[Free Article] On Vintage

[forests failed you]

New free article up on SCG.  In this article I discuss a wide variety topics:  Regrowth unrestricted, the Restricted list, alternate Vintage variants, coolest Vintage decks of all time, the best vintage era of all time, as well as take reader questions and discuss reader feedback.  

Overall, its a long read but hopefully a fun and interesting one.

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26163_On-Vintage.html

Cheers,
Brian DeMars

P.S.  I just realized that I said I hadn't played without Mana Drain in X amount of years, but that Steel City Vault didn't have Drains.  Sorry guys.
P.S.S.  I wanted to include even more forum and message responses from players (and I had some spicy ones from Smennen, Mastriano, etc.) but I couldn't access TMD all day Saturday while I was writing the article for my midnight deadline. 

[chrispikula]

I have to re-read this when I'm not at work, but many of your ideas seem pretty crazy to me.

Unrestricting Balance is not okay and I don't really understand how anyone could possibly think otherwise. 

[forests failed you]

I don't want Balance unrestricted.  I was using it analogously to Oath of Druids to create this chain of thinking:  Oath is better than Balance, Balance is restricted, therefore Oath of Druids should also be restricted.  I used the inverse way of thinking as well, Oath is better than Balance, Oath is unrestricted, and therefore Balance should be unrestricted and came to the conclusion that with Oath and Balance unrestricted there is zero reason to ever try and attack with a creature which I think is the wrong direction. 

I favor a larger restricted list. 

[chrispikula]

But what if you don't think Oath is better than Balance?

I am interested in this topic but need to re-read your article and respond when I'm not working. My initial reaction to your suggested restricted list is one of shock and confusion.

[chrispikula]

Wanted to add that I appreciate the thought and effort that went into this piece, I'm just not sure I agree with most of the assumptions and conclusions. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

In my opinion:

Jace, the Mind Sculptor > Gifts Ungiven
Oath of Druids > Balance
Griselbrand > Yawgmoth's Bargain
Gush > Ponder
Mana Drain > Flash
Bazaar of Baghdad > Library of Alexandria
Lodestone Golem > Trinisphere

Except for Gush and LoA this looks like troll bait.

[quicksilvervii]

Good article, lots of content.  I will have to revisit most of it again when I get home.

Snap thoughts:

I agree that Gifts should come off the list.  Bargain seems fine too.

I disagree that flash should come off the list.

Protean Hulk is no longer the only creature that is abusable.  Academy Rector is a card, and I can tell you while playing an Omniscience/Bargain deck, a resolved flash spelled GG a very high % of the time.  1 was scary.  4 seems insane.  I don't think that is a safe unrestriction, personally.

I also don't feel that time vault needs to be banned.  Maybe because it seems to have fallen by the wayside a bit (and I remember it being unfun to play against) but I don't see it as oppressive.

I'm not certain about arguing X card is better than Y so Y should be unrestricted, though.  For instance, you have Gush > Ponder, but they serve different purposes.  4 Ponder in combo (or maybe alongside gush) doesn't sound like something I want to play against.

Also, balance is busted as hell and I don't think it should be unrestricted.

EDIT:  For full disclosure, I am an advocate for keeping the restricted list/banned list as small as possible.

[Stormanimagus]

Unrestrict Bargain? Are you nuts? Bargain can be hard-cast and is much harder to remove than a Griselbrand. I can easily imagine a deck similar to ANT without the restriction of running low CMC spells and thus being able to include Forces and other high CC goodies. I think Bargain unrestricted would spawn a pretty insane combo deck. Probably with show and tells, but also just with the old accel into Bargain game plan. I really don't think Bargain is a safe unrestrict.

-Storm

[DubDub]

This is what I sent Brian by PM.  Thanks for including some of my thoughts, I hope they were worthy!

Hi Brian,

Here are my thoughts on the several questions you asked this week:

1. Regrowth: I'm pleased that the restricted list is continuing to get shorter, overall I think this represents more thoughtful management of the list.  I am slightly worried that Regrowth and Ancestral/Time Walk will be unfun for some opponents who have basically no chance to interact, but I don't think it will lead to dominance, nor do I think the amount of unfun will approach the levels seen when facing modern prison or Dredge (Dredge in particular I view as basically orthogonal to 'real' decks, (a statement that perhaps proves I'm biased)).  If I could go off on a tangent, we've seen a number of printings over the past few years (Surgical Extraction, Ravenous Trap, Nihil Spellbomb, etc) that make interaction with Dredge 'cost' less, either by being free and available even during your opponent's first turn, or cantripping to regain lost value.  We haven't seen much similar with regards to Shops.  There have been great gains in efficiency, but the range of free options hasn't expanded.  I think in particular a Leyline of (Energy) Flux NEEDS to be printed.  Leyline of the Void, and the many other 'free' graveyard-hate cards have forced Dredge to interact more (City of Brass/Gemstone mine enabling Nature's Claim, Chain of Vapor, etc).  I guess the way this thought relates to the restricted list is this: rather than seeing Lodestone Golem, or Chalice of the Void, or anything else be restricted, I would rather see new printings that can force interaction.

