[Premium Article] Mirrodin Besieged Set Review and Updated Vintage Checklist!!!

[Smmenen]

Yep, I'm back....   This my first strategy article since my Gush book, and you can tell.  

This is the most comprehensive set review I've ever written, topping out at over 65 pages!!!   Also included is a revised Complete Vintage Checklist for collectors, traders, and Vintage enthusiasts alike!

Clicky clicky for free preview:

http://www.quietspeculation.com/2011/01/so-many-insane-plays-a-preview-of-the-mirrodin-besieged-vintage-set-review/

This set review was described by Wizards of the Coast’s Erik Lauer, one of the set’s developers, as “a very thorough review… Stephen gives a top down view of Mirrodin Besieged.”

As always, I've got you covered, and created a checklist for you trading, and purchasing needs.   I'll tell you what you'll want, what you won't want, and where you can get the most bang for your buck.  

Enjoy!

Stephen

[Womba]

$3.99 just for a set review seems like highway robbery. No offense Steve, but I don't really see how they can justify charging that price for a set review where there will be a ton of them on other websites for a cheaper cost if not free.

[Troy_Costisick]

What blows my mind is that you were able to create 65 pages of content on this uninspired and lackluster expansion.  MBS is one of the most dull and boring set designs I've seen since Kamigawa block.

[Smmenen]

$3.99 just for a set review seems like highway robbery. No offense Steve, but I don't really see how they can justify charging that price for a set review where there will be a ton of them on other websites for a cheaper cost if not free.

Actually, it's pretty cheap.  Starcitygames charges like $30 for a year of premium.   This set review is cheaper than a month of SCG premium, and this set review is longer than four of my SCG Premium articles.    

If you play Standard and want to read Chapin's set review, you'll be paying alot more than that.  

Remember, this article is about 55 pages + 10 pages for the ultimate checklist, which I heavily revised.  I went through card by card and updated the checklist.  

Check out the preview, and see if you think its worth it to you.

Since Starcitygames has gone free on all eternal content, fans of my column could consider getting this instead

What blows my mind is that you were able to create 65 pages of content on this uninspired and lackluster expansion.  MBS is one of the most dull and boring set designs I've seen since Kamigawa block.

I really don't think that's the case at all.  This set has alot of fascinating cards and plenty of playables As I say in my set review:

Mirrodin Besieged is a thinking man’s set. It’s a set of many Pithing Needles. By that analogy I mean that Mirrodin Besieged is a set with many playables, but whose application and usage is highly contextual and skill-dependent. Pithing Needle is a card card whose utility is often a sum of its individual applications, rather than a single, obvious application. This set offers many cards in that mold.

It’s also a set of complicated cards. Knowledge Pool is symbolic in this regard. Knowledge Pool is arguably the most complicated single card ever created, even more than the infamous Chains of Mephistopheles. It involves more specific zone transfers than any card since Mind’s Desire, and it has one of the arguably most confusing triggers ever printed. The type of review I offer here befits the nature of this set.

I spend several pages on each of the Vintage playables, and that's one of the reasons the review is longish.  

[Womba]

$3.99 just for a set review seems like highway robbery. No offense Steve, but I don't really see how they can justify charging that price for a set review where there will be a ton of them on other websites for a cheaper cost if not free.

It's cheaper than a month of SCG premium, and this set review is longer than four of my SCG Premium articles.  

Remember, this article is about 55 pages + 10 pages for the ultimate checklist, which I heavily revised.  I went through card by card and updated the checklist.  

Check out the preview, and see if you think its worth it to you.

Since Starcitygames has gone free on all eternal content, fans of my column could consider getting this instead

Yeah but per set review, what I am going to be able to get from SCG ($4.99/month) is going to be way cheaper than one set review for $3.99. Assuming Chapin and just one other SCG writer does a review I am paying $2.50 per review in addition to all the premium articles for that month. I get what your saying and reading a set review from an eternal prospective would be a good read but I just don't see how this worth the money.

[Smmenen]

$3.99 just for a set review seems like highway robbery. No offense Steve, but I don't really see how they can justify charging that price for a set review where there will be a ton of them on other websites for a cheaper cost if not free.

It's cheaper than a month of SCG premium, and this set review is longer than four of my SCG Premium articles.  

Remember, this article is about 55 pages + 10 pages for the ultimate checklist, which I heavily revised.  I went through card by card and updated the checklist.  

