Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?

@moorebrother1 said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

I think Wizards should support this and just print good proxies for old cards.

Honestly one of the most fun things to me would be if they brought back gold-bordered cards and printed a whole bunch of old stuff to demand. That would be a great way to support not just Vintage but Commander and Old School formats as well.

last edited by craw_advantage

@khahan my objection is not to 10-15 proxys, but to 45-75 proxys. Proxys need to be capped, and 15 cards represents 25% of your main deck; A generous portion. I will also reiterate my concerns regarding greater number of proxys leading to more Counterfeits. If the collective TOs in the room (which I believe you are one of) disagree that there is a connection, then I will defer to that experience.

I agree with 10 proxy. I think 100% of Vintage should be proxy allowed, but not all Vintage be 100% proxy. I took the thread to mean all Vintage should allow some number of proxies (like 10-15). I think that helps reduce the barrier to entry. 100% proxy would be ugly.

@craw_advantage when I hear people talk about accessibility I often mentally picture someone who already has a legacy deck as the person trying to get into vintage; someone with duals/fetches/forces/jaces can play vintage with 10-15 proxies, or someone playing ancient tomb/chalice decks in legacy getting into shops, or throwing solomoxcrypt into their modern eldrazi deck(rip).

last edited by BlindTherapy

This is all, at the end of the day, a moot issue. WOTC will never make any format a proxy format, and you are already perfectly welcome to make your own tourneys with your own rules as it stands. Sanctioning is really the only thing that differentiates this.

There is a better chance that at the end of the day WOTC just stops supporting vintage and gives it to the players to run, which is in my eyes the same as just killing the format.

All of this is just trying to come up with answers to the other intractable issue that is causing these high prices, which is the reserve list, which will also never go away. There are some cards on that list you can likely remedy like Bazaar, tabdernacle, etc by just making them legendary snow or what have you, but you will never fix lotus or moxen without creating lists that attack on different vectors like dredge or some sort of null rod list that wants no moxen or lotus.

@blindtherapy said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

let's say the replacement card is good enough, dredge is still a competitively viable deck with 1 bazaar and 4 of the new card, and needs no other reserve list cards- I think bazaar just hits 3 grand in that scenario

I'm not sure why you think that. Right now the cost is 100% driven by lack of supply and the fact that you need 4 of them. If you literally quadrupled the supply of available playable sets I really cannot imagine the cost skyrocketing. I don't think it would precipitously drop, but to increase immediately after a ban seems counter to how we know the market functions. It also runs in the face of the price of things like moxen which are more prominent in more decks and do not even carry that price tag. If anything it's price would be closer to Library of Alexandria, which is another restricted reserve list card of equal rarity from the same set which probably sees about as much play in this scenario.

restricting bazaar for price reasons is also just a bad idea for the obvious reason that bazaar allows the only viable deck to exist for less than the cost of a lotus, which every other deck needs, most with quite a few moxen. It's not easy to make a hatebear deck that doesn't want lotus and on color moxen, even with null rod effects in it.

I don't think you can restrict it without a replacement, because unlike shops there is no Tolarian academy or Ancient tomb for back up. I suspect that in commander product or another Horizions set you could get away with printing a legendary land that had some sort of looting ability on it that could function as the new bazaar without breaking legacy. It would depower the deck to some extent, though at the same time it would be similar to how shops gets in effect 5 shops when you count academy. Frankly I think we take for granted the fact that dredge needs no mana now, I wouldn't even be against forcing them to run something like faithless looting and mana, but you would have to restrict MM in that case.

Restricting shop for price reasons is just a joke, as a shops deck has over 10k in non shops cards in it given lotus+moxen alone.

Shops should honestly just be restricted though, price point and this topic aside. It would at least open up the supply of the card for higher end commander players while also helping tone down the most problematic and costly list in the format.

last edited by Protoaddict

@blindtherapy said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

@craw_advantage when I hear people talk about accessibility I often mentally picture someone who already has a legacy deck as the person trying to get into vintage; someone with duals/fetches/forces/jaces can play vintage with 10-15 proxies, or someone playing ancient tomb/chalice decks in legacy getting into shops, or throwing solomoxcrypt into their modern eldrazi deck(rip).

