[FREE Article] The COMPLETE Vintage Checklist!

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/18103_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Complete_Vintage_Checklist.html

Editor's Blurb:

So Many Insane Plays – The Complete Vintage Checklist
Monday, October 5th - In today’s So Many Insane Plays, Stephen Menendian brings us a fantastic resource: a complete list of Vintage playable cards! While this list will obviously stir debate, he’s provided an outstanding blueprint for anyone interested in playing Magic’s most broken format. Plus, some prerelease talk too!

Enjoy!!

[Son of Serra]

Steve, great list! It will be a very helpful tool for helping me assess the gaps in my collection, and more than a few cards got me to think about how they might see play competatively! I especially liked the breakdown by color.

I would like to add a few cards for consideration. Some may be outdated, but many are linked to other cards on the list (as in "if you play X you will almost certainly play Y") and may still be relevant:

x3 Argivian Find
x1 Berserk
x1 Body Double
x1 Carrion Feeder
x4 Land Tax
x3 Moat
x4 Mogg Fanatic
x4 Protean Hulk
x1 Research//Development
x1 Reveillark
x4 Scroll Rack

And although you mention the relavant goblins, the relevant elves were MIA. Would you add any of these cards to future lists?

[zeromancer]

Sure, some will miss some cards and others mitght argue about others, but all in all this list is a really useful tool. Good job.

[John Jones]

Relevant Elves
4x Fyndhorn
4x Birchlore
4x Llanowar
4x Heritage druid
4x Tappy untap elf
4x Wirewood symbyote
4x Quirion ranger
1x naturalize man on 2/2 for 3

[Disburden]

Very neat article, it was very helpful to actually have a list you can print and refer to. I would have liked to have heard more about those old magazines though. I wish I still had mine lying around the house but they were long gone after 1996.

[voltron00x]

This must've been a massive undertaking.  Kudos for attempting it.

I'm curious, what was your selection process for the cards chosen?  There are some interesting omissions when it comes to decks that have broken in 2009 (for instance, no Counterbalance or Dream Halls).  There's a few missing sideboard cards that Ichorid decks use (Emerald Charm, Wispmare, and why only 1 Firestorm?  Some people have played multiples in Ichorid SBs, which is tech ported from Legacy for Fish-heavy metagames).  I'm guessing you left out Cephalid Sage b/c it is replaced by Sphinx of Lost Truths, as you listed last week in your Zendikar piece.  Also, the entire Elves deck is MIA.  I only mention it because that deck has made more T8s in the last 12 calendar months than decks using some of your other selections.

What criteria did you use to determine the numbers you provided?  Some look a little wonky to me as far as the number you're advocating (Why only 1 Fire/Ice?  Why stop at 3 Choke?  Why 4 Magus of the Unseen, 4 Grindstone, 4 Diminishing Returns?  What deck plays even 1 Mindlock Orb at this point?)

Please don't take this as a criticism of the piece as a whole - this is a very cool article and I imagine took a considerable amount of work to assemble.

[Smmenen]

I explained the criteria in the article.   

[voltron00x]

I explained the criteria in the article.  

You explain part of the selection process, but not the # of each you're suggesting.  You explained that you looked at Top 8s from the past 6-12 months as a guide, but then said you didn't only use Top 8s, relying on your own judgement.  In other words, you have ignored certain pieces of the metagame because you didn't feel they were significant enough to merit inclusion.  I think this sort of list should be comprehensive if you're going to attempt it, and if you're not, be more clear that this is your personal list and not the "complete" checklist.  Its hard to determine if you intentionally failed to include something like Elves or Dream Halls because you think they're unproven, even as you admit that you included cards like Diminishing Returns because you believe they are "playable", even though they see no play.  This seems contradictory as you claim that you erred on the side of inclusion later on in the article.  I feel like this detracts from the quality and clarity of this endeavor - but I could be interpreting incorrectly.  Further, classifying Diminshing Returns as "Niche/Less Commonly Played" when it should be in the category of "Potentially Playable" as it in fact is not played at all might reveal a flaw in your category system.  Note that I'm not hating on D. Returns, its just a useful example.  To return to the numbers example, as I asked above, why do you feel its only worthwhile to have 1 Fire/Ice?  Why 3 Choke?  Again, why do I want 4 Diminshing Returns when no popular deck plays even 1?