2. N/A

3. I've just recently been toying with the idea of creating a cube that includes only cards from before Modern begins (i.e. from before 8th edition).  Basically I would like to create a sort of greatest hits that takes the restricted list, Legacy's ban-list, the ban-list from various blocks up to 8th (Lin-Sivvi and rebel support would be the core of White's creatures) etc.  I haven't mapped out the full list of cards I would include, let alone pulled the trigger on putting it together, but I think it could be wicked fun for older players of the game that get nostalgic for the power cards of the past.  The pet-name I have for the cube is Ancient.

4. If I were attending Gencon, it would be to play in Vintage/Legacy Champs, and consequently I would have acquired the Mox Jet and Black Lotus I need to complete my P9 set.  In such a situation I would definitely play Vintage Highlander.  That said, I have enormous concerns about the unabated thefts at Gencon (and more generally, including at SCG Open NJ just last weekend).  I would be devastated to have my cards stolen, and can't really in good conscience condone giving more opportunities to thieves.  I feel conflicted, because I don't want to 'surrender to terrorists', but I can't justify taking that sort of risk.

5. I said this in this thread: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45220.0 before the Regrowth unrestriction.

Conclusion
I think I would unrestrict cards in this order, provided at each step the Metagame was healthy:
1. Balance
2. Library of Alexandria
3. Ponder
4. Gifts Ungiven
5. Flash
6. Thirst for Knowledge
7. Demonic Consultation
8. Yawgmoth's Bargain

Also, note that the time period for the above schedule would be LONG.  I would want at least six months between unrestrictions, and at this point I wouldn't do anything before September 2013.  Of course, despite this tentative plan, an actual effort to unrestrict a group of cards would have to be reactive to new printings and metagame shifts.  If something gets printed that Storm combo plays as a four-of and vaults Storm to top-deck status, it's probably not a good time to also give storm Demonic Consultation, etc.

Note that Regrowth didn't even make my list.  I think that's because before the unrestriction I hadn't given enough thought to the weaknesses it has, the relative fairness of it, etc.  I'm pretty certain that I could tolerate the metagame effect the above eight cards would have (if any!) though others may (and do) feel differently.  There are more of my thoughts in the post in that thread (the first reply to Steve's OP).  I don't think I'd change anything I said there, except that I'm thinking more that I'd really like to see new printings like Leyline of Flux to force interaction from workshop prison.

6. I don't feel qualified to answer this, as I didn't play before coming back to the game in mid-2008.  I can tell you what I would value in a metagame: having my decisions matter.  I also value in-game decision making more highly than deck-choice.  I suppose that's in line with my views above regarding prison and orthogonal-combo.  If I win, I want to know it's because I resolved Ponder correctly on turn three, or choose the right spell to NOT counter, when I could have, etc.  My understanding of the Gifts era suggests that would supply what I'm looking for, and I was less unhappy with the Thirst era than some others.

7. The Perfect Storm.  At risk of waxing poetic for a game, I do think there's an elegance to that deck, and the various means with which it's trying to accomplish it's goal.  The constant reevaluation of the avenues to victory necessary to achieving that victory are exactly what I want to be doing when playing Magic.  I guess in my opinion it's a little unfortunate that Ritual combo is so weak presently, comparatively worse than Gush, and such a dog against prison.  One of my EDH decks (previously Wydwen, now Lazav) is essentially a 100-card highlander version of TPS and I goldfish it all the time just for fun.

Thanks for reading, if you did (don't blame you if you just skimmed).  I'm looking forward to your next article, thanks for keeping Vintage in the public eye!
Charlie 'DubDub'

Re: the article
I get where you're coming from regarding having a more accessible and forgiving Vintage format.  That seems like the 'formatscaping' I was worried we'd see more of after Mystical Tutor's ban in Legacy.  (Formatscaping = the "Gentleman's Agreement" and some comments from Forsythe at the time basically paving the way for creature-centric Magic in all formats.  At the time I took Mystical's ban as a clear sign that Oath of Druids would get restricted in Vintage, which has not yet come to pass.)

I guess fundamentally I don't think formatscaping should be done through Restrictions, but as I said above through new printings that force interaction from the orthogonal decks.  In general I'm in favor of the most compact Restricted list that prevents format dominance by a particular deck/archetype.  I also don't believe that banning cards for power level (you mentioned Time Vault) has a place in Vintage.

Also, it got lost in the shuffle, but I'm quite the realist with regards to Library of Alexandria's price, in the linked thread from my comments above I said:

Library of Alexandra
Like Kevin said, overdue.  I don't think this would ever happen, FYI, because it's price would skyrocket.  It wouldn't just jump to $400 each, but far beyond that I'd say.

[MaximumCDawg]

I would restrict Lodestone Golem; Jace, the Mind Sculptor; Oath of Druids; Mana Drain; Bazaar of Baghdad; Gush; Dark Confidant; and Standstill.

Also, I would ban Time Vault.

