Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017



  • Honestly not buying into shops needing any restrictions. To be honest shops have been better positioned in the meta ever since golem was restricted and the reason is simple enough: before you had to play 7-8 anti shops hate in your sideboard if you even wanted to compete, and almost immediately after golem getting the hammer people drastically cut on sideboard hate. So basically people kept the same shops matchups except they could get away with running a lot less hate...
    When people start respecting the deck again and go back to real sideboard plans I doubt this will be an issue. Remember there is no insane golem tempo or cutting you off of efficient answers with chalice anymore, so the deck will no longer be able to maintain dtb status if it's being gunned for.



  • @vaughnbros said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    @themonadnomad Would be nice to have some cards that actually beat Mentor too. R&D is extremely unreliable for improving eternal formats though.

    I hear Serenity is pretty insane against Shops.

    Can you clarify what you mean by "beat[ing] Mentor?" There's tons of cards that handle the masses of tokens.

    • White: Wrath effects, Moat
    • Blue: Mass bounce eg Echoing Truth
    • Red: Direct damage the mentor, damage based sweepers like Pyroclasm and Elecktrickery
    • Black: */-x effects, both Permanent (eg Night of Soul's Betrayal) and stack-based (eg Toxic Deluge)
    • Green: Okay, I actually can't think of one here
    • Colorless: Tabernacle

    I've been playing Illness in the Ranks in my BUG deck with some success. It's primarily for Mentor and Pyromancer but it also splash-hates Oath and Dredge (especially if you can get two out!)

    Illness' primary weakness is that it gets hit by Mental Misstep, which Mentor and Pyromancer decks are likely to run 3+ of. To combat this, I upped my sideboard Illness count to 3, cutting a piece of Dredge hate since Illness splash-hates it.



  • @thecravenone

    the simple fact it that there are barely any cards capable of handling the mentor and his monks that are tempo efficient (IE where you dont spend more ressources answering the mentor than your opponent did deploying it).
    There basically only is Virtue's Ruin, a card so niche that people play Toxic deluge instead which has serious shortcomings against prowess.

    Illness in the ranks type effects are extremely unreliable against mentor, as wasting a card to make your opponents mentor into a Monastery swiftspear is not a winning strategy and will only buy you a turn or two if you dont have some other removal. (all the while getting hit by misstep and fragmentize).



  • @thecravenone

    Those are all extremely inefficient. When even the best answer costs more mana / resources than the threat itself there is an imbalance.

    Echoing Truth, Pyroclasm, ect. don't actually kill the Mentor just the tokens. That's not really an answer. You are playing a tailored specific hate piece, and all it does is reduce its power level.



  • [Hereafter, "Workshops" and "Mentor" refer to those decks rather then those cards. When referring to those cards, I use the full name of the card]

    I continually find that I must not understand Vintage or Magic as a whole, at least as others do.

    @vaughnbros said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    @thecravenone

    Those are all extremely inefficient. When even the best answer costs more mana / resources than the threat itself there is an imbalance.

    Echoing Truth, Pyroclasm, ect. don't actually kill the Mentor just the tokens. That's not really an answer. You are playing a tailored specific hate piece, and all it does is reduce its power level.

    @Macdeath said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    Illness in the ranks type effects are extremely unreliable against mentor, as wasting a card to make your opponents mentor into a Monastery swiftspear is not a winning strategy and will only buy you a turn or two if you dont have some other removal. (all the while getting hit by misstep and fragmentize).

    Perhaps someone can clarify. My initial thought upon reading these posts was, "If your deck cannot answer a glorified Monastery Swiftspear, it is unfit for Legacy, much less Vintage." Hell, I played 4 Monastery Swiftspear in her best Legacy deck tonight and went 2-2, very thoroughly missing prizes.

    What, exactly, does it mean for a card to be an answer? I don't want example. I don't want emotions. I would like an academic answer for how one answers a problem in Vintage, or Magic as a whole.

    This seems a fitting answer:

    @Macdeath said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    where you dont spend more ressources answering the mentor than your opponent did deploying it

    While I think this is a good definition, I don't think that it's ultimately practical. Instead of an arms race of problems we now have an arms race of solutions. Perhaps that is what people prefer?

