Thanks for your fast and thought-out response! I already added more Dismember and Metamorph, even though Wurmcoil got me anyway. When I have time to play I will try a City of Traitors and the Chiefs.
Posts made by Wintage
RE: Workshop Aggro
Thanks at all for the insightful responses. Keep them coming!
Thanks for the sample hands. What is shocking to me is how bad most of them are in the mirror. I guess if you expect a lot of Shops playing more lands might be a good idea. What is the next best contender, City of Traitors? Maybe it is the time again to run Ghost Quarter again? Lately I've been unimpressed with randomly wasting off an opponent's land against blue decks, as they just run so much mana acceleration (is it just me or is everyone on the Paradoxical plan?) and maybe even more land as well, as a lot of my opponents tend to flood rather than to screw (but if you draw 8 cards in a turn... I guess that's normal), but GQ might really help against those pesky basic lands. City helps better in the acceleration department, but bears certain risks. GQ is also great in mirrors.
What does anyone think about boarding against the Eldrazi versions? Null Rod keeps wrecking me, but I'm not sure if I should board out Ravager/ Ballista or how many of them. I feel like I could board 15 cards or something, so many cards just seem bad. The card that positively surprised me the most has been ol' Sphere of Resistance as it often helps delaying their key threats for a critical turn or 2, so I definitely keep them in.
RE: Reverting cards to original functionality
I was doing some research on Zodiac Dragon, because at first I thought that the rules change would make it useless anyway, but for the Serra Avatar reprint they did actually change the wording to refer to "anywhere" - considering that both Serra Avatar and Zodiac Dragon came to existence at the same point in time I now agree that this is bogus powerlevel errata. It's an obscure and expensive card, give it some joy. If it breaks anything, it can always be banned or restricted... as very few people actually own a copy, no one would care.
RE: Workshop Aggro
I'm still quite new to Vintage/ Type 1 (playing Magic for nearly 20 years now, but mostly Extended, Standard, Legacy, Modern and Draft - now Vintage as well, but I took a couple of breaks in between) and while being drawn to the format because of Ancestral and Time Walk at first, the absurd percentages of Shops as of late wanted me to get more familiar with the archetype as well so I practiced it a bit in the last few weeks.
First, thanks @Brass Man for all the work he is doing to keep a place alive where people can talk about the real way to play Magic, and for maintaining a lot of different sub forums and topics.
A little bit of critique from my side: as a new player, this primer could be compared to an iceberg: the surface explains quite nicely to people not familiar with the format what the deck is about, but it lacks any in depth discussion for people who are new to the deck and look for edges to get better.
Anyway, back to the topic. As I explained, I'm mainly a blue mage throughout various formats, so playing Shops now feels both weird and interesting. It feels like the average opening hand has so much more variance than in a blue deck. Lands, counterspells, cantrips? Keep. Often you can exchange the counterspell for a removal and it works as well; the same could be true for 2 counterspell, 2 cantrip, 2 removal etc, the slots are kind of interchangeable, blue decks often don't even need a threat in their opening hand but can just evade long enough until they find one. Shops on the other hand is a deck where I often feel like you need to have Exodia in your opening hand to stand a chance. Like, all the pieces must fit together or you easily fall behind or fail to do anything at all. What makes it even worse is that a good hand against a blue deck is often terrible in the mirror. And mana always seems to be a problem - either too much or too few.
I'm sure I come off as a total scrub, but since mulligans are an important skill to the deck I think I may be lacking there. Are there any general advice? Like... is a hand with a mox and 1 mana land, but not that much to do with them - let's say a Sphere and a Ravager, + some stuff costing 3 or more - a keep? A hand with just spheres and mana but no threat? A hand with 3 Shops, 2 Foundry Inspector 2 Revoker? A hand that does nothing on turn 1 but can be explosive once it gets down an Inspector?
There are many more options, so so many. I mull a lot of hands and don't seem to get rewarded - like often when I mull a mediocre hand my next one is really bad, so I'm kind of afraid of refusing the mediocrity.
Phyrexian Revoker has to be the most skill intense card of the deck because I hate it the most. I hate hands where it is my only threat (same for Ravager, do I just mull these hands? They are so slow) and I hate being on the play with them. Naming cards in the dark always feels bad, as cards that you want to name are usually 1 or 2 offs, so it mainly turns off a mox, which is ok but not impressive. I mean just beating for 2 gives blue opponents too many windows. In the mirror it is an interesting and complex card, as it can often mean the difference between winning or losing, or it just sucks as a 2 mana 2/1 against a barrage of 3/3 golems.
I'd also like to hear some sideboard plans from other players. How often do you board out Trinisphere on the draw? Is there any reason to bring in Cage against Big Blue decks (so far I think no)? How do you board against the different blue archetypes? Is there any reason to leave in Sphere in the mirror?
