I started playing Magic in the fall of 1995 with some friends that worked with at a bar. I took a quick liking to the game and soon wanted to be competitive. I purchase a Timetwister for $100 and I played at Gen Con in 1996 in both Type 2 and Type 1. I just remember loving the game and went all in at that point. I purchase all of the power cards with the exception of Black Lotus. I played mostly casually in college and when I got married I just play Friday night magic for a few years. About 6 years ago I decided that I only wanted to play Vintage seriously. It was the year before my son was born and I played some very intense magic. My son was born and now I am limited to about one tournament a week. I play with my brother every week to test out decks and talk shit. I still love the game and I will never sell my cards.
@themonadnomad I have played through 2 changes to mulligans and the current one is ok. If it were up to me I would do away with the scry for 1.
Each time the rules changed there was some apprehension from the community. "Paris" mulligan as it used to be called was created by players and this one makes sense. Throw your hand away and get a new one minus a card.
This new one developed by Wizards is scary to me. There are already too many games and too much of culture that assumes turn FOW if you are on blue. Dredge has to have turn one Bazaar and Shops has to have turn one threat or lock.
This rule just makes all of this worse. As a Xerox player, I can now sculpt my hand into FOW, Misstep, and blue card which is already oppressive. And Shops will pretty much always have a Workshop. How is this better?
@vaughnbros this rule change makes it worse for eternal formats not better. Every good vintage deck will have certain hands that are almost unbeatable. That is vintage.
Magic is a card game. Variance is part of playing a card game. I lost to Oath while playing PO because I started with bad hands at SCG Con (mull to 5) but I had a turn one win against Shops and some crazy opens against other decks.
If we try to reduce variance in Vintage we are going to make the format all about hyper efficient mulligans not actually playing cards.
What I find irritating about this rule is that no one asked for it. When the Paris mulligan was created in the 1990’s it was created by players to solve a real problem.
The original mulligan rule was not good and in Type 1 it could be abused by no land decks or very heavy land decks by getting free mulligans.
This new mulligan rule looks like a solution without a problem. Card games have variance and sometimes you lose to variance.
@fsecco A lot of Vintage has been defined by a relatively small number of "tier 1" decks since 2002. The main reason for this are the power cards in Vintage. As @nedleeds keeps pointing out Vintage is defined essentially by genres. The point of this thread is to examine the meta and analyze it, but also to get a pulse of how people feel about it.
I am past complaining and I just want to enjoy magic. This meta feels off to me, and I keep thinking about the comments from @The-Atog-Lord at Eternal Weekend 2018 and the article from hipstersofthecoast.com where they interviewed him about the VSL.
I am trying to understand from the community if this is the preferred meta-game for Vintage. It appears that some love it and some hate it. I am trying to find my way here. I was enjoying the meta and then RNA was released and my enjoyment dropped. I am studying the meta-game now and I want to be like @ChubbyRain, I want to have fun and enjoy it. My issue may not be the decks or the cards. I think for me the issue is understanding that Vintage has evolved into digital format and if you want to play competitively where with a large pool of players it is on MTGO. Otherwise, there are about 3 or 4 large-ish events that get over 100 people in the US and a few local events if you are lucky.
@winterstar Your points in this post really capture my feelings. Building and brewing in paper is more satisfying to me personally. I just do not get to play much paper.
In my local and a lot of people I play with are more likely to jam Old School than Vintage now. I play online and the meta is just different. I am not fortunate enough to play against people like @ChubbyRain so I see the same decks over and over. That’s why I asked this question in the first place.
To be fair, there are spicy decks online. But there is a set of players that just want to ladder the league. I got caught in that mindset and that’s why I had to take a break. It’s also why I enjoy paper over digital. I just tend to play for fun over trying to ladder a league and trophy.
And, if we are honest you need at least a 3-2 record in a league so you don't just need to keep spending money to play in the league.
@chubbyrain I do appreciate your feedback. In your opinion - Is Vintage primarily now a digital format now?
As I mentioned, several Legacy players say that the digital meta and the paper meta are very different. Mostly because of costs and who plays paper versus MTGO.
Decks get brewed in several ways and I understand players that play MTGO brew. My point of this thread was 2 fold. To ask the question about the meta-game as primarily existing on MTGO vs paper and to ask about a path forward to see more paper.
I get it, paper is expensive and people look at the meta and want to play good decks with awesome cards. I know MTGO is convenient and inexpensive compared to paper. I am not complaining about MTGO. When I played a bunch in December, I had fun. I have 6 decks on MTGO just FYI. I was able to figure out how to compete in the new meta, and I will probably start doing leagues again. I love Vintage and I want to play it the way I like it - on paper. I'll settle for MTGO if that's all I can get.
The vast majority of people playing Vintage are playing with decks that are appropriately powered. Shouldn't B&R policy address that reality?
We currently have that B&R list and I am ok with that. Looking at how paper is splitting from Legacy and to some extent Modern and even Standard I wonder if we view Vintage as more of MTGO format - how does that impact the game and the community.
I went hard into MTGO for December and backed off this month and I have been brewing hard in paper. I have some cool decks and cool ideas but I will not be playing these online. This kind of behavior causes splits in the meta game.
I have a few examples from last year of cool paper decks that broke through and we never see them on MTGO. Look at the Mardu Planeswalker deck from SCG Con. The Karn PO deck from Waterbury. The Sean O'Brien Teeg deck at EW and the super spicy Stax deck at EW. None of these decks ever show up on MTGO and they are all awesome.
I just want more of these spicy decks not the same crap I see over and over on MTGO.