Check out the preview, and see if you think its worth it to you.

Since Starcitygames has gone free on all eternal content, fans of my column could consider getting this instead

Yeah but per set review, what I am going to be able to get from SCG ($4.99/month) is going to be way cheaper than one set review for $3.99. Assuming Chapin and just one other SCG writer does a review I am paying $2.50 per review in addition to all the premium articles for that month. I get what your saying and reading a set review from an eternal prospective would be a good read but I just don't see how this worth the money.

There will be many reviews of Mirrodin Besieged.   LSV and Chapin will do one.   And, in fact, you can probably find a few eternal set reviews out there.  But I've been writing Vintage specific set reviews for years using a particular format.   For players that enjoy that format, and my writing approach, this is for them.    This is for someone who wants the complete perspective of a long-time analyst.

This article is over half as long as my Gush book, but half the price of the Gush book.   From that perspective, it's actually much cheaper by comparison.   

4 bucks is a good deal for a comprehensive, downloadable product like this.   I tell players which cards to pick up from the new set, which will help dealers, traders, and collectors.  And the complete Vintage checklist will allow folks to get the rest of the cards they need.   

If you are a fan of my column, So Many Insane Plays, then you will really enjoy this.

[CorwinB]

Hello Stephen.

You know I'm a huge fan of your work. I've bought your Gush book in e-book form, and I'm waiting for the paperback version to arrive (preordered it as soon as QS were able to tell me the shipping cost to Europe). In fact, I registered for QS Insider ($5 per month) mostly on the basis that I would be able to access your articles this way, as a mark of trust for the quality of your work. Now, I discover that my QS Insider suscription doesn't actually allow me to access your articles, but that I get to pay an extra $4 for your set review, in addition to the $60 they intend to charge me over the year. Count me out on this one.

SCG charges $30 for the year, and you get access to all content : financial, set reviews, strategy articles, videos... This treatment of QS Insider suscribers is an outrage.

[Hi-Val]

As an owner of QS, let me explain a little bit about the pricing.

Steve's articles are worth money. I think we can all agree that he should be compensated, somehow.

Steve wanted to work with QS and we want to work with him, but we simply do not have the money to pay Steve what it would take to retain him as a full-time writer. These reviews are cool, but they don't generate the conversion rate we would need to finance it as a piece of advertising that converts people to Insider. Thus, we're in a bind - we want to publish Steve, he wants to write for us, but the material he generates isn't related enough to premium to make fans of his stuff want to pick up Insider. It would be unfair to our Insider subscribers to make them subsidize a non-financial article, when what they are paying for is financial articles. Insider money goes to pay the Insider writers, who also generate content worth paying for. Of the money charged for this review, QS pockets very little; I am not trying to rip you off, and neither is Steve - this is simply what this kind of content costs, on a bare a la carte level.

CorwinB , I am going to try to work out something positive for Insiders on this. The margin we make, again, is so small that we don't have a lot of room to maneuver much of a meaningful discount. I am trying, though. Insider wasn't set up to give access to Steve's stuff and iI don't think we represented it that way.

[Troy_Costisick]

As an owner of QS, let me explain a little bit about the pricing.

Steve's articles are worth money. I think we can all agree that he should be compensated, somehow.

Steve wanted to work with QS and we want to work with him, but we simply do not have the money to pay Steve what it would take to retain him as a full-time writer. These reviews are cool, but they don't generate the conversion rate we would need to finance it as a piece of advertising that converts people to Insider. Thus, we're in a bind - we want to publish Steve, he wants to write for us, but the material he generates isn't related enough to premium to make fans of his stuff want to pick up Insider. It would be unfair to our Insider subscribers to make them subsidize a non-financial article, when what they are paying for is financial articles. Insider money goes to pay the Insider writers, who also generate content worth paying for. Of the money charged for this review, QS pockets very little; I am not trying to rip you off, and neither is Steve - this is simply what this kind of content costs, on a bare a la carte level.

Forgive me for saying so, but it seems from this that Steve's articles are well outside the focus and target audience for Quiet Speculation.  Is QS unwilling to broaden its scope to include content like Steve's for its core users?  The way it works now, it seems like Steve's article is a vestigial appendage for your site.