    Serenity was given as an example above. While I agree that it is an excellent answer to Workshops, it does not truly fit the given rubric. To Workshops, any artifact with mana cost <= 3 has a "cost" of one mana producer. Barring Lotus, Serenity, and similar cards such as Energy Flux, which I love, cost at least two mana producers, and frequently more if Workshops went first. Serenity certainly gets better and better as Workshops puts more artifacts on the Battlefield, especially if they are non-taxing artifacts, but until Serenity triggers and Workshops doesn't have, well just about anything useful in hand, it's still pretty slow.

    Additionally, what of partial "answers?" I suggested Illness in the Ranks above. A resolved Illness in the Ranks turns a Monastery Mentor into a 3-mana 2/2 with Prowess. This, in my opinion, should be enough to beat the deck. They have spent, at minimum 2 colorless and a colored. I have spent one colored. If, with my two mana virtual advantage, I cannot at least begin to overcome the Mentor player, I'm curious to ask, what better can I do? Does Monastery Mentor need to be answered for less than one mana? (Also, I've provided at least one Mentor answer for <1 mana above)

    Maybe I'm playing against bad players but I frequently find that playing UR Delver against Mentor, I'm able to beat them with a seven-times-reprinted [not including special sets and precons] common; Lightning Bolt. Too frequently, my opponent taps out on turn one or two for a Mentor and I hit it with a Bolt. Any singular response other than a counter is insufficient to stop me from killing the Mentor. At best, they are left with one or two 1/1 prowess creatures. Again, I ask, if I cannot deal with a Taylor Monastery Swiftspear in my Vintage deck, what the hell am I doing?



  • @thecravenone said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    Additionally, what of partial "answers?" I suggested Illness in the Ranks above. A resolved Illness in the Ranks turns a Monastery Mentor into a 3-mana 2/2 with Prowess. This, in my opinion, should be enough to beat the deck. They have spent, at minimum 2 colorless and a colored. I have spent one colored. If, with my two mana virtual advantage, I cannot at least begin to overcome the Mentor player, I'm curious to ask, what better can I do? Does Monastery Mentor need to be answered for less than one mana? (Also, I've provided at least one Mentor answer for <1 mana above)

    I think it's possible that the difference between the way others see the problem and the way you do is that most don't think Illness in the Ranks (or Dread of Night) actually answers Monastery Mentor. Illness in the Ranks or Dread of Night both answer Monastery Mentor's tokens - things that the Mentor deck gets for free. If you spend a card and a coloured mana to deal with the things the opponent got for free you are certainly still quite far behind. Sure, you could spend and additional mana and an additional card to kill the Monastery Mentor, but in that situation you have effectively traded down because the opponent got a 2 for 1.

    An answer like Supreme Verdict means that one trades down on mana (spending 4 to deal with a 3 mana threat whilst still trading 1 for 1). Virtue's Ruin is significantly better, but it can be countered and is pretty awful against the rest of the format.

    With respect to considering a good definition, I think something to the effect of "a favourable trade can be thought of as expending fewer resources answering a threat than the opponent invested in the threat" would be a good starting point.

    In this example, the opponent didn't spend any resources on the Monastery Mentor tokens, which you have now spent one mana and one card answering.



  • @Jeb-Springfield said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    @thecravenone said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    Additionally, what of partial "answers?" I suggested Illness in the Ranks above. A resolved Illness in the Ranks turns a Monastery Mentor into a 3-mana 2/2 with Prowess. This, in my opinion, should be enough to beat the deck. They have spent, at minimum 2 colorless and a colored. I have spent one colored. If, with my two mana virtual advantage, I cannot at least begin to overcome the Mentor player, I'm curious to ask, what better can I do? Does Monastery Mentor need to be answered for less than one mana? (Also, I've provided at least one Mentor answer for <1 mana above)

    I think it's possible that the difference between the way others see the problem and the way you do is that most don't think Illness in the Ranks (or Dread of Night) actually answers Monastery Mentor. Illness in the Ranks or Dread of Night both answer Monastery Mentor's tokens - things that the Mentor deck gets for free. If you spend a card and a coloured mana to deal with the things the opponent got for free you are certainly still quite far behind. Sure, you could spend and additional mana and an additional card to kill the Monastery Mentor, but in that situation you have effectively traded down because the opponent got a 2 for 1.

    An answer like Supreme Verdict means that one trades down on mana (spending 4 to deal with a 3 mana threat whilst still trading 1 for 1). Virtue's Ruin is significantly better, but it can be countered and is pretty awful against the rest of the format.

