[Premium Article] Schools of Magic: History of Vintage: 2000

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/?p=4063



Continuing the epic Schools of Magic: History of Vintage series, Chapter 8 (2000) is a tale of two Invitationals. The old ‘Schools of Magic’ were being revived or reconstituted just as a long-standing pillar of the format was about to fall. The Type I metagame for each Invitational that buttressed the year is a revealing snapshot of what a difference the restrictions in 2000 made, as players brought into being a new Type I order. 2000 was also the year that the Type I community began to organize itself into online forums, rather than just Usenet and email lists. Learn about the emergent and passionate community of Type I players and advocates, how they influenced the format, and what they meant to the history of the game.

Free preview:

Skull’s End: The Restriction of Necropotence

The entire game of Magic, from June 1995 to October 2000, is in one way or another defined by the card Necropotence. It shaped nearly every format it touched, which was virtually every format thanks to the reprinting of Necropotence in Fifth Edition, which anchored Extended for many years. More broadly, Necropotence defined Magic by bringing into a crystal clarity and laser-like focus the paradigm that emphasized the paramount importance of card advantage. Within that paradigm, there was no greater engine. As a siphon, Necropotence was unparalleled in its ability to translate an abundant resource into the most precious. It’s unheralded arrival in Ice Age, where it was not simply overlooked but actively disparaged, can be contrasted to a period in which Necropotence was increasingly regarded as among the most problematic cards in the game.

One the questions posed over and over again is how or why Wizards and the DCI permitted Necropotence to exist for so long in so many formats. It has been called by some as one of the ten biggest mistakes in Magic history. Players either cannot honestly understand the DCI’s logic or seem driven to underscore their illogic by conveying ritual astonishment at this bald fact. It is not simply that Necropotence was allowed to exist, but the DCI’s pattern of bannings almost seemed to suggest a desire to find ways to preserve Necropotence amidst an increasingly untenable Extended format. The DCI banned Dark Ritual and Mana Vault in an attempt to slow down Trix, arguing that it was the mana acceleration that was the “real” culprit. Players like Michelle Bush began substituting cards like Mox Diamond and Lake of the Dead instead, forcing the DCI to finally ban Necropotence in Extended in March 2001.

The DCI acted more swiftly in Type I. On September 1 2000, the DCI announced four changes to the Type I Banned Restricted List, effective October 1. The first, and most important, was the restriction of Necropotence. As Darren Di Battista put it, “Necropotence was the absolute most powerful card in Magic, and it is now no more.”

Given the obvious efficiency of Necropotence when everyone had great appreciation for card advantage, why would the DCI seek to keep Necropotence as a meaningful part of the game? The answer to that question is less clear, although one can speculate. Necropotence was so deeply embedded in Magic play and culture that the DCI may have justly believed – despite mounting evidence to the contrary – that it could be used fairly. After all, historical experience documented evidence of Necro decks that did not dominate metagames.

Necro unveiled the principle that card advantage is not fungible. Drawing many extra cards, while verging on overwhelming, was not viewed as unfair if most of those cards were in themselves fair, like 2/1 Orders of the Ebon Hand or Juzam Djinns. The power of Necropotence no doubt explains why creatures like Juzam Djinn were still being played in the format long after they were clearly or outclassed in efficiency. It was not until emergent combos like Illusions of Grandeur and Donate were available that Necropotence looked more like a degenerate engine than a powerful but risky way to replenish the battlefield. As more of these combos emerged, Necropotence looked less and less innocuous.

As the DCI described its decision to restrict Necropotence in Type I: “Over the past 3 years, this card has become more and more dominant in the Type I format. While many more powerful cards have slowly become restricted, this card remained as the preeminent card drawing engine. Quite simply, the swing this card introduces to the game is on par with several cards that are already restricted.”

