TheManaDrain.com
January 21, 2020, 07:46:57 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
  Print  
Author Topic: Aaron Forsythe asks how Wizards can support Vintage  (Read 27220 times)
StrongSide
Basic User
**
Posts: 41


View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2014, 09:54:05 am »

Why couldn't they do what they did in zendikar? I believe something like that would be relatively valuable. I would say to basically have 1 card from the reserved list per box of lets say kahns. This would than promote the new set as well as supplying a few more people with a chance at a valuable card. They would have to make a cap on how many boxes they print though so it doesn't have to bad of a negative impact but it would just be a way to sell the current set as well as adding some more supply into the diminishing older cards. But I am completely just shooting an idea with little thought in how it would truly impact the world. Just an idea that came to mind so I thought I would say it.
Logged
Meddling Mike
Master of Divination
Administrator
Basic User
*****
Posts: 1616


Not Chris Pikula

micker01 Micker1985 micker1985
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2014, 09:58:54 am »

Why couldn't they do what they did in zendikar? I believe something like that would be relatively valuable. I would say to basically have 1 card from the reserved list per box of lets say kahns. This would than promote the new set as well as supplying a few more people with a chance at a valuable card. They would have to make a cap on how many boxes they print though so it doesn't have to bad of a negative impact but it would just be a way to sell the current set as well as adding some more supply into the diminishing older cards. But I am completely just shooting an idea with little thought in how it would truly impact the world. Just an idea that came to mind so I thought I would say it.

In the Priceless Treasures promotion they actually respected the reserve list by only including original, authentic cards in the promotion; so no additional cards on the reserve list were printed and put into circulation.
Logged

Meddling Mike posts so loudly that nobody can get a post in edgewise.

Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2014, 10:00:15 am »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

(2) Reprint the old powerful cards like the ABU Duals, Power 9, etc.  Yes, Wizards, I know your legal team is telling you that doing this exposes the company to lawsuits for promissory estoppel or whatever and there's really no upside.  So don't abolish the reserve list.  Just print stand-ins for the old cards that are functionally different, but enable the same kind of strategies.  You can be creative about this.  For example, imagine a Mox Sapphire that had an additional clause: "When this enters the battlefield, reveal your hand."  Just stuff like that.  Doesn't hurt the reserve list.  Snow or Legendary Duals.  The point here is not to devalue the optimal cards, because they will not, but instead to make the ledge between "I can play Vintage" and "I cannot play Vintage" to be a more gradual decline.  Take some price pressure off the P9.  Print tweaked versions in a special set like Conspiracy.  Just get them out there.

There's actually a way Wizards could do this with a stroke of pen; no new printing required.

(3) Consider removing the remaining power level errata* on some older cards; in particular, the Lotus Vale + Alliance Lands cycle.  This is an easy thing to do that will instantly inject a huge additional supply of some of the most broken effects in Magic (Louts, Workshop) into the cardpool.  Ban and restrict accordingly, but seriously, the only cards that probably end up problematic will be Vale and Ruins.  The Alliance cycle of sac lands are totally tame.

* = Just to head offf the derail: Yes, I know they justify these cards with original ruled functionality, but Tebek has been very clear that the reason they don't revert to the text, which is his preference, is that they would be broken and necessarily banned in Legacy if they did this.  The motivation for not allowing the cards' function to change over changes in the rules is power-level based.

Logged
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2014, 11:04:26 am »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.

Logged
JarofFortune
Basic User
**
Posts: 356



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2014, 11:35:25 am »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



Yes! What Wizards is doing right now is disgusting. If such a scenario happens, and Wizards refuses to even unrestricted combo cards or print a two mana wrath/grudge for creatures, I would most likely quit Vintage.
Logged

The Auriok have fought the metal hordes for so long now that knowing how to cripple them has become an instinct. -Metal Fatigue
Chubby Rain
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 742



View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2014, 11:52:05 am »

I had hoped that WOTC would push Vintage online (~$400 for Dredge, BUG Fish $1800) a bit more by offering better prize support than Pauper (cost of a deck between $7-$100 (Daze is really "expensive")) or Standard ($100-$400).

