Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?

@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.

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

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.

While this is true in the reality of it all, I always personally hated this argument. It is elitist - which the world is, I understand - but also implies there is no interest in facing the best of the best in cardboard battle...just the best of the wealthy.

I'd agree that they shouldn't join for free, but there's a difference between paying $50 to play and $25K to play.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

Vintage is primarily an online format now. Paper Vintage is more of a novelty than the best place to get competitive games. For that reason, I’d say little to no proxy events are better.

I only have a paper vintage deck to look at. It's mostly russian and has no proxies. I would never play a deck with a proxy in it in vintage.

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

While this is true in the reality of it all, I always personally hated this argument. It is elitist - which the world is, I understand - but also implies there is no interest in facing the best of the best in cardboard battle...just the best of the wealthy.

The whole format is elitist, it is the nature of the beast and one of its features, not a bug. Most eternal formats in most games are. If you want accessibility limited is a lot more open.

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

The whole format is elitist, it is the nature of the beast and one of its features, not a bug. Most eternal formats in most games are. If you want accessibility limited is a lot more open.

Why is it a feature?

@garbageaggro

Standard developer cover-up to start calling glitches, features.

The format for Magic is a concession to the fact that they did not know what they were doing with card designs at the onset of the game. Banned and restricted lists were pieced together to give the format some structure to make it possible, but it is still a format of overpowered cards from the dawn of the game that will not be reprinted, in part created to placate card speculators so that there reserve list cards held value. I think I can reasonably say that if the lotus and moxen were not legal in any format they would drop in price as they would be relegated to collectors items.

Look at the eternal formats for any CCG that has lasted the test of time. Either the stuff from the early sets were vastly underpowered and therefor a non issue for players wishing to join the format, typically games that learned from Magics mis-steps, or they are in the same situation where the barrier to entry is much higher.

Elite players tend not to like to think of themselves as breathing rarefied air, same as how millionaires like to think they are "of the people", but the very fact that you are posting on this forum does in fact carry with it some level of elitism because you play a format of magic with a super high barrier to entry and a staunched, somewhat clique based community.

I'll equate this tread to a current political discussion. You are looking to make the format more accessible to people who do not currently play it, but instead of offering up the answer that could actually get us there, which would be removing the reserve list (the actual source of the issue) and reprinting vintage staples, you are trying to find a work around because you know that the actual solution will not happen because the people who call the shots wont move on it. It is a similar argument to the war on drugs right now. Instead of solving the problem of illegal drug which leads to crime, health issues, etc with the use of programs that are known to work, like early intervention, health care, legalization and regulation, your just doling out narcan to people to prevent people from dying and saying that since they are no longer dying job is done.

Making the format a proxy only format is not seeing the forest for the trees.

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

The format for Magic is a concession to the fact that they did not know what they were doing with card designs at the onset of the game. Banned and restricted lists were pieced together to give the format some structure to make it possible, but it is still a format of overpowered cards from the dawn of the game that will not be reprinted, in part created to placate card speculators so that there reserve list cards held value. I think I can reasonably say that if the lotus and moxen were not legal in any format they would drop in price as they would be relegated to collectors items.

Look at the eternal formats for any CCG that has lasted the test of time. Either the stuff from the early sets were vastly underpowered and therefor a non issue for players wishing to join the format, typically games that learned from Magics mis-steps, or they are in the same situation where the barrier to entry is much higher.

Elite players tend not to like to think of themselves as breathing rarefied air, same as how millionaires like to think they are "of the people", but the very fact that you are posting on this forum does in fact carry with it some level of elitism because you play a format of magic with a super high barrier to entry and a staunched, somewhat clique based community.

I'll equate this tread to a current political discussion.

usually this is a bad move

yes, removing the reserve list would remove a large barrier to entry into vintage (not all of them), but it wouldn't be a silver bullet for growing the format*. however, we don't have power to remove the reserve list. we do have the power to run proxy events.

*decks would still be expensive unless wotc decided to print virtually unlimited amounts of power and duals and all the other expensive cards.

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

usually this is a bad move
yes, removing the reserve list would remove a large barrier to entry into vintage (not all of them), but it wouldn't be a silver bullet for growing the format*. however, we don't have power to remove the reserve list. we do have the power to run proxy events.
*decks would still be expensive unless wotc decided to print virtually unlimited amounts of power and duals and all the other expensive cards.

