@moorebrother1 We are essentially saying the same thing on the impact of new cards on Vintage. But why should we ban cards other than the ones that go against what are largely accepted as the most basic aspects of the game, such as those that use the ante mechanic? Using redundancy among different singleton cards is one of the appeals of the format in my opinion. With so many powerful cards available, the interactions between cards make possible, and necessitate (if you want the optimal version of the deck), subtle deck-tuning that you don't usually find in other formats. Having a single copy or two of a card in a Vintage deck can affect how the deck pilots much more than in Modern, for example.

I don't want vintage to become a one-of format like EDH. I think the availability of efficient unrestricted cards would prevent gravitation toward such a meta, anyway. Having impactful singleton cards in the nooks and crannies of the deck alongside the most efficient unrestricted cards printed in the game's lifespan allows the player to explore both the obvious lines and the more intricate plays that nevertheless are usually reliable.

I'm wondering why you want Vintage to start banning cards when there are other formats that have been made, and can be made, that only use cards from older sets.

I love Vintage - and I have massive contempt for the format. My contempt doesn't come from the brokenness of decks. I wasn't even feeling contempt when turn 1 Workshop-> Trinisphere (a.k.a. have FoW or you lose) was common. Granted, I was the one casting trini off workshops, but I digress 😉 .
I feel contempt for 2 reasons. One - I hate blue. I find the overwhelming number of cheap/free counterspells to be discouraging to play against. It's like playing against a shops lock, but it doesn't matter if you are on the play or draw because they have their lock for free on turn 0. I am also bitter that blue has had the most broken spells since the beginning and it continued through Urza's block. Not until afterward did they start balancing the color wheel. Just consider the 1 mana for +3 cycle. Ritual, bolt, healing salve, giant growth, ANCESTRAL FUCKIN RECALL. Counterspells are also the ONLY answer to every spell, permanent or stack. Every color has permanent removal, but only blue can reactively stop spells. Blue also has bounce to remove ANY permanent without restriction. It's just an absurdly unbalanced color.
My second reason for contempt is more for the player base. The people are cool as far as being people. They are shitty for clutching on to the blue vs shops vs dredge triangle that's been vintage since ravnica. Humans is a nice innovation and I love the new survival list. I actually run Dark Depths myself because it is universally deemed fragile and slow - and I love to prove that wrong. I like when people innovate and I like a wealth of different, viable decks (thus why I love Modern now). I can't stand when people take a deck off the internet, swap 4 cards, then add their name to it like they invented the list. Further, most people won't even try to come up with anything new because they figure someone else already made the best deck, so they'll just netdeck it and win without needing to be innovative at all. Most people copy an exact 75, and it is sickening to me. I hate it even more when people take a netdeck, change 2 cards and rename it as if it's their own invention. That's like me taking a stock 60 merfolk deck, swapping 2 silvergils for 2 merfolk tricksters and calling it Miller Merfolk...or taking Huckleberry Finn, rewriting page 67 and saying I wrote the great-American novel with my name on the cover. Magic plagerism, I consider it. Awful (if my contempt didn't come across enough).

I actually think this is all completely off.
The idea that the format is stale (IMHO) is coming from a place of optimism and want for improvement. Not contempt. Vintage would be horrible if it was the same 4 decks getting passed around. People wan't to innovate!
There has to be a reason to do that.

last edited by John Cox

@john-cox I think it's both. I have great optimism (especially as new cards are printed) that new decks and archetypes can become great in Vintage - not just viable. But there is also contempt - in the reluctance of many to try an innovate as opposed to thinking "if it wasn't made/played in the VSL, it CAN'T be viable."

@rat3de hit me up at some point, and I can bring you in something else...

@rat3de If you bought a paper dredge deck for $200, you have to tell me where you are buying your cards. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

Contempt is pretty strong. More indifference from me right now. I share some of the same views made above.

I do feel like vintage has been muddled with the other formats. Many vintage decks are essentially just modern/legacy decks with power. It was not that long ago when vintage decks did not look like decks from any other format.

I don't like a lot of the cards printed recently, especially G.probe, Dig, and Mental Misstep.

Misstep greatly limits my ability to brew which is part of what fuels my fun in an environment.