Jeez, could you hate on the un-powered folks any harder?  I get that your goal is to minimize the "coin-flippy" aspect of the format.  You see these cards as "leverage cards;" cards that leverage themselves quickly and take over the game once they hit.  Maybe they are. 

But consider the plight of folks like me who don't have a full set of power.  Most of the cards on your list- Golem, Jace, Gush, and Standstill in particular - can be had for a very reasonable price compared to a full set of power.  Even Time Vault isn't really all that expensive compared to Moxen or Lotus.  That means someone can pick up these powerful engines and compete with the big dogs by accelerating them out in other ways, like Spirit Guides into Jace or Ritual into Confidant.  Or what have you. 

If you take away these "leverage cards," if you make the format less coin-flippy, then who benefits?  The fully powered players almost exclusively.  Now, it's the man with the faster mana who is going to win.  You can't build a deck focused on resolving one of the leverage cards as a way to compete. 

Finally, it seems like you're making the same mistake the DCI is making with Modern.  You want to mow the tallest grass, assuming that will fix the problem.  Well, once you cut off the top, something else becomes the top.  I don't know what other coin-flippy cards will emerge, but you can bet that in a format with acceleration like Vintage, trying to stop players from finding cards that leverage them to victory on turn 1 is a losing proposition.

Far better to focus on tournament results and metagame dominance than engage in this game of whack-a-mole.

[disrupting specter]

I was ready to head to Michigan with tar and feathers (again). Then I saw this...

"I think that almost every decision that has been made with how to run, promote, and foster Vintage as a format has been fumbled, mismanaged, or done poorly, which is all but a nail in the coffin for a format that already has everything going against it. The upholding of the reserved list, bizarre restrictions/unrestrictions, backward and personally motivated execution of the restricted list, bare minimal support of Vintage events, poor to non-existent event coverage, the fact that Power is the absolute last thing to be released on Magic Online—the list goes on and on."

I'm glad you brought these up. Some of these match my own complaints about Vintage currently and my own ideas for declining tournament attendance.

However, you then go into trying to get people into vintage by making it like other formats. Because of a few select cards, Vintage decks have already been looking like Legacy.

Lodestone Golem
Phyrexian Revoker
Phyrexian Metamorph
Mental Misstep
Flusterstorm
and last but certainly not the least-Grafdigger's Cage

I've actually been telling casual onlookers that because of these cards, we have the fairest and most creature oriented format in years. The last tournament I went to had blasted Restoration Angel and Duskmantle Seer facing off in the finals! Turn one wins are at a low. Even TKOs turn one are rare. In spite of my objections to Lodestone Golem, it is unlikely to be seen turn one. It is correct to lead with Thorn/Sphere to bait out Force of Will and lock the board down before using Lodestone for the kill. Lodestone is the final nail in the coffin, rather than being a ritual, Negator, followed up with Sphere/Waste. The problem is he is sphere #s 10-13. Lodestone keeps out more poster child vintage cards like Tendrils or Tinker, not creature decks with a plan against other creatures. So if people looking for a fair and creature friendly format won't get in now, then that's not the reason that is keeping them away. Besides, I already have my finger on the Vintage X mark. If the format got any fairer, it would lose at least one player even if it did gain.

I would like to see focus put back on issues in the above post like event support and event coverage.

[Smmenen]

Brian,

I'll just copy and paste my comments from our forums here:

I personally did not enjoy this article.  I have some structural criticism and then some nitpicks.

First, it's almost impossible for me to read this article without immediately putting it in the context of your many other writings which you allude to as people saying you are "whining" about the format.   Most broadly, what I dislike about the article is the potent, palpable sense of your unhappiness of the state of the format.   While seemingly a celebration of the format, the content here, the structure of the article, and all of the key points are essentially a case for what you don't like about the format -- what should change and what alternatives should exist.  I don't think your closing statements save you from conveying this view.

Second, without quoting selectively, I think alot of what you say is overgeneralized or overstated, even hyperbolic at times.  Even many of the  ideas I agree with caused me to cringed for that reason.  The lodestone golem discussion is an example.

Third, this article asserts to be "on Vintage" yet is far too unfocused to convey any particular idea.  It's not just too long, it's all over the map.   You move from the restricted list, to regrowth, to highlander, to Vintage history, etc.   Your attempts to weave it altogether are, I think, unsuccessful.  I don't think you are going to sustain many readers for the duration, for that reason.  It's too meandering.  

***

The only thing I would add is that I have a high degree of discomfort with your criticism of the DCI.  

I think that almost every decision that has been made with how to run, promote, and foster Vintage as a format has been fumbled, mismanaged, or done poorly, which is all but a nail in the coffin for a format that already has everything going against it.