Necropotence was not the only card added to the Restricted List in October 2000. Its pal and abettor Demonic Consultation was also given the axe. Here’s what the DCI said about this restriction: “In a format where all the other “tutor” cards are restricted (Demonic, Enlightened, Mystical, etc.), Demonic Consultation stood out as a powerhouse. Especially, since Demonic Consultation was arguably more powerful than many of those other tutors.”

Demonic Consultation was one of the best and most efficient ways to find Necropotence. Yet, as the Magic Invitational’s finals Type I match illustrated, Consult could be used to simply summon other combo parts to hand. This undoubtedly informed the DCI’s decision. On the other hand, from our historic vantage point, the decision to restrict Consult on top of Necropotence may have been premature.

Consult was primarily and almost exclusively abused in Necro decks. Restricting both Necro and Consult were two restrictions targeting the same problem where only one was arguably necessary. Moreover, the logic of the DCI’s “tutor” analogy is strained when we observe the range of tutors that were not restricted and the related fact that Necropotence was Consult’s favorite target. This is not to say that Consult was undeserving of restriction or would not have eventually merited restriction, but that the double restriction of both Necro and Consult may have swept more broadly than necessary.

The restriction of Necropotence fulfilled Steven Merritt’s warnings in the Fall of 1999 about the likely effect of the anti-combo restrictions enabling Necro above all. What was not foreseen and was in fact unforeseeable was the way in which Necro would fuel arguably the best combo deck yet. The three most popular decks in the 1999 Invitational were The Deck/Keeper, Restricted List/Academy Combo, and Necro decks. With the mass of restrictions in late 1999 designed to neuter the Academy combo deck, and the restriction of Necro and Consult to neuter Necro based strategies, would blue control decks, the last man standing, dominate? Or, would other strategies, new or old, rise to the occasion to compete with blue based control decks? We would soon find out.
[End Free Excerpt]

Article is 28 pages long with 4 pages of endnotes to explore as well.

Tons of decklists to have fun with as well.  

And, as always, the entire series is available here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/?tag=history-of-vintage

Enjoy!

[brianpk80]

You suggested reading 1999 and 2000 together, right?  Currently visiting family out of town but I'll pick them them both up when I'm back home on Friday.  Looking forward to reading. 

[Smmenen]

1999 sets up 2000 nicely, but they don't need to be read together.   

My editor, Jaco, said he thought 2000 was the best chapter so far.   

I think the 1999-2003 period will turn out to be the best of this entire project from a narrative standpoint because of how the format transformed from being moribund to dynamic in such a short period.  Obviously, the 1993-95 period is fascinating from a historical standpoint, but less so from an evolving metagame standpoint.   

I've already wrote 2001 and submitted it for editing last weekend, and its the longest chapter so far.

2001 is really a self-contained story that is all about the dominance of Accelerated Blue in the format, and the fascinating attempts to combat it, but it's a story that weaves critical threads from 2000, such as the emergence of Bdominia. 

One other thing I should mention: the big table on the "Schools of Magic" that was at the end of 1997 will be replicated and updated at the end of every 5 years: 2002, 2007, and 2012 (if I get that far).

2012 will be the last chapter in this series, but it could be a long time before I reach that point.   Folks should not wait until this is compiled to read this series, as that may never actually happen, and won't be less expensive than buying the chapters individually. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

Without even needing to read this, it's interesting that with hindsight, we know that the best decks were both unknown and unplayed during this period. By contrast, the writing and bdominia shows a community of overconfident kids impressed with "Keeper." People talked about tutor chains and using Brainstorm as an alternative to Ancestral for those short on cash. Of course, they never realized that 4x Merchant Scroll, 4x Brainstorm was viable.

It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it. 2000-era Vintage was a bunch of dumb, cocky kids who misattributed the high power level and swinginess of the cards in their deck to their own skill and worth.

[JACO]

My editor, Jaco, said he thought 2000 was the best chapter so far.   

