[FREE article] Scars Ultimate Vintage Set Review and COMPLETE Vintage Checklist

[Smmenen]

Dear Vintage Community,

After eight years of writing for StarCityGames, having penned 311 articles, and four years of writing a weekly column, the time has come for change.   You've probably heard the rumors, and the rumors are true.   Brian DeMars and Andy Probasco are replacing my column on SCG.

However, I want you to know that my column WILL continue, but at a different pace and a difference place.   Writing a weekly column is demanding, but I always aimed for the highest possible quality every week.  Consequently, despite writing for niche formats, my articles were often among the most popular on SCG.  

I'm going back to basics.   Stepping away from a weekly format, I'm going back to the kind of writing I enjoyed so much before taking on the duties of a weekly column.   My focus will be on writing detailed deck primers and talking about hot Vintage tech.  This will mean fewer articles per year (my target is one every month to three weeks), but each article will be meatier and, my hope, *must read*.

The home for this work?   I'm very excited about my opportunity to work with the staff of Quiet Speculation, who've put together a fantastic website.   I'm very pleased that my first post-SCG article is now live on Quietspeculation.com, here!

http://www.quietspeculation.com/2010/10/so-many-insane-plays-scars-of-mirrodin-ultimate-vintage-set-review-with-complete-vintage-checklist/

This article is a 30 page comprehensive review of Scars, WITH a complete Vintage checklist, for collectors and players alike!  In addition, I've included an extensive discussion of the unrestriction of Gush and the errata on Transmute Artifact.   If that wasn't enough, I've included the complete Vintage checklist of playables, which I've updated to reflect current card usages.   As always, feedback is welcome.  

Look for my next article sometime at the end of this month or early November, which will be a 30-40 page Grow and Gushbond primer, exploring and explaining the myriad options and tactics with Gush .   You won't want to miss it.  

Stephen Menendian

[minusblindfold]

You've probably heard the rumors, and the rumors are true.  

So they really do take your premium article away if you lose to a non-premium writer in a waterbury?

Verbal warning for spam.  -DA

[mike_bergeron]

Your vintage checklists are extremely valuable.  Thank you for putting your time and effort into this.  

[Eastman]

Glad to see I can read these again.  And the new site looks great; article looks nice.  I will give this a longer read when I have time tonight. 

[The Atog Lord]

Thank you Steve.  This was an excellent read.

[Delha]

Glad to hear you haven't just stopped releasing articles outright (although it was probably my inner pessimist that made me worry in the first place). Even when I disagree with your message, I certainly enjoy your work.

[Killane]

Awesome article. Certainly, you pointed out some cards from Scars I had not considered. surprised at the website you ended up on, but glad you're there and I don;t have to pay for SCG premium anymore.

[Troy_Costisick]

Stephen,

Congrats on your new home!  I hope you like it better.

Concerning the specifics of your article, you said this:

On the other side of the ledger, Rusted Relic’s conditionality is a relative disadvantage to Juggernaut. A turn one Rusted Relic, where your turn two artifacts are countered, is a significant tempo loss. In addition, targeted removal, like Rack and Ruin or Trygon Predator, can render Rusted Relic inert.

I think there is a significant drawback to Rusted Relic that you didn't point out in your article.  Unlike Juggernaut, Relic's casting cost is increased by Thorn of Amethyst.  Juggernaut's cost can only be increased by 4 out of the 13 spheres a Shop deck plays.  For Relic, it's 8 out of 13.  That's quite a difference.  How much will that matter?  Some, but not a lot.  Making five or six mana isn't usually hard for a Shop deck. What it will mean, though, is that sometimes it may make it hard for Shop players to drop Relic and another threat on the same turn.  

I do like Relic's toughness a lot, though.  It can block and kill a goyf and survive the exchange, while Juggs cannot.  I also particularly like the interaction with Sphere and creature kill you mention in your article.  That's not something I had thought of prior to reading it.  Nice!

Peace,

-Troy

[meadbert]

I think there is a significant drawback to Rusted Relic that you didn't point out in your article.  Unlike Juggernaut, Relic's casting cost is increased by Thorn of Amethyst.

Also it can be Spell Pierced.

[MaximumCDawg]

Your vintage checklists are extremely valuable.  Thank you for putting your time and effort into this.  

It's true.  I made a folder, with labeled pockets for each card considered vintage playable by Steve, and I'm using that as the basis for expanding my collection.  Makes it really easy to just show up and toss something together on Vintage night.

[Smmenen]

Your vintage checklists are extremely valuable.  Thank you for putting your time and effort into this.  