    With respect to considering a good definition, I think something to the effect of "a favourable trade can be thought of as expending fewer resources answering a threat than the opponent invested in the threat" would be a good starting point.

    In this example, the opponent didn't spend any resources on the Monastery Mentor tokens, which you have now spent one mana and one card answering.

    I don't agree entirely with the bolded part. The "free" part is mostly what makes Mentor good. If you take that part away, the card isn't that good. Imagine if Mentor was a 3 CMC enchantment with the token generation trigger on it and nothing else. Would you still think that playing Dread of Night would put you "quite far behind"?

    That said, I do agree that these answers aren't optimal.



  • @Griselbrother Except Mentor isn't an enchantment, he's a 2/2 with Prowess himself. So if you answer the tokens, the Mentor player can still punch through with a 5/5 or something every turn.

    Also, @thecravenone , you probably are playing against bad players since even if you kill Mentor with a Bolt, if he produces 1 or 2 tokens in response, you're in big trouble playing with Pyromancer.



  • @fsecco said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    @Griselbrother Except Mentor isn't an enchantment, he's a 2/2 with Prowess himself. So if you answer the tokens, the Mentor player can still punch through with a 5/5 or something every turn.

    Also, @thecravenone , you probably are playing against bad players since even if you kill Mentor with a Bolt, if he produces 1 or 2 tokens in response, you're in big trouble playing with Pyromancer.

    As I said, these answers aren't optimal. I was responding to the theoretical part of the statement.



  • @thecravenone

    You are highlighting the crux of the problem with "answers" for Mentor. Dread of night is played almost specifically as an answer to Mentor, yet all it does is turns him into another playable card.

    Compare this to Tinker->Blightsteel that costs 2 cards, 3 mana and has 1 card, 1 mana answers like Steel Sabotage or Swords. Theres also Dack that just turns it into a straight loss. The difference between answers is not really even comparable.



  • Maybe we should all start playing Remove Soul...


  • TMD Supporter

    It seems attempting to counter Monastery Mentor the card isn't the approach to take, as poignantly demonstrated by Brassman's initial play-in for this season's VSL: playing anti-mentor.dec against a gauntlet of THREE mentor decks and going 1-2. I'm sure there are arguments to be made for variance and other factors, but it was tough for me to swallow a deck running maindeck Sulfur Elementals and massive amounts of removal to have so little of an effect.

    Right now, the most efficient answer to Monastery Mentor the card seems to be attacking Monastery Mentor the deck. That is, if you're comboing or using mana denial to marginalize their strategy, you can stay ahead of the card's raw efficiency. Currently "silver bullets" don't work.



  • @cutlex Hum... removal isn't countering though, unless you're using the word "counter" with another meaning. The best way to deal with Mentor is countering it. It's the only one that guarantees a 1 for 1 trade. Maybe Mana Drain or stuff like Spell Queller are good answers to it. Maybe even the Remove Soul I joked about.



  • I think the best answers for Mentor depend on the strategy. If you are trying to combo out and you are using black then Dread of Night is one of the better answers because of the low casting cost. This in an Oath deck though, so it is a benefit to keep the Mentor in play. Toxic Deluge is good if you are playing storm or something with Death's Shadow, but shadow is not the best with all of the Swords to Plowshares being played right now. If you are on red, Lightning Bolt Is good if you use it as a response to the prowess trigger, or when they are low on cards, or a combination of Engineered Explosives and Sudden Shock. Swords to plowshares is definitely effective, but if you are worried about the tokens then it is best to not let it resolve in the first place if it can be avoided. I don't think many Gush decks use Mana Drain, so very efficient play and sequencing would be required to win. However, that is not a very predictable strategy because of the complexity of playing Gush optimally. Tinker and Sphinx of the Steel Wind are one of the best options, but Gush Decks are normally light on artifacts. Taking these things into consideration Balance and Supreme Verdict seem effective for controlling the board state. Balance seems more enticing using Young Pyromancer because it doesn't require as many lands to operate.

    Considering all of these factors I think that most decks effective answers for Mentor except the Mentor deck itself. This presents me with an interesting opportunity to test some of these theories. Young Pyromancer strategies are not going to be simple to play considering the prevalence of Oath of Druids decks at the moment. It looks like I've found my task for theday!