Here is a list of every restriction and unrestriction since June, 2008:

2013

Announcement and Explanation
2013/4/22 - Regrowth is no longer restricted

2012

Announcement and Explanation
2012/9/20 - Burning Wish is no longer restricted

2011

Announcement and Explanation
2011/9/20 - Fact or Fiction is no longer restricted

2010

Announcement and Explanation
2010/9/20 - Frantic Search is no longer restricted
2010/9/20 - Gush is no longer restricted

2009

Announcement and Explanation
2009/6/19 - Thirst for Knowledge is restricted
2009/6/19 - Crop Rotation is no longer restricted
2009/6/19 - Enlightened Tutor is no longer restricted
2009/6/19 - Entomb is no longer restricted
2009/6/19 - Grim Monolith is no longer restricted

2008

Announcement and Explanation
2008/09/20 - Chrome Mox is unrestricted
2008/09/20 - Dream Halls is unrestricted
2008/09/20 - Mox Diamond is unrestricted
2008/09/20 - Personal Tutor is unrestricted
2008/09/20 - Time Spiral is unrestricted
2008/09/20 - Time Vault is restricted

Aside from the disastrous overrestriction of cards in June, 2008, I don't think they've done anything obviously wrong since, certainly not to the degree of "mismanagement."  In fact, I think they've done a great job.   In my opinion, all of the restrictions were narrowly tailored and all of the unrestrictions were either obviously warranted or worth trying.  Even if you disagree with any of the decisions, I don't think there is anything irrational or obviously wrong about any of these decisions.  

The DCI has a very difficult job, under difficult circumstances.   They get far too much flak for a thankless job.   I thought that your criticism was a bit too strident for people who are trying to do the right thing despite divergent and diverse opinion.  It would be one thing to say that they've made mistakes -- but it's another thing to say that they've done almost nothing right.   They list of unrestrictions they've made without incident suggests, at a minimum, that they've done alot right, does it not?  I don't think they are deserving of the degree of criticism you leveled at them.  

[quicksilvervii]

Unrestrict Bargain? Are you nuts? Bargain can be hard-cast and is much harder to remove than a Griselbrand. I can easily imagine a deck similar to ANT without the restriction of running low CMC spells and thus being able to include Forces and other high CC goodies. I think Bargain unrestricted would spawn a pretty insane combo deck. Probably with show and tells, but also just with the old accel into Bargain game plan. I really don't think Bargain is a safe unrestrict.

-Storm

Though I respect your opinion, I disagree.

Nature's claim is a card.  More importantly, Griselbrand is a card, and 1G is easier to cast than 2U (which, still, casts Griselmonster).  I don't really see decks running more than 1 of this card even if it was unrestricted.  If you think you are going to hardcast bargain against workshops, you must have a pretty awesome deck, and I can't really think of a way you can lose a game.

I wouldn't run rituals in any field with spheres, mental missteps, landstills, flusterstorms, etc.  IE all vintage fields I can imagine at the moment stateside.

[CHA1N5]

Unrestricting Balance is not okay and I don't really understand how anyone could possibly think otherwise. 

We cover this pretty thoroughly in Episode 23: http://www.mtgcast.com/mtgcast-podcast-shows/active-podcast-shows/so-many-insane-plays/so-many-insane-plays-23-possible-restrictions-and-unrestrictions

[forests failed you]

I agree that the style jumps around quite a bit in this article, and I apologize if that was confusing.  The article in general is a collection of talking points that I didn't think warranted their own article all sort of collected into a more generalized discussion about Vintage.  Ultimately, I think that the Restricted list is one of the most interesting topics in Vintage because at the end of the day it is totally subjective.  What is acceptable or unacceptable?  Somebody decides and everybody else abides.

Steve and I basically have as opposite of opinions about what our ideal Vintage formats would look like, so it brings me some satisfaction that reading this must have absolutely grated on his nerves!  That being said, I know that Steve has put in a lot of thought, effort, blood, sweat, and tears into helping to create the current list (which I appreciate) and that having somebody say it should be totally different has got to be somewhat unpleasant.

I certainly don't think the format is unplayable or bad, I think its fine.  But I also think that there have been opportunities to expand and popularize the format that have been missed, and I think that there are more opportunities now and on the horizon that could be capitalized upon.  I think change, big-bold-dynamic change, is the best way to attract new players and create interest in Vintage.  

I respect that Vintage has multiple different tier one decks, and isn't all Thirst Tezzeret decks - but, the significance of the play concerns me, and it ought to concern everybody who plays the format because it is a big negative that detracts from the quality of the games.  

Unlike SOME people the DCI doesn't actually care what I think.  Nonetheless, today's article is just talking points and food for thought type stuff.  There is lots of space in Vintage for people to have different ideas, theories, etc.  And I believe that it may even be big enough for non-Smennen ideas to hold some weight... hopefully... one day...  Also, Restricting Gifts Ungiven + Leaving Merchant Scroll + Unrestricting Gush was a joke.  The Legacy equivalent of banning Necrotic Ooze + leaving Survival of the Fittest + Unrestricting Vampiric Tutor.  Will this fix the problem?  WHEEEEEE enjoy the ride guyz.

Also, with regard to mismanaging the list it is pretty convenient that you don't go back far enough to see all of the Gush is restricted, wait no it isn't, wait yes it is, wait no its not...  For me that is one of the most infuriating series of format decisions in the history of the game.  It isn't like we don't know what Gush is, what it does, and what is going to eventually happen but to relive the same thing over and over is just silly.  