[Hi-Val]

We have definitely broadened the site's appeal, and most of our content is free. We charge for financial stuff only. I would love to get to a point where we can efficiently post Steve's stuff for free, but that's not feasible right now (since we can't pay him enough on the back end).

One thing that I will be developing this week is a survey to talk to our Insider subscribers and see if this is something they'd be willing to pay for. I may just be misreading it that they wouldn't want a vast amount of their subscription money to go to Steve, but I don't know.

[Commandant]

I picked up QS Insider under the impression I would be able to read Steve's articles. Guess I missed the memo.

[CorwinB]

Insider wasn't set up to give access to Steve's stuff and iI don't think we represented it that way.

From QS Insider's introduction :

Since our financial content often helps our readers make money, we have decided to limit financial content to Insiders.  Spike and Timmy content will remain free, though we may occasionally recruit guest authors for some Insider features.

Is Steve's review financial content ? No, although he often includes a couple trading tips aimed at Vintage players. Does it qualify as Spike or Timmy content ? I'd definitely say it does qualify as Spike content and as such should be free. If it isn't one or the other, then the last option "Insider Guest author" would make sense. Steve's articles were exactly what I had in mind when I read the part about "guest authors" in your introduction.

Regarding the incredibly small margin you have such that you can't maintain profitability unless you charge $4 for each of your $60/year paying customer who is interested in Vintage set reviews, I will trust your word, but if this is indeed the case then perhaps you should rethink your business. SCG doesn't seem to have a problem charging $30 a year giving access to all their Premium content (including financial advice, I might add). Channel Fireball also has an "all free" model that also seems to work ok for them.

[Smmenen]

I would request that all persons who have concerns or questions for Doug/QS direct them to him via PM to keep this thread on the topic of the article.  Thanks

[CorwinB]

I would request that all persons who have concerns or questions for Doug/QS direct them to him via PM to keep this thread on the topic of the article.  Thanks

Stephen,

This is very much on topic, though, because the method of delivery is a valid area of inquiry for people interested in reading your work. As an author, you obviously know that constructive criticism and feedback is important, and if people feel they can't access your set reviews because of the pricing model you and your editors have chosen, this is a valid concern.

[Hi-Val]

This has been made free to Insiders. Expect it to be online this evening. I'll edit in a link for subscribers when we've got it up.

Edit: here's part 1, which links to parts 2 and 3 internally:

http://tinyurl.com/6l2dpv6

[Yare]

This has been made free to Insiders. Expect it to be online this evening. I'll edit in a link for subscribers when we've got it up.

I was about to post something about how if it was somehow unclear to insiders that Steve's content wouldn't be included, something should be done to compensate them, but this move moots that and I'm glad to see it. I would mention, though, that the insider signup link (which I can't seem to get to load right now for whatever reason) should be explicit that it does not include Steve's content if that is going to be the regular case (and it appears it will, based upon the above).

[Smmenen]

This has been made free to Insiders. Expect it to be online this evening. I'll edit in a link for subscribers when we've got it up.

Good man Doug!   I hope all the QS subscribers enjoy!

[Hi-Val]

Our server is right now getting CRUSHED by Steve's 21k word article on our site! Things are moving very slowly, so check back throughout the night, whether you want to subscribe to Insider or just buy the review.

[Smmenen]

Our server is right now getting CRUSHED by Steve's 21k word article on our site! Things are moving very slowly, so check back throughout the night, whether you want to subscribe to Insider or just buy the review.

LOL, finally I can crush something other than spirits and editor's sanity

I have to say that I am a bit mystified by all of the dismissive attitude regarding this set.  I think all of the critics will be surprised -- in time -- to discover just how much of this set is playable.  My teammates concur in this assessment.   Mirrodin Besieged is, as I've said, a thinking man's set.  It's actually really well designed in many respects, and questionably designed in a few others.   But what's great about the design of the set is that, with the exception of basically two spells (BSC and Thrun), almost everything in the set is really contextual.  That's why I call this a set of Pithing Needles.   There aren't any cards here that basically operate by themselves -- they are cards whose ultimate utility is driven by a specific context.  

To be honest, I'm glad Magic is moving in that direction.   Scars was a step in that direction, and this set completes the shift.  It means we are moving away from an era in which cards are obvious and into an era in which the overall power level is higher, but marginal and minor distinctions are the differences that will ultimately make a difference.  