  • @fsecco
    Yeah, I think what cutlex meant to say is that trying to deal with mentor the card isn't the best way to go, but rather to attack the deck's inherent strategic weaknesses by either going over the top early or applying pressure on the gush mana base (which is largely backed up by metagame reactions) .

    The card itself is extremely hard to answer and the worst part is that even after all that hardwork, the mentor deck will hardly care that it lost one of its mentors (in most matchups), it will just draw more cards and control the game until it finds the next one.

    Countering still isn't really efficient as most lists only have force as a hardcounter(which is still a 1 for 2 albeit with a tempo upside). Mana drain is probably the best counter to answer mentor the card except for the part where mana drain decks usually crumble to the gush draw engine, and mana drain is only borderline playable at the moment with all the zero and one mana counters flying around.



  • Yes, the only real answer to Mentor is countering it. That means it surpasses a large number of cards on the restricted list in terms of power level.



  • @vaughnbros said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    @themonadnomad Would be nice to have some cards that actually beat Mentor too. R&D is extremely unreliable for improving eternal formats though.

    I'm puzzled by your comment. One of the key points made in the article, and reiterated multiple times in this thread and elsewhere is that Walking Ballista is a card that is particularly good at combating Mentor, and it's something that R&D only just created and printed for us.

    More broadly, the suggestion that R&D hasn't provided tools for combating popular Vintage strategies is just not true. Fragmentize was just printed a few months ago.



  • The real answer to Monastery Mentor is winning the game. I think other people have already expressed a similar thought using different words.

    Is Mentor a great card? Yes. Is it insurmountable? No. I am sympathetic to arguments that Mentor reduces deck diversity because it is such an efficient win condition, but some people take it's "awesome powers" too far.

    Gush and cheap cantrips are what matters. One reason why Shops is so strong is in part because it is effective against Gush decks while the rest of the meta has to contend with Gush and Shops and then save a few slots for Dredge.

    The fact of the matter is that unless a deck becomes one full third of the meta, I don't think we can even begin to claim that it is overpowered. Monastery Mentor doesn't fit.

    What DOES fit (arguably) is Preordain, Gitaxian Probe and Gush. Three unrestricted nonland cards that are in more than 1/3 of the decks in the meta (not named Force, Misstep or Flusterstorm). They are a common "engine" across many blue decks, particularly Preordain and Gush.

    If Gush was restricted again, my perspective is that Shops would be a little less impressive because blue decks would start playing more lands again and rollover to tax effects less frequently. Some decks would go for heavy artifact draw spells (Thoughtcast, Thirst, PO), which would just make main-deck artifact hate MORE effective against two Tier 1 matchups.



  • @jhport12 said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    The real answer to Monastery Mentor is winning the game. I think other people have already expressed a similar thought using different words.

    Is Mentor a great card? Yes. Is it insurmountable? No. I am sympathetic to arguments that Mentor reduces deck diversity because it is such an efficient win condition, but some people take it's "awesome powers" too far.

    Gush and cheap cantrips are what matters. One reason why Shops is so strong is in part because it is effective against Gush decks while the rest of the meta has to contend with Gush and Shops and then save a few slots for Dredge.

    The fact of the matter is that unless a deck becomes one full third of the meta, I don't think we can even begin to claim that it is overpowered. Monastery Mentor doesn't fit.

    What DOES fit (arguably) is Preordain, Gitaxian Probe and Gush. Three unrestricted nonland cards that are in more than 1/3 of the decks in the meta (not named Force, Misstep or Flusterstorm). They are a common "engine" across many blue decks, particularly Preordain and Gush.

    If Gush was restricted again, my perspective is that Shops would be a little less impressive because blue decks would start playing more lands again and rollover to tax effects less frequently. Some decks would go for heavy artifact draw spells (Thoughtcast, Thirst, PO), which would just make main-deck artifact hate MORE effective against two Tier 1 matchups.

    What does this even mean?



  • @cutlex said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:

    Right now, the most efficient answer to Monastery Mentor the card seems to be attacking Monastery Mentor the deck. That is, if you're comboing or using mana denial to marginalize their strategy, you can stay ahead of the card's raw efficiency. Currently "silver bullets" don't work.

    This. 100% agree with this.

