[FREE Article] The COMPLETE Vintage Checklist!

[ShawnTheDoctor]

Good article. Don't you think Tarmogoyf deserves two stars as a staple? Especially considering Pridemage received two stars?

[BruiZar]

I think the right number of cards is always four, except for one offs. It gives you the freedom to build any deck and test different configurations. You never know when a meta changes and you need to support 3 or 4 copies of a given card. If that is not your aim, I suggest you just build a Tezzeret deck and be done with it.

edit:
Also, if the reason for you to create this masterlist was to make it easy for new players to join the game, why did you make it a premium article? I understand that you write articles for money, but you have now limited your audience to subscribers only which certainly decreases the amount of candidates looking to join the vintage community

[Grand Inquisitor]

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

In fairness to Steve, I'll frame this by pointing out that there are two serious T1 profiles: (1) those that want to be able to play anything T1, and (2) people who want to be able to always compete in a T1 tourney (of any size).

The first group should buy noble hierarchs, the second group shouldn't bother.  I've been happy and successful for six years on control (...and aggro/combo-control) card selection.  E.g., this would include Spell Pierce, but exclude tarmogoyf and noble hierarch.

Elves (in some form) will always exist.  However, 4x chalice of the void invested at or below median point will exceed the EV all of these decktypes over the life of your T1 experience.  There are derivative points of advice on this, but this basic tenant should steer you through most green creatures.

...and suicide black.

[Yare]

Regarding having multiples of cards, my rule of thumb is to just go ahead and pick up the full complement of four whenever possible and cost is not a significant factor. Having had to hunt down that fourth copy on a few occasions, it's just easier to pick it up when you see it and move on. Obviously, your tolerance for paying extra for a card you'll possibly not ever use will vary.

[BruiZar]

Regarding having multiples of cards, my rule of thumb is to just go ahead and pick up the full compliment of four whenever possible and cost is not a significant factor. Having had to hunt down that fourth copy on a few occasions, it's just easier to pick it up when you see it and move on. Obviously, your tolerance for paying extra for a card you'll possibly not ever use will vary.

When new sets come around the corner, I try to pick up the common and uncommon playsets that have some potential in foil version because the value may spike later on and the cost for foils isn't too high at the start (Inkwell is a good example),unless it was hyped during the spoiler season. The multiplier for foil staples is pretty high so you can make some profit on it, or prevent yourself from going bankrupt trying to foil your collection later on. This is more of a value/collection issue though.

[BruiZar]

I would add Threads of Disloyalty and Gilded Drake. lich mirror fabricate and personal tutor. Possibly cards like Plague Spitter.

[TAF]

In fairness to Steve, I'll frame this by pointing out that there are two serious T1 profiles: (1) those that want to be able to play anything T1, and (2) people who want to be able to always compete in a T1 tourney (of any size).

The first group should buy noble hierarchs, the second group shouldn't bother.  I've been happy and successful for six years on control (...and aggro/combo-control) card selection.  E.g., this would include Spell Pierce, but exclude tarmogoyf and noble hierarch.

I was not trying to assert that Stephen's suggestion was incorrect and that Noble Hierarch is bad. But, as it appears we both agree, buying a set of Moxes and Black Lotus is more efficacious to the goal of competing in a high-profile tournament than buying a set of Noble Hierarchs. It might be more useful if the complete or master list of T1 cards was separated by which cards should be bought primary, secondary, and tertiary. Imagining a list, there is still quite a lot of power in the secondary and tertiary groups. A card like Tolarian Academy may be in the secondary list because it is not necessarily in every blue deck anymore. A card like Tarmogoyf may also be secondary, as it is very good in an aggro-control shell and in sideboards, but it does not always appear in what might be considered Tier-1 decks. Tertiary cards may be things like Fastbond or Diminishing Returns -- playable cards based on past performance that may not have a deck that will readily accept them at this time.

As you say, a playset of CotV will have a greater EV than Elves in the life of Vintage, but I think that is comparing apples to oranges. Their range of power and usefulness are in different realms. An Elves player is likely 1) a budget player, 2) a new player, or 3) playing against the metagame. A player using CotV can be reasonably expected to know the power value of a card in Vintage. If the Elves deck was listed, we can assume it would be of minimal importance to pick up the cards, but a new player may start from the bottom (cheapest or tertiary purchase list) and work up from there. Lumping CotV and Elves in the same list belies the true value of the listed cards.

[Smmenen]

In fairness to Steve, I'll frame this by pointing out that there are two serious T1 profiles: (1) those that want to be able to play anything T1, and (2) people who want to be able to always compete in a T1 tourney (of any size).

The first group should buy noble hierarchs, the second group shouldn't bother.  I've been happy and successful for six years on control (...and aggro/combo-control) card selection.  E.g., this would include Spell Pierce, but exclude tarmogoyf and noble hierarch.

I was not trying to assert that Stephen's suggestion was incorrect and that Noble Hierarch is bad. But, as it appears we both agree, buying a set of Moxes and Black Lotus is more efficacious to the goal of competing in a high-profile tournament than buying a set of Noble Hierarchs. It might be more useful if the complete or master list of T1 cards was separated by which cards should be bought primary, secondary, and tertiary.

But I do just that, except that I just divide the list into two groupings.

Imagining a list, there is still quite a lot of power in the secondary and tertiary groups. A card like Tolarian Academy may be in the secondary list because it is not necessarily in every blue deck anymore. A card like Tarmogoyf may also be secondary, as it is very good in an aggro-control shell and in sideboards, but it does not always appear in what might be considered Tier-1 decks. Tertiary cards may be things like Fastbond or Diminishing Returns -- playable cards based on past performance that may not have a deck that will readily accept them at this time.