EDIT:  I would like to add that this is all theory.  I don't actually know if Oath is better than Balance or not.  My intuition tells me Oath up Griselbrand is better than Balance, but I have no way to prove or disprove this idea.  I have a lot of respect for the power of Balance ( I won a piece of power in game three with Sapphire, Pearl, Balance on a mull to 4 in a game three of the finals...) so I know what Balance can do.  I could probably be swayed on some of these comparisons with good arguments.  For instance, Lodestone Golem v. Trinisphere, does it even matter they are both so messed up and super powerful.  It's like saying which A+ paper is better because it doesn't actually matter except to say that both cards in in the highest tier.

The point of the article is to tell you what I thought in hopes of opening up a dialogue about subject matter that is really, really fascinating.  I started my discussion of the restricted list by saying "here is what they probably should do" "here is what I would do with the keys to city and why" and then followed up with "this is why they will never do what I would like."  I have no delusion about things ever changing, but I think it is interesting to imagine that it could.

[JACO]

Aside from the disastrous overrestriction of cards in June, 2008, I don't think they've done anything obviously wrong since, certainly not to the degree of "mismanagement."

I agree with this sentiment most, which is why I think people who have huge problems with the Vintage format would honestly love Legacy, and that is not meant as a slight in any way. Vintage is a broken format, and Wizards own team recognizes this, and have admitted as much in the past. If you want a 'balanced' format that is still ripe with tons of strategies and powerful cards, there is always Legacy, which I think is the best format period.

@Demars: A lot of your articles in the past few years on Vintage, and your unhappiness with the state of the format that I perceive through them, just make me think that you want to ban and restrict every thing until Mana Drain is the best card again. It had a great run and is still a fantastic card, but as the card pool and metagame changes we need to allow our expectations of those previous historic cards to change along with the card pool.

[quicksilvervii]

In response to the above -

In general, I think that the unrestriction of balance (while not only absurdly broken) is bad for diversity in the format.  This should raise all sorts of alarm for anyone advocating aggro strategies.  I am not sure how any creature deck can realistically hope to win against 4 balance 4 snapcaster.dec

Also, I think the DCI has been doing a great job, given the circumstances.  Honestly, their hands are tied (for the most part) and I don't think it comes as any surprise that Vintage may not be a priority for them.  That said, I do not think they are out to murder the format - other things may just take priority, is all.  They are at least open to trying to new things, albeit slowly, to try to stir things up.  You just aren't going to please everyone 100% of the time.

[DubDub]

I am not sure how any creature deck can realistically hope to win against 4 balance 4 snapcaster.dec

What?  Why would you... to stop creatures with Balance you'd... play Snapcaster Mage?  Why?

At least say 4 Balance 4 Regrowth!

[quicksilvervii]

I am not sure how any creature deck can realistically hope to win against 4 balance 4 snapcaster.dec

What?  Why would you... to stop creatures with Balance you'd... play Snapcaster Mage?  Why?

At least say 4 Balance 4 Regrowth!

Fair enough.  4x Balance + recursion.  Was just going off the top of my head - generally I associate Balance with UW control and drains.

[Smmenen]

Also, with regard to mismanaging the list it is pretty convenient that you don't go back far enough to see all of the Gush is restricted, wait no it isn't, wait yes it is, wait no its not...  For me that is one of the most infuriating series of format decisions in the history of the game.  It isn't like we don't know what Gush is, what it does, and what is going to eventually happen but to relive the same thing over and over is just silly.  

It's not convenient when I acknowledge the fact that those restrictions didn't make sense.   That's why I pointed to the five years since that debacle. 

All I'm saying is that if they are "consistently mismanaging" the list as you suggest, then what specific restrictions or unrestrictions since do you have a quarrel with?  It seems to me that your argument is more that they should restrict cards that they didn't.  But do you think that's really what most Vintage players want?  

[brianpk80]

I thought that was a powerful article.  Great job, Brian.  I don't agree with all of the suggestions, particularly Dark Confidant & Standstill.  I would openly admit secondary market considerations should be taken into consideration as a community matter, so I wouldn't want to punish people by restricting Bazaar or banning Vault itself (though it deserves it).  In the latter case, I suggested banning Voltaic Key instead.

I disagree with the idea that the DCI has done a heckuvah great job managing Vintage.  How hard is it to say "No Changes" three times a year and follow it up by unrestricting something that everyone agrees should have been unrestricted five years ago?  No Changes, No Changes, No Changes, Unrestrict Fact or Fiction, No Changes, No Changes, No Changes, Unrestrict Burning Wish, No Changes, No Changes... this is casual neglect, not heroic effort.  It's a D- college sophomore pretending that he worked really hard on his presentation.  In other words, Total BS. 

I certainly don't think the format is unplayable or bad, I think its fine.  But I also think that there have been opportunities to expand and popularize the format that have been missed, and I think that there are more opportunities now and on the horizon that could be capitalized upon.  I think change, big-bold-dynamic change, is the best way to attract new players and create interest in Vintage. 