    This is the reason why mentor is so oppresive for blue on blue matchups, but also the reason why Shops has been posting up such solid results against gush/mentor decks. With that said, I also feel that the best way to answer Shop decks is to take a similar approach, and not attack revoker/ballista/fleetwheel cruiser, but to attack Workshops, the deck. It just so happens that as long as Gush is around, you'll be punished for building a deck with a responsible mana base by decks with a greedier one.

    I know there are a lot of people here that are advocating for restricting workshops, but I feel it is wrong to advocate for a Workshop restriction simply because it is the deck that beats the best deck in the format.

    Lastly, I have mixed feelings about changes to this format. I have played both drain decks and shop decks extensively in my Vintage "career", having played vintage since pre-Mirroden, but only diving into my regional vintage tournament scene in late 2006. I've seen Gush come and go multiple times, and have very strong feeling abiut the format from multiple angles. I'm going to share my main concerns, and just hope that I'm not sounding crazy.

    1. Monastery Mentor may be the best card in Vintage right now; better than Gush, Better than force. I feel this way because it makes the most recent best cards in Vintage (Gush, Dig, Cruise) even better, while having just as much upside and game impact as those other cards, while having less than half the drawbacks (ala opportunity cost for playing it).

    I also feel that Mentor is the best "tinker target" in the format for two reasons:
    (A) it costs 3, but takes way fewer resources to get online and is a lot harder to answer
    (B) It is more cooperative with the best card advantage engine (gush+cantrips) in the format right now, as opposed to using said engine, then "jamming in" cards like vault/key back in some 2007 grow decks to force an actual tinker to be playable. Much like in 2003, when Format defining interactions vecome unplayable or irrelevant in Vintage(like abyss/ morphling fell off once the infusion of Mirroden's card pool into Vintage really began to take hold) some of the nostalgia is lost and it makes for bad feels, and definitely contributes to flared tempers and attitudes.

    1. I feel it is restriction worthy, but restricting it would continue us down a bad precident and road that I dont agree Vintage (not other formats, just Vintage) should be travelling down.

    To me, Vintage is the format where you get to play the best cards, and just because something is powerful shouldn't make it restrictable (if restrictable is even a word). Other formats get to ban cards. Vintage really doesn't (and I'm not talking about C/E, dexterity cards, ante, etc... just hear me out). Everything gets to be played, and not being able to regulate the format with a "all or nothing" approach to individual cards really changes the way we should look at adding and removing cards from the format. Much like Time vault, lotus, and Yawg Will over the years and Library of Alexandria at Champs this year, people can see that even the presence of 1x card in a list can be fomat defining.

    With that said, I feel that not all restrictions are the same, and this is especially true in Vintage. It is true that Blue cards have always suffered the majority of restrictions, and to debate that restrictions should be levied tit for tat because one color, class or super type of cards has been levied more restrictions than another as justification for or against restriction of opposing archetypes is just not applicable here. Strategies with better access to colors, tutoring, card filtering, and/or stack interactions are going to function and utilize cards very differently than those that don't. There's a reason why Mox opal is broken in a paradoxical outcome deck, but unplayable in MUD aggro.

    In my opinion, restricting Workshop to curb a workshop deck is strategically most closely equivelant to restricting Cavern of Souls out of hatebears deck, merfolk deck, or the 5C humans deck that took down BOM last year. Yes those decks can function on 1x Cavern, and yes they may even take down a 4 or 5 round tournament with good draws, but the power in cavern in these decks is not solely in its ability to skirt force of will, its also in its ability to consistently see one via mulligans in decks that do not utilize a draw engine.

    The restriction of Chalice was the first strategically multi-layered restriction I have ever remember seeing in my lifetime. Chalice's stregnth didnt just come from it's flexible cost; it also came from being able to draw multiple chalices and have them set at different numbers while in play simultaneously. Restricting Chalice took that last option completely off the table without needing card errata to change how it was functionally and strategically played for years. That's a lot of the reason the restriction received the response it did.

    1. I feel Gush is being played at format warping levels, and has been for some time. In my area, the restrictions of Dig and Cruise did little if anything to curb the percentage of players playing Gush around here. If gush gets restricted, it will become unplayable and certain decks will most likely not exist without it in multiples (UR delver comes to mind). While I think it is restriction worthy, I am actually nervous to see it restricted because of Mentor's positioning (the card, not the deck).

