[FREE article] The 2008 Vintage Year in Review

[Smmenen]

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/21

This is my best year in review, and I've been doing them for half a decade now.    I think I really managed to capture the incredible changes in Vintage from month to month over the course of 2008.   Plus, the formatting on MTG.com will allow us to relive great memories with their goldfish function. 

Take an enjoyable stroll down memory lane.   

Let me know what you think!   

EDIT:

I URGE you to read this (at least scan it) if you care about or play Vintage.   Wizards went out of their way to highlight the Vintage year.   Clicking this link is a message to them that the Vintage player base is still out there and still cares and enjoys this format. 

[policehq]

You mean http://www.mtg.com ? Or...?

[Schonkreuz]

link -> http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/21

[LordHomerCat]

Terrific Steve.  I played through the whole thing and was still riveted, following the evolution of the metagame.  Plus, it mentioned me by name.  The opening was also very fitting.  I think this was one of my favorite articles I've read of yours.

[oneofchaos]

I wish you could write more than one of these pieces in a year

It was a great read, especially after being at college for my first semester and taking a brief hiatus.  Caught me up on what I missed (the time vault explosion).
Thanks Steve

[BruiZar]

In hindsight all those metagame shifts were very foreseeable and logical. The hard task however, is predicting the future. I loved the piece and it gave me a more structured understanding of how the metagame has evolved throughout the year.

[Troy_Costisick]

Two gigantic articles on Vintage in one day!  Are you kidding me?  How am I going to get anything done at work???  Seriously, Stephen, I do have to accomplish *something* at my job today.

 

Can't wait to read them all.

Peace,

-Troy

[Smmenen]

Everyone should read this article!  It's free and wizards did an amazing job with the images!   

[LotusHead]

I didn't even notice it was on www.magicthegathering.com (as opposed to www.starcitygames.com) until after I thoroughly enjoyed the article, marveled at the great formatting/graphics, went on with my life, and hours later checked in at mtg.com to see what the card of the day was.

With one article, you have brought more Vintage content to that site than they have had for (gosh) entire time I've bothered to look at the site.

[tito del monte]

Thanks for this Steve, it was a cracking read. I really enjoyed seeing a coherent picture of the metagame's evolution around the world. And I thought it was pleasing that references to dud sets and some dubious DCI decisions were allowed to stand. Here's to more vintage goodies in 2009!

[EnialisLiadon]

I love this annual article!  It's so amazing what happens in just one year in vintage, and goes a long way in proving that vintage is not the boring and stagnant format that people tend to think of it as.  This did not disappoint, and was one of my favorite annual reviews.

[Smmenen]

Wizards outdid themselves with the graphics.   Really, really nice jpegs in this one. 

[GrandpaBelcher]

This and your article on SCG were really good, Steve, especially since they covered similar ground without being repetetive.  I had forgotten how eventful 2008 was!  Hopefully some new people are attracted to the format by reading these.

[Ulthrion]

Really great article! Thanks for putting so much effort in this. The goldfish option is truely great to get a feel of what turn 1 and 2 plays there really are.

Keep this anual series up, it's the best vintage content on that site.

[Smmenen]

Really great article! Thanks for putting so much effort in this. The goldfish option is truely great to get a feel of what turn 1 and 2 plays there really are.

Keep this anual series up, it's the best vintage content on that site.

Agreed.  It's fun to goldfish not only decks like Flash, but also Travis Spero's Ad Nauseam deck!

http://www.wizards.com/magic/samplehand.asp?x=mtg/daily/feature/21&decknum=12

[wiley]

I've read all of your year end reviews, some to find out what I missed, some to refresh my memory on timelines and general cycles of strategies.  Is it odd to say that I look forward to the day my memory on 2008 gets fuzzy enough that I have to go back and read that article from start to finish again?

[Smmenen]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.


It's sort of sad to me that not everyone reads these.    It's a very rare opportunity that Wizards gives us to highlight Vintage.   Given the state of Vintage, (it will be a blessing if we have a SCG P9 tournament this year), this sort of recognition should not be overlooked.

I've tried very hard to make this very readable.  In fact, unlike other Vintage year in reviews I don't even mention myself at all, not even in the deckbuilding context.   I wanted to make this as enjoyable a read as possible for as wide an audience as possible, respecting every region from California to Milan. 

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

This article is more than simply a "what happened in 2008" article, it's also a celebration of Vintage.  By reflecting on the great changes of 2008, I think we all gain a better appreciation for the format.   

Borrowing one of the images from the article:



I mean, after reading this, how could ANYONE not appreciate Vintage?  Or be curious about it?   