Quoted for truth.  I don't buy into the myth that a small restricted list makes a better format.  There are well over 10,000 Magic cards; the difference between having 0.032% and 0.031% of them restricted isn't going to make anyone lose any sleep.  If someone overheard a guy saying:
 
"We were getting so close.  There were only 42 cards restricted after years of effort and now... in the blink of an eye, it's all gone.  Back up to 47!  All that work... all in vain."

They would probably think the guy was insane.  On the other hand, when the result of five years of deregulation and power creep has basically obliterated the format nationwide except for one part of California and a few pockets of the Northeast where, sadly, it's also dwindling compared to last year... that sounds like a legitimate concern.  Do we give more credibility to the side that's invested in populating tournaments with new recruits and supporting shopkeepers who are gracious enough to keep supporting Vintage despite its risks or to the side that just thinks it's really cool to have a small restricted list and doesn't give a flying Phelddagrif if everyone quits and turns to Legacy?  This sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Brian, you're speaking to a larger audience and much larger potential audience than the detractions here would suggest.  Keep up the good work. 

[Smmenen]

I disagree with the idea that the DCI has done a heckuvah great job managing Vintage.  How hard is it to say "No Changes" three times a year and follow it up by unrestricting something that everyone agrees should have been unrestricted five years ago?  No Changes, No Changes, No Changes, Unrestrict Fact or Fiction, No Changes, No Changes, No Changes, Unrestrict Burning Wish, No Changes, No Changes... this is casual neglect, not heroic effort.  It's a D- college sophomore pretending that he worked really hard on his presentation.  In other words, Total BS.  

I couldn't disagree more.  

Actually, it's very hard - almost herculean effort - to say "No Changes."  

Think about it for a moment.  You are the DCI.  You are bombarded all of the time by people telling you to DO SOMETHING.   Half of the people want you to restrict a bunch of cards.  The other half want you to unrestrict a bunch of cards.   Most of these people are totally uninformed.   It takes very little to get a herd of angry folks to complain about anything Vintage/Type I releated.

To do nothing is actually the most difficult thing to do.   Any government or policymaking body is usually highly responsive to public opinion.  Any time the slightest incident happens, policy makers are usually pressured to do something about it.  Think about the outcry after Sandy Hook and guns.  While I'm certainly not saying doing nothing after that incident was right (personally, I'm in favor of more gun controls), it takes courage to go with your convictions and buck public opinion.  


I think doing NOTHING is actually the most heroic thing to do.   It's easy to do something.  It's hard to do nothing. To proceed with caution and prudence -- to take no action as opposed to taking action, shows courage which I believe is heroic.  Heroism from our leaders is doing the right thing despite what others believe.   It is when the DCI caves to public pressure that it is most likely to slip up -- not the other way around.

***

On a related note, in doing research for my latest History of Vintage chapter, I found this brilliant USENET post which is as fitting to this conversation today as it was in 1999.   See how many of these points apply to Brian's article:

Like a plague of 7-year locusts, discussion about "Saving" Type 1
periodically appears on the internet. Name players make more-or-less
helpful suggestions, the Reserved List is called into question, and huge
lists of ba-rooken cards are proposed for restriction or outright
banning.

I think this may be putting the cart before the horse. It is necessary
first to determine what is "wrong" with Type 1 before suggesting how it
might be "saved".

The following problems are usually identified:

1. Type 1 is a broken environment and can't be fixed.

I think this is a spurious argument. It attempts to transend the entire
issue and influence players to abandon the format without investigating
if it can and should be saved. If you don't agree, save yourself some
reading - you don't have anything to contribute to this discussion.

2. A new (and fairer) format needs to be created.

Often the argument is made that Richard Garfield never envisioned that a
player would be able to collect all of the most powerful cards and make
a degenerate deck with them. Solutions like a point system (Type B),
Type 1 without any "broken" cards (Extended anyone), and even Duplicate
Magic have been proposed. While I encourage anyone to create or play any
format they wish, these solutions attempt to replace Type 1 - not "fix"
it.

3. Type 1 can not be played competatively at the tournament level
without access to the power cards.

Since my item #2 suggests that eliminating the power cards = eliminating
Type 1, this argument may have some validity.

How can we expect that Type 1 will be widely played if players believe
that they need access to the power cards to compete and can't get them?
Despite assurances by many players that you don't need the power cards
to compete, the vast majority of players believe differently. If anyone
can cite a major tournament won without any OOP power cards, I'd be
shocked.

Besides, I would rather play a deck containing a bit of jewelry and
appropriate power cards than a deck without them. Let's face facts, the
power cards are a major attraction of Type 1. The masses will not play
without access to them.

4. There are broken cards in Type 1 that prevent it from being a
reasonable format and limit the number of competative archetypes.

"Broken" is a delicate issue in Type 1. IMHO the usual criterea would
label too many cards as broken. Perhaps cards that allow a win very
early in the game (the equivilant of Channel/Fireball) and the most
seriously abusive cards should be concidered for restriction or banning.
I'm not unhappy with WoTC/DCI's efforts. With more tournaments, their
job at determining which cards should be restricted or banned would be
much easier. While it's reasonable for players to suggest that cards are
broken, evidence from actually play is more persuasive than speculation.