From the article:

"These, and more, are all real problems to drafting a complete Vintage checklist. After much consideration, I ultimately settled on a two-category system that I have keyed below: Commonly Played/Staples versus Niche/Less Commonly Played. I have tried to use recent Vintage Top 8 data, giving particular weight to the last 6-12 months, in determining whether a card is playable, using the extensive Morphling.de Vintage tournament database. But that has not been my only source. As I said, I’m also sure that I’ve missed something. Feel free tell me what I’ve missed in the forums. But recognize that there is a good chance that I’ve intentionally omitted the card. I haven’t simply selected cards that have made Top 8s in the last 6 months or year, but that has been a touchstone for whether a card is included or not. "

AND,

"I’ve tried to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I’ve included cards in here that may not be played at the moment, but I believe are playable, and would be deck building material in future metagames. That necessarily involves a judgment call. "

[Stormanimagus]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

That, and many of your numbers are skewed. When would a player play 3 Rebuild? 4 Tezzeret the Seeker? Were these numbers meant to represent the maximum number you'd see in a given deck? If so, you need to explain that.

I think that this list is a great start, but certainly needs some revising to illustrate the layout of Vintage past/present that I think you're going for. You need to be clear in how you define your selection process and then stick to that process. Right now I have no clue as to how you selected some of these cards.

-Storm

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya Stephen,

Which Duelist number were you refering to in you article? I remember reading that article when FE came out, but I can't recall the number of that issue.  Can you?

Peace,

-Troy

[vroman]

excellent job. I was considering undertaking a similiar project, but moot.
I have some more suggestions of my own, will post full list later

[Smmenen]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

SOFI is run in Mono Red Workshop decks, like the one that made top 8 at the ICBM Open Day 1 by Michael Morhing.    It's really good.  

[Smmenen]

excellent job. I was considering undertaking a similiar project, but moot.
I have some more suggestions of my own, will post full list later

When you say 'full list,' I hope you mean your list of suggestions, and not copying and pasting the 12+ hours of work it took me to read every magic card and type up all of these.   Thank you - I look forward to your suggestions.

I will continue to modify and revise my master list as time goes on, based on suggestions here.  I did not mean to omit Emerald Charm or Wispmare, which will go in the master list.   I did intend to omit cards like Illusionary Mask, Cephalid Sage, and the Reveillark package. 

[Stormanimagus]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

SOFI is run in Mono Red Workshop decks, like the one that made top 8 at the ICBM Open Day 1 by Michael Morhing.    It's really good.  

Well then what EXACTLY is your criteria? That's all I want to know. Elves has placed in T8s of some smaller events  and is certainly a deck that CAN win in the right META.

As to the SOFI argument. I'm simply trying to point out that it does not belong on the list of Vintage Staples as it is only played in Shop decks that run sufficient creatures to make it useful, and those sorts of decks are on the decline sing 9-balls lost some of its oomf with the restriction of Gush. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong on the list altogther, just not as a Staple. That's my opinion on the card. Take it or leave it.

There are other minor alterations I'd offer to the conversation, but I need to review your list more carefully when I have the time. It is a good start Stephen, but I do think it needs much refining to be an authoritative "LIST" of what to buy for players entering the Vintage scene.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

SOFI is run in Mono Red Workshop decks, like the one that made top 8 at the ICBM Open Day 1 by Michael Morhing.    It's really good.  

Well then what EXACTLY is your criteria? That's all I want to know.

Again, that is written up in the article.  

Elves has placed in T8s of some smaller events  and is certainly a deck that CAN win in the right META.

But that's not what you said.  You said it did well in a large event.  It hasn't.   End of story.   You are saying things that are not responsive to what I said.