I think this is a pretty common way that people look at this, but I also wonder if it's a little outdated. I don't think people necessarily work their way backwards through formats the way they might have once, and Legacy itself is also prohibitively expensive at this point, which is definitely shrinking the player base by keeping people out and which will probably lead to versions of this thread popping up on The Source a few years from now if nothing changes about the reserve list.

Ultimately, the question is just what people want the future of the paper format to look like. If you want it to grow, I don't see any way to encourage that that doesn't include being very liberal with proxies. That's not a priority for everybody though, and if what people want is an format that is mostly online-only but has a handful of high-profile paper events a year, that could be ok too.

last edited by craw_advantage

@craw_advantage The prospect of only having 2 or 3 paper events is the reality of Vintage right now. The interesting thing is that Old School has several well attended paper events without proxies.

I can barely keep up with the number of Old School events and the attendance is typically more that 32. I picked that because it is the So Many Insane Plays cutoff.

Is this more of a card pool issue? Is it nostalgia? Why is that player base able to sustain more events, at least for now, for paper events?

last edited by moorebrother1

@moorebrother1 My opinion as a relative outsider (I have never played in a paper Vintage tournament) is that the format seems to be serving two masters right now. For a lot of people who play online or at the large events, or people who are picking up the format now because it's pretty accessible online, it's a competitive format, not too different from legacy or modern besides being higher-powered, that they want to brew and play within the same way as other formats. For a lot of people who play in local paper tournaments who have been bought in for a long time, it does seem to have more of a nostalgia component, and it does seem to be more about hanging out with friends, playing decks they find fun, and not really worrying too much about winning. And I think old school formats are probably a lot better at scratching the itch for a large portion of that latter group (which is why it seems to be quite a bit more popular). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people running small-scale vintage tournaments now start transitioning to 93/94 over the next couple years for that reason. As far as how it can be successful without allowing proxies, I think it's just that it's more squarely pitched at its target audience: old school is fundamentally for people who have a lot of old cards that they want to play with.

last edited by craw_advantage

@thewhitedragon69 said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

It's not about making more deck types in the format.

@moorebrother1 said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

I think there is room in Vintage for many more decks in the meta-game and I think the cost is preventing new players from getting into paper.

Ok, buddy. I'll answer the OP's question while you answer the ghosts in your head.

@protoaddict said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

I have 0 interest in playing any format as a Proxy format, high cost or not.

Making your own game pieces is one step removed from this format just becoming a fan driven format where we start developing our own card designs. The more it becomes like that the less WOTC would ever support it to the point where it would kill the format itself, and I would much rather have a restrictive format than a dead one.

This 100%. We might as well be Decipher Star Wars. Nobody has a right to play or engage in any commercially supported (by WotC in this case) hobby for free. Vintage, Legacy, Draft or F1 racing ... they are all expensive hobbies from the point of view of different people.

That being said, local events held for no prizes in venues with beer flying around make sense for proxies if only to keep the absurdly valuable cards from getting destroyed.

If you want to play Vintage for less than paper there is MTGO. If you want to just play Vintage with friends there's nothing stopping you from proxying or using Cockatrice.

If you want to play sanctioned paper Vintage there's nothing that says you have to play powered. Many organizers have generously added budget prizes. Certainly printings in the last 5 years have introduced some bonkers additions to non-under-powered decks.

@moorebrother1 said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

@craw_advantage The prospect of only having 2 or 3 paper events is the reality of Vintage right now. The interesting thing is that Old School has several well attended paper events without proxies.

I can barely keep up with the number of Old School events and the attendance is typically more that 32. I picked that because it is the So Many Insane Plays cutoff.

Is this more of a card pool issue? Is it nostalgia? Why is that player base able to sustain more events, at least for now, for paper events?