Do you know what the most played cards from Scars of Mirrodin were?   In this article, I tell you.  It's not Myr Battlesphere.   It won't spoil the surprise to discover that *the Scars of Mirrodin card* appearing in the most top 8 decklists is Steel Hellkite!   I cover the rest in this set review, reviewing my previous set review, as I always do.   Steel Hellkite did not strike many people as awesome at first glance.  In fact, Sperling didn't even mention it in his set review!  The point is that the cards that ultimately make the biggest difference aren't necessarily the most broken at first glance.

Then, there are some things I don't like about the set.   I like poison counters as a method of victory, but I don't really think that the artifact focus and the poison mechanic are particularly synergistic, either mechanically or thematically.   I would have saved the infect mechanic for a different block.   I also wish more cards had been printed with Metalcraft, one of the most interesting mechanics in a long time.   As much as I personally enjoy sets like this, I'm not sure if they will be successful, broadly speaking.   Future Sight is my favorite modern set, followed closely by Lorwyn and Time Spiral.   What do those sets have in common?  They were not good performers for the Magic brand.   They were too smart, to be frank.   Future Sight was just beyond a bunch of folks, and, evidently, Lorywn created board states that were too complicated for most Magic players to handle.  

I didn't explain this very well in the intro, but there are two notes about this set review worth highlighting:

1) I actually review every card in the set.  

That's a huge difference from previous set reviews.   What I've realized is that we learn as much from understanding why a card *won't* see Vintage play, if not more, than understanding why a card will see Vintage play.    Cards that see Vintage play, or that we expect to see vintage play, don't define the boundaries of the format.    They don't tell us what differences make a difference -- since many of them are safely playable.    Cards that don't or won't see Vintage play actually tell us more -- they help us find the line between playable and unplayable.  

What I've discovered over years of doing set reviews is that minor differences can make a huge difference.   Cards aren't defined as playable or unplayable because of a single characteristic, but because of a mixture of characteristics.   Ancestral Recall isn't good because it draws 3 cards.  Concentrate does that.  It's good because it draws three cards for one mana.  Here's the rub: it's not very often that Wizards designs cards that are *strictly* inferior or superior to another.  There are usually differences, and those differences can and do make a difference.  

Too many people dismiss cards by comparing new cards to pre-existing cards, and asking this question: does the new card do what these old cards do better?  Unfortunately, that's the wrong question.   Because usually the cards do something different, and those differences make a difference.   For example, Empty the Warrens, from one perspective, might just look like a worse Tendrils of Agony.   They are both 4cc, but Tendrils wins the game immediately, without having to wait a turn to attack.    However, Empty the Warrens, from another perspective, offers other advantages, such as permanent advantage (among other differences).   Permanent advantage is a feature that can make a difference in certain matchups, like Workshop matchups.   Direct comparisons generally only bring into view things that cards do similarly or the same, but they obscure or hide differences that make a difference.   That leads to my second point:

2)  In this set review, I spent hours and hours on Gatherer conducting advanced searches of terms, functions, casting costs, etc.  

The reason? Simple: the Vintage player needs to command the entire Magic card pool.   If I am to conduct a proper set review, I must have at my finger tips that card pool.    That's why I make so many references in this article to obscure cards.   I'm constantly comparing each of the cards in the set to pre-existing cards.   Every single creature I compared to pre-existing creatures of the same or similar casting costs and stats.   Etc.  

Normally, I wouldn't go out of my way to make such comparisons, but by reviewing every single card in the set, I felt this exercise was important.   In so doing, I think I came much closer to understanding the dividing line between playable and unplayable, and to identifying -- with specificity rather than in general terms -- those characteristics that matter in Vintage.  

The final point I'd make is that this article is heavily data driven, but unlike my metagame report, it's not explicitly so.  The data lies behind the analysis.   Once again, I comprehensively canvassed tournament databases looking to see if cards show up in Top 8s, and to check the validity of my Checklist.   I also checked my previous predictions from earlier set reviews against actual results, as usual, to become even more precise in my predictions, not just of playability, but of frequency and usage.    Consequently, I believe that the predictions I make for this set will be the most accurate of all.

All feedback is welcome

[CorwinB]

After reading the review (props to QS for listening to the complaints), here are a couple small nitpicks :

Your analysis of Leonin Relic-Warder is spot-on, but Qasali Pridemage has an advantage over him that you don't mention : your opponent has to deal somehow with a resolved Pridemage if you have one open mana before trying to win through, say, Vault/Key, whereas the Relic-warder only works when it enters the battlefield.