[Suicideking]

The article is top notch for vintage.  I've followed the metagame pretty closely all year and I think the article discussed everything in good detail.  It doesn't hurt that I made the article.  Good Job.

[BC]

I thought it was a fantastic article.  Very entertaining.  A great reminder for those of us who experienced it, and a great overview for those that were outside the format.  My only complaint is that I wish you would have talked a little more about Null Rod variants, particularly BUG Fish.  Perhaps you could have included Arik Pogrebinsky's list from the latest Enfield tournament (if you can track it down).

[Schonkreuz]

I enjoyed the article and after looking at the forums for it a lot of non-vintage players seemed to as well! Things like this could convince people to play, I saw more then one person say they might have to give vintage a try. A lot of them were surprised by proxies being allowed. I was going to try and post something but I messed up on registering and can't get on right now.

But seriously, awesome read!

[eightywpm]

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

I wasn't going to say anything, but thought you might like to know.  This is why I have a hard time reading anything you write or any of the forum posts.  This is an example of the ego-stroking i mentioned in a previous post; it does you no favors to compliment yourself in such a way.  There's a reason that Narcissus is a fable and not a fictional story. 

In reponse to my previous post, you asked for proof of my "accusations."  I wasnt going to bother, in fact I didnt bother responding, but this post jumped up and I have the time and patience to point it out right now.  If the design of the article is not yours, you did not mention that anywhere.  It does in fact look like you are taking credit for being a brilliant designer of the immaculate articles which other mortals could not possibly construe on their own.  While that is jumping in steps, given the image you already present to many in the vintage community, it is no more a step than saying that your own article was designed incredibly.  I really think you would be more successful if you ate some humble pie.

[LordHomerCat]

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

I wasn't going to say anything, but thought you might like to know.  This is why I have a hard time reading anything you write or any of the forum posts.  This is an example of the ego-stroking i mentioned in a previous post; it does you no favors to compliment yourself in such a way.  There's a reason that Narcissus is a fable and not a fictional story. 

In reponse to my previous post, you asked for proof of my "accusations."  I wasnt going to bother, in fact I didnt bother responding, but this post jumped up and I have the time and patience to point it out right now.  If the design of the article is not yours, you did not mention that anywhere.  It does in fact look like you are taking credit for being a brilliant designer of the immaculate articles which other mortals could not possibly construe on their own.  While that is jumping in steps, given the image you already present to many in the vintage community, it is no more a step than saying that your own article was designed incredibly.  I really think you would be more successful if you ate some humble pie.

Pretty sure he's referring to the arrangment of the article, the awesome pictures, and the other things done by the MTG editors to really make it stand out, rather than his own sectioning.

[Smmenen]

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

I wasn't going to say anything, but thought you might like to know.  This is why I have a hard time reading anything you write or any of the forum posts.  This is an example of the ego-stroking i mentioned in a previous post; it does you no favors to compliment yourself in such a way.  There's a reason that Narcissus is a fable and not a fictional story. 

In reponse to my previous post, you asked for proof of my "accusations."  I wasnt going to bother, in fact I didnt bother responding, but this post jumped up and I have the time and patience to point it out right now.  If the design of the article is not yours, you did not mention that anywhere.  It does in fact look like you are taking credit for being a brilliant designer of the immaculate articles which other mortals could not possibly construe on their own.  While that is jumping in steps, given the image you already present to many in the vintage community, it is no more a step than saying that your own article was designed incredibly.  I really think you would be more successful if you ate some humble pie.

Wow.

I was referring to the images put in by Wizards Web Folks, and the sleek aesthetic look of the article, also part of the web design.

What, you think that I designed the look of the article in addition to writing it?   I wish!

I didn't know that I had to publish a disclaimer that I didn't design the Wizards website, nor could I have possibly expected being reprimanded for not having done so.   

You sound paranoid to the absolute extreme.    Take off the "hate-Steve" filter for just a moment and enjoy the article which I've written for the community.   

That explains your earlier post.  If you read everything I say and or do that way, everything I did would be interpreted through the lens of ego-aggrandizement.   I shouldn't have even written this article, right -- since that only smacks of self-promotion?

It's obvious why Vintage is at its lowest ebb in some time.


I go out of my way, for minimal remuneration, to help promote this format, and not only is the response somewhat tepid given that everyone has a stake in it (if people don't click that link, Wizards won't get the message that more Vintage content is a good thing), but I actually get criticized for something that I wasn't actually saying nor would most normal people think I was saying.   