It's true.  I made a folder, with labeled pockets for each card considered vintage playable by Steve, and I'm using that as the basis for expanding my collection.  Makes it really easy to just show up and toss something together on Vintage night.

To be perfectly honest, I do the exact same thing.   Then, I have extra pockets in the back for Legacy cards, which are the cards in my Legacy checklist which aren't on my Vintage checklist. 

Thanks for all of the positive feedback everyone.   I know there is alot of material here!

[saspook]

Also super excited that Doug Linn will be on QS as well.

Nice to see you putting out this list.  The list is a real, putting your money where your mouth is, type of definitive statement.

[Hi-Val]

Also super excited that Doug Linn will be on QS as well.

Nice to see you putting out this list.  The list is a real, putting your money where your mouth is, type of definitive statement.

More than just on QS, I am a co-owner! I have already written some articles on buying and selling collections and cards, as well as some Legacy-specific work. Take some time to browse around the site and check out our archives; we've got a lot of really smart folks writing for us!

[bosoxdave]

This is a steal for the Quiet Speculation ownership and staff.

Let's put it this way...

I had never heard of Quiet Speculation until today and now I will be visiting at least once a month (maybe more once I get the feel of the place).



The only card you may have underestimated in SoM is Riddlesmith and it is a stretch to say that you have underestimated it.  It is already finding a home in a storm artifact deck that is pretty filthy based on early testing.  If it becomes a legitimate deck still remains to be seen.  Either way, I enjoyed the article and look forward to reading more!

Dave

[CorwinB]

I also use Steve's Vintage Checklists in an Excel spreadsheet to expand my collection.

This is a steal for the Quiet Speculation ownership and staff.

Let's put it this way...

I had never heard of Quiet Speculation until today and now I will be visiting at least once a month (maybe more once I get the feel of the place).

Same here. I had already checked a couple articles on QS, but will now be a regular.

[Troy_Costisick]

Doug, Stephen,

I agree this is quite a coup for QuietSpeculation.  I'll be a regular now.  I want to ask, though, how Stephen's articles on tourney reports, deck primers, and strategy guides line up with what your website states as its purpose here:

Quiet Speculation is a daily web magazine specializing in making money in the trading card game industry.  Our focus is Magic: The Gathering, and we strive to stay on top of all facets of the game at all times.  We are a group of people who love gaming, business, and enjoy the challenge of turning a hobby into a business.  We do not cover strategy, tournament results, or casual play except to the extent that it relates to buying, selling or trading within these categories.

Will Stephen be changing the focus of his articles to more about the financial side of playing Vintage?  Will he continue his quarterly metagame reports (I hope so, those are truly important to the community)?  Or will QuietSpeculation be expanding its scope a bit in include the type of writing we've traditionally seen from So Many Insane Plays?

Peace,

-Troy

[madmanmike25]

I'm surprised you only mentioned Gush when discussing Tunnel Ignus.  If an opponent needs the mana in his turn a fetchland does 4 damage.  Ignus also has some synergy with GQ: if you use it after they lay a land then they take 3 when they put the 2nd land in play.  Still its a narrow card.

Also, I'm surprised you don't mention the obvious synergy between Forgemaster and Precursor Golem.  Btw you don't really need a Metalworker to get 5 mana, so don't limit Forgemaster to Metalworker builds.  Precursor seems HUGE in shop mirrors.

All in all, insightful article.  The main question I have is are your articles going to be free from now on, or is this a teaser???

[Hi-Val]

Doug, Stephen,

I agree this is quite a coup for QuietSpeculation.  I'll be a regular now.  I want to ask, though, how Stephen's articles on tourney reports, deck primers, and strategy guides line up with what your website states as its purpose here:

Quiet Speculation is a daily web magazine specializing in making money in the trading card game industry.  Our focus is Magic: The Gathering, and we strive to stay on top of all facets of the game at all times.  We are a group of people who love gaming, business, and enjoy the challenge of turning a hobby into a business.  We do not cover strategy, tournament results, or casual play except to the extent that it relates to buying, selling or trading within these categories.

Will Stephen be changing the focus of his articles to more about the financial side of playing Vintage?  Will he continue his quarterly metagame reports (I hope so, those are truly important to the community)?  Or will QuietSpeculation be expanding its scope a bit in include the type of writing we've traditionally seen from So Many Insane Plays?

Peace,

-Troy

I suppose that the best answer is that, although QS is primarily a financial site, we would be stupid to pass up the opportunity to give Steve a forum, since we like him a lot and he is a superb writer. We're not set in stone on our mission statement such that it would mean we couldn't run Steve's articles! QS is approaching this in the view that whatever Steve wants to write about is great with us. If it gets us more readers, like this thread indicates, we're happy to run it!