I think the 1999-2003 period will turn out to be the best of this entire project from a narrative standpoint because of how the format transformed from being moribund to dynamic in such a short period.  Obviously, the 1993-95 period is fascinating from a historical standpoint, but less so from an evolving metagame standpoint

Co-sign both of these points. This was one of the most exciting periods in the format to me, because there was so much innovation and interesting things going on at the time. The Dulmen and expansion of a European Eternal scene was far more important than most give credit to.

Without even needing to read this, it's interesting that with hindsight, we know that the best decks were both unknown and unplayed during this period. By contrast, the writing and bdominia shows a community of overconfident kids impressed with "Keeper." People talked about tutor chains and using Brainstorm as an alternative to Ancestral for those short on cash. Of course, they never realized that 4x Merchant Scroll, 4x Brainstorm was viable.

It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it. 2000-era Vintage was a bunch of dumb, cocky kids who misattributed the high power level and swinginess of the cards in their deck to their own skill and worth.

Wow; thanks comment which has nothing to do with the article or subject matter on hand. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've made the comment? Was there no better place for you to vent? The online community at large has always had those who are louder than others. That doesn't mean all of the ideas from the time were without merit or that people from the era were "dumb, cocky kids." They merely relayed knowledge based on their own experiences, just as forum members in every online community do.

Keeper was a good, highly customizable deck in the hands of a good pilot (which most people were not, just as most Magic players are not very good today). OSE and rOSE were also popular decks of the era, which exhibited many of the attributes of Control Slaver variants years later, and of modern Grixis decks today. Workshop decks that could have existed at the time with the release of Saga and Masques blocks would have been decent, but lacked any killer finishers that modern printings came to provide, and also lacked key tools like Trinisphere (but they developed rapidly and Goblin Welder ascended relatively quickly in the following few years after 2000, as you'll see if you read this series). Brainstorm was good in combo decks back then, and that's about it. You didn't have fetchlands as they exist in their current form (the Mirage saclands that came into play tapped were not really playable), which is one of the things that makes Brainstorm so powerful in the modern era (more powerful and efficient modern threats being the another). Mono Blue Control and Accelerated Blue were extremely powerful, and Brainstorm would have been crap in the deck. Having Merchant Scroll as your only shuffle effect (or one of your only) is not nearly good enough.

Merchant Scroll's underuse was really the main glaring oversight of the era in my eyes. Well, that a number of Necro decks that I felt could have (ab)used Demonic Consultation more often.

[Smmenen]

Without even needing to read this, it's interesting that with hindsight, we know that the best decks were both unknown and unplayed during this period. By contrast, the writing and bdominia shows a community of overconfident kids impressed with "Keeper." People talked about tutor chains and using Brainstorm as an alternative to Ancestral for those short on cash. Of course, they never realized that 4x Merchant Scroll, 4x Brainstorm was viable.

It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it. 2000-era Vintage was a bunch of dumb, cocky kids who misattributed the high power level and swinginess of the cards in their deck to their own skill and worth.

To disagree with my editor, I actually think this is a debate really worth having.  

I think you are mostly wrong, but right in some respects.

Where you are wrong: For example, the Accelerated Blue deck that folks can read about in my 2001 Chapter is pretty much going to beat any 4 brainstorm/4 Scroll deck that is using the legal card pool at that point.  Remember, Onslaught hadn't been printed yet.  

As a leading voice on Bdominia, I definitely agree with your assessment of the site in 1999 and part of 2000, but by early 2001, that was changing.    Too many Bdominia folks were wedded to playing Keeper, but by 2001 they were being exposed as playing a hopelessly outdated/out flanked deck.   I cover all this in 2001.  Mono Blue control won the first Tournament of Champions, and DOMINATED the next few.  Tom Lapille, Acolytec, Legend, and other mono blue decks just wrecked everything.  One of the Tournament of Champions covered in my next chapter put up of the top 4 decks.  


Your comments sweep a far too broad brush.  