As you say, a playset of CotV will have a greater EV than Elves in the life of Vintage, but I think that is comparing apples to oranges. Their range of power and usefulness are in different realms. An Elves player is likely 1) a budget player, 2) a new player, or 3) playing against the metagame. A player using CotV can be reasonably expected to know the power value of a card in Vintage. If the Elves deck was listed, we can assume it would be of minimal importance to pick up the cards, but a new player may start from the bottom (cheapest or tertiary purchase list) and work up from there. Lumping CotV and Elves in the same list belies the true value of the listed cards.

in the prefatory remarks to the article, i explain that this is one of the areas where people will wonder:

"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."

But, as I said:

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.

I entertained the idea of three groupings:  common, uncommon and rare, but ultimately settled on two as a much simplier, cleaner and more sensible division.  

Good article. Don't you think Tarmogoyf deserves two stars as a staple? Especially considering Pridemage received two stars?

Yes,   Goyf is as commonly played card.  It's played in Control SBs, in Combo SBs, in Fish decks of all stripes, and in aggro beats decks.  

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.

I'm anxious for the day when I won't have to field questions that are either inane or already answered in the article.    I know, I'm a dreamer.

seriously, though.  I understand your desire to want to clarify -- and more importantly engage --  but I think many of your remarks went too far, implying dishonestly, deceit and bias.   When in fact, i felt i was being very open and honest if you read the relevant paragraphs of the article.   which is frustarting when people respond to their *impression* of what an article said rather than what it actually said.

for example, you said:

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.

But I did almost EXACTLY just that:

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.

[TAF]

@Smmenen

I guess in my perfunctory look, I glanced over the titling of each of the groups. Though, I guess if a list is this extensive, a lot of the onus is left to the reader to decide their direction (deck, play style, etc) and then buy the cards that go into those particular decks. In leveraging effort versus outcome, this might be the simplest and cleanest way to present such a list.

(I am not arguing the cards that are listed specifically because, as I stated, I do not see the shifts as quickly as others might, and I do not research the trends, because the same Oath deck in my area can win any given week, and it is still the same Oath deck that was popular in 2004. But from a presentation point of view, this might be the best way to present it for the uninitiated.)

At the very least, thanks for that effort.

[John Jones]

But I did ALMOST exactly just that:

Fixed real quick
Edit: Btw, it doesn't matter what you did, it just matters that you're wrong. It's an Ego thing.

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen

I guess in my perfunctory look, I glanced over the titling of each of the groups. Though, I guess if a list is this extensive, a lot of the onus is left to the reader to decide their direction (deck, play style, etc) and then buy the cards that go into those particular decks. In leveraging effort versus outcome, this might be the simplest and cleanest way to present such a list.

(I am not arguing the cards that are listed specifically because, as I stated, I do not see the shifts as quickly as others might, and I do not research the trends, because the same Oath deck in my area can win any given week, and it is still the same Oath deck that was popular in 2004. But from a presentation point of view, this might be the best way to present it for the uninitiated.)

At the very least, thanks for that effort.

Taken to the extreme, why not just say to people: find out what deck you want to play, and buy the cards for that deck?  Then this whole exercise is pointless. 

And, in any case, this is, after all, a piece of entertainment.  The hope is that people enjoy the article, regardless. 

[TheBrassMan]

Fixed real quick
Edit: Btw, it doesn't matter what you did, it just matters that you're wrong. It's an Ego thing.

woah there john jones... you doing alright?  do you need a cookie or something?

[TAF]

Taken to the extreme, why not just say to people: find out what deck you want to play, and buy the cards for that deck?  Then this whole exercise is pointless. 

And, in any case, this is, after all, a piece of entertainment.  The hope is that people enjoy the article, regardless. 

You misinterpreted what I said.

I was not suggesting that the list was useless and that you should just tell people to buy what is in their deck. It was meant as a way to extract from the list the most valuable cards to a player. Say the list has Thirst for Knowledge on it. That card is more powerful than something like Compulsive Research, which draws just as many cards and allows the player to discard just as many. One is an instant and one is a sorcery. The function of both is entirely different. But you specifically noted that Thirst for Knowledge is a card they should pick up, even though Compulsive Research looks like an adequate replacement (when it is not). The player can cross-reference their two choices and make a decision. That is what I was speaking of -- the onus ultimately fell on the player, but your list served as guidance.

Quick addendum: this is recursive to my argument about making the list easier for a new player to distinguish between the different strength or purchasing merits of specific cards, but we already covered that it was my issue that I skipped over the titling. So it is really moot, the argument as a whole. The list can reliably be used as a quick "Should I get this?" for a new player, which I am sure was its ultimate purpose.

[John Jones]

Fixed real quick
Edit: Btw, it doesn't matter what you did, it just matters that you're wrong. It's an Ego thing.

woah there john jones... you doing alright?  do you need a cookie or something?

A hug would suffice *tear*

[voltron00x]

I've taken care to make this response in statement form, as your main complaint seems to be that we're asking you questions.

While I applaud your effort on this, your methodology (which is what I was trying to determine from my initial questions) is flawed.  Going through a complete list of every Magic card and pulling cards that jog your memory, and then assigning them arbitrary quantities, is not an optimal way to complete the task you attempted.  It is not the best use of time, nor is it likely to minimize exclusions through accident. 

This entire endeavor is one of exception - cards that are played in Vintage are the exception, while the norm in this case is exclusion.  Therefore, I would suggest that a better way to accomplish this task would've been to list the decks that see play in Vintage (which is easily accomplished via TMD / SCG / Morphling / Deckcheck) and then include those cards, as you eliminate the 99% of Magic that is completely irrelevant to the task at hand.  If you want to include cards that were previously used, or may be used in the future (such as Diminishing Returns), a 3rd category seems correct.  Otherwise, just leave those cards out, OR don't suggest that you did exclusions based on something like performance in a large tournament.  Be as consistent as you can.  Needless  speculation like that just dilutes the list.  Establish your selection criteria so that its clear from the start, and don't suggest that you, as the judge and arbiter of what makes up "Vintage", purposefully excluded cards or decks that you feel were unworthy.  Put some time into your quantity suggestions - 4 Magus of the Unseen is ludicrous. 1 Fire/Ice is probably not enough.  3 Flametongue Kavu is flat-out goofy.