As to the SOFI argument. I'm simply trying to point out that it does not belong on the list of Vintage Staples as it is only played in Shop decks that run sufficient creatures to make it useful, and those sorts of decks are on the decline sing 9-balls lost some of its oomf with the restriction of Gush. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong on the list altogther, just not as a Staple. That's my opinion on the card. Take it or leave it.

And that's fine, but that's not what you said.  You said that you only ever saw that card played in MUD.  I was pointing out a recent major Top 8 appearance that contradicts your previous understanding.    

There are other minor alterations I'd offer to the conversation, but I need to review your list more carefully when I have the time. It is a good start Stephen, but I do think it needs much refining to be an authoritative "LIST" of what to buy for players entering the Vintage scene.

-Storm

Again, if you read the introduction to the article carefully, you see I anticipate this debate:

But to make a checklist of every Vintage playable card is a beast of an entirely different stripe.

First of all, making such a list invites endless debates. Someone will inevitably point out some omission that should have been included. Someone else will point to cards that, in their view, aren’t Vintage playable, and shouldn’t be included. For example, how do you handle a card like Academy Rector or Diminishing Returns, which are playable, but rarely see play? Or what about cards that are in tier 2 decks at best, but sometimes win tournaments in certain environments, like Goblins? Or what about cards that are played, albeit rarely, in major archetypes, like In the Eye of Chaos? Similarly, what about cards that are playable, but aren’t seeing play because of the particular composition and contours of the metagame, like In the Eye of Chaos, but are definitely good enough to see play, and are likely to see play in the future? Or how do you deal with cards that used to see a lot of play, but are unlikely to see play in the future because of changes in the banned or restricted list or the metagame, like Triskelavus, who were Slaver targets? Or cards that saw a momentary burst of play, like Strategic Planning, but then quickly faded, with no clear use in the near future?

Then someone will point out that there are different degrees of playability. Jester’s Cap, while played in Vintage, is not played as much nor is as central to the format s Time Vault. Should cards like that be lumped into the same category? But, if I were to draw a line between those cards, on what basis? Any line that I would draw would be open to the same criticisms.

These, and more, are all real problems to drafting a complete Vintage checklist. After much consideration, I ultimately settled on a two-category system that I have keyed below: Commonly Played/Staples versus Niche/Less Commonly Played. I have tried to use recent Vintage Top 8 data, giving particular weight to the last 6-12 months, in determining whether a card is playable, using the extensive Morphling.de Vintage tournament database. But that has not been my only source. As I said, I’m also sure that I’ve missed something. Feel free tell me what I’ve missed in the forums. But recognize that there is a good chance that I’ve intentionally omitted the card. I haven’t simply selected cards that have made Top 8s in the last 6 months or year, but that has been a touchstone for whether a card is included or not.

However, just because a card hasn’t seen play in the last couple of months, that doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. For example, cards like In the Eye of Chaos may not see much play at the moment, but they are certainly positioned to see future play, and are Vintage playable, depending on the shifting composition of the format. I’ve tried to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I’ve included cards in here that may not be played at the moment, but I believe are playable, and would be deck building material in future metagames. That necessarily involves a judgment call.

Also, there may be cards not on this list, already in print, which may emerge in the future. While owning all of these cards will give you 98% of anything you’ll need right now to build whatever you want in Vintage, there will still be cards that will become playable for one reason or another, that are not on this list.

Your points -- and Matt's -- are anticipated in the article, which is why I include those caveats.    A close reading of the article would have revealed that without me having to reiterate it here.  

[voltron00x]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

SOFI is run in Mono Red Workshop decks, like the one that made top 8 at the ICBM Open Day 1 by Michael Morhing.    It's really good.  

In the past 12 calendar months, Elves has made at least 4 top 8s to my knowledge.  It won the NYSE I as recently as July.  That event had as many people as day 2 of the Steel City tournament.  There's no way to explain its omission outside of personal bias, when one considers some of your inclusions.  A close reading of my post would've revealed that without my need to reiterate it here.

Any chance you're going to explain how you reached the quantity of each card you suggest, or are you going to continue quoting sections of the article I've already quoted?  I'm still anxious to hear why someone would not want a 4th Choke, but needs 4 Diminishing Returns. 