Usually there are only 5-6 competative decks in a given format. I
believe this is currently true of Type 1. There are frankly not enough
tournaments to accurately determine if there is enough variety possible.

5. There isn't enough change in Type 1 to make it interesting.

Each time a new expansion is introduced, a handful of cards can
potentially change the format. In the past, Type 1 hoser cards like
Bloodmoon, Dwarven Miner, Gorilla Shaman, Hall of Gemstones, etc. seemed
to be directed at seriously affecting the viability of Type 1. Other
cards like Mystical Tutor have been quickly incorporated into existing
archetypes.

Since cards are only published for use in Type 2, a slower rate of
change is likely to be found in Type 1.

Besides, many cards that have long been standard in all formats (Dark
Ritual and Birds of Paradise for example) are no longer Type 2 legal.
I'm sure this was done in the name of variety. Unlike Type 2 which does
not have much continuity over time, Type 1 is relatively stable. The
original cards have always been an important feature of Type 1 - thus it
displays a lack of variety/consequent stability and is the direct
descendant of Magic as it first appeared.

I'm afraid that the DCI/WoTC has succesfully put Type 1 on life-support
and are unlikely to revive it on their own. Type 2 is designed to allow
the design and sale of new expansions. Type 1 is not.

Unless WoTC produces Chronicles II, the glory days of Type 1 may be in
the past. The best way to insure the viability of Type 1 is to
sponser/attend Type 1 tournaments, encourage others to do the same, and
call the DCI's attention to problems in the format.

When the last Black Lotus disolves into it's constituent molecules, true
Magic fades from the Land of Dominia to be remembered only in tales told
around smokey campfires.

-Rick Lay

[Ozymandias]

I'm actually really interested to see what happens when Power hits MODO. I think it's essentially guaranteed to be the new future of Vintage, and with an increased rate of metagame turnover, we'll get a chance to see what, if anything, is truly wrong in Vintage.

[brianpk80]

To do nothing is actually the most difficult thing to do.   Any government or policymaking body is usually highly responsive to public opinion.  Any time the slightest incident happens, policy makers are usually pressured to do something about it.  Think about the outcry after Sandy Hook and guns.  While I'm certainly not saying doing nothing after that incident was right (personally, I'm in favor of more gun controls), it takes courage to go with your convictions and buck public opinion.  

I think doing NOTHING is actually the most heroic thing to do.   It's easy to do something.  It's hard to do nothing. To proceed with caution and prudence -- to take no action as opposed to taking action, shows courage which I believe is heroic.  Heroism from our leaders is doing the right thing despite what others believe.   It is when the DCI caves to public pressure that it is most likely to slip up -- not the other way around.

Stephen, we all know it's possible to "prove" that up is down and red is blue given the right assumptions or deference to relativism, reality being a matter of perspective, and so forth.  Doing so is not an act of brilliance; it's rather pedestrian because in fact anyone can do it.  But why would they?  Sometimes 2 + 2 is simply 4 and the unwashed masses who take joy in believing so don't need enlightenment.   

Let's use good judgment here.  I'll start.  There's a 0.0005% chance that the DCI is comprised of selfless heroes who stand valiant year round against torrents of written assaults from the ~200 active North American Vintage players who incessantly demand that they disinfect the format.  It takes these champs 90 days of uninterrupted concentration to issue the fearless and unexplained verdict, "No Changes."  There's a 99.9995% chance that the stagnation results from the format being an afterthought where inaction and neglect in management can fester because there's zero transparency and zero accountability.  It's possible that the former is true, but not very likely. 

[Smmenen]

You asked: "How hard is it to say "No Changes" three times a year?"

The answer is: Actually, a lot harder than it looks.  

As a powerful policy making body, doing nothing -- the act of restraint -- is actually harder than doing something.   It's much easier to exercise power than to not exercise power.  

I contest your view that anyone can do it.  Only people in the DCI who have confidence in their own insights and collective analysis have the will power to not use the power they have.

I applaud the restraint, prudence and wisdom of the DCI in the last 4 years. 

[Stormanimagus]

To do nothing is actually the most difficult thing to do.   Any government or policymaking body is usually highly responsive to public opinion.  Any time the slightest incident happens, policy makers are usually pressured to do something about it.  Think about the outcry after Sandy Hook and guns.  While I'm certainly not saying doing nothing after that incident was right (personally, I'm in favor of more gun controls), it takes courage to go with your convictions and buck public opinion.  

I think doing NOTHING is actually the most heroic thing to do.   It's easy to do something.  It's hard to do nothing. To proceed with caution and prudence -- to take no action as opposed to taking action, shows courage which I believe is heroic.  Heroism from our leaders is doing the right thing despite what others believe.   It is when the DCI caves to public pressure that it is most likely to slip up -- not the other way around.