If you could please include at least 14 Excel graphs in the response that I'm sure you'll make (that I'm not asking for, mind you - there are no questions here), I would appreciate it.  I've never gone to law school and am therefore slower than those with whom you are used to conversing.  Visuals help "us" to follow.  Additionally I would appreciate a quote that shows how you determined your quantity suggestions, because right now I'm operating under the assumption that you rolled a 4-sided die, but sadly I assume you'll quote the same thing for the 5th consecutive response.

[i_set_fire]

i stopped playing when 4th ed came out and just got back into magic this spring.  obviously, i have missed out on a lot of necessary cards.  one can only read so many decklists for ideas of commonly used cards before one goes mad.  i have tried making a list of cards i repeatedly saw, but i am sure it needs more.  regardless of what it is missing, or should be missing, this list would be very helpful for people new to vintage or returning to magic after a lengthy hiatus.  if only i was willing to pay money to read it...   *please start quoting sections of the list instead of explanations of card selections* (this is a joke not an attempt at copyright infringement)

[Smmenen]

I've taken care to make this response in statement form, as your main complaint seems to be that we're asking you questions.

While I applaud your effort on this, your methodology (which is what I was trying to determine from my initial questions) is flawed.  Going through a complete list of every Magic card and pulling cards that jog your memory, and then assigning them arbitrary quantities, is not an optimal way to complete the task you attempted.  It is not the best use of time, nor is it likely to minimize exclusions through accident.  

First of all, I didn't pull cards that 'jog  my memory,' as I said:

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).

In case you forgot, I read every single tournament top 8, so long as the tournament has 33 or more players, for my metagame reports.   It's not like I'm just looking for things that 'jog my memory,' as if I'm just a tournament goer who may not see everything that makes a top 8.  

Establish your selection criteria so that its clear from the start, and don't suggest that you, as the judge and arbiter of what makes up "Vintage", purposefully excluded cards or decks that you feel were unworthy.  Put some time into your quantity suggestions - 4 Magus of the Unseen is ludicrous. 1 Fire/Ice is probably not enough.  3 Flametongue Kavu is flat-out goofy.

If you could please include at least 14 Excel graphs in the response that I'm sure you'll make (that I'm not asking for, mind you - there are no questions here), I would appreciate it.  I've never gone to law school and am therefore slower than those with whom you are used to conversing.  Visuals help "us" to follow.  Additionally I would appreciate a quote that shows how you determined your quantity suggestions, because right now I'm operating under the assumption that you rolled a 4-sided die, but sadly I assume you'll quote the same thing for the 5th consecutive response.

I noticed you played Elves this past weekend.   I can understand your point of view.   obviously, you selected a deck you believe is Vintage playable.  yet, Elves was not on my list. 

And for good reason.  It hasn't made a top 8 in a 33+ player tournament in 6 months.     There were two Goblins decks and only 1 Elves deck in the March/April data, and with the rise in Stax, I felt that Goblins was an overall better deck, although  both Goblins and Elves sit on the very edge of a list like this.  Since they were both on the fence, and given Goblins 1) more recent slightly better performance, 2) the recent goblin printings that have made it a stronger choice in  Eternal formats generally, and 3) its historically vastly superior performance to Elves, particulary since those historical moments resemble the current metagame, I ultimately made a judgment call to include Goblins, but not Elves.  

Also, if the goal was simply to post which cards are played in Vintage -- and that was the only question - then one wouldn't need my judgment.  You could just consult the Morphling.de database and that would be the end of the story.   There would be no need for this sort of thing.  

Your assumption that my methodology is flawed seems to be coming from the perspective that I have to somehow be 'objective,' (as if that were possible).    (hence Brassman's point).   You are holding it to an absurd standard.  

Also, I did put much time and energy into my quantities.   The quantities were chosen from two basic criteria: 1) what is the maximum amount of a card that was run in a recent tournament?  2) what is the sensible maximum amount of a card that one might ever want to run?   You say 3 FTK is goofy.   First of all, Flametongue Kavu has repeatedly shown up in Drain sideboards with a red splash:

http://www.morphling.de/search.php?type=3&app=20&sorting=DESC&search=Flametongue+Kavu&sent=1

And with very, very rare exceptions, it always shows up as a 2 or 3 of.  

Also, with Magus of the Unseen, if one were building a UR Fish deck, there would be good reason to run more than just a pair, as you would use more in the board.  As you know, it was a singleton in the Vintage Champs deck.

Also, you harp on Diminishing Returns, but really the issue is Academy Rector.   I only included Diminishing Returns because I included Academy Rector, for consistency.  Neither has seen top 8 action in some time.  

You are probably right about Fire/ice.

So, if you want to be helpful, do this:

1) Identify cards you feel I have omitted, either entirely, or insufficient quantities.
I have taken note of your comments of Wispmare, Emerald Charm (whoops on those) and will increase the number of Fire/Ice

2) Identify cards you felt I should have omitted.
I will take your -- and all such recommendations - under advisement.

The purpose of the list is simple: to try to identify all of the cards that a completist might ever want to play in Vintage.  

[BruiZar]

Why is Smmenen getting so much negative feedback on this? He's put in a lot of hours to try and make a useful list for the community and he even said it was a starting point. There's no reason to be so hostile towards him. I can appreciate a discussion about the actual content of the article but some people are too sharp in their responses for my taste.

[Marske]

@Steve,
Great article, thanks for all the hard work. On a little side note, although I've had problems with the way you discussed in the past (you used to refer to your articles a lot) this time you did indeed take the time to write decent responses and keep the thread alive, sure you quoted some stuff from your article but that's ok. I hope you keep this up. I know how much time can sink into forum posts and articles.

