I think your "schools" approach feels a bit... shoehorn-y at times (in that Rob Hahn might not translate that well to
Having said that, as a combo player combo decks by their very nature are very disparate in a way control and aggro really aren't. Decks like ProsBloom, Metalworker, Doomsday, Dredge, etc. function so differently it's hard to categorize them together. Speaking of which, was there a Type I combo deck before Type II ProsBloom hit the scene? If not, maybe that's a good place to start.
To be clear: that's not how I classify decks within the "Combo School." The combo decks that are included in the "Restricted List Combo School" follow a very specific play pattern that includes: lots of mana acceleration, a high density of restricted cards, and a number of tutors (often unrestricted), and either a big mana or storm finisher (e.g. Fireball, Kaeverk's Torch, Tendrils of Agony), or recursive elements (like Twister loops or a bigYawg Will). Thus, decks in this school include: Pre-DCI Lotus/Twister decks, 1997 Prosperity Vice, 1997/8 Doomsday (recursion deck with Timetwister), 1998-2002 Academy, 2002 Burning Long, 2003-2008 TPS, 2005-6 Grim Long, Burning Oath, Dark Petition Storm, etc.
These are decks that follow the basic play pattern of: 1) generate lots of mana -> 2) draw or otherwise see lots of cards -> 3) play a critical mass finisher. They feature as high density of mana, and very few finishers (a single Fireball or Tendrils often). And they very often use disruption to protect this plan, like Duress, Defense Grid, Abeyance, City of Solitude, Xantid Swarm, Force of Will, etc. But if you map 2002 Burning Long and 2015 DPS, it's basically the same scaffolding, just different cards in that slot. No different with other Schools, like comparing 1994 The Deck with 2002 Keeper, except that the win conditions change (i.e. Morphling over Serra Angel, etc.)
Combo decks that are focused on assembling two random cards don't fall into this school.
ProsBloom was never a tournament level Type I deck because you didn't need Cadaverous Bloom.
That being said- in your position, I'd focus on the decks. Tell us when new, interesting things happened that changed the way we think about and play Vintage (or even Magic as a whole). Tell us those stories. Weave together the fabric of the format by showing us the world as it was when it changed greatly. What was it like when Comer figured out how to Xerox? How did it change the landscape? Which darlings did it kill? Which did it foster? How does it influence what we're doing today? The same for Shops (the more control variants, the ones today are really just Zoo decks imo) and Dredge and Oath and Control (the Deck, of course, comes to mind!). The schools can be your invisible scaffolding, that which guides you in delivering the stories, but they need not be the exoskeleton that binds the body from the outside and is all that's visible to the onlooker.
In any case, I do all of these things, but the Aggro Shops decks are still very obviously Aggro O'Brien School decks, which played with 4 Juggernaut and 4 Juzam in some cases.
Thanks to everyone who replied: it affirmed my inclination, which is to take a hybrid approach rather than trying to insist upon a player name for each school.
@loukayza Hum, I didn't see that. Was watching through my 4G connection on my cellphone and had to turn it off several times - which is why I'm asking what happened. Didn't know if they followed it up or not. Good to know
In current sets, no. All things at a given rarity are on the sheet for that rarity the same number of times. For rares and mythics, the rare sheet has one of each mythic and two of each rare. Collation issues can come up in a given box with (un)commons repeating in a pattern but average out. For sets with doublefaced cards in their own slot have a slightly different actual rarity for DFCs than normal cards with the same nominal rarity.
A couple of people have brought up the idea that Wizards won't risk altering the RL list because there isn't enough incentive, because these players are such a minority. But I don't exactly agree with that. They already have way to completely remove the barrier to entry without intervening with the RL policy at all, which is to simply ban all RL cards in all formats.
New Legacy; this would honestly be a miserable format. It would be marginally different than Modern, only slightly bumped up because of some stuff like FoW an Brainstorm. It will still be a terrible aggro format since everyone is paying like 8 life off their lands.
It is a really poor gameplay/game design decision to just ban cards based on their price or availability. Bans always have been, and should be, based on power level and effect on format.
And Vintage with no RL would be even worse... Would there even be a reason to make two identical card pool sets and just randomly decide to have different balists? Reserve list cards is what makes these formats.
but what I'm suggesting by the loss of faith is that even if the lawsuit couldn't happen (like with banning all RL cards, rather than reprinting them) or if the lawsuit happened and WOTC won, the consequences would still be pretty much the same. People would quit, investors would leave, and WOTC would lose a lot of money. I'm saying the market is a bigger factor in addition to the litigation.
Investors and collectors of the reserve list are not the people who are buying standard packs. Standard packs are mostly consumed by standard and limited players, most of whom do not play legacy and vintage.
@The_Gremlin_Lord Not really sure any part of your terrible attitude is helping, so if that's how you feel maybe you should find yourself somewhere else instead.
Hypothetical card design ideas here are not intended to inspire Wotc or gain legitimacy (or at least i didn't think anyone thought they were drawing Wotc attention), so i kind of think you are missing the point, which is discussion among fans about what we could see, want to see, or should see.
As others have said, it is up to the individual TO. The TSO tournaments I run in Ohio are fairly casual and so I allow a wide variety of proxies (CE cards, blank World Championship cards, etc). EE might be a bit more strict, so double-check the rules.
For what to actually write on the cards - make sure that the name, mana cost, and supertypes are obvious. The full exact oracle text doesn't really have to be there, but if you can fit it in that's nice to have.
I dont think its fair to pin the problems of the format on data collection. There was a ton of discussion surrounding restriction of Shops prior to Vintage on MTGO ever even existing. Instead it just used anecdotal evidence and the limited data that we were able to collect from paper tournaments. I think you are both conflating the increased monitoring of ourselves with the increased monitoring of Wizards / Pro Players.
Many of these restrictions should have happened years ago, but Wizards was not paying attention to the format. Shops at its height was extremely oppressive and overpowering. For years your deck was irrelevant without having a very strong game plan for that deck. Storm combo ceased to exist even in small numbers during that time period, and tailored anti-shops decks were solid budget decks for those entering the format.