Stephen, we all know it's possible to "prove" that up is down and red is blue given the right assumptions or deference to relativism, reality being a matter of perspective, and so forth.  Doing so is not an act of brilliance; it's rather pedestrian because in fact anyone can do it.  But why would they?  Sometimes 2 + 2 is simply 4 and the unwashed masses who take joy in believing so don't need enlightenment.   

Let's use good judgment here.  I'll start.  There's a 0.0005% chance that the DCI is comprised of selfless heroes who stand valiant year round against torrents of written assaults from the ~200 active North American Vintage players who incessantly demand that they disinfect the format.  It takes these champs 90 days of uninterrupted concentration to issue the fearless and unexplained verdict, "No Changes."  There's a 99.9995% chance that the stagnation results from the format being an afterthought where inaction and neglect in management can fester because there's zero transparency and zero accountability.  It's possible that the former is true, but not very likely. 

Totally agree with this sentiment. Hasbro and, in turn, Wizards, are all about the bottom line. What sells more products. I met a guy from the inside at R & D recently who confirmed this for me.

Trust me, he made it pretty clear that Vintage is an afterthought for that company and they will always take conservative actions to not damage their bottom line. Even when these actions are ultimately stupid for the company they really can't see the forest for the trees and are all about the bottom line. I would equate this in many ways to Apple's business model. They have a relatively captive audience so it's a bit different for Apple, but they really don't give a crap about people who want attention given to a format/product that there is no profit in.

For Apple this has become the Tower Mac Pro (still holding out hope that they'll ACTUALLY do more than simply slap thunderbolt compatibility on it but not holding my breath).

For Wizards this has become Vintage. It is the forgotten format and any cards printed that are relevant in Vintage are purely by accident with the occasional promotional exception (Snapcaster Mage would be the most recent example). It's true that sometimes certain effects are relevant in many formats and they still seem to give legacy some attention so that's the best that Vintage can hope for these days. Some splash effectiveness from Legacy cards (and example of this would be GD Cage. It was probably printed to stop reanimator in Vintage and GY shenanigans in Modern). I think it is foolish pride to think that R & D gives half a puke about Vintage. Sorry to sound so cynical, but Wizards is a business first and a game second. It's a shame, but is the truth.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

First of all, let's not confuse Wizards R&D with the DCI.   Stop doing that Storm.  They are separate entities.  It reflects ignorance of how Wizards and the DCI actually work and the division of labor and roles.

Although Wizards employees constitute most of the DCI, the conflation confuses their roles.  While it may be true that Wizards is not interested in designing cards for Vintage or expanding Vintage tournaments, that does not mean that the folks at the DCI aren't doing their job, and that they aren't taking their jobs seriously.

That is an insult to the DCI.

To assume that the DCI is simply beholden to Wizards bottom line assumes that the folks who constitute the DCI are not conscientious or careful policymakers.   Just because the DCI may not give Vintage the kind of close attention it may give to other formats does not mean that it is "an afterthought."   The people in the DCI ARE conscientious, smart, and intelligent people.  And while they may not be going through reams of data, their decisions are not arbitrary or capricious.  They do care, and they are thoughtful.   Just because they may not give Vintage the level of attention you feel like it deserves does not mean they ignore the format.  They don't.  

[brianpk80]

To assume that the DCI is simply beholden to Wizards bottom line assumes that the folks who constitute the DCI are not conscientious or careful policymakers.   Just because the DCI may not give Vintage the kind of close attention it may give to other formats does not mean that it is "an afterthought."   The people in the DCI ARE conscientious, smart, and intelligent people.  And while they may not be going through reams of data, their decisions are not arbitrary or capricious.  They do care, and they are thoughtful.   Just because they may not give Vintage the level of attention you feel like it deserves does not mean they ignore the format.  They don't.  

Why didn't you just state that the first time?  It's very reasonable contrasted with your earlier aggrandizement (Heroes Who Do Nothing), a bubble that needed bursting. 

[Smmenen]

Because the idea that 'doing nothing' reflects only laziness rather than willpower, prudence and restraint was itself a bubble worth bursting. 

[Stormanimagus]

Because the idea that 'doing nothing' reflects only laziness rather than willpower, prudence and restraint was itself a bubble worth bursting. 

Apologies. I know they are separate entities. My comments were pretty much exclusively directed at Hasbro and Wizards R & D. They are ultra conservative and gimick-y with their game these days and they've betrayed the spirit of simplicity under which it was created.

The DCI does do their job yes. I just hate that they are beholden to crap like "We can't unrestrict Library of Alexandria because players will get mad when the price skyrockets." They shouldn't have to make decisions based on the erroneous policies of Wizards. Cards should be restricted or unrestricted for dominance and "un-funness" and there should be no sacred pillars in Vintage or any other format for that matter. These decisions should be made without bias and with a cold, unflinching understanding of game dynamics and interactions. If the DCI was given free reign to make decisions solely on those grounds I'm sure they'd be able to do an all but flawless job. There are sadly, outside influences at work to sabotage this and one of them is the players and their sense of 'tradition.' I am part of the problem, but so are you Stephen, and all us magic oldies. We love our old cards and don't always have a clear unbiased perspective on what is best for the game.

-Storm