@Bruizar,
Steve is getting such heat because although he did a LOT of work on this list he forgot to mention how he came to the amount of each copy one should aquire. Along with the obvious people feeling he's left some stuff out that are obvious "pet cards" now don't get me wrong I'm not saying people like Matt don't have a point, I'm just merely saying people will always find something missing unless you include the entire gatherer... Steve said he'd probably forget something (which is understandable with such an undertaking) and he probably did. Now sure some of his logic (4 Diminising returns ?!) isn't exactly what you'd expect, but we're always free to choose our own amount now aren't we?

[voltron00x]

Its hard to make suggestions because you're inconsistent in your selection criteria.  That's the crux of the whole discussion.  

Further, your reminder that you read every top 8 is further proof that you'd have been better served using that knowledge to list out cards from the established performing decks, and not in the method that you chose (paging through the entirety of M:TG).  Again, I'm trying to aid you the next time you do this.

Here are the changes I'd suggest based on my understanding of your criteria:

Add - all are niche cards:
Scroll Rack - 1 (Oath)
Emerald Charm - 4 (Ichorid)
Wispmare - 3 (Ichorid)
Land Tax - 4 (debateable but made T8 of a 40+ person tournament in 2008)
Animate Dead - 3 (http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=949&highlight=Animate_Dead)
Show & Tell - 1 (http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1013&highlight=Show_and_Tell)

Subtract:
Drop of Honey (no play in 2009)
Cursed Totem (no play in 2 years)
Helm of Awakening (all tournaments reporting are under 32 players, little play in the last 2 years - if you include it, should be 4-of)
Teferi's Realm (no results on Morphling - why was this included?)
Uktabi Orangutan (no play in 2009, present in one deck in 08, trumped by better cards since printed)
Beacon of Destruction (no play in 08/09, present in 1 deck in 2007)
Diminishing Returns (shouldn't be present as more than a one-of, if present at all)
Academy Rector (last T8 with more than 32 players was in 2007 - this should be excluded per your comments on Dream Halls / Elves)
Erayo (No T8 the last 2 years with more than 32 players)

Adjust Quantity:
Trasmute Artifact (should be 2-of at most per Morphling)
Tabernacle (should be 3-of per Morphling)
Fire/Ice (probably should be at least a 2-of, see Landstill at Blue Bell which made another T4 this weekend; older ones should be on Morphling)
Duplicant (should be no more than a 3-of, but 2-of is more or less standard max quantity)
Sculpting Steel (should be 2-of per Morphling)
Courier's Capsule (not played as more than a 2-of in any event with more than 33 players)
Mindlock Orb (should be a 3-of at most, only 4-of event had less than 32 players.  Almost no play in 2009, I'd remove this personally but for consistency it should appear as a 3-of)
Grindstone (clearly a 3-of max from Morphling results)
Control Magic (should be a 2-of per Morphling results )
Firestorm (I'd make this a 4-of for Ichorid SB although Morphling suggests 3-of: http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1023&highlight=Firestorm)
Phyrexian Dreadnought (why is this present w/o Ill. Mask? I found a few one-ofs in Stifle decks, so probably shouldn't be a 4-of w/o Mask)

Adjust Status:
Goyf (obviously 2 stars, cmon)

Here's my problem with relying on Morphling... Show and Tell should be on the list as a 4-of, as its in the same T8 I got 3x Animate Dead.  I listed it as a one-of based on 2009.

If you think I'm being harsh here, that was never my intent.  I asked Stephen for his selection criteria.  It took 24 hours of wrangling to get him to explain that he was eliminating cards from decks that didn't T8 in events with 33+ players.  Despite what he says, that wasn't in the article.  Similarly, its now clear that the quantity decisions are based on Morphling quantities, also not stated in the article.  Had he just answered like a normal person would originally, we wouldn't have had any issues in this thread.

What Stephen seemed not to understand is that for me to make suggestions for the next go-around, I needed to understand what his selection process was so as to not waste my time (or his "valuable" time, as if my time wasn't being wasted as well).  Its now clear that given his parameters, Elves shouldn't be included.  This runs counter to what I thought reading the article, which stated the default was inclusion (and didn't mention anything about Top 8s or "large" tournaments).  If I were to create a similar list, I'd probably include cards in Elves, as well as Dream Halls and Counterbalance, because they've made multiple top 8s and are having an influence in certain regions.  This is significant because Vintage is an extremely Regional format.  However, this isn't my list, so that's irrelevant.

[voltron00x]

The purpose of the list is simple: to try to identify all of the cards that a completist might ever want to play in Vintage. 

"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. "

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

Also, if the goal was simply to post which cards are played in Vintage -- and that was the only question - then one wouldn't need my judgment.  You could just consult the Morphling.de database and that would be the end of the story.

Also, with Magus of the Unseen, if one were building a UR Fish deck, there would be good reason to run more than just a pair, as you would use more in the board.  As you know, it was a singleton in the Vintage Champs deck.

Also, you harp on Diminishing Returns, but really the issue is Academy Rector.   I only included Diminishing Returns because I included Academy Rector, for consistency.  Neither has seen top 8 action in some time. 

So, you want to include everything a "completist" would want to play, provided that completist only looks at decks that win 33+ person events.  You included Goblins because it won one large event, while acknowledging that you included Rector and Returns despite the fact that they don't win *any* events, let alone T8 33+ player events.  You post a link showing that FTK is a 3-of from morphling, but suggest 4-of Magus based on a deck that doesn't exist and has never existed (Morphling be damned!!).  You state that if someone wanted a list of all the Vintage cards played, the exercise is useless, yet the first quote suggests this is exactly what you're doing.

Do you understand why this is frustrating?

[rpf5029]

Mr. Menendian,

To begin, I believe your article is a great resource for prospective players of our beloved format.  Having a strong compilation of the cards that make the format, whether they be okay, super broken, or even cards that were once legendary and  have fallen off the radar, having them all in one place is clearly an asset to the community.  