They did do this. MTGO. Literally unlimited numbers of power cards can be "printed" and are still to this day being circulated into the environment, and I would venture a guess to say that it did in fact win over some new players. It would work in paper to if they had a reasonable plan to circulate new copies of power cards to players. No it is not the only answer, but is it the most prominent one.

I suspect that if you really wanted to open up the format for more players you would need to have more truly viable pillars of decks that did not have intersecting cards. Besides the financial ramifications of it, there simply is not a deck type in vintage that appeals to every player. There is no true aggro, there is no true burn, and depending on how you label it there is no true midrange. Lotus and moxen are in basically every deck that is not bazaar, and it just ads a level of sameiness to it all from the outside looking in.

Everyone can go ahead and play basketball all they want. They can make their own leagues, teams, develop house rules, record it and stream it on YouTube. But those players have no entitlement to the NBA sponsoring those events or allowing them to play on their professional courts. The NBA would be under no obligation to change the rules of the NBA to accommodate for the fact that the league plays with a shot clock of a different length. The NBA in this case is the elite sports organizations and they get to set their own rules and will nary shed a tear if you cannot play on a professional team. This is analogous to the situation we are currently in.

last edited by Protoaddict

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

Why is it a feature?

to make an argument I'm not sure is convincing-

high buy-in seems to lead to vintage players being easier to deal with than modern/standard.

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

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

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.

While this is true in the reality of it all, I always personally hated this argument. It is elitist - which the world is, I understand - but also implies there is no interest in facing the best of the best in cardboard battle...just the best of the wealthy.

I'd agree that they shouldn't join for free, but there's a difference between paying $50 to play and $25K to play.

My point was that it's all relative. I'd love to do F1 racing. I can't even proxy that. I mean ... I can play Need for Speed. If Vintage were the only way to play Magic out there it would feel more constraining. But there are 10 other formats, all more widely played than vintage. But one persons Type II is another persons Type I in terms of cost. $50 won't get you close to a mythic laden Type II deck. It might get you a Pauper deck (I don't actually know?). It's just a race to the bottom, somebody won't even be willing to pay the $50. Then you don't have anyone with a business interest in producing new functional product.

I'd rather play in a 20 person event with real cards than a 40 person event with sharpied Scalding Tarns. It's that off putting for me. I prioritize champs every year not only because it attracts the folks who dedicate most of their 'magic time' to Vintage but also because I don't have to stare at a Plains with Mox Pearl scrawled on it.

Again ... step one is the obvious easy legalization of IE/CE. We have legal Magic cards with puzzle card backs. We even have a warped foil policy in place for some of the wretched promos not available in non-foil.

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

Vintage is primarily an online format now. Paper Vintage is more of a novelty than the best place to get competitive games. For that reason, I’d say little to no proxy events are better.

They have enough differences that I'd say you get a different game experience. Paper Magic is governed by different rules and has a human element, some people like that others don't.

It's strange to me that I never hear people talk about enforced proxy quality. I'm a big fan of proxy events, I have been forever, but I, too, feel the pain of the sharpied Scalding Tarn.

Sometime back in the golden ages, I was an SCG Power 9 event. My opponent cast a Null Rod off of a basic Forest, and then next turn a Tarmogoyf, and that Tarmogoyf killed me. Except the Forest was a Mox Emerald proxy done in ballpoint pen that I couldn't read, and I didn't notice it was a Mox until the turn after he illegally tapped it for mana. I called the judge but it was too late to roll back, and I lost to the Tarmogoyf, knocking me out of the event.

But there's a false dichotomy here which is annoying. There's no reason you can't run an event and say "You can run proxies but they have to be legible." For me, the best proxy is a computer printout, on a plain piece of paper, cut out and put in a sleeve in front of another card. I use these for testing and for lower-key paper events. There's never any confusion, and when effort is taken to print the image out at the right size with the right sized border, bystanders and opponents rarely notice I'm playing with proxies at all.

Is this kind of proxy possibly marked? probably. Is it as marked as a double-sleeved foil? not even close.

Sure, you're asking players to take slightly more effort when making their decks, but this seems like an incredibly low bar compared to sanctioned play. Asking them to spend a few minutes with a printer doesn't really feel in the same ballpark as asking them to spend $20,000 - which, of course, they're always welcome to do if they don't feel like making proxies.