Nope.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-online-announcements-september-4-2014-prize-rotation-notification-2014-09-04
Logged

"Why are we making bad decks? I mean, honestly, what is our reason for doing this?"

"Is this a Vintage deck or a Cube deck?" "Is it sad that you have to ask?"

"Is that a draft deck?" "Why do people keep asking that?"

Random conversations...
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2807

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2014, 12:05:15 pm »

but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.
You have it entirely wrong. There are a shrinking number of Black Lotuses available for Vintage play at ANY price. Vintage is dying and must die as cardboard goes into long-term storage or wears out.

Wizards idiotically cut themselves off from printing $20k packages of foily Vintage Arsenal.

Since all Black Lotuses that they ever printed were sold long before they modified the reserve to close the "foil loophole," it's not clear to me that they'd be subject to any liability for reopening it. People speculated on a premise. It's not clear to me that poor speculation  in an unregulated commodities market generates the sort of loss you could hold someone else accountable for.
Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2014, 12:29:48 pm »

On a metagame analysis, I like where Vintage is right now. It's good for everybody: you can play combo, you can play control with few creatures, you can play creature decks. This is good for the format. For example, it helps me A LOT to introduce the format to Legacy/Modern players that I can put a Humans/Merfolk/Fish deck on their hand and show them the format is not a coin flip. At the same time, I can play very fast/broken deck like before. I'm happy with the metagame.

Now, if we go to MTGO, I also think it's a shame that they treated Legacy and Vintage with less EV than other formats. I mean, maybe they do that to keep grinders away from Vintage and Legacy, but it hurts to spend 1400 tix to build a deck and then fight for a few boosters. Now this changes Chubby Rain posted here put Vintage side-by-side with Standard as far as prizes go. That's better, I guess. Isn't it?

I don't think you could make Vintage pay better, for the sake of the health of the platform. Now, player-run tournaments seem very good to me. Wink
Logged
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2014, 12:41:15 pm »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?
Logged
JarofFortune
Basic User
**
Posts: 356



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2014, 01:09:43 pm »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?


He is talking about a possible future where only Aggro, Midrange, And Control meant to Combat those decks exists because of power creep and consistency. I could also see even aggro dying out in that format. I'm fine having a few of these decks in the format, I just don't want it to be defined by them. 
Logged

The Auriok have fought the metal hordes for so long now that knowing how to cripple them has become an instinct. -Metal Fatigue
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2014, 01:46:23 pm »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?


He is talking about a possible future where only Aggro, Midrange, And Control meant to Combat those decks exists because of power creep and consistency. I could also see even aggro dying out in that format. I'm fine having a few of these decks in the format, I just don't want it to be defined by them. 

That's just not possible.  The Power Nine have a special name for a reason; they're the most broken, undercosted cards in the whole game.  Decks that leverage these cards into explosive Storm or Combo wins are not going anywhere.  Seriously, what could be printed that would even come close?  Leyline of the Chalice?

Vintage allows decks to play fast enough and demand interaction soon enough that no creature-based strategy will ever be air tight.  You have nothing to worry about except that The Pillar Formerly Known As Null Rod gets lots of diversity.
Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2014, 01:51:16 pm »

I don't understand exactly why it's illegal to reprint the reserved list cards.  It is THEIR list.  They didn't sign any contract with any vendor.  They just made a list and said they wouldn't reprint them.  They make no profit off that decision.  They break no law by changing their minds.  If a collector wished to sue, what grounds would they have?  "They said they wouldn't do X and I bought high-priced stock based on that information.  Then they changed their minds which they are legally entitled to do and I lost money."  Too bad, so sad.  There's no legal issue as far as I can tell.  What am I missing?
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2014, 02:03:24 pm »

but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.
You have it entirely wrong. There are a shrinking number of Black Lotuses available for Vintage play at ANY price. Vintage is dying and must die as cardboard goes into long-term storage or wears out.