Most North American Old School events allow IE/CE. They should have been legalized for sanctioned Magic years ago with Innistrads introduction of not Magic backed Magic cards.

@moorebrother1 said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

@craw_advantage The prospect of only having 2 or 3 paper events is the reality of Vintage right now. The interesting thing is that Old School has several well attended paper events without proxies.

I can barely keep up with the number of Old School events and the attendance is typically more that 32. I picked that because it is the So Many Insane Plays cutoff.

Is this more of a card pool issue? Is it nostalgia? Why is that player base able to sustain more events, at least for now, for paper events?

Old School events have great turnout because they are fun, and very different from sanctioned magic tournaments. They're usually in a venue that serves drinks, and they're run by community members who do a lot of work to make sure everyone has a good time. That sort of event doesn't exist for Vintage at the moment.

I totally agree that vintage events should be allow proxies. All of the events that I have run allowed proxies. But if you want to get new blood in, you have to convince them that it's worth their time to build a deck (or borrow one) and show up.

So I can't speak for everything regarding Old School vs Vintage, but I've found the breakneck pace with which people demand change in Vintage to be extremely harmful to paper Vintage. Since MODO moves so much faster, people are tired of a new metagame in a week and begin to loudly proclaim on social media and wherever else that the format "sucks" and that we need a change and X should be restricted and whatever else.

On the flip side, we used to have one Vintage event every few months. When you have zero investment in a format that you're sure is going to change by the time the next event comes around, it's really not something you want to get into. Add onto the fact that people loudly proclaim the format isn't fun when you've barely begun to even play it, and it's not hard to see that there is not much desire to play. We no longer have Vintage events every few months.

Old School, on the other hand, fulfils this desire extremely well. This is why I don't believe proxies will do much to change anything since the cards clearly exist. The desire to play Vintage as it currently is just isn't compatible with what players on MTGO want.

The thoughts that a proxy change would greatly increase Vintage's footprint are just as flawed as the thoughts that getting rid of the reserve list will cause vintage / legacy to become a premiere format. MTGO helped prove that this theory is false. MTGO proved that the price wall is not limiter as both Vintage and Legacy are, in general, less expensive to play than modern yet the participation levels for modern are exponentially higher. The gains of such a change end up being for a very small subset after the initial curiosity wears down.

@trius mtgo is not a vacuum; people can play modern on mtgo to practice for paper events much more than vintage/legacy players are, which is probably part of why there's more demand and higher prices for modern. I would expect that if vintage was everywhere in paper, affordable in paper, had regular GPs, etc, we would see more of it on mtgo as well.

You guys a bit hard to read. So, the take away is some proxies are good but this won’t grow the format. I guess I’ll just plan to attend the 2 major events and try to drive 2 or 3 hours once a month to play some paper vintage.

What about my other point? Does anyone think that MTGO is expensive for what it is? It could just be me.

@moorebrother1 mtgo is cheaper for vintage than modern, and not that much for a hobby really-with the deck rental services I think it's like 40 a month, plus whatever your event entry fees are.

I'm unsure what this thread is even trying to accomplish anymore. Literally anyone who wants to run a full proxy event can do so, right now. Go ahead. Prove to me that proxies would get a massive player surge.

It is patently stupid to expect WOTC to sanction it. You may as well ask them to support us using transformers cards in our decks as well because at least that is a product they make. Or Un-cards. Besides being a slippery slope to start with, they have no incentive to do this at all because it simpily will not grow the format in any sustainable way and will not make them any money. End of story.

@protoaddict said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

You may as well ask them to support us using transformers cards in our decks as well because at least that is a product they make.

https://scryfall.com/card/h17/1/grimlock-dinobot-leader-grimlock-ferocious-king

@shopsaholic Didn't catch that comment. I don't know if proxies, or lack of, is a barrier to new decks, but it is a barrier to players joining paper vintage.

  • 87
    Posts
  • 2764
    Views