I'm also anxious for the day when you can have a civil forum conversation without resorting to needless condescension... I know, I'm a dreamer.

[Smmenen]

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I mean, you included Sword of Fire and Ice as a Vintage Staple? C'mon. I've only ever seen that card in MUD and MUD is hardly played anymore with the resurgence of Null Rod.

SOFI is run in Mono Red Workshop decks, like the one that made top 8 at the ICBM Open Day 1 by Michael Morhing.    It's really good.  

In the past 12 calendar months, Elves had made at least 4 top 8s to my knowledge.  It won the NYSE I as recently as July.  That event had as many people as day 2 of the Steel City tournament.  There's no way to explain its omission outside of personal bias, when one considers some of your inclusions.  A close reading of my post would've revealed that without my need to reiterate it here.

Day 2 of the Steel City tournament is not a large scale Vintage tournament.     Storm said that it placed well in a large Vintage event.    It did not.   

[TheBrassMan]

I think some of these complaints are pretty ridiculous.  An "essential vintage list" is completely subjective by definition.  Of course you have different lists than Stephen, I do too.  My list is probably only about 20 or 30 cards, and if I was telling a new player what he needed to buy to get a good experience out of the format it would be much smaller than that.  I'm not sure what kind of criteria you'd expect besides "Stephen thinks more than these cards is unnecessary," considering it's an article on a subjective topic, written by Stephen, specifically geared towards an audience of people who value Stephen's opinion on these matters highly enough to pay for them.

[Smmenen]

Just to be clear: I invited people to make suggestions for cards I may have missed or overlooked.    Just because I didn't list a card doesn't mean that I intended to omit it, although with many I did.   And I agree that there are probably some cards here that I included that maybe shouldn't belong.     I see this as a first draft and welcome input as I revise it in the future. 

[voltron00x]

As is usual with Mr. Menendian, the complaint isn't with the subject matter or quality of the product, its with the tone of the piece and forum responses. 

The article suggests that the list errs on the side of inclusion, but the inclusions show severe personal bias.  I assume that there was some sort of cut-off where he made a judgement call - in other words, if the deck hasn't made T8 in an event with more than 32 players, its eliminated.  This is clearly what he's suggesting, above, in reference to Elves, yet he also admits to including cards that he believes may be played at some point in the future.  In other words, he is including cards not played in Vintage for a long period of time - I'm saying, not even PLAYED - but is also eliminating some decks because the events they WON (or made T8) weren't big enough. 

My original post praises both the work, and Stephen for giving this a shot, but if you're going to claim that something is complete, you should be prepared to discuss the selection process without being needlessly dismissive.  Had he said something like, "This is an attempt at a complete list, but due to the enormity of the task, some items will be missed.  Others are omitted because they didn't meet criteria X, Y, or Z" then I would understand.  Not copping to whatever his process was suggests he just winged it, and that's disappointing to me.  I also don't believe that to be true.  The failure to answer honestly just led to some questions about the selection process, which he seems surprisingly loathe to answer honestly.

I'm not trying to nit-pick as no list like this will be perfect and there are clearly instances where judgement calls have to be made, or the list will be bloated... but a list that errs on the side of inclusion SHOULD be bloated, and there are cards that I think are definitely valid that aren't on here.  Similarly, I'd like to know why there are some odd numbers on certain cards.  Why do I only want 3 Flametongue Kavu?  (or, really, why ANY Flametongue Kavu?)  Why 3 Choke?  Why 1 Fire/Ice?  Why 4 Magus of the Unseen?  How was that number reached - has anyone EVER played 4 Magus of the Unseen?  Again I'm just curious what the thought process was.

[Killane]

Good article. I've been looking for something like this for quite a while and I'm glad someone with an authoritative and qualified point of view had the patience to do it.

It's a shame that it seems that not everyone paid attention to the disclaimers. you made it clear it was a first shot, ready, waitign and open for revision.