Wizards idiotically cut themselves off from printing $20k packages of foily Vintage Arsenal.

Since all Black Lotuses that they ever printed were sold long before they modified the reserve to close the "foil loophole," it's not clear to me that they'd be subject to any liability for reopening it. People speculated on a premise. It's not clear to me that poor speculation  in an unregulated commodities market generates the sort of loss you could hold someone else accountable for.

Judging by what you cut off from my quote, you missread my post entirely.  it had nothing to do with quantities of existing vintage staples.


I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?


He is talking about a possible future where only Aggro, Midrange, And Control meant to Combat those decks exists because of power creep and consistency. I could also see even aggro dying out in that format. I'm fine having a few of these decks in the format, I just don't want it to be defined by them.  

Exactly.  I love new vintage decks.  Or sufficed to say I very much enjoy new cards that quietly bend and shift old archetypes, because lets face it, it would be very unlikely that WoTC would print a single card that all at once created new archetypes - I think Bridge from Below was probably the last one (and that claim would of course be pretty spurious without BoB - though dredge see Legacy play as well).

 However, what I'm against is this slow slide toward creature-dominated back-and forth mid-rangeness.  The kind of deck that NEVER has the blowout turn n, and never does any of the things you just can't do in other formats.   In essence, Vintage is the only format where you generally avoid, in most games (though of course, not all) having to do combat math - and what math does have to be done is often inconsequential or unrelated to the outcome of the match.   It's practically the defining feature of the format.   The more combat math I have to do (or that matters), the less interested I am in the format.  
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 02:13:57 pm by dangerlinto » Logged
Hrishi
Basic User
**
Posts: 391


hrishikesh29@gmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2014, 02:06:53 pm »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card. 

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?


He is talking about a possible future where only Aggro, Midrange, And Control meant to Combat those decks exists because of power creep and consistency. I could also see even aggro dying out in that format. I'm fine having a few of these decks in the format, I just don't want it to be defined by them. 

That's just not possible.  The Power Nine have a special name for a reason; they're the most broken, undercosted cards in the whole game.  Decks that leverage these cards into explosive Storm or Combo wins are not going anywhere.  Seriously, what could be printed that would even come close?  Leyline of the Chalice?

Vintage allows decks to play fast enough and demand interaction soon enough that no creature-based strategy will ever be air tight.  You have nothing to worry about except that The Pillar Formerly Known As Null Rod gets lots of diversity.

You say this, but storm (specifically Rituals) has not been in a good place for a long time. Printings of cheap hatebears certainly helped it along.
Logged

Lyna turned to the figure beside her. "They're gone. What now?"
"As ever," said Urza, "we wait."
JarofFortune
Basic User
**
Posts: 356



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2014, 02:12:06 pm »

Wizards can support Vintage in two ways.

(1) Print cards that enable alternative strategies.  They are doing this, and doing it well.  The last four years have seen Vintage-relevant hatebear after hatebear, with the result that aggro is now a legitimate tier 2 strategy in Vintage.  Hosing power while being incidentally powerful in other matchups is the key.  Printing legitimate competition for Vintage staples (hello Mana Drain, my name is Flusterstorm) is another way to do this.  So, here, just keep doing what you're doing!

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card.  

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.



I dont see the point here.  You don't like Vintage if new decks get played?  What?  How does a viable creature strategy do anything to alter the fact that decks with the most absurdly overpowered cards ever printed still remain viable and usually the kings of the format?


He is talking about a possible future where only Aggro, Midrange, And Control meant to Combat those decks exists because of power creep and consistency. I could also see even aggro dying out in that format. I'm fine having a few of these decks in the format, I just don't want it to be defined by them.  