Also, I don't share the sentiment that creatures in Shops are large :D Ravager/ Ballista/ Revoker and also Inspector are all kind of small, even though the first 2 can grow they will rarely attack for more than 1 or 2 on their first occasion. In general, after watching some videos on Youtube before Lodestone and Chalice were restricted, the deck looks more fair and way slower these days than it used to be.
RE: Reverting cards to original functionality
@vaughnbros Thanks for the link. It was quite informative and I understand most of the arguments given, even though it makes me very sad to see that my assumption about Relic Bind is true :(
@Smmenen I really like your articles and luckily there are plenty off them. Do you have some kind of library where all your articles are stored?
Something different that I stumbled upon is the weird inconsistency in wording of destroy/ discard/ sacrifice/ place in graveyard in the early sets. Even the card Sacrifice itself stats in ABU "destroy". The only card in Arabian Nights to use the instance of sacrifice is Diamond Valley, but then it got plenty of use in Antiquities again.
RE: Reverting cards to original functionality
Does this mean abeyance is a strictly better time walk? Likely not, but I do think some cards should be fixed for functionality. Ali From Cairo, Library, Bazaar are obviously legendary from a flavor perspective but did the designers have the legendary idea in mind prior to legends? You say it's impossible to ask, but I don't think it is. The problem is likely more of their views on the functionality changing. When relic bind was printed, the untap symbol did not exist. same with voltaic key......
In 1996 I showed up at a tournament feeding final fortune turns into the unrestricted but heavily erratted time vault.
I have always had a hard time with howling mine and winter orb getting shut off when tapped but not other continuous artifacts like black vice.
Some cards are harder to judge than others as they were printed within a different ruleset. I would have to do research on Abeyance, but iirc it was only able to timewalk people for a few months. I guess cards like this and Lotus Vale need to have some kind of errata because they can't be reprinted.
I don't buy the argument with Arabian Nights cards - judging by flavor, Valakut the Molten Pinnacle should be legendary and it was printed "recently" - there is just no objective here.
You don't think it is impossible to reach out to people who designed cards in 93 or something and then never had to with anything? Good luck.
Reverting cards to original functionality
As the headline says, this thread is meant to be the focal discussion point. In other threads a few cards were already mentioned, the most prominent being Zodiac Dragon.
To me this topic is quite interesting. Wordings often look like chosen at random if you look at cards pre 1995 but the creators obviously had an intention how the card should work. Nowadays it's probably impossible to reach the original creators, so we are left with what the current WotC interpretation is.
What bugs me about that is that it is just inconsistent. I also don't understand where to draw the line. Let's look at All Hallows Eve for example. The card was originally printed as a Sorcery, which didn't make sense at the time. So the card was given an errata and Wotc was actually able to fix it with the next printing - Italian Legends. Then, Time Spiral (the set) came around and suddenly putting counters on a sorcery to get its effect later didn't look that dumb anymore. In the same vein All Hallows Eve got an errata to make it work like quasi Suspend. There are a few thing that I don't get about this, like why is it a sorcery now if it even was supposed to be an enchantment? The most recent printing of the card even says it is an enchantment and I would argue that there are more copies of Italian Legends floating around than English ones.
But wait, the inconsistencies just started. There are a couple of cards in Legends that were so obviously wrong that they got spelled out errata in Italian Legends. Like Relic Bind - I still think this card was a developers joke to end their EDH rounds faster (I would bet money on that the designers of Legends tested in a way similar to EDH/ Commander - so many flashy cards, so much that gives all players an advantage, the World Enchantment theme... so many things - can't just be coincidence), but then it got reprinted with errata in Italian Legends and finally in 4th Edition. I guess the argument not reverting it back to its original functionality would be that a 2nd Vaultkey is not what the format or people in general need? Also, at which point do you revert cards to original functionality or don't?
I'm sure there is more that I didn't catch. I was actually mostly wondering what happened to All Hallows Eve and saw they already changed it in 2006.
Discuss and have fun but keep it civil ;)
RE: Vintage Restricted List Discussion
Even though restricting over and over ad nauseam seems stupid, I think we have reached a point where you just cannot restrict or unrestrict reserved list cards at will. It would break consumer trust and create stupid price jumps. In another thread people shared their opinion on unrestricting Library of Alexandria and while I'm not in the mood to discuss game theory right now, I think it is a pretty bad idea as the card would rise exponentially, creating an even further barrier.
Workshop is like the opposite spectrum of that. The price would decline, even though not by that much I suppose, but there is a real chance that it would weaken an essential pillar to many players. Again, I can't really argue about its effects on the format, but diminishing the reliance of an already less consistent deck (compared to blue - shop is redundant in what its cards do but games with 1 compared to 3 spheres just play out so differently and there are no cantrips to ensure that) just doesn't sound good. I may be totally wrong on this, maybe Workshop can just be replaced with City of Traitors (and Eldrazi Temple).
I'm in favor of Wotc giving us a good answer card first, like the ones with Channel or Cycling that were already suggested. Should the archetype still be too dominant after this, we can still talk.