As to the exclusion of ELVES! debate, I can see why you might not want to include them.  After all, ELVES! is a notoriously fragile deck that is easily hated out with common sideboard cards, or in some cases, even main deck cards.  Also, since approximately 88% of the cards were either Standard or Extended legal until a week ago, it is not that hard to surmise that most people know how the deck works.  Besides, Glimpse of Nature and Skullclamp made the list, and since they are the two most relevant spells in the deck, the other 52 cards are not really necessary to list.

However, your "12+" hours of research is a little disconcerting, since you have made one glaring error since one of your first rebuttal posts:  

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

And then...

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.

Okay, this is understandable.  A deck powering through rounds of Swiss into a top 8 finish in a small Vintage tournament might not be very impressive, due to lack of diversity, or not running a gauntlet that is long enough for good data.  So, I thought to myself, "Okay, what qualifies as a large tournament?  Worlds?  Bazaar of Moxen?  (Now that's a LOT of power....)"  Luckily, you provided an answer quickly....

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.

When I read this, I could hear my Mox Ruby weeping from my backpack.  The ELVES! missed out qualifying for your list by two people and the deck being able to lucksack through one more person?  Drats.... so close...

Dejected, I read through the messages again, and re-read this little gem

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. "

Oooh!  Oooh!  a Top 8 in the last 6 - 12 months?  If I recall correctly, someone did manage to make Top 8 at a 44 man Blue Bell event in April... http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37798.0 finishing 3rd after Swiss, no less!  12+ hours of research, and after the article is published, you repeatedly declare that your stance as to why key creatures in ELVES! did not make the list is because ELVES! has not made Top 8 at a major tournament.  This statement is false.  How you could miss such a fact when the decklist is on Morphling, and you compile those wonderful tournament statistics is beyond me, but hey, like you say in the article, you may have overlooked something.  It happens... we're only human.  

I noticed you played Elves this past weekend.   I can understand your point of view.   obviously, you selected a deck you believe is Vintage playable.  yet, Elves was not on my list.  

And for good reason.  It hasn't made a top 8 in a 33+ player tournament in 6 months.  

Okay, this is true... two more players!  Drat....

   There were two Goblins decks and only 1 Elves deck in the March/April data, and with the rise in Stax, I felt that Goblins was an overall better deck,[...]

I cannot really comment on Goblins performance against Stax, but I know that I, when playing ELVES!, don't really care for STAX very much. I guess I can see this.... I'll take your word on it.  

...although  both Goblins and Elves sit on the very edge of a list like this.  Since they were both on the fence, and given Goblins 1) more recent slightly better performance,

Can't argue data like this.

2) the recent goblin printings that have made it a stronger choice in  Eternal formats generally ,

O_o  is that so?  Are you experienced with playing goblins with these "recent printings" and can you provide some examples as to how these new cards boost them so significantly over ELVES!?

and 3) its historically vastly superior performance to Elves, particulary since those historical moments resemble the current metagame, I ultimately made a judgment call to include Goblins, but not Elves.  

Again, I cannot argue with this, since you have been playing longer than me, and one cannot argue with data.  I am going to take it that in that last post, you acknowledged that you were repeatedly and emphatically wrong about ELVES! not making Top 8 in the last six months, although it was not explicitly stated.  While it is your article, and therefore your judgment, as to whether or not key elves should make your list, and I agree that goblins, statistically, deserves to be on the list more than ELVES!, ELVES! has met the proposed criteria for your list--it has Top 8'd in a large tournament in the last 12 months.  Granted, you mention that making Top 8 is not the only criteria, but you also say that
 "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. "

Elves has made the Top 8 in a large tournament within the last year, and has won an event that missed a sixth round of Swiss by 2 players.  Although it has not done better in the last few months, I would like you to reconsider its potential in our current metagame and future metagames--it has the gas to succeed.

And I'll continue to try and lucksack my way into Top 8's in order to get my ELVES! on your list.

Thank you,

Ryan Fisher
Team Rebel Alliance 
PSU Magic. 

[Smmenen]

Mr. Menendian,

To begin, I believe your article is a great resource for prospective players of our beloved format.  Having a strong compilation of the cards that make the format, whether they be okay, super broken, or even cards that were once legendary and  have fallen off the radar, having them all in one place is clearly an asset to the community.  

As to the exclusion of ELVES! debate, I can see why you might not want to include them.  After all, ELVES! is a notoriously fragile deck that is easily hated out with common sideboard cards, or in some cases, even main deck cards.  Also, since approximately 88% of the cards were either Standard or Extended legal until a week ago, it is not that hard to surmise that most people know how the deck works.  Besides, Glimpse of Nature and Skullclamp made the list, and since they are the two most relevant spells in the deck, the other 52 cards are not really necessary to list.

However, your "12+" hours of research is a little disconcerting, since you have made one glaring error since one of your first rebuttal posts:  

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

And then...

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.

Okay, this is understandable.  A deck powering through rounds of Swiss into a top 8 finish in a small Vintage tournament might not be very impressive, due to lack of diversity, or not running a gauntlet that is long enough for good data.  So, I thought to myself, "Okay, what qualifies as a large tournament?  Worlds?  Bazaar of Moxen?  (Now that's a LOT of power....)"  Luckily, you provided an answer quickly....

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.

When I read this, I could hear my Mox Ruby weeping from my backpack.  The ELVES! missed out qualifying for your list by two people and the deck being able to lucksack through one more person?  Drats.... so close...

Despite my providing an answer to the question, you apparently still don't understand it.

Re-read what I said:

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

33 player tournament are not 'large scale' events either.  

Show me where I say that 33 player tournaments are 'large scale' lol.   You are apparently confusing my statement regarding the fact that I aggregate only 33+ player tournaments in my tournament stats as a definition of what constitutes large-scale.    That's a pretty bad misreading of what I wrote.  

This is pretty simple: Stormanigus said that Elves top8s in large scale Vintage events.    That's simply untrue.   End of story.   I was reminding him of the fact that I keep track of tournament data, and have a pretty strong handle on what's winning -- and what's not -- world wide.  

