contributors to the TMD Patreon!
We had 9 people come out to battle some vintage. After 5 rounds of Swiss +1, these were the results:
David Lance – Survival (5-0 )
Yuriy Yatskiv - Ravager Shops (3-2)
Nat Moes – Bomberman (3-2)
Nam Tran – 2 Card Monte (3-2)
The Twitch stream VOD has been uploaded to our youtube, which can be found here.
Thanks to everyone that came to play! Hope to see you at the next TSO!
Sulfur elemental was a mainstay in 4 mentor land, but anymore, i don't know if it is worth the slot, can you talk more about wanting that as a sideboard card?
Bazaar of Baghdad is the problem, and would be easily restrictable if not for its iconic status implied by the Forsythe tweet, it would be removable. Since it isn't, all we have left are mitigating measures.
I think this is the part people have an issue with. I just don't buy that bazaar is "easily restrictable". By the numbers bazaar decks just aren't good enough to support the claim that they need a restriction. The basis of the OP is that results aren't everything, which I can grant you. However, if the main other factor is fun had by the people playing, it hard to get objective or far-reaching about that.
Your fun and my fun are different. I don't believe there is a consensus about bazaar and fun. There is no massive outcry about non-matches as there was with Trinisphere (which by the way exceeded dredge in metagame percentage at the time of the "no fun" restriction). There is no time constraint, like there has been with Top in multiple formats. So what is the basis, the only thing that it appears you can be arguing for is your fun is impacted. I think it is perfectly valid to say that, but I also believe that is not a sufficient argument to get a card banned.
I also think more cards from shops would be banned now because for many people (dare I say more than dislike dredge) playing against artifact prison pieces is their least favorite thing in magic, but I hope that doesn't happen. Side note: The thing i have actually heard most in playing magic for 20+ years is "counterspells aren't fun", I hope the people that control the B&R list for vintage don't get wind of that.
That's pretty insane. It also means it's really incumbent on Vintage players on MTGO to try to make the case, one way or the other. Dredgeapolooza.
"fair" and "interactive" are superficially neutral concepts, but actually deeply biased. At core, they favor decks that are slower on the strategy wheel, and require many turns to win, rather than strategies that tend to be faster than average. That's why they are concepts that should be viewed quite skeptically by policymakers. "Fairness" and "interactivity" would place decks like Landstill on the safest part of a continuum or spectrum, regardless of how such decks actually perform. That's one reason why such concepts should never be given too much credit in terms of B&R policymaking. They are hopelessly biased in favor of control decks. That's why decks like The Deck got a pass in the mid-1990s, when they shouldn't have. Applying an empirical analysis would have revealed how dominant the deck was, and in need of regulation, as Old School communities realized.
Nice, I was hoping they'd keep this going. Prize pool seems reasonable; given the price of power, I understand how they can't offer a full set.
(I won't be able to make this for a variety of reasons, but really enjoyed the last Power 9 and highly recommend it.)
Event poster's still MIA, but we've got our 1st-place proxy!
I made a post a year or two ago that attempted to discuss whether certain cards should become sacred cows or not (at the time saying, "should the printing of a new card like Hangarback, be able to precipitate the restriction of an iconic card like Workshop"). Like all posts during that period, it quickly devolved into an "I hate Workshop, I love Workshop" post and lost sight of the original intent.
One of my favorite things about Vintage is the ability to form long term relationships with certain cards.
I think this is why you, personally, can justify banning a card like Dig Through Time, but not Demonic Tutor or Force of Will. Our memories of Dig Through Time are short. Our memories of Demonic are infinite (just like Workshop vs. Foundry Inspector). I don't think too many people would bemoan the loss of a "newer" card in favor of preserving an old one.
I think this is why looking at B&R strictly through empirical data is difficult (as you seem to agree), as the presence of Sacred Cows dilutes much of that value. If we were being honest, half the B&R is probably being propped up by our affinity to certain cards.
This is why I agree with you that it is a "feel" thing. My only issue is arbitrating "feel." It is about as subjective as you can get. For instance I love Phyrexian Revoker, as it's one of the only tools Shops has anymore to deal with a blowout card. I would gladly trade the Arcbound decks of now for the Lodestone/Stax decks of yesterday. You on the other hand have hated the card for years.
I know in the past you have supported Sacred Cows. How do you recommend we do that and by what criteria? For many years, Bazaar was synonymous with Dredge. Nowadays, you could hit 2-3 varied archetypes.
How do you reconcile empirical data with "feel" data and what would be the best way to do that aside from committee? Right now, it just comes down to decibels (frequency and volume). Do you preserve cards or decks? And how?
Old School players prefer to play with mana burn, even though that no longer exists in Magic.
I play Alpha40, which uses no mulligans at all, and the player who goes first draws on their first turn.
It’s not hard to remember.
Also, I have always hated the scry mulligan in Old School. I wouldn’t permit it at all.
I don’t consider any paticular mulligan to be a “core” magic mechanic.
Those are casual formats, Steve, it's way different than official, sanctioned formats. Differences between Limited and Constructed are so big that having 40/60 cards is inconsequential. That said, I also think that if it's necessary I wouldn't have issues with different mulligans for different formats, as long as it's a last resort only policy and that the formats with the different mulligan have something very distinct to remember which one(s) have it. For example, if it's only 1 format (like everyone gets Vancouver except Standard, or everyone gets London except Vintage) or if it's something like "all Eternal formats stay on Vancouver" - but just to show how confusing that could be, there are a LOT of players that think Modern is an Eternal format, so even that would be a problem hahaha
Magic tournament floor rules change regularly.
Players are expected to be up to date on countless areas of minutia, from errata to triggers to mulligan rules. I have lost games and received tournament penalties for applying out-dated rules in tournament contexts, because I was unaware of a relevant change, including the countless changes around triggers. I'm sure many players forget to 'scry' in Vintage games, especially old time players.
I'm not advocating that Vintage has it's own mulligan rule. But the idea that such an approach is too administratively cumbersome, inefficient, complex or challenging is not particularly convincing. Especially given the innumerable ways I've already listed in which formats differ or the innumerable rules changes over the years that players must adapt to.
While it's true that many rules changes are ostensibly universal across formats, the reality is that many rules have unequal effects across formats. The removal of interrupts from the game of magic basically only impacts Vintage and Legacy today.
Players already have to track numerous facets of game play. It's trivial for a judge to remind players at the beginning of a tournament what mulligan rule is in force, or whatnot. Just as they do about banned and restricted lists follow B&R changes.
The fact that there have been so many different mulligan rules in Magic - as covered in this podcast - illustrates that mulliganining is not a 'core' Magic mechanic.
People thought that separating the Type I and Type II B&R list was too administratively cumbersome, and it was done. Same with Type I and Type I.5. A separate Vintage or Legacy 'mulligan' rule is far less disruptive than, say, the removal of the stack during combat or changes in how optional triggers are handled.