The biggest thing that people hadn't figured out by 2001 or even 2002 wasn't Scroll or Brainstorm, it was Sphere of Resistance.  Again, all covered in my chapters from 1998-2001.  But when Tangle Wire was printed in Nemesis, all of the parts of 2003 Stax existed and could have been put to immediate use.  Wire, Stack, Sphere, and Welder were each legal and available.  The proto-Workshop Aggro deck with Welder (Stacker) emerged in late 2001, and utterly dominates the European metagame in 2001 from basically May to December.  

I also don't agree with Jaco on the Consult assessment.  I think Necro decks probably used close to the right number of Consults.  

Merchant Scroll should have been a 4 of in decks once Onslaught is printed, though.  Since Gush was the card that benefited most immediately from Onslaught.  Anyway, we'll get to that history soon.

But one thing that Jaco and others can attest to, which is relevant to your comments, is this is a history, but it is also more than a history.

I do offer critique.  I highlight gaps where decks should have emerged to strategies should have developed.  So, in that sense, your points are a bit misplaced because they assume that my history does not already incorporate a clear-eyed assessment of where people could have done things better.  It's also offensive to call everyone who played then dumb/idiots.  

[AmbivalentDuck]

I don't know that there's any substantial value to discussing optimal decks. I have some testing results that were in preparation for an online tourney that never materialized. I'm confident that 4x Gush/Merchant Scroll/Brainstorm 2000-era Blue dominates the Keeper matchup. I figured that someone would play it for nostalgia, so I tested that for several matches. When you say you have a better list, I don't doubt it. When you say that Sphere was a larger oversight...I looked into that and it was underwhelming against both UB Necro and my 4x Scroll Blue list. But neither of us is likely to put the testing effort into figuring out what the optimal lists were despite easy agreement that the builds of the day were not optimal. Gush and Necro stick out as "best" engines, but it's difficult to speculate on what the best hate might have looked like.

They merely relayed knowledge based on their own experiences, just as forum members in every online community do.

Knowledge based on experience rather than models. Without starting too big a fight, this is the best anthropology I'm aware of regarding American epistemological development. I think it's fair to say we've all grown up. I remember a time when Steve was dismissive of stats, but now he embraces them. We all argue differently and there's wider acknowledgement that "best" in Vintage is confounded by problems with statistical power AND untested/unexpected strategies. Anyways, the compact argument against knowledge by experience is that it doesn't tell you what you don't know. You can't even know where you've misinterpreted it. Some folks have embraced game theory while others have embraced a narrative style. Regardless, it's miles from "Ancestral Recall is too good to leave out of a deck that can generate blue mana." See: Dredge. Ancestral doesn't reliably further its game plan. At least not as reliably as other options. That's not controversial now. I once faced a shit storm for saying something similar. It's a triumph of models over experience.

Edit: And I'm not saying this to "ha ha" at JACO, I'm just pointing out an epistemological angle on "It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it."

[JACO]

I don't know that there's any substantial value to discussing optimal decks. I have some testing results that were in preparation for an online tourney that never materialized. I'm confident that 4x Gush/Merchant Scroll/Brainstorm 2000-era Blue dominates the Keeper matchup. I figured that someone would play it for nostalgia, so I tested that for several matches. When you say you have a better list, I don't doubt it. When you say that Sphere was a larger oversight...I looked into that and it was underwhelming against both UB Necro and my 4x Scroll Blue list. But neither of us is likely to put the testing effort into figuring out what the optimal lists were despite easy agreement that the builds of the day were not optimal. Gush and Necro stick out as "best" engines, but it's difficult to speculate on what the best hate might have looked like.

A much more productive post!

It would be quite fun to run some in-person tournaments with 2000-era, or 2001-era decks, knowing what we know now, or think we know. A Gush deck from the era may dominate one specific matchup (Keeper), but it's not as if that was the only deck played in the era. It's just the deck that the 2 most visible writers of the year (Oscar Tan and Darren Di Battista) favored, and enjoyed playing. It was a very flexible deck, but certainly not without weakness. It was just so popular because it played cards people really liked, and as very customizable to adapt to a shifting local metagame. If your area was dominated by Red decks, or Blue decks, or anything else you could often tweak "The Deck" to accommodate those challenges, and to me this was the most appealing thing.