Dejected, I read through the messages again, and re-read this little gem

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. "

Oooh!  Oooh!  a Top 8 in the last 6 - 12 months?  If I recall correctly, someone did manage to make Top 8 at a 44 man Blue Bell event in April... http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37798.0 finishing 3rd after Swiss, no less!  12+ hours of research, and after the article is published, you repeatedly declare that your stance as to why key creatures in ELVES! did not make the list is because ELVES! has not made Top 8 at a major tournament.  This statement is false.  How you could miss such a fact when the decklist is on Morphling, and you compile those wonderful tournament statistics is beyond me, but hey, like you say in the article, you may have overlooked something.  It happens... we're only human.  

Apparently you have trouble reading.   I never said that it never made top 8 in a tournament, or a tournament of 33 or more players.  What I said was that Elves has not top 8ed in a large scale Vintage event.  

First, a 44 player tournament is not a large scale vintage event.     Waterburies, Ovinogeddon, Vintage Champs, ICBM P9 Opens, SCG P9 Opens -- those are 'large scale' Vintage events.    

Secondly, I acknowledged in THIS THREAD that Elves had ONE top 8 in the last 7 months:

 There were two Goblins decks and only 1 Elves deck in the March/April data, and with the rise in Stax, I felt that Goblins was an overall better deck, although  both Goblins and Elves sit on the very edge of a list like this.

This is what I'm talking about.    People on these boards have trouble reading, and it's incredibly annoying having to repeat myself over and over again.

And making one top 8 -- in April -- is not really enough to warrant inclusion on this list.   There is no recent evidence that Elves is viable in competitive Vintage.  If a couple of Elves decks were to show up in my next Vintage Stats metagame analysis, I would rethink that conclusion because there would be evidence that its viable.   'Til that day...

I noticed you played Elves this past weekend.   I can understand your point of view.   obviously, you selected a deck you believe is Vintage playable.  yet, Elves was not on my list.  

And for good reason.  It hasn't made a top 8 in a 33+ player tournament in 6 months.  

Okay, this is true... two more players!  Drat....

and 3) its historically vastly superior performance to Elves, particulary since those historical moments resemble the current metagame, I ultimately made a judgment call to include Goblins, but not Elves.  

Again, I cannot argue with this, since you have been playing longer than me, and one cannot argue with data.  I am going to take it that in that last post, you acknowledged that you were repeatedly and emphatically wrong about ELVES! not making Top 8 in the last six months, although it was not explicitly stated.  While it is your article, and therefore your judgment, as to whether or not key elves should make your list, and I agree that goblins, statistically, deserves to be on the list more than ELVES!, ELVES! has met the proposed criteria for your list--it has Top 8'd in a large tournament in the last 12 months.  Granted, you mention that making Top 8 is not the only criteria, but you also say that
 "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. "

Elves has made the Top 8 in a large tournament within the last year, and has won an event that missed a sixth round of Swiss by 2 players.  Although it has not done better in the last few months, I would like you to reconsider its potential in our current metagame and future metagames--it has the gas to succeed.

And I'll continue to try and lucksack my way into Top 8's in order to get my ELVES! on your list.

Thank you,

Ryan Fisher
Team Rebel Alliance  
PSU Magic.  

I'm so sorry I dismissed your pet deck, Mr. Elves!  I wasn't trying to be mean or narrow-minded.   Rather, I was looking at data and making a judgment call - as I explained in the article and many times since here -- that Elves wasn't performing well enough to merit inclusion.   If you do well, then I'll change that decision.  

Next time I'll make sure to account for everyone's pet deck in my COMPLETE Vintage list.    It's a good thing that I included Goblins cards, as I'm sure Goblins pilots would have been just as angry with me.   My bad.

The purpose of the list is simple: to try to identify all of the cards that a completist might ever want to play in Vintage.  

"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. "

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

Also, if the goal was simply to post which cards are played in Vintage -- and that was the only question - then one wouldn't need my judgment.  You could just consult the Morphling.de database and that would be the end of the story.

Also, with Magus of the Unseen, if one were building a UR Fish deck, there would be good reason to run more than just a pair, as you would use more in the board.  As you know, it was a singleton in the Vintage Champs deck.

Also, you harp on Diminishing Returns, but really the issue is Academy Rector.   I only included Diminishing Returns because I included Academy Rector, for consistency.  Neither has seen top 8 action in some time.  

So, you want to include everything a "completist" would want to play, provided that completist only looks at decks that win 33+ person events.  You included Goblins because it won one large event, while acknowledging that you included Rector and Returns despite the fact that they don't win *any* events, let alone T8 33+ player events.  You post a link showing that FTK is a 3-of from morphling, but suggest 4-of Magus based on a deck that doesn't exist and has never existed (Morphling be damned!!).  You state that if someone wanted a list of all the Vintage cards played, the exercise is useless, yet the first quote suggests this is exactly what you're doing.

Do you understand why this is frustrating?

First of all, if you are 'so frustrated' about the fact that you find some apparent inconsistencies in my list, I suggest having a drink or a toke.   Secondly, do you understand how frustrating it is to be called, variously:

'biased'
'dishonest'
'loathe to answer honestly'
'intentionally non-transparent'
'misleading'
'unclear'

etc

I was very clear about my methodology, open about the fact that this is a work in progress, and admitted that there is necessarily subjective judgment calls involved.    There was nothing opaque about my methodology.   The article itself explained the process pretty clearly, contrary to your assertions (and Stormimanigus).   Did I explain why I selected every single card?  No.  But I gave a very good explanation of how this whole thing worked:

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.

Also, you are making some funny distinctions.    My claim that I am erring on the side of being 'completist' does not contradict my view of using only 33+ player tournament data.   Not becuase 33+ player tournaments are 'large scale' as the previous poster seems to believe, but because of the fact that those top 8s reflect an additional round of swiss:  They can't just go 3-0-2 and draw into a top 8.    That round of swiss means that they have to beat at least four opponents from the field at large.  

Another funny distinction: the litmus test isn't winning a tournament, but making top 8, which is winning enough to show up in our data.  