That's just not possible.  The Power Nine have a special name for a reason; they're the most broken, undercosted cards in the whole game.  Decks that leverage these cards into explosive Storm or Combo wins are not going anywhere.  Seriously, what could be printed that would even come close?  Leyline of the Chalice?

Vintage allows decks to play fast enough and demand interaction soon enough that no creature-based strategy will ever be air tight.  You have nothing to worry about except that The Pillar Formerly Known As Null Rod gets lots of diversity.
Saying that something will never happen because of the Power 9 is very fallacious. If all of the Power 9 are so untouchable, why does almost nobody play Twister anymore? That Card used to see play in nearly every Control Deck. Why are some decks cutting Lotus or Time Walk?  Where are these explosive storm combo decks in the format right now? There are barely any of these decks in the format anymore. They will continue to get worse as more hate bears are printed, for the reason that Midrange can run Moxen too, as well as Spirit Guides if need be. There is also the fact that Creatures are more consistent, so if the power gap closes off, the format will be ruined.

You're talking more like someone who thinks Vintage is a turn one format than an actual Player.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 02:22:55 pm by JarofFortune » Logged

The Auriok have fought the metal hordes for so long now that knowing how to cripple them has become an instinct. -Metal Fatigue
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2014, 02:24:12 pm »

I guess to put it another way, I'm all in favour of new cards that support and nourish Vintage decks in a way that either lends toward existing Vintage-only archetypes or new ones - let's call this the Lodestone Golem and JTMS pile.

I'm very against printings that simply undercut existing Vintage-only strategies in a manner that is especially consistent.
Logged
Greg
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 341



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2014, 02:32:27 pm »

I have a problem with this strategy.  I won't debate to much extent it's effectiveness, but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.  Please note - I don't think this has happened (yet) but the slope is getting slipperier every time WoTC uses the word "cant" on a card that isn't just a super-narrow hate card.  

Were the situation to become much worse, and the printings for essentially preventing most if not all the broken things you can do in vintage reach a critical mass on increasingly less-narrow cards (Grafdigger's Cage and Cavern enabled a lot of what's going on now) I don't see myself continuing to play.   I play Vintage because it's the place where the vast majority of the games aren't decided by some mid-range battle where the race is to turn cards into 20 points of combat or direct damage.   There are plenty of formats available already where that this playstyle (notably Legacy).

Saying that something will never happen because of the Power 9 is very fallacious. If all of the Power 9 are so untouchable, why does almost nobody play Twister anymore? That Card used to see play in nearly every Control Deck. Why are some decks cutting Lotus or Time Walk?  Where are these explosive storm combo decks in the format right now? There are barely any of these decks in the format anymore. They will continue to get worse as more hate bears are printed, for the reason that Midrange can run Moxen too, as well as Spirit Guides if need be. There is also the fact that Creatures are more consistent, so if the power gap closes off, the format will be ruined.

I guess to put it another way, I'm all in favour of new cards that support and nourish Vintage decks in a way that either lends toward existing Vintage-only archetypes or new ones - let's call this the Lodestone Golem and JTMS pile.

I'm very against printings that simply undercut existing Vintage-only strategies in a manner that is especially consistent.

Highly agreed.

tl;dr - Turning Vintage into Legacy as much as possible is not a great answer to the problem.

Too late.
Logged
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2014, 03:03:01 pm »

I still don't see where the Chickenlittling is coming from. 

You are correct to say that some decks are making the decision that Lotus or Walk is not where they want to be.  And you are correct to say that pure storm as such is on the decline.  (Although you still get Burning Wish, Oath, and some blue decks packing Yawgwill for storm kills).  Does that mean that Vintage is becoming like Legacy?

Absolutely not, and the reason is primarily the P9 and the broken cards from Urza's and before that run the format.  If you want to play Vintage, you have to have a deck that respects and addresses these cards.  I don't care how efficient your hate bear is, if you cannot handle decks that can either combo off or gain an insurmountable position on turn 1 or 2, you cannot win consistently in Vintage.  Even Vintage midrange and aggro are warped towards addressing the broken plays enabled (mostly) by the astounding acceleration in Vintage.