There is a problem with your analysis of Signal Pest in a Noble Fish deck featuring Cold-Eyed Selkie and Exalted triggers : Exaltation triggers only if a single creature is attacking. Battle Cry only works for other attacking creatures, which sort of defeats the purpose unless you intend to attack with both the Selkie and the Pest, in which case your Hierarchs and Pridemages won't give any bonus.

Skinwing is a  2/2 Flying, not 3/3 (the germ tokens are 0/0).

Thopter Assembly has a huge synergy with Time Sieve, which you could have mentioned, even if only to compare it to Vault/Key, since synergies with existing cards was one of the reasons stated for a comprehensive set review.

In Green Sun's Zenith, you don't mention the Dryad Arbor interaction, which is strange because Dryad Arbor is Vintage playable, and the effect (Rampant Growth for G) is decent

The artifact regrowth of Glissa, the Traitor triggers when an enemy creature goes to the graveyard, not just in combat. This will be played in Extended in combination with Executioner's Capsule (incidentally one of the cheapest ways to get rid of the Giant Spaghetti Monster).


Generally speaking, my opinion of your review is that I really enjoyed the great analysis you do on cards that are Vintage playable or borderline (Knowledge Pool for example really impressed me), but find reading through the chaff boring. Nowadays, Magic sets are built for Limited first and foremost, with most of the juicy, Standard-playable stuff at Rare and Mythic, and a couple Eternal-playable cards dispatched through all rarities (Tinker bot, efficient situational counter, disruptive bear...). Which is why every set is going to have Bolt variant, Giant Growth variant, Disenchant with a twist, overpriced black kill spell and a parade of Hill Giant wanabees... Do we really need 79 words on why Blightwidow (run-of-the-mill Giant Spider with Infect thrown in) is not Vintage playable ? Or 58 words on Training Drone, a card so bad it has to be one of those so-called "skill testers" design loves to put in sets ?

[Valorale]

Exhausting. If asked to apply a single word to your article Steve, that would be the one I choose.

Many thanks to Doug and QS for working out whatever was needed behind the scenes to get Steve's article up there and of course thank you Steve for writing, your style and approach are very helpful.

I am in agreement with CorwinB in reference to including analysis about cards that are targeted clearly at limited play. I can see the desire to write about every card, but perhaps sort the analysis based on definite playable, questionable playable and no chance in hell playable. Instead of going by alphabetical color. It allows the reader to get to the meat of the article. Otherwise we might start to skim.

Guttural Response was a card I noticed wasnt on the list. Maybe too much of a niche card in Belcher.

[Smmenen]

After reading the review (props to QS for listening to the complaints), here are a couple small nitpicks :

Your analysis of Leonin Relic-Warder is spot-on, but Qasali Pridemage has an advantage over him that you don't mention : your opponent has to deal somehow with a resolved Pridemage if you have one open mana before trying to win through, say, Vault/Key, whereas the Relic-warder only works when it enters the battlefield.

Granted.   I did identify this disadvantage obliquely in the final paragraph of the discussion of this card, where I talk about the interaction of this card and another, well-known artifact, a combo which I proposed to obviate this drawback.

The point of most of my analysis was to identify the advantages of Relic Warder over Pridemage, but that does not mean that Pridemage has no advantages over Warder; he does.  

The artifact regrowth of Glissa, the Traitor triggers when an enemy creature goes to the graveyard, not just in combat. This will be played in Extended in combination with Executioner's Capsule (incidentally one of the cheapest ways to get rid of the Giant Spaghetti Monster).

I am aware of this fact, but she still suffers from the same problem as Rot Wolf, which is that this trigger won't occur very often.  I understand that the circumstances of the triggering are different, but my point is that this won't trigger frequently enough or produce enough of an advantage when it does trigger to justify playing it.

I was not trying to suggest that the trigger was identical to Rot Wolf, just that the problem was similar.  