[rpf5029]

Mr. Menendian,

Show me where I say that 33 player tournaments are 'large scale' lol.   You are apparently confusing my statement regarding the fact that I aggregate only 33+ player tournaments in my tournament stats as a definition of what constitutes large-scale.    That's a pretty bad misreading of what I wrote. 

Show me where you define what a LARGE TOURNAMENT IS.  You say you took your data from large tournaments, then you go on to say that you aggregate data for your bimonthly reports from tournaments that have thirty three or more players.  You never defined what attendance constitutes a large tournament.  The burden of clarity belongs to the writer, not the reader. 

First, a 44 player tournament is not a large scale vintage event.     Waterburies, Ovinogeddon, Vintage Champs, ICBM P9 Opens, SCG P9 Opens -- those are 'large scale' Vintage events.   

 
Ah.  Here it is.  Several posts later.  Again, my mistake.  I mistook your meaning, and I apologize for that. 

Apparently you have trouble reading.

Inappropriate, demeaning, and sir, quite frankly unnecessary.  YOU are the one who was not clear about what constitutes a "large scale" vintage event until just above.  Thank you for being unclear, insulting me for misreading, and then fixing your mistake. 

Secondly, I acknowledged in THIS THREAD that Elves had ONE top 8 in the last 7 months:

You did, and I commended you on that.  I was unaware on what constituted a "large-scale" event.  If you did not classify 33+ as large scale events, why bother to aggregate the data if the impact on such a list is negligible?  Or, because it's a smaller event, it takes several of them to show the kind of results that you're looking for?  This is understandable. 

And making one top 8 -- in April -- is not really enough to warrant inclusion on this list.   There is no recent evidence that Elves is viable in competitive Vintage.  If a couple of Elves decks were to show up in my next Vintage Stats metagame analysis, I would rethink that conclusion because there would be evidence that its viable.   'Til that day...

Why bother making this statement if your point is that it was the Top 8 of an event that is not "large scale" and therefore doesn't warrant attention on your list?  That's a rhetorical question--I'm not going to argue semantics.  So a strong showing in several smaller events--which ELVES has not done yet--will raise the bar.  Now that I understand the difference in your terminology, I see your point, and I'm slightly inclined to agree.  Thank you. 

I'm so sorry I dismissed your pet deck.  I wasn't trying to be mean or narrow-minded.   Rather, I was looking at data and making a judgment call - as I explained in the article and many times since here -- that Elves wasn't performing well enough to merit inclusion.   If you do well, then I'll change that decision. 

Next time I'll make sure to account for everyone's pet deck in my COMPLETE Vintage list.    It's a good thing that I included Goblins cards, as I'm sure Goblins pilots would have been just as angry with me.   My bad.

I implied you may have been slightly narrow minded, but not in a negative fashion. Like I conceded in the end, it was your article,  you are a well respected member of the vintage community, you obviously know what you are talking about, and your reasoning was valid.  Certain terminology and classifications were unclear, but that has been cleared up now.   Also, I never implied you were mean in my original post, but I'm going to state it plainly right now.  There is no reason for you to insult my reading ability, nor telling me that you are "so sorry" you "dismissed" my "pet deck".  Clearing up the "large event" misunderstanding--which you never clearly defined--invalidated my entire argument, removing the need to demean me, repeat yourself, and then WHINE about repeating yourself, continuing to insult me and anyone else you included with that barb. 

Maybe my original post may have been too sarcastic, but for the most part, the sarcasm was not AIMED at you as yours has been at me.  I did take a jibe at you that you proved false with a simple sentence, and that sentence alone made a fool out of me.  I deserved it.  But everything else was completely unnecessary. 

Thank you for insulting me so thoroughly. 

[John Jones]

I'm going to get some popcorn for this one.

[forests failed you]

Steve, an excellent read and probably my favorite article of you've written this year.  I think that a list like this is very practical and a great time saver for individuals who build decks.

One thing you might consider:  it may be useful to find a different way to organize the information so that it is more accessible to players who are building a specific deck.  For instance, instead of organizing the cards by set one could organize them by archetype:  Mana Drain, Workshop, Fish, Bazaar, etc.

For example:  in the case of Mana Drain decks one could list all of the cards that get played in the maindeck of decks that play Drains and then distinguish the maindeck cards from the ones that get played in the sideboard.  It would even be possible to denote what cards are intended for use against other popular stratagies.

A Mana Drain player would not only be able to research what other successful Mana Drain players have recently used--but they could also look at the Stax section to research what cards Stax players are likely to use after sideboarding.  It might be a very good tool for new players who are trying to learn the ropes and make sense of the extremely complicated ways that decks interact with one another.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

OK, I'm going to take a stab at a definition here..

I never said that it never made top 8 in a tournament, or a tournament of 33 or more players.  What I said was that Elves has not top 8ed in a large scale Vintage event.

First, a 44 player tournament is not a large scale vintage event. Waterburies, Ovinogeddon, Vintage Champs, ICBM P9 Opens, SCG P9 Opens -- those are 'large scale' Vintage events.

That being said, I suggest the approximate definition:
 A large-scale event is a full-day event with one full-day Vintage tournament as the main event. I would then suggest that full-day be at least seven if not eight rounds of Swiss before top 8, thus requiring 65 (for 7) or 129 (for 8).

Waterbury, to my understanding, usually generates over 100 people. Large-scale European events can generate 200-300. 100 people would be 7 rounds, and assuming an hour per round (including time to enter results, pair, etc), this would be 7 hours plus a cut to top 8 - meaning the finalists (barring ID's and such) are playing for 10 hours.

I don't know if this is what he was looking for, but I suggest it's not unreasonable considering what's been said here.

Also, thanks for the list, Steve.. makes what I was trying to come up with on the Vintage Sideboard look anemic!

[Disburden]

One thing you might consider:  it may be useful to find a different way to organize the information so that it is more accessible to players who are building a specific deck.  For instance, instead of organizing the cards by set one could organize them by archetype:  Mana Drain, Workshop, Fish, Bazaar, etc.