[Ten-Ten]

Great read Steve! Thank you for the SoM market report...i mean, set review  
I admit the more I got involved with my hobby (m:tg), the more I learned to predict the next big card in a set for certain formats in m:tg and so I run and buy as many as I can when they are cheap then trade big or make a reasonable profit. Either way, it is still my hobby first. This is my first time hearing about QS, I might just give QS a second look now.

 Although I do not strictly follow your checklists, I do keep them updated in excel spredsheet 

I do like the fact that you did not give Gush all the attention, after all it is a set review.
 The card I was hoping nobody caught on to was mentioned, Vedalken Certarch! I love it.
Would have been better at uncommon though.
Which brings me to ask,which may seem dumb,out of curiosity what are your thoughts on the rarity of some cards such as Mox Opal, Riddlesmith,Arc trail, Tunnel ignus and Vedalken Certarch? Did WotC get it right?
I mean, Mox Opal I understand we don't want it showing up the majority of the time in drafts and sealed play but why not just rare instead of Mythic? In Vintage, it seems that Mox Opal has but one obvious deck,for now, to call home: 5cStax. In time if new decks are built for it and the demand goes up,do you think the value  will be higher than if it were a normal Rare merely because of it being Mythic?  From the business perspective, how dramatically does rarity of certain cards affect the way you approach a set? if at all.

[RecklessEmbermage]

Congratulations with your new hosts! I will certainly be tuning in for your articles, if not for the rest of the stuff.

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

You are right that transmute artifact should work like flash.

"In short, the original D’Angelo ruling and the subsequent, post-Mirage ruling, to template Transmute Artifact the same as Flash, suggest that the current errata on Transmute Artifact is just wrong, that the card should work like Flash, that the artifact should actually come to play, and then be put into the graveyard if payment is not made."

and

"the one change they have made is clearly contradictory to the original functionality. Matt has made the sacrifice part of the resolution, not part of the cost. Yet, the D’Angelo ruling clearly shows that the sacrifice was understood to be part of the cost, much like Tinker."

I can't think of a card where sacrificing something to tutor for another card isn't part of the cost.
(natural order, crop rotation, tinker etc.)
Are there?
(The correct move would be to restore and probably restrict it. otherwise, sharuum and sundering titan shenanigans all around.)

Nice read all around, I'm happy that your articles are now free.

[Rico Suave]

I can't think of a card where sacrificing something to tutor for another card isn't part of the cost.

Scapeshift is one.  Defense of the Heart is another. 

[Cunningbeaver]

I can't think of a card where sacrificing something to tutor for another card isn't part of the cost.

Scapeshift is one.   

Sacrifice any number of lands. Search your library for that many land cards, put them into play tapped, then shuffle your library.

Did I miss something here?

[Rico Suave]

The sacrifice isn't part of the cost.  It is part of the effect. 

Compare this to Tinker, where the sacrifice is necessary to put the spell on the stack.  Scapeshift, on the other hand, does not require the sacrifice until the spell begins resolving. 

[Cunningbeaver]

The sacrifice isn't part of the cost.  It is part of the effect. 

Compare this to Tinker, where the sacrifice is necessary to put the spell on the stack.  Scapeshift, on the other hand, does not require the sacrifice until the spell begins resolving. 

Gotcha. Was wondering. Now I understand the basis of the discussion. My apologies.

[Smmenen]

I can't think of a card where sacrificing something to tutor for another card isn't part of the cost.

Scapeshift is one.  Defense of the Heart is another. 

Altar of Bone is an earlier example, and perhaps one of the best ones. 

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

altar of bone has (if gatherer is right) the sacrifice in it's casting cost.

With scapeshift, it's a bit different. It lets you choose how many lands to sacrifice (you might sacrifice 0) and is hence part of the resolution.
defense of the heart doesn't really make a good example in my opinion.

Well, to put it back simply: I think transmute artifact should work like flash and tinker combined.
You sacrifice an artifact as part of the cost,
get a new one, that hits play, you must pay or sac, triggers trigger.

A good card. Maybe no 4of.

[Smmenen]

altar of bone has (if gatherer is right) the sacrifice in it's casting cost.

Wow, you are right.   I was looking at the Magic Encyclopedia the other day and saw that card, and the 1996 errata had it as part of the resolution (or so I thought). 

[DubDub]

I'm sorry to retire this.  Quite glad to see your writing will continue.

[Odd mutation]

I'm sorry to retire this.  Quite glad to see your writing will continue.

I've read all of those...

... and I'll read all that's coming!

Robrecht