The Source's thoughts on vintage?

[Shanghi Knights]

I am fully aware this is a website devoted to legacy, but due to the recent spur of banned card threads surfacing I am curious about people from this websites thoughts on the vintage format where many of the discussed cards are legal to use. Not that casually they couldn't be used either.

Just a few ideas to get this started.

I'm curious about things like does vintages big money cards bother you?
Is its drastic change in game speed a factor?
Do you really see that much of a challenge change between legacy and vintage?
Would any of the banned cards listed in the other threads if unbanned make legacy gain some aspect that is contained currently only in vintage?

I'm curious what the legacy player thinks of the vintage format.

Personally i am a person who like competitive eternal format magic. i consider myself vintage first, legacy second due to vintages decline in recent years.

I'm interested in The Source's Perspectives.

[keys]

For me it's two parts:

1. Cost. I wouldn't feel comfortable shuffling power nine. It's just too much of an investment to me.
2. Archetype diversity. Legacy seems to have a more open field of aggro/control/combo, and there is a better chance for rogue decks to have some success.

[Nessaja]

Of course cost is an issue, for one card in vintage I could buy an entire Legacy deck, but it's not the main factor. I don't even play Vintage on MWS where cost isn't a factor at all, where as I do test extended and T2 decks with no intention at all to ever play them in real life.

Vintage for me seems really limited in terms of deck design, there are much more design constraints in vintage then there are in legacy. I feel like it's much harder to create an original deck that also has a decent chance in the format, innovation in vintage seems to lie in the addition of only a few cards to existing decks and that just isn't exciting to me.

[MTG-Fan]

Vintage is like racing high-end sports car: Sure, it's fun to pit Ferraris F50s and Saleen S7s against each other, but it gets kind of boring when only a handful of cars can compete at that level. Everything else just gets blown out of the water. In Magic terms, you either play Power9+Broken Blue Cards+Win Condition or you play 4Chalice4NullRod+Dudes, or you play Ichorid, or you play a Workshop deck.

Legacy is more like real street racing. You can tweak your Honda Civic and compete against a field of similarly tweaked street cars, all made by different manufacturers, with different engines, and so on. The cars might not be quite as exciting on an individual basis, but the field is more diverse and interesting as a whole. In Magic terms, you can compete with a much wider variety of decks and cards. Nothing is quite as "broken" as the stuff you can do in Vintage, but the games, in general, are less stereotypically alike due to different game plans being viable instead of the 4 primary ones (Bazaar+Graveyard, Workshop, Mana Drain, & NullRod+Chalice) seen in Vintage.

[rockout]

I only really like vintage oath everything else is kind of boring and almost never changes.

[Mark Sun]

Vintage is like racing high-end sports car: Sure, it's fun to pit Ferraris F50s and Saleen S7s against each other, but it gets kind of boring when only a handful of cars can compete at that level. Everything else just gets blown out of the water. In Magic terms, you either play Power9+Broken Blue Cards+Win Condition or you play 4Chalice4NullRod+Dudes, or you play Ichorid, or you play a Workshop deck.

Legacy is more like real street racing. You can tweak your Honda Civic and compete against a field of similarly tweaked street cars, all made by different manufacturers, with different engines, and so on. The cars might not be quite as exciting on an individual basis, but the field is more diverse and interesting as a whole. In Magic terms, you can compete with a much wider variety of decks and cards. Nothing is quite as "broken" as the stuff you can do in Vintage, but the games, in general, are less stereotypically alike due to different game plans being viable instead of the 4 primary ones (Bazaar+Graveyard, Workshop, Mana Drain, & NullRod+Chalice) seen in Vintage.

Haha, and in my case I would be the jerk with the 4NullRod.dec. Good analogy though. And yeah, Vintage is a boring format in general, it's become a highlander format. Join the rat race by getting as much draw, counters, and mana acceleration you can.

[beastman]

All the lists making top 8 seem to be stax, Ichorid or a deck with the same 45 card shell as the rest of the format. I really only see differences in the method of killing. Do I want to take infinite turns or just use tendrils? It just seems like there is only 15 debatable slots in the format, and that sucks.

[blacklotus3636]

I used to think vintage was really cool until someone pointed out to me exactly what everyone here has already said. The power level of certain cards in vintage is so high that the decks pretty much build themselves save for a few different slots. Although I feel I do have to point out that legacy and vintage seem to share this same problem but to a much smaller degree. Scaled out over a long enough time line I think you could have similar problems in legacy because nothing rotates but we do have a banned list that helps tremendously which is one of the major problems in vintage. The cost of vintage is also a big problem but the biggest problem is the perception by most of the community that vintage is unfun because its too overpowered. I'm sure there's more to add but those are just the main bullet points

[Dembones]

Vintage is like racing high-end sports