You seem to be worried about a world where creatures are so good that decks can shrug off the threat of Turn 1 Tinker -> Blightsteel or ignore a deck that spends a few turns crafting a perfect combo kill in hand with protection.  That's just not going to happen. Vintage win conditions are too strong.

I mean, look, what do people win with in Vintage?

1. Vault / Key  - Banned in Legacy.
2. Tinker / Bot - Banned in Legacy.
3. Will / Storm - Banned in Legacy.
4. Oath / Monster - Banned in Legacy.
5. Delver Beats - Legacy playable!
6. Aggro Beats - Legacy playable!
7. Workshop / Bot - Banned in Legacy.
8. Bazaar / Zombies - Banned in Legacy.

Look at the variety of win conditions in the format.  The vast majority of efficient Vintage win conditions are banned in Legacy.  Those win conditions, plus the broken acceleration we have, ensures that our metagame will always be unique.  The sky will not fall.

Now, as any good scientific theory, this one can be disproven.  If they print a Grafdigger's Cage that is also a 10/10 and stops your opponent from drawing cards, well, sure.  That would be bad.  But you really have to start reaching this level of absurdity for the format to EVER drift away from being controlled by the broken things we do.


 
Logged
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2014, 03:35:44 pm »

I still don't see where the Chickenlittling is coming from.

I wouldn't call it Chicken Littling - I've said numerous times that currently I think everything is ok - but the discussion stemmed from the concept that more *new cards* could be the solution to invigorating Vintage.  The "Chicken Littling" is coming from the fact that the only forseeable way to accomplish Vintage growth in paper via new cards in is to push out strategies which require you to own older more expensive reserved cards, which would almost invariably ruin what makes Vintage so great, because the Vintagey things are invariably the things that they do not want in non-Vintage formats (legacy maybe). 

So far only Dredge has come close in this regard - though of course it uses BoB.

The only real hope in this area would be to come up with strategies in non-standard sets (like Commander Sets) that don't require the onwership of P9 et all and yet somehow also are on par with Vintage strategies.   If anyone has any ideas, I'd love to see them.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 03:39:20 pm by dangerlinto » Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2014, 04:36:31 pm »

I don't understand exactly why it's illegal to reprint the reserved list cards.  It is THEIR list.  They didn't sign any contract with any vendor.  They just made a list and said they wouldn't reprint them.  They make no profit off that decision.  They break no law by changing their minds.  If a collector wished to sue, what grounds would they have?  "They said they wouldn't do X and I bought high-priced stock based on that information.  Then they changed their minds which they are legally entitled to do and I lost money."  Too bad, so sad.  There's no legal issue as far as I can tell.  What am I missing?

Does anyone know the answer to this?  Could save us all a ton of time and posts if it turns out that there is no legal issue with reprinting the reserved list.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Schyl
Basic User
**
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2014, 05:15:33 pm »

TheWhiteDragon--
This isn't the area of law that I practice, but I believe it would fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel can give rise to a cause of action outside of the existence of a contract, so long as three elements are met: (1) an individual makes a promise to induce another person into taking/not taking an action (2) that other person reasonably and detrimentally relies on that promise in taking or not taking that action (3) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing that promise.

In this case, even though there is no contract between Wizards and its customers, Wizards made a promise to its customers not to reprint certain cards following Chronicles' devaluation of the earlier sets (correct me if I'm wrong). In that context, one can see this promise as an inducement for collectors to continue purchasing cards; as a form of insurance to collectors that their collections will be less likely to lose value. A certain subset of Wizards' customers (collectors moreso than players) relied on that promise when purchasing more cards. If Wizards were to reprint cards on the reserved list, then those persons who relied on their promise would have relied on that promise to their detriment, in the form of lost value. The extent to which a given individual relied on that promise would be a matter for the courts. As another poster suggested, it would likely result in a class action lawsuit.