    I feel that, in theory, the gush matchup vs workshops should be almost as poor as the workshop matchup vs DPS... very cantrip heavy, land light decks should be strategically disadvantaged when the deck they're facing has more lock pieces than they have lands. In my experience, the Gush matchup is far better when the gush deck runs mentor. This scares me because I honestly think the card holding back Mentor from restriction is actually Gush. Let me explain...

    Mentor plays well with Moxes. Gush doesn't. If Gush got the axe, history has dictated that it will not see play as a 1-of when alternatives exist. We currently have Thirst, FoF, Thoughtcast and Gifts all currently unrestricted, with Paradoxical Outcome and Painful Truths also having been infuses into Vintage. I also feel that we also have the greatest number of efficient 1 mana card filtering spells since the restriction of Brainstorm and Ponder, and even with their restriction, have arguably achieved a critical mass of them such that further restriction of such cards (like Pre-Ordain) could no longer be effective for stunting these effects in decks. I forsee, much like in the past, that such effects would continue to complememt these draw engines and help keep them competitive and consistently powerful. The main strategy keeping all these powerful draw engines from being playable is gush.

    If Gush goes, the flood gates open. Decks will, in theory, now play more lands and moxes as the biggest disincentive is now gone, which I forsee making Shops significantly weaker. The most likely effect of this in turn would shift the balance of power amongst the vintage pillars back to mana drain. I have no problem, with this specifically, as vintage has its ebbs and flows.

    My fear is that mentor becomes too good, and these draw engines then begin to compete for which can "mentor harder". If this happens and these varying draw engines continue to break mentor harder than gush has (and I forsee that the can), I fear the format does not sufficiently have the tools it needs to provide an appropriate check to respond to respond to the growing imbalance.

    Shops, and more recently White Eldrazi and hatebears, have been relegated to the daunting task of keeping the format from becoming a blue vs. blue format. More specifically, while Workshop and White eldrazi use prison elements in their lists, prison elements have historically been the best countermeasuer to preventing Blue decks from becoming streamlined enough to make all other archetypes strategically unplayable. The cards Thorn of Amethyst and Sphere of Resistance in and of themselves are very weak in a vacuum when compared to Ancestral Recall, Yawgmoth's will, Dig Through Time and Monastery Mentor. What makes these cards powerful is the ability to use Sol Lands like workshop and Ancient Tomb to jump the curve, which makes These prison effects playable. When employing prison effects are strategically poor countermeasure to attacking the format, Blue becomes much better, because the best measure is strategically powerful enough to police blue decks winds up being other blue decks.

    This becomes the point where I call into question the effects of the Shop restrictions: In a Gush format, Chalice is really oppressive; in Thirst/Gifts format, I find Chalice to be necessary. In a Thirst, Gifts/Paradoxical/Painful Truths/ Bob/ Thoughtcast format, I am of the opinion Chalice would not be enough to police the barrage of Draw engines competing for mentor dominance: they're too many darts to target on the dartboard. Shops is the strategic predator of decks that want to play multiple spells a turn, Which is what the best Mentor decks zeek to do, but in this scenario, if Shops cant do its job, we have a broken format.

    Mentor will have to get the axe, and we now have a tried and established precident to restrict cards for being "too good", people turn to advocating restrictions instead of trying to brew solutions as no sleek and efficient win condition will be truly safe from restriction. Furthermore, I dont see the Lodestone and Chalice becoming unrestricted to aid in preventing the abundance of draw engines and their strategies from making Vintage a "blue only" format a year or two from now. It took all these years to get them restricted, and in my opinion, it was the complaining more than the top 8's that pushed those restrictions through after so many years. I'm pretty sure the voices would be even louder would the format be engaging in serious talks about removing them of the restricted list. Pair this with the historical trend of blue getting new toys to test just about every set while while newer prison effects (artifact or mana efficient permenants) getting printed over much, much longer intervals and we may have a recipe for Vintage to experience a "blue winter" for possibly a few years.

    I like format diversity. I Like that a 15 card sideboard cant answer 100 percent of what youre going to face... if feel that makes Vintage healthy.

    What i dont want to see is Vintage essentially wind up with a stagnant metagame where it is solved a month after each set release, leaving us with 8 months of stagnant Vintage and declining paper tournament attendance. I love this format too much to see it take such a hit in popularity moving forward.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.