I hope others don't share your sentiment, but I fear that they do, and that is one reason why Vintage is not in a good place.   

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

I wasn't going to say anything, but thought you might like to know.  This is why I have a hard time reading anything you write or any of the forum posts.  This is an example of the ego-stroking i mentioned in a previous post; it does you no favors to compliment yourself in such a way.  There's a reason that Narcissus is a fable and not a fictional story. 

In reponse to my previous post, you asked for proof of my "accusations."  I wasnt going to bother, in fact I didnt bother responding, but this post jumped up and I have the time and patience to point it out right now.  If the design of the article is not yours, you did not mention that anywhere.  It does in fact look like you are taking credit for being a brilliant designer of the immaculate articles which other mortals could not possibly construe on their own.  While that is jumping in steps, given the image you already present to many in the vintage community, it is no more a step than saying that your own article was designed incredibly.  I really think you would be more successful if you ate some humble pie.

Pretty sure he's referring to the arrangment of the article, the awesome pictures, and the other things done by the MTG editors to really make it stand out, rather than his own sectioning.

Yes, if there is one thing I want to sell about this article, it's how awesome my sectioning is.    Well done Steve!

[overseer1234]

This is also the perfect article for introducing someone to Vintage and bringing them up to speed.  The goldfish function, the incredible design of the article, and everything.   

I wasn't going to say anything, but thought you might like to know.  This is why I have a hard time reading anything you write or any of the forum posts.  This is an example of the ego-stroking i mentioned in a previous post; it does you no favors to compliment yourself in such a way.  There's a reason that Narcissus is a fable and not a fictional story. 

In response to my previous post, you asked for proof of my "accusations."  I wasn't going to bother, in fact I didn't bother responding, but this post jumped up and I have the time and patience to point it out right now.  If the design of the article is not yours, you did not mention that anywhere.  It does in fact look like you are taking credit for being a brilliant designer of the immaculate articles which other mortals could not possibly construe on their own.  While that is jumping in steps, given the image you already present to many in the vintage community, it is no more a step than saying that your own article was designed incredibly.  I really think you would be more successful if you ate some humble pie.

Wow dude, take a chill pill...


No, really, nobody's forcing you to read it or to read this topic for that matter.
If you don't like Steve's attitude (which I would find strange) just don't read it becauss you could ruin it for everyone else.

So just be a good puppy and stay put...



Back on topic:


Since Ive only recently started playing vintage (since oktober) I have to say that this article (and the one on SCG for that mater) really helped clearing things up, since it give's a lot of insight in the format. (trying to build my own hate decks doesn't really work when you don't know what to hate out the most now does it??)

Anyway, great read and I'm looking forward to read more (especially the budget vintage decks cause I like being the underdog )

Greetzzzz,
Robin.

[Nehptis]

Steve, the article is very good.  The feedback in the MTG / Gleemax? forums speak to that point when a lot of posters say things like "I never played Vintage but this article got me excited about the format!"

Please keep promoting our format any way you wish.

[nineisnoone]

To be honest, I love these sort of "slice of life in the Vintage world" articles.  In depth primers and game analysis are obviously great, but these articles are always refreshing to read.  Sort of like, stepping back and seeing the gameplay horizon, seeing the forest instead of just the trees kind of thing.

And it's a free article to boot!

[Smmenen]

Thanks guys!  It's funny to see that many of the same people who replied and commented on this article were the same ones who did that for the 2007 year in review.


I cannot stress how important it is for Vintage players to take a look at this article --every click sends a message to Wizards that Vintage content is welcome and desired on MTG.com.   This article was written for everyone to enjoy.   

[pocky]

Do you really think Vintage can grow?

I am skeptical. Here are a few reasons:
1. Card availability: There are a fixed number of cards available, and are always hard to acquire. If a new player can obtain those cards, the net gain of players is still 0.
2. Few Vintage events anywhere in the country.
3. Vintage networks have been dwindling for some time now, fewer people to engage in games and discussions.

[Smmenen]

Do you really think Vintage can grow?

I am skeptical. Here are a few reasons:
1. Card availability: There are a fixed number of cards available, and are always hard to acquire. If a new player can obtain those cards, the net gain of players is still 0.
2. Few Vintage events anywhere in the country.
3. Vintage networks have been dwindling for some time now, fewer people to engage in games and discussions.

The card availability argument is not compelling since there are proxies, and the second two points are not inevitable. 

[IthilanorStPete]

I posted this over on the mtg.com forums, but I'll reiterate it here - this was a truly excellent article. It's writing like this that makes me want to actually play Vintage beyond Workstation.