They merely relayed knowledge based on their own experiences, just as forum members in every online community do.

Knowledge based on experience rather than models. Without starting too big a fight, this is the best anthropology I'm aware of regarding American epistemological development. I think it's fair to say we've all grown up. I remember a time when Steve was dismissive of stats, but now he embraces them. We all argue differently and there's wider acknowledgement that "best" in Vintage is confounded by problems with statistical power AND untested/unexpected strategies. Anyways, the compact argument against knowledge by experience is that it doesn't tell you what you don't know. You can't even know where you've misinterpreted it. Some folks have embraced game theory while others have embraced a narrative style. Regardless, it's miles from "Ancestral Recall is too good to leave out of a deck that can generate blue mana." See: Dredge. Ancestral doesn't reliably further its game plan. At least not as reliably as other options. That's not controversial now. I once faced a shit storm for saying something similar. It's a triumph of models over experience.

Edit: And I'm not saying this to "ha ha" at JACO, I'm just pointing out an epistemological angle on "It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it."

Yes, there is always the debate and estimation of what constitutes "best." What is the "best" deck, the "best" card for this slot, etc, and how is the "best" derived in each situation? Some people rely on in-game and tournament experience (weighing results), and others based on theoretical modeling, and most others with a mix of the two (or many more mitigating factors). I like to include both when designing and building and playing decks, but definitely trend towards weighting results more than some others. Magic is not a game played in a theoretical vacuum, and I couldn't in good faith play and think about it with only theoretical modeling in mind, or as the most important factor. The human element of the game, variance, metagaming, and a variety of other factors strike a balance in which I don't think being too sterile with analysis is the best strategy.

[Smmenen]

You suggested reading 1999 and 2000 together, right?  Currently visiting family out of town but I'll pick them them both up when I'm back home on Friday.  Looking forward to reading. 

I'm looking forward to your feedback! 

[Smmenen]

I don't know that there's any substantial value to discussing optimal decks.

It depends on what we mean by "optimal."  Optimization only exists in a specific metagame context.  Outside of that context, there can be no optimization.  That's why I don't use that term.

What I said was that it is worth having a discussion about technological advances that could have occurred sooner, and would have had an impact if they had.

The problem with your earlier post is that you theorize about Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll before Onslaught.  Until Onslaught is printed, Brainstorm simply isn't that good, and not worth playing, even with 4 Scroll. 

I have some testing results that were in preparation for an online tourney that never materialized. I'm confident that 4x Gush/Merchant Scroll/Brainstorm 2000-era Blue dominates the Keeper matchup.

What does that have to do with anything?  You said: "Without even needing to read this, it's interesting that with hindsight, we know that the best decks were both unknown and unplayed during this period."

The best deck in this period (being the year 2000, the subject of this article) was Necro-Donate.  This was the dominant deck in the format for 9 of 12 months of the year. 

 I figured that someone would play it for nostalgia, so I tested that for several matches. When you say you have a better list, I don't doubt it.

No, what I was saying is that the 2001 Accelerated Blue deck was the best deck in the format in 2001 (and the last 3 months of 2000), and would handily defeat any 4 Scroll/4 Brainstorm deck. 

When you say that Sphere was a larger oversight...I looked into that and it was underwhelming against both UB Necro and my 4x Scroll Blue list.

Yes, but it would have been bonkers in 1999 against the Academy/Restricted list Combo decks that were the best deck in the format that year.  It was an obvious inclusion in retrospect, and people should have tried it.  I also think it would have been pretty good against Necro-Donate, the best deck in 2000. 

