Travis-Con, Myriad, ELD tourneys, Pitt ones, etc.) over the past 3.5-4 months, the average was like 20.7 people or something close to that, though I'd say half the tournaments had less people than that. There was a whole 3 tournaments with 32 or more players showing up, regardless of prize. Many which countered only had 14-15 people attending for what amounts to a 200-400 dollar prize. Our Grand Prix Trial here in the Bay Area this past weekend got 37, despite being poorly announced and people scrambling to put together Extended decks.

That's really it though, certainly I could be wrong, but without some insane push or some gigantic change to the B/R to generate more interest again, I think Vintage will be hard-pressed to make up for the people that have been fading away. I'm sure there will still be local scenes, just like there is with Legacy, but as best I can tell the big tournaments that matter are going to be a thing of the past. (Save the ones in Europe and possibly Vintage 'Worlds')

[M.Solymossy]

You are very mistaken.  Take a look at the ICBM Opens, and you'll see that they constantly got 40+, other than the one in September, because people were back in school.  Take a look at Traviscon#1, and they got over 80 (i think they capped 100, actually). 

Also, you say the "name players" no longer play.  Sure, if you look at vintage dinosaurs like Brassy, Kowal, Smemmycakes, CrazyCarl, JPMeyer, Zherbus, Eastman, PTWorm, Diceman, The Lord of Atogs,  Demars,  Franklin, and the guys from 2003-2004, a lot of them aren't playing.

But lets look at the top 8 at vintage worlds this year:
Paul Mystriano
Jimmy McCarthy
Brian Demars
Tommy Kolowith
Mike Solymossy (Typing in 3rd person!)
Owen Turtenwald
Chris Nieghbor
The oath player who's name I forgot.

Also in contention up until the last round were:
Steve Menenenenenenendian
Philip Schmidt
Ben Carp
Matt Endress

Diceman was there, as was Brassman, Shay, and many others.



Out east at Traviscon1, we had:
Brian Demars
Nam Tran
Jerry Yang
Mark Biller
Franklin
Myself
Jimmy McCarthy
Justin Timmony
Stephen Ellsworth

All these guys have had impressive finishes.  Some obviously more than others.

In almost every tournament I play in, there are at least 4 of the 2008 Vintage Champs top 8.

The names aren't dying, they're just changing. 

[mike_bergeron]

If competitive vintage tournaments still exist in 2 years, I will be really surprised.

I'd put 'in America' on that, since Europe has no such issues, but I agree with the sentiment.

on what grounds? 

Looking at generally dwindling tournament sizes over the past year or so as well as the notable decline of name players who used to attend many of these tourneys with no genuine replacements having yet arisen through the ranks. It's one thing to have someone enjoy the format and show up every six months and another to have someone who constantly goes to a significant number of Vintage tourneys in his / her area. Like one day my friend asked me how Vintage was actually fairing in the States and I went ahead and poked through the reports/results forum for numbers. Out of something like 15 events in the U.S. (Travis-Con, Myriad, ELD tourneys, Pitt ones, etc.) over the past 3.5-4 months, the average was like 20.7 people or something close to that, though I'd say half the tournaments had less people than that. There was a whole 3 tournaments with 32 or more players showing up, regardless of prize. Many which countered only had 14-15 people attending for what amounts to a 200-400 dollar prize. Our Grand Prix Trial here in the Bay Area this past weekend got 37, despite being poorly announced and people scrambling to put together Extended decks.

That's really it though, certainly I could be wrong, but without some insane push or some gigantic change to the B/R to generate more interest again, I think Vintage will be hard-pressed to make up for the people that have been fading away. I'm sure there will still be local scenes, just like there is with Legacy, but as best I can tell the big tournaments that matter are going to be a thing of the past. (Save the ones in Europe and possibly Vintage 'Worlds')

Sounds like an article idea to me.  Maybe it is because I just read 'outliers' and my brain is trying to comprehend the examples, but I am starting to think the vintage age has already passed us- a majority of the vintage players I knew were between 12-15 when revised came out up here in New Hampshire.

josh makes the point though- people are leaving the format (either for a break or permanently) and I rarely see the replacements.  My opinion is that vintage is tough to get into because most of the players are well beyond teenage years, making it tough for the younger crowd to find decent play testing opportunities, where as they can draft every Friday and there always is a crowd.  no data, just observations.

In my mind, there is no financial constraint on the format at this point, and if you want to play it, it compares to standard as far as obtaining cards.  proxies are accepted almost everywhere, and 'budget' decks are doing just fine.

I guess the question in my mind is: why is there a resistance from magic players to vintage? it seems like magic players I know who play standard also play in extended as well as draft frequently.  why not vintage?

[Webster]

I guess the question in my mind is: why is there a resistance from magic players to vintage? it seems like magic players I know who play standard also play in extended as well as draft frequently.  why not vintage?

The initial cost to enter the format is more difficult to get by compared to other formats.

There is no reward for entering the format that a different format can't match. I might have as much fun playing standard as I would type 1.

There is nothing in vintage to aspire to. If I had to choose between playing type 1 or standard, I'd probably choose standard because I want to be the next Jon Finkel.

Vintage events don't act as a gateway to an unaccessable higher level of play. If I want to get really good and play in the pro tour so I can win 40k, I'm going to play standard, extended, or any limited format.



Given the choice of A) Having fun or B) Having fun + perks, what would you choose? I'll let you in on a little secret: vintage is not B.

[T00L]

Stephen Ellsworth

Oh man savage name butchering but thanks for remembering that I was good once

[Juggernaut GO]

both ya'll got it wrong, it's barnsworth

[T00L]

both ya'll got it wrong, it's barnsworth

Oh Travis <3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3

[Samite Healer]

Stephen Ellsworth

Oh man savage name butchering but thanks for remembering that I was good once

Wait...you were good? 

[Tha Gunslinga]

The initial cost to enter the format is more difficult to get by compared to other formats.

Not at the 25/25/25 proxy system, which my area of the Midwest has switched to.  Vintage now costs $75-300 for any deck, unlike Legacy, whose barrier is much worse.  Even Type 2 generally costs more than 25/25/25 vintage.

Vintage will experience a rebirth, mark my words.

[mike_bergeron]

I guess the question in my mind is: why is there a resistance from magic players to vintage? it seems like magic players I know who play standard also play in extended as well as draft frequently.  why not vintage?

The initial cost to enter the format is more difficult to get by compared to other formats.

There is no reward for entering the format that a different format can't match. I might have as much fun playing standard as I would type 1.

There is nothing in vintage to aspire to. If I had to choose between playing type 1 or standard, I'd probably choose standard because I want to be the next Jon Finkel.

Vintage events don't act as a gateway to an unaccessable higher level of play. If I want to get really good and play in the pro tour so I can win 40k, I'm going to play standard, extended, or any limited format.



Given the choice of A) Having fun or B) Having fun + perks, what would you choose? I'll let you in on a little secret: vintage is not B.

OK. So here is my question- you are good at magic, and have had success.  why do you frequent a vintage site, and play vintage? you just said there are no rewards.  Why does someone like LSV play vintage, when he obviously is doing so well in other formats with much better prize support?  I don't understand the argument I guess, but it may not be an argument. 

Maybe I stated my question poorly. Why are standard, extended, draft and block players not graduating at some point to vintage? It seems a natural move, you get cards for current decks, they fall off block, out of standard, and out of extended.  It seems natural to me that at some point they would try to find out how to use these cards again, especially their favorite or 'pet' cards.