For example:  in the case of Mana Drain decks one could list all of the cards that get played in the maindeck of decks that play Drains and then distinguish the maindeck cards from the ones that get played in the sideboard.  It would even be possible to denote what cards are intended for use against other popular stratagies.

A Mana Drain player would not only be able to research what other successful Mana Drain players have recently used--but they could also look at the Stax section to research what cards Stax players are likely to use after sideboarding.  It might be a very good tool for new players who are trying to learn the ropes and make sense of the extremely complicated ways that decks interact with one another.

I Think this is an excellent suggestion. It gives a big source of information to people new to Vintage to know what cards to test against in popular sideboards as well as what cards they need. Building up a Vintage deck is quite the daunting task, but once you do it it's rewarding and profitable for the future worth of the cards. Maybe even hint to new players what cards they should look to get first through a listed order so they can see they should get the four force of wills, then the fetchlands, then the drains, then power, etc, for example so they don't just blow 400.00$ on a mox emerald the first card they get. I also think there should be another Mana Drain article written by Mr. Demars ::cough cough:::.
Anyway, I liked the list and I was surprised some drama came out of the article. Thanks again, Steve.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

One thing you might consider:  it may be useful to find a different way to organize the information so that it is more accessible to players who are building a specific deck.  For instance, instead of organizing the cards by set one could organize them by archetype:  Mana Drain, Workshop, Fish, Bazaar, etc.

For example:  in the case of Mana Drain decks one could list all of the cards that get played in the maindeck of decks that play Drains and then distinguish the maindeck cards from the ones that get played in the sideboard.  It would even be possible to denote what cards are intended for use against other popular stratagies.

A Mana Drain player would not only be able to research what other successful Mana Drain players have recently used--but they could also look at the Stax section to research what cards Stax players are likely to use after sideboarding.  It might be a very good tool for new players who are trying to learn the ropes and make sense of the extremely complicated ways that decks interact with one another.

I Think this is an excellent suggestion. It gives a big source of information to people new to Vintage to know what cards to test against in popular sideboards as well as what cards they need. Building up a Vintage deck is quite the daunting task, but once you do it it's rewarding and profitable for the future worth of the cards. Maybe even hint to new players what cards they should look to get first through a listed order so they can see they should get the four force of wills, then the fetchlands, then the drains, then power, etc, for example so they don't just blow 400.00$ on a mox emerald the first card they get. I also think there should be another Mana Drain article written by Mr. Demars ::cough cough:::.
Anyway, I liked the list and I was surprised some drama came out of the article. Thanks again, Steve.

I'll say this now - doing such a list wouldn't be a single article, it would be a series of articles. I'd created a list of roughly 200 cards pre-Conflux (I think) that Vintage players - especially new ones - should be aware of, and had been writing a series of articles, breaking them into categories for easier analysis. Were Steve to attempt this feat, I would expect two things:

1. There'd be a lot of overlap, which may require its own section. The Jewelry, for example, see play in almost every serious deck. Any deck that tries a control role will run generally either Cabal Therapy or Force of Will. Demonic Tutor is everywhere, and so forth. "Generics." Even creatures aren't immune - look at Tarmogoyf and Dark Confidant.

2. Each following article in the series would cover a different major 'pillar', such as Mana Drain or Null Rod. The problem here is that, as Brass Man pointed out to me due to a posting I made in one of Chapin's article threads (http://forums.starcitygames.com/viewtopic.php?p=1063876&sid=650d7cea22dd45e908c84b567554abd0#1063876), Fish (as an example) isn't just one deck - there's multiple 'breeds' which play differently, and so why do I only list Fish once but split up Shop the way I do? My answer, I'm afraid, comes from lack of experience. Steve on the other hand has a plethora of experience and data, which mean that one of two things would happen:

 (a) Each pillar gets an article ignoring subtypes (thus Workshop could have Magus of the Moon and Sphere of Resistance in the same list - possible but unlikely), or
 (b) Each pillar gets broken down into subtypes - the smartest way to handle that, of course, being listing commonalities at the beginning (Mishra's Workshop, Chalice of the Void) and then cards you find in the subtypes below.

Either way, I'd expect it to become no less than five articles, and likely six to cover all the major players. I guess the question is, is there enough call for it, and is Steve willing to put that much effort into expanding it? Twelve hours "just" to make a circa 400-card list, and then 5-6 articles after that based on the list probably realistically wants another 30 hours at least. Any player worth a set of Underground Seas should be able to look at the list and figure out what goes in what kind of deck, but the rest of us would really benefit from a breakdown.

Just my two Sarpadian coppers.

[Anusien]

Stephen, it seems like you're trying too hard to get every card here instead of every card in a playable deck.  You've ended up generating a weird mix of historical and relevant data.

And for good reason.  It hasn't made a top 8 in a 33+ player tournament in 6 months.     There were two Goblins decks and only 1 Elves deck in the March/April data, and with the rise in Stax, I felt that Goblins was an overall better deck, although  both Goblins and Elves sit on the very edge of a list like this.  Since they were both on the fence, and given Goblins 1) more recent slightly better performance, 2) the recent goblin printings that have made it a stronger choice in  Eternal formats generally, and 3) its historically vastly superior performance to Elves, particulary since those historical moments resemble the current metagame, I ultimately made a judgment call to include Goblins, but not Elves.

You include Goblins and not Elves even though Elves has put up similar results to Goblins, merely because Goblins is historically stronger.

Similar problems arise with things like Diminishing Returns and Academy Rector.  You include them because you call them Vintage playable, and they've seen play five years ago.  But the only reason these cards pop up and Dream Halls doesn't seems to be because Dream Halls hasn't been in any T8s, for virtue of being restricted for all that time.

I think if you make a list like this, you either have to put your foot down and say "Rector-Tendrils just isn't playable."  Because if you don't, you inevitably get criticized for not including every pet deck.