Generally speaking, my opinion of your review is that I really enjoyed the great analysis you do on cards that are Vintage playable or borderline (Knowledge Pool for example really impressed me), but find reading through the chaff boring. Nowadays, Magic sets are built for Limited first and foremost, with most of the juicy, Standard-playable stuff at Rare and Mythic, and a couple Eternal-playable cards dispatched through all rarities (Tinker bot, efficient situational counter, disruptive bear...). Which is why every set is going to have Bolt variant, Giant Growth variant, Disenchant with a twist, overpriced black kill spell and a parade of Hill Giant wanabees... Do we really need 79 words on why Blightwidow (run-of-the-mill Giant Spider with Infect thrown in) is not Vintage playable ? Or 58 words on Training Drone, a card so bad it has to be one of those so-called "skill testers" design loves to put in sets ?

That's an open question.   Should a set reviewer address every card in a set or not?   That's a difficult question to answer.   In the past, I have only addressed cards that were either 1) clearly playable, 2) potentially playable, 3) theoretically playable, 4) interesting in some way that is relevant to Vintage, or 5) mentioned by other people in the context of Vintage.

That's arguably a fine policy for doing set reviews.   After all, it should cover all of the bases.  If we are hitting all five of those targets, nothing is unnecessarily being addressed or overlooked.  

The problem is that those categories are subjective, both in their definition and in terms of applying them.   We can try to reduce the degree of subjectivity by better defining categories using existing data and standards of play, but the problem does not go away.  New cards are different, and using existing standards to judge them will inevitably produce errors.   The example of comparing Empty the Warrens to Tendrils comes to mind, one I mentioned earlier.   Look at how many people, including myself, did not think Jace would be playable in Vintage.  I did not dismiss it as harshly as many people, like Josh Silvestri, but I did fail to mention it in my set review.  Another example would be the way people dismissed Lion's Eye Diamond when it was printed.  

I don't want there to be any further errors like that.    That's the first reason I am addressing every card.   But there is another one that is arguably more important: by addressing every card we better understand what is NOT playable in Vintage, and why.    Understanding that can provide more insight than understanding why something is playable because it forces us to identify the characteristics that generally make a card playable in Vintage.   It helps us better understand the line between playable and unplayable.   If we only focus on cards that are playable, we will never find this line, or even begin to approximate it.  Only by evaluating cards that are clearly unplayable can we undertake that analysis, by bringing into view their deficiency, and the nature of that deficiency.    

In almost all of the cases in which I spent more than a sentence or two on a clearly unplayable card, I was doing one of three things:

1) I was identifying the characteristics of a particular card type that matter.  That is, I was framing the issue, and then showing how the particular card in question failed to meet the threshold question of playability.   In the case of most creatures, I framed it the threshold question simply: Does this creature generate card advantage, disrupt the opponent or provide another advantage for the pilot (e.g. permanent advantage, mana advantage, etc)?   If the answer is no, then the next question is: is this creature in the top .002% of the card pool in terms of power/toughness to mana cost?   If the answer is no, then the creature is unplayable.

I spent time to set out those threshold questions so that I could systematically apply those questions in subsequent cases.   But spending the time to set out the framework was necessary.  

2) Another reason for spending time on cards that were clearly unplayable was to explore the further question of: what sorts of differences might make this card playable?   These thought experiments are valuable because by creating hypotheticals, we can affix the boundaries of playability and then better explore the gray areas.    For example, if we can say that a 10 power 4 cc artifact creature is playable, but a 4 power creature (with no other abilities or disruptive effects) is not, then we have a clearer framework for analysis.  

3) The third reason I may be spending time on a card that is otherwise unplayable is to lend an historical perspective.    Vintage players find this perspective entertaining.   When writing about MUD, I drew comparisons to the Nether Void decks of the O'Brien school.  Vintage players enjoyed this.   Vintage players enjoy thinking about and comparing Vintage to its grand history.  

In the 79 words I offered on Blightwidow I was doing several of these things.  The 79 words you counted constituted these 3 sentences:

Creatures in Vintage that do not generate card advantage, disrupt the opponent, or otherwise offer
utility are generally unplayable unless hyper efficient, ala Tarmogoyf. This card is no exception. To my
knowledge, no 4cc green creature has been playable in Vintage in almost 15 years, since Erham Djinn
saw play, although Hunted Wumpus was once toyed with as an answer to control decks. Vengevine may
prove to be Vintage viable someday, however. Giant Spider derivatives likely never will be.