I especially liked the fact that you listed the cards both by set and by color, seeing as the set list will be more useful to those going out to buy the cards (like me, since I was out of the magic scene from Urza block through the Shards pre-release inclusive and now have to rebuild the collection that I sold those many years ago  ), while the second list will be far more valuable to those who have a large card pool already from years of Standard/Legacy/Extended/Whatever and are just breaking into the format.

The fact that you went that extra step to to what essentially must have been a tiresome administrative task is just one of the things that makes you good for your readers. Many authors would have presented one or the other format and left it at that.

[Stormanimagus]

teel City tournament is not a large scale Vintage tournament.     Storm said that it placed well in a large Vintage event.    It did not.    

Then I have a fundamental disagreement on:

a) what makes for a "Large-Scale" Vintage event

and

b) If "Large-Scale" needs to be say, 100 or more people, then it is not the only significant source of statistics of Vintage deck-building data.

The heart and soul of Vintage deck-innovation lies in any tournament that is 30+ players IMO and you are clearly leaving that out if you don't acknowledge Elves as an archetype. Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks are very important to consider in a comprehensive list of Vintage Playables because the Staples should be more obvious and there should be a more general consensus on that list (and it should be a pretty small list I think revolving around Pillars and their support elements).

-Storm

EDIT:

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the NYSE I event where Elves T8ed was 30 + players or at least very close to 30 players. I think it's the responsibility of TO's to report accurately and frequently when events like this happen (kudos to Nick for being so good about that), but it is also the responsibility of statisticians to recognize them as statistically relevant.

[TAF]

Perhaps my perspective will help Stephen see Matt's point of view a bit better. I am not a new Magic player, nor am I new to Vintage. But my area has no T1 metagame and next to no T1 players, so I do not see the constant shift in the card pool as clearly nor as quickly as others might.

The article would be better served if the inclusion/exclusion criteria were the same for each card. I read all of the article and I still have to agree with Matt: excluding or including something on personal bias is unfair to the new or under-exposed audience. From what I understand, Stephen used DR in a deck he played some years ago, and has enjoyed its successes. That does not necessarily make it successful now. However, that does not preclude DR from being successful in a future metagame shift or through the use of some sort of technology that can abuse it. It also appears that Stephen's personal bias against Elves has lead to their exclusion, even if there was some modicum of success recently. To say a card or set of cards is successful/unsuccessful based on personal bias may lead to an ambiguous interpretation of the card or set of cards.

To elucidate, it would help if there were two lists that serve different purposes: 1) a list of the type that TheBrassMan says he would make, to include P9, TV, or whatever the current metagame suggests is most valuable to the format (maybe a sub-50-count list); and 2) a longer list that clearly distinguishes between tournament-worthy based on performance and tournament-worthy based on good theory.

The current list might not lend itself to that sort of structure. As I recall, Stephen suggested that Noble Hierarch was definitely a card that people needed to grab from the Shards block as it will see play. People kept those cards and it in fact does see play. However, it is a niche card and it is really only played in UGW Fish. Is this something every T1 newcomer should buy? I imagine the resounding answer is no, as most T1 players gravitate to the decks with the strongest card draw, win condition, or overall power. That is not to say that UGW Fish is lacking any of those things; Noble Hierarch just does not fit into a TV/Key list. If the best decks are always running the same 40-50 card base, why are those cards not regarded as being the 40 or 50 cards that new T1 players should pick up, with everything else being secondary or even tertiary purchases?

I hope this helps.

[voltron00x]

I think some of these complaints are pretty ridiculous.  An "essential vintage list" is completely subjective by definition.  Of course you have different lists than Stephen, I do too.  My list is probably only about 20 or 30 cards, and if I was telling a new player what he needed to buy to get a good experience out of the format it would be much smaller than that.  I'm not sure what kind of criteria you'd expect besides "Stephen thinks more than these cards is unnecessary," considering it's an article on a subjective topic, written by Stephen, specifically geared towards an audience of people who value Stephen's opinion on these matters highly enough to pay for them.

The name of the article is "The Complete Vintage Checklist".  "Complete" suggests a certain definition.  Practicality demands another.  What I asked for was some transparency in the process that gets us from A to B, because I don't think its clear.