 But neither of us is likely to put the testing effort into figuring out what the optimal lists were despite easy agreement that the builds of the day were not optimal. Gush and Necro stick out as "best" engines, but it's difficult to speculate on what the best hate might have looked like.

Gush was good in 2001 and 2002, but it was not until Onslaught is printed that it becomes great.  At that point, the Brainstorm/Scroll/Gush trifecta comes together.   

They merely relayed knowledge based on their own experiences, just as forum members in every online community do.

Knowledge based on experience rather than models. Without starting too big a fight, this is the best anthropology I'm aware of regarding American epistemological development. I think it's fair to say we've all grown up.

We've already had many discussions of epistemology, and I don't know what that has to do with anything here. 

I remember a time when Steve was dismissive of stats, but now he embraces them.

Huh?  For many years now I've been writing articles using statistics.  If you go back into my article archive, you will find articles from 10 years ago discussing statistics.  I've never been "dismissive" of statistics.  That's just ridiculous/

We all argue differently and there's wider acknowledgement that "best" in Vintage is confounded by problems with statistical power AND untested/unexpected strategies. Anyways, the compact argument against knowledge by experience is that it doesn't tell you what you don't know. You can't even know where you've misinterpreted it. Some folks have embraced game theory while others have embraced a narrative style. Regardless, it's miles from "Ancestral Recall is too good to leave out of a deck that can generate blue mana." See: Dredge. Ancestral doesn't reliably further its game plan. At least not as reliably as other options. That's not controversial now. I once faced a shit storm for saying something similar. It's a triumph of models over experience.

Edit: And I'm not saying this to "ha ha" at JACO, I'm just pointing out an epistemological angle on "It's not just the history of the game, it's also the history of the people who played it."

I don't see what relevance any of that has on this discussion. 

[voltron00x]

Will admit I haven't read these, but I probably will at some point. I'm glad you're doing this. The passion you feel and exhibit constantly for Vintage is pretty amazing.

[Smmenen]

Thank you for the kind words.  This is a labor of love -- that's for sure.   It's a ridiculous undertaking that I couldn't even imagine trying to bite off at one time.   It would just be too daunting.  

I think this work, with just the first 9 chapters, is already well over 200 pages.   Even that's misleading because of all of the research that has to be done.  With a strategy article, deck primer or even a tournament report, everything you need to write is already in your head or readily available.   With a work like this, most of the work is research, organization and sifting through data and reports making decisions about what's important and what's not, and how to organize the narrative.

One of the things I've noticed is how bad most of the histories actually are.  In most cases, people just have taken the most obvious and readily available stock lists for their narrative.  I've dug up and uncovered stuff that has long been hidden in USENET archives or from players themselves or forgotten magazines or books.  

On top of all of that, I have a thesis I am advancing, and I always have to be conscious of how I am -- or am not -- advancing that thesis.  

I think the payoff is potentially tremendous.   This is a work that could stand for a long, long time -- as a reference and tome, and as something that people could explore to learn the history of the game.  Most importantly, though, I want them to learn to appreciate this format.

This is the only format that has 20 years of continuous history.   My thesis is designed to force that perspective into unmistakable view, and with it, the deeper strategic appreciation for this format.  If successful, it would have benefits beyond my possible imagining.  

[MTGFan]

It would be kind of neat to see you make a point of drawing corollaries to the Standard trends of the times in these articles. Often we see cross-pollination from other more transient formats (i.e. Psychatog as one example) taking place in the Eternal formats. Studying the impact of Standard decklist trends would provide an interesting counter-point to the prevailing thought - undoubtedly elitist and dismissive of emerging archetypes from Extended and Standard - of the time among the cognescenti of the Vintage community.

[brianpk80]

You suggested reading 1999 and 2000 together, right?  Currently visiting family out of town but I'll pick them them both up when I'm back home on Friday.  Looking forward to reading. 

I'm looking forward to your feedback! 