Damages in this instance would likely be the diminution in value of the collector's cards before and after the reprint. If recent reprints (thoughtseize, fetches vs. tarmogoyf) are any indication, one might expect Wizards to have to pay up to 50% of each re-printed card's value to collectors, depending on the scale of the reprint. For those in favor of reprinting cards to increase the player base, you're almost certainly looking at closer to the 50% mark, as smaller reprint quantities are going to be less likely to move prices down enough to make Vintage affordable to the average player. Given the current value of many of cards on the reserved list, it isn't unreasonable to expect that damages would be well over $100m, not even counting legal fees (my quick math: $10k for a set of unlimited power * 18,500 sets=$185,000,000 in value, 50% reduction is half of that in damages or $92,500,000 for unlimited power reprints alone).

The prior removal from and foil printings of cards on the reserved likely didn't trigger a lawsuit because of of the smaller values at stake. Most of the cards that were removed from the reserved list were one cent cards regardless of their presence on the list. Similarly, most of the foil printings either (a) came in small enough printings that they didn't affect the value or (b) people didn't care for as much as the original; again not affecting the value.
Logged
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2807

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2014, 06:13:15 pm »

but if the solution to Vintage being expensive to play is to print so many new cards that remove what makes Vintage Vintagey, it's not something I want to be a part of any more.
You have it entirely wrong. There are a shrinking number of Black Lotuses available for Vintage play at ANY price. Vintage is dying and must die as cardboard goes into long-term storage or wears out.

Wizards idiotically cut themselves off from printing $20k packages of foily Vintage Arsenal.

Since all Black Lotuses that they ever printed were sold long before they modified the reserve to close the "foil loophole," it's not clear to me that they'd be subject to any liability for reopening it. People speculated on a premise. It's not clear to me that poor speculation  in an unregulated commodities market generates the sort of loss you could hold someone else accountable for.

Judging by what you cut off from my quote, you missread my post entirely.  it had nothing to do with quantities of existing vintage staples.
I read your post correctly: you think cost is the issue. Cost isn't the issue: no matter how much you're willing to pay for a Black Lotus, no new ones will be printed.
Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2014, 06:51:15 pm »

TheWhiteDragon--
This isn't the area of law that I practice, but I believe it would fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel can give rise to a cause of action outside of the existence of a contract, so long as three elements are met: (1) an individual makes a promise to induce another person into taking/not taking an action (2) that other person reasonably and detrimentally relies on that promise in taking or not taking that action (3) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing that promise.

In this case, even though there is no contract between Wizards and its customers, Wizards made a promise to its customers not to reprint certain cards following Chronicles' devaluation of the earlier sets (correct me if I'm wrong). In that context, one can see this promise as an inducement for collectors to continue purchasing cards; as a form of insurance to collectors that their collections will be less likely to lose value. A certain subset of Wizards' customers (collectors moreso than players) relied on that promise when purchasing more cards. If Wizards were to reprint cards on the reserved list, then those persons who relied on their promise would have relied on that promise to their detriment, in the form of lost value. The extent to which a given individual relied on that promise would be a matter for the courts. As another poster suggested, it would likely result in a class action lawsuit.

Damages in this instance would likely be the diminution in value of the collector's cards before and after the reprint. If recent reprints (thoughtseize, fetches vs. tarmogoyf) are any indication, one might expect Wizards to have to pay up to 50% of each re-printed card's value to collectors, depending on the scale of the reprint. For those in favor of reprinting cards to increase the player base, you're almost certainly looking at closer to the 50% mark, as smaller reprint quantities are going to be less likely to move prices down enough to make Vintage affordable to the average player. Given the current value of many of cards on the reserved list, it isn't unreasonable to expect that damages would be well over $100m, not even counting legal fees (my quick math: $10k for a set of unlimited power * 18,500 sets=$185,000,000 in value, 50% reduction is half of that in damages or $92,500,000 for unlimited power reprints alone).