Mind you, Stephen's under no obligation to answer me at all - but he did, and I had hoped for a better answer than "read the f'ing article" (in so many words).

[Smmenen]

teel City tournament is not a large scale Vintage tournament.     Storm said that it placed well in a large Vintage event.    It did not.    

Then I have a fundamental disagreement on:

a) what makes for a "Large-Scale" Vintage event

and

b) If "Large-Scale" needs to be say, 100 or more people, then it is not the only significant source of statistics of Vintage deck-building data.

This is not that difficult.    

A 31 player event is not -- by any definition -- a large scale event.    

However, I never implied -- even remotely, that large scale tournaments have to me more than 100 players.   Show me where I used the word "100."    

You realize that I keep track of Vintage tournament results in bimonthly articles.   However, you'll also remember that I only aggregate tournaments of 33 players or more because they play 6 rounds of swiss and play a top 8.   if you go back and read my first bimonthy report, I explained why.  I will not waste time reiterating that here.

The heart and soul of Vintage deck-innovation lies in any tournament that is 30+ players IMO and you are clearly leaving that out if you don't acknowledge Elves as an archetype. Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks are very important to consider in a comprehensive list of Vintage Playables because the Staples should be more obvious and there should be a more general consensus on that list (and it should be a pretty small list I think revolving around Pillars and their support elements).

You are making many leaps of logic.

The fact that I omitted Elves does not mean that I am not ackonwledging it as an archetype, nor am I saying that I wouldn't include Elves cards in future lists.    

The ONLY point I was making is that Elves has NOT placed well in a 'large-scale Vintage event."

Look at your original post and my reply, and this should be clear:

@Stephen- I am forced to agree with Matt. You need to be as expansive and all inclusive as possible or not at all. If a deck like Elves has placed at large events as a Tier 3 metagame deck then it has still placed at those events and has a necessary cast of characters to make it a playable deck. You must have Heritige Druid in there to make the deck work so that should be on the list.

To my knowledge, Elves has never top8ed at a large event.

I think some of these complaints are pretty ridiculous.  An "essential vintage list" is completely subjective by definition.  Of course you have different lists than Stephen, I do too.  My list is probably only about 20 or 30 cards, and if I was telling a new player what he needed to buy to get a good experience out of the format it would be much smaller than that.  I'm not sure what kind of criteria you'd expect besides "Stephen thinks more than these cards is unnecessary," considering it's an article on a subjective topic, written by Stephen, specifically geared towards an audience of people who value Stephen's opinion on these matters highly enough to pay for them.

The name of the article is "The Complete Vintage Checklist".  "Complete" suggests a certain definition.  Practicality demands another.  What I asked for was some transparency in the process that gets us from A to B, because I don't think its clear.

Mind you, Stephen's under no obligation to answer me at all - but he did, and I had hoped for a better answer than "read the f'ing article" (in so many words).

LOL.   Not my intent.

First of all, I was posting from my Iphone, so that generally prohibits long-winded replies.

Secondly, there is nothing mysterious about my methodology.   I specifically articulated how I cards.   Let me be even clearer:

1) I looked through the visual spoiler of every magic set and noted cards I had seen in Vintage tournaments or in vintage decklists before
2) I cross-referenced those cards with the morphling.de database
in most cases, it was clear that a card was either Vintage playable -- because it had seen play recently or it hadn't seen play in a very long time.
3) In the case of a close call, I made a judgment decision (yes, subjective, but not entirely so - since it's based on reason as well as empirical evidence).

As I said, I intentionally omitted cards like Illusionary Mask and Reveillark cards.   While I omitted Elves cards, it was not because of "bias", but because I hadn't seen enough evidence that it was playable.    It was a tough decision because I included Goblins cards.   The main reason was because Goblins won an SCG P9 event (the largest one, in fact) becuase it was well positioned to beat Stax and control decks of the time.   Elves is not as disruptive as Goblins, even though its faster.    If people want, I will reconsider the omission of Elves.  I made a judgment not to include it, which could be wrong.