Just asking people to make nicer proxies doesn't solve every problem everyone has with playtest cards, but it does solve a very big one, and it's really weird to me that nobody ever seems to bring it up.

last edited by Brass Man

@brass-man said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

It's strange to me that I never hear people talk about enforced proxy quality. I'm a big fan of proxy events, I have been forever, but I, too, feel the pain of the sharpied Scalding Tarn.

Sometime back in the golden ages, I was an SCG Power 9 event. My opponent cast a Null Rod off of a basic Forest, and then next turn a Tarmogoyf, and that Tarmogoyf killed me. Except the Forest was a Mox Emerald proxy done in ballpoint pen that I couldn't read, and I didn't notice it was a Mox until the turn after he illegally tapped it for mana. I called the judge but it was too late to roll back, and I lost to the Tarmogoyf, knocking me out of the event.

Wow ... that's rough justice.

It also negatively impacts video coverage. For example, the NYSE coverage, while free entertainment was totally unwatchable because of some of the atrocious proxy quality (plus the normal struggles of paper Magic coverage like glare).

@nedleeds Totally agree on the coverage front. Video coverage isn't something we really cared about as a game/community 5 years ago, but it's becoming a much bigger part of what it means to be a magic player. Some proxies/playtest cards are camera-friendly, but most are very much not.

@brass-man said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

But there's a false dichotomy here which is annoying. There's no reason you can't run an event and say "You can run proxies but they have to be legible." For me, the best proxy is a computer printout, on a plain piece of paper, cut out and put in a sleeve in front of another card. I use these for testing and for lower-key paper events. There's never any confusion, and when effort is taken to print the image out at the right size with the right sized border, bystanders and opponents rarely notice I'm playing with proxies at all.

So this brings up the argument of what is the difference between a really good proxy and a counterfeit. Since we are not selling the proxies we can put the discussion of morality/ethics aside, but once again going back to the OP why would WOTC enable this? Why would we buy cards from them if we could just print them out?

Yes, I agree there needs to be a standard for proxies if you intend to use them, I just don't think you should use them. There is no other format where people are clamoring for this, even though there are some decks in legacy that are now pushing up against the edges of vintage prices and quite frankly, affordability is subjective. Hell, standard is mostly more costly than vintage in the long run because cards are replaced so frequently and tend not to hold value, but no standard players are asking for a break.

Once again, sanctioning and coverage are the only things that are at all different here. WOTC would not sanction a proxy event, nor would they broadcast one where you can see fake cards on screen. If you can deal without those 2 things then you already have all the ability to run proxy events with whatever criteria you would like to have them in.

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

@brass-man said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

But there's a false dichotomy here which is annoying. There's no reason you can't run an event and say "You can run proxies but they have to be legible." For me, the best proxy is a computer printout, on a plain piece of paper, cut out and put in a sleeve in front of another card. I use these for testing and for lower-key paper events. There's never any confusion, and when effort is taken to print the image out at the right size with the right sized border, bystanders and opponents rarely notice I'm playing with proxies at all.

So this brings up the argument of what is the difference between a really good proxy and a counterfeit. Since we are not selling the proxies we can put the discussion of morality/ethics aside, but once again going back to the OP why would WOTC enable this? Why would we buy cards from them if we could just print them out?

Yes, I agree there needs to be a standard for proxies if you intend to use them, I just don't think you should use them. There is no other format where people are clamoring for this, even though there are some decks in legacy that are now pushing up against the edges of vintage prices and quite frankly, affordability is subjective. Hell, standard is mostly more costly than vintage in the long run because cards are replaced so frequently and tend not to hold value, but no standard players are asking for a break.

Once again, sanctioning and coverage are the only things that are at all different here. WOTC would not sanction a proxy event, nor would they broadcast one where you can see fake cards on screen. If you can deal without those 2 things then you already have all the ability to run proxy events with whatever criteria you would like to have them in.

One concrete example of WotCs take were the printed proxies from I think Cool Stuff Inc? They were actual commissioned art and the cards read "Ruby" etc. they clearly weren't real magic cards and didn't even say "Add Red Stuff" and they still got cease and desisted.

I can't find pictures at the moment.

I lied, Gaming Etc. did them

alt text

last edited by nedleeds
  • 87
    Posts
  • 2760
    Views