I will write when I finish them.  I had an obnoxious week from work, I'm sure you can relate.  It can be so odiously distracting from things that matter more in life, like Magic and Romance of the Three Kingdoms.    Hope all is well!

[Smmenen]

It would be kind of neat to see you make a point of drawing corollaries to the Standard trends of the times in these articles. Often we see cross-pollination from other more transient formats (i.e. Psychatog as one example) taking place in the Eternal formats. Studying the impact of Standard decklist trends would provide an interesting counter-point to the prevailing thought - undoubtedly elitist and dismissive of emerging archetypes from Extended and Standard - of the time among the cognescenti of the Vintage community.

I often point to developments outside of Type I/Vintage as being important to developments in Type I due to the cross-pollination you mention.   That said, I don't have any interest in studying standard.  My focus is  squarely on this format. 

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

I read all the articles by now and there downright awesome.

The only criticism I have is an editorial one: It is obnoxious to read decklists at the end of pages which are continued at the next page. Also, the endnote links don't lead to the corresponding endnote, which makes the notes less useful. I hope these things can be changed in a second edition.

It is very valuable that you update the "schools" table periodically, although i would like to see a small roundup about which schools are dominant / emerging / waning once a year (just a small one, mind you).

[JACO]

I read all the articles by now and there downright awesome.

The only criticism I have is an editorial one: It is obnoxious to read decklists at the end of pages which are continued at the next page. Also, the endnote links don't lead to the corresponding endnote, which makes the notes less useful. I hope these things can be changed in a second edition.

It is very valuable that you update the "schools" table periodically, although i would like to see a small roundup about which schools are dominant / emerging / waning once a year (just a small one, mind you).

Peter, thanks for your feedback. As the editor I agree with you on the decklists portion. I don't like seeing decklists split between pages, but the other solution for our current format is to basically have huge chunks of white/empty space. Is that preferential to you and anybody else who'd care to comment? If this project gets finished, I think we are going to reformat the size down to a smaller book (like 6x9, rather than 8.5x11), so you can toss it in your backpack or slide it between other fine leatherbound books on the bookshelf, just like a normal book. If/when that happens for print we will make sure NOT have decklists split between pages.

Regarding the endnotes, I didn't know what you are talking about because everything works perfectly in Word where the docs are created/edited, but it appears when converting to Adobe PDF they get thrown off. I did some research online and in the Adobe & MS Technet support forums and apparently this is a known long time issue, regardless of the version of Word or Adobe (see http://forums.adobe.com/message/4284826, http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/84b25a06-15ba-4f2e-a914-f861c782c933/ms-word-2010-conversion-to-pdf, for a couple examples among many others). It appears Adobe creates approximate 'targets' for the endnotes rather than actual links. If anybody has any workaround for this besides creating and editing hundreds of links in Adobe by hand please let me know via PM.

[Smmenen]

I read all the articles by now and there downright awesome.

The only criticism I have is an editorial one: It is obnoxious to read decklists at the end of pages which are continued at the next page. Also, the endnote links don't lead to the corresponding endnote, which makes the notes less useful. I hope these things can be changed in a second edition.

It is very valuable that you update the "schools" table periodically, although i would like to see a small roundup about which schools are dominant / emerging / waning once a year (just a small one, mind you).

Peter, thanks for the feedback.  We agree about having decklists split on pages.  It's kinda unavoidable unless you want there to be huge white space on some pages.  Not sure how to address it.  I never noticed the endnote thing, since I always work from the word file, but one way of handling it is to just treat it like a book page, and manually go to the endnote that corresponds.

Finally, I like your point about a small round up.  Let me at least finish 2002, and then I will go back and see if there is space to do that.  I kinda try to do that in the narrative itself.   I think the big table update at the end of 2002 will serve this role well, by summarizing all of the narrative bits that have already been laid out. 

After 2002 is in the can, I may take a break on this for a few months just to recharge my batteries.   2002 will wrap up alot of the key threads I've been building toward.   I hope that 1993-2002 is going to be a great read.