I suppose I should take it as a complement that frankly the only things that people are raising up -- aside from the well made points about Emerald Charm, et al, are cards that I considered and wasn't qutie sure how to resolve, like Elves.   I have acknowledged that I want to be more inclusive than not.   But I will use the same standards that I use for my bimonthly metagame reports in doing so.

Now, if you want me to answer more questions along these lines, just keep in mind that it's taking up valuable time for composing my article for next week.  

[2nd_lawl]

List is missing 1x War Mammoth

[Vegeta2711]

List is missing 1x War Mammoth

I also failed to spot any Tarpan, an obvious error as I remember being in the sideboards of successful Vintage decks by MEEEEEEAAAAAAANNNNNNDECK.

[vassago]

Nor did I see any Chuck Norris in that list.   

[Prospero]

As is usual with Mr. Menendian, the complaint isn't with the subject matter or quality of the product, its with the tone of the piece and forum responses. 

The article suggests that the list errs on the side of inclusion, but the inclusions show severe personal bias.  I assume that there was some sort of cut-off where he made a judgment call - in other words, if the deck hasn't made T8 in an event with more than 32 players, its eliminated.  This is clearly what he's suggesting, above, in reference to Elves, yet he also admits to including cards that he believes may be played at some point in the future.  In other words, he is including cards not played in Vintage for a long period of time - I'm saying, not even PLAYED - but is also eliminating some decks because the events they WON (or made T8) weren't big enough. 

My original post praises both the work, and Stephen for giving this a shot, but if you're going to claim that something is complete, you should be prepared to discuss the selection process without being needlessly dismissive.  Had he said something like, "This is an attempt at a complete list, but due to the enormity of the task, some items will be missed.  Others are omitted because they didn't meet criteria X, Y, or Z" then I would understand.  Not copping to whatever his process was suggests he just winged it, and that's disappointing to me.  I also don't believe that to be true.  The failure to answer honestly just led to some questions about the selection process, which he seems surprisingly loathe to answer honestly.

I'm not trying to nit-pick as no list like this will be perfect and there are clearly instances where judgment calls have to be made, or the list will be bloated... but a list that errs on the side of inclusion SHOULD be bloated, and there are cards that I think are definitely valid that aren't on here.  Similarly, I'd like to know why there are some odd numbers on certain cards.  Why do I only want 3 Flametongue Kavu?  (or, really, why ANY Flametongue Kavu?)  Why 3 Choke?  Why 1 Fire/Ice?  Why 4 Magus of the Unseen?  How was that number reached - has anyone EVER played 4 Magus of the Unseen?  Again I'm just curious what the thought process was.

Matt, I was almost certain that Elves had top 8'd Blue Bell within the last year - am I mistaken?  I know that I've never been to a Blue Bell event with less than 33 players.

I think that there should have been a little more give with the list as well.  It is a massive undertaking and even the best initial effort would be missing cards in all likelihood.  I think that Elves deserved to make the cut, especially since Affinity did (and when was the last time anyone won anything in Vintage playing Affinity?) and I do feel that it is a deck that is capable of catching a given metagame unaware and unprepared.  I don't think it's tier 1, but it has its moments and that should be respected.  No one knows what will be printed in the future.  Perhaps something will be printed that takes  a tier 2 deck to tier 1.  In that instance I'd rather err on the side of caution and have copies of everything that I could potentially need.  If I'm picking up 3 Maze of Ith, 4 Grim Monolith and 3 Flametongue Kavu I don't think there's a reason why I shouldn't be willing to pick up playsets of common and uncommon elves.

Still, while Stephen's list is a nice reference point I think the point that we should all take from this is that (as has been mentioned) it is a subjective list and we are all able to make decisions on what we think will and will not see play.  I have a list of cards that I want to pick up to 'complete' my collection and I have cards on my list that Stephen doesn't have on his list.  I also won't be picking up some of what Stephen has listed.  

[marriedwithchildren]

I made my own personal Vintage Checklist about a month ago, and my list differs from Steve's as will anyone else's.  The basic skeleton is the same, but when you start comparing quantities things change.  Some of the accessories change but the the fundementals hold true.  That said Chuck Norris should definately be on the list!