I don't hate blue, but I do dislike that WOTC gave up on the balancing aspect of blue which was supposed to be poor creatures. Instead, blue has the highest percentage of best creatures among the elite creatures (Delver, Snapcaster, True-name, V.Clique all make my top ten list for best creatures).

Mostly though I am just not that interested in the competitive decks at the moment. I would love for something to shake up the environment in a different way. While PO is fairly new, all it really did was replace storm in the meta so it feels similar. Hollow One just made Dredge competitive again but it's essentially the same deck. I want something that shakes the format up a bit but is not so broken that it's just a short term meta that will be fixed via B&R. I'm not sure what that would take. I think the most obvious way to do this is drastic changes to the current B&R either with a lot of removals or additions, or with some rules changes (like banning instead of restricting) These are very controversial and would bring a bunch of discord. Eventually the meta will shift. It always does and when it does, I'll play more vintage.

@Thewhitedragon69 My LGS allows up to 15 proxies for vintage so all the expensive stuff like Bazaar of Baghdad and Force of Will are proxies. I posted the list in the strategy section and I could update it to show proxies if you would like.

@rbartlet I really appreciate the offer, but I would like to just try the deck right now and play vintage as it will be my first time, and I will be making many rookie mistakes since I get really nervous while playing with adults. If you are going to the tournament this weekend it would be a pleasure to meet you, and I may very well take up the offer at another point in time if I feel the need. I think it is very kind and generous of you to do this and I would just like to say thank you.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Contempt for the meta-game:

@john-cox I think it's both. I have great optimism (especially as new cards are printed) that new decks and archetypes can become great in Vintage - not just viable. But there is also contempt - in the reluctance of many to try an innovate as opposed to thinking "if it wasn't made/played in the VSL, it CAN'T be viable."

But people still change up sideboards and swap in cards, no one plays carbon copies of net deck lists. Thats innovating too.

@john-cox To me, changing a sb to best what you'll face in your local tourney is meta-tuning. That's not innovating. If you go deep into the bin and make a new sb or core strategy revolving a totally chalked-off card and overlap by several cards, I can see that as innovation. Changing a netdeck 75 to swap some number of REBs for mindbreak traps and ingot chewers for by force is hardly innovation. Again, I take my novel analogy. If I took Tom Sawyer and changed a single word on every page, that's not innovation, nor is it my work. Small tweaks are just that - tweaks. Innovation is going a direction nobody else has tried or making cards nobody sees as good into something good.
When slaver, a long time ago, used strategic planning, that's straddling the line between innovation and tweaking. The other 71 cards was about as stock as it gets, but the guy found something new that nobody tried using before. If someone takes 75 and changes 10 cards, but those 10 cards are common substitutions for said cards, that's not innovation. Changing ingot chewers for shattering spree is not innovation.

I think maybe it's also worth saying, that Vintage is a highly rarefied format where pleasure has to be in some part derived from the careful choice of saying: "Yes, yes, but what if I played SNOW COVERED Island? Eh? Eh?"

For me, loving vintage is, at its heart I think, about loving the considered nuance of correctly baiting a FoW, Choosing Inferno Titan over Emrakul, Metamorphing a Sphere when you might want to Metamorph Revoker, or knowing when to 3 for 1 yourself to keep a lock piece off of the board.

I absolutely second @JosefK in that enthusiasm for the format is critical. Being enthusiastic about vintage by and large means being enthusiastic about hairline deck building decisions and the exquisite specificity of the question "Okay, sure, but what do you cut to add [Pet Card] to this already excellent shell?" It's different than being enthusiastic about other formats. Vintage may have the splashiest effects, but sometimes being able to execute those means enjoying the (sometimes rather tedious) process of making profound decisions like: "Add Delta here? Or Strand? Hmmm."

As an aside to point of access. I think many here might agree that in many ways, because of proxies/playtest cards, Vintage is much more accessible than other formats.

As such, it makes me wonder if people are just turned off a format where they might lose to a deck with a Basic Plains Sharpie Lotus. It's as if players double down on the "You have to own the cards to play the game" mentality, and as such shut themselves out of some of the most fun magic gameplay there is!

@thewhitedragon69 said in Contempt for the meta-game:

Changing ingot chewers for shattering spree is not innovation.

What about for Offalsnouts?

  • 24
  • 2577