The prior removal from and foil printings of cards on the reserved likely didn't trigger a lawsuit because of of the smaller values at stake. Most of the cards that were removed from the reserved list were one cent cards regardless of their presence on the list. Similarly, most of the foil printings either (a) came in small enough printings that they didn't affect the value or (b) people didn't care for as much as the original; again not affecting the value.


Sup fellow lawyer.  So how many vintage players are lawyers? We got at least you, me, and Menendian. Seems like i remember a few more on here, too.  We should start a legal journal dedicated to mtg.  Wink
Logged
The Atog Lord
Administrator
Basic User
*****
Posts: 3451


The+Atog+Lord
View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2014, 08:43:51 pm »

Don't forget Demonic Attorney, Brian, and Eastman. I am not a lawyer but have been published in a law journal.
Logged

The Academy: If I'm not dead, I have a Dragonlord Dromoka coming in 4 turns
diopter
I voted for Smmenen!
Basic User
**
Posts: 1049


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2014, 09:13:00 pm »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vintage having a significant presence of "midrange" strategies. The current metagame is amazing.

As for broken turns and being Vintagey and such, any time you play Black Lotus + land into a turn 4 play, you are doing something extremely broken and Vintagey.
Logged
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2014, 08:30:05 am »

I believe the reserve list is a huge red herring.  Wizards can reprint functionally different cards that still fill the same role, such as Legendary Duals or Moxen with some kind of ETB trigger.  This creates a new problem, namely, that now people can play multiple versions of the old powerful cards; unless you do something clunky like have the card itself exile other versions of it.  Still, the list itself is not a real excuse.
Logged
JarofFortune
Basic User
**
Posts: 356



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2014, 11:12:07 am »

I believe the reserve list is a huge red herring.  Wizards can reprint functionally different cards that still fill the same role, such as Legendary Duals or Moxen with some kind of ETB trigger.  This creates a new problem, namely, that now people can play multiple versions of the old powerful cards; unless you do something clunky like have the card itself exile other versions of it.  Still, the list itself is not a real excuse.

Yet Wizards has apologized after printing reverberate for breaking the "spirit" of the list. Legendary Moxen and Snow Duals are the same thing.
Logged

The Auriok have fought the metal hordes for so long now that knowing how to cripple them has become an instinct. -Metal Fatigue
ben_berry
Basic User
**
Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2014, 11:18:37 am »

Well a black border fork is over a $100, white border ~$3. Reverberate meanwhile is $0.18. I don't see what Wizards would have to be apologizing for with it's printing.
Logged
H
Basic User
**
Posts: 310



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2014, 12:17:55 pm »

How about making Magic Online more accessible?  Why are cards still so expensive on there?  It's all make believe, so why can't Lotus be say, $50?

They aren't going to get rid of the reserve list because their business model is to sell Standard.  One way they envision of doing that is to eliminate other options, mainly be allowing people to be priced out, so MTGO is our only real hope for "growing" the format.

On that note, how about ACTUAL support for Vintage online.  Not lip-service to it, but actual decent prizes, events timed when players can actually play (Europe is an actual place, with people who play, you know).
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 08:05:57 pm by H » Logged

"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Tha Gunslinga
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1583


De-Errata Mystical Tutor!

ThaGunslingaMOTL
View Profile Email
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2014, 05:00:33 pm »

I read your post correctly: you think cost is the issue. Cost isn't the issue: no matter how much you're willing to pay for a Black Lotus, no new ones will be printed.

And there are currently dozens of them available for sale on the internet, and far more if you really look.  Supply drives price up but it's not that people can't FIND a Lotus, it's that they can't afford one.  Cost is obviously the issue and I don't understand why you'd say otherwise.
Logged

Don't tolerate splittin'
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.097 seconds with 21 queries.