Were those 79 words necessary?  That's a question that can't be answered without first reference to goals for which 'necessary' can be defined.    I applied the threshold standard for playability, and then I compared it to other 4cc creature creatures, two of which saw historical play, and one of which may see increasing play in the future.  The point of the latter discussion was not strictly to understand if Blightwidow was playable, but to address a broader question of when 4cc green creatures might be playable in Vintage, and to entertain with historical knowledge.  

It does appear that some folks don't like having to wade through the 'chaff' to get to the wheat.    That's I've broken this article up into 5 general parts.   Of the 10 cards I predict will see play from Vintage, and the 12 other cards that I think are potentially/theoretically playable, I have those listed at the beginning of Part III, so that folks can reference that checklist and then go back up and read the analysis of those cards, skipping the others.  

Exhausting. If asked to apply a single word to your article Steve, that would be the one I choose.

Many thanks to Doug and QS for working out whatever was needed behind the scenes to get Steve's article up there and of course thank you Steve for writing, your style and approach are very helpful.

I am in agreement with CorwinB in reference to including analysis about cards that are targeted clearly at limited play. I can see the desire to write about every card, but perhaps sort the analysis based on definite playable, questionable playable and no chance in hell playable. Instead of going by alphabetical color. It allows the reader to get to the meat of the article. Otherwise we might start to skim.

Guttural Response was a card I noticed wasnt on the list. Maybe too much of a niche card in Belcher.

Gutteral Response was on one of the earlier Complete Vintage checklists, but was removed a few set reviews ago, I believe.

This article is as much intended to be a resource as a read-through document.   I broke it up into five parts (introduction, Scars recap/ statistical evaluation of previous set review, MB set review, MB checklist, and Complete Vintage checklist) specifically for that reason.   The idea is that the reader can move to the appropriate sections and then read what they are most interested in.  

While "exhausting" is not the word I was hoping for, it's close to my target: "exhaustive."   

[Commandant]

Exhausting. If asked to apply a single word to your article Steve, that would be the one I choose.

Many thanks to Doug and QS for working out whatever was needed behind the scenes to get Steve's article up there and of course thank you Steve for writing, your style and approach are very helpful.

Agree.

Thank you!

[Smmenen]

It's funny -- I've been asked more than once to create a list of the cards that I think are the most important from the set, in order.    What's interesting, and is noted in this review, is that there are many different ways we could order such a list that would produce different results.

For example, which card will see the most *play* in Vintage is not the same thing the same thing as which card will appear in the most number of decks.   So, for example, Myr Battlesphere had, at time of this article's writing, appeared in only 12 Vintage Top 8s.   Steel Hellkite had appeared in 60.   Myr Battlesphere was always a singleton.   Steel Hellkite appeared in copies of 2, 3, and 4.   Even had Battlesphere appeared in more decks, it wouldn't have had more appearances.  

Another example: Nihil Spellbomb saw alot more play than Battlesphere, but that doesn't mean it was more central or format defining.   The card I think is the most important from this set is NOT the card I think will see the most play.    And it's not Blightsteel Colossus

[DubDub]

The card I think is the most important from this set is NOT the card I think will see the most play.

I would take 'most important' to mean having the greatest impact on the meta.  As far as Scars goes, I think the honor goes to Steel Hellkite which has reversed the adoption of Trygon Predator as a trump in the 'blue' versus Workshop matchup, provided Workshops with a versatile weapon against Oath (able to activate to destroy Oath if it's on the table, or for zero if the Oath player has committed Moxen to the board) and in the mirror (breaking a ground stall while generating value, attacking the opponent's artifact mana).

If I had to guess, I'd say the most important card (for Vintage) in Mirrodin Besieged will turn out to be Phyrexian Revoker.

Edit: To clarify, 'greatest impact' is not linearly dependent on how much play the card sees.  The same can be generalized for whole decks and archetypes.  We all know that for example Ichorid disproportionately impacts the meta compared to how much play it sees.

[MaximumCDawg]

The card I think is the most important from this set is NOT the card I think will see the most play.    And it's not Blightsteel Colossus

I'm betting that Green's Sun Zenith is gonna be the most important.  It won't see play except in specific decks, like Elves, that work for it.  But in those decks, it will be huge.  HUUUGE.

Steel Sabotage will probably see the most copies in play, at least around my meta, where shop rules the roost.

[Smmenen]

I may or may not reveal my pick in this blurb: http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/Mirrodin_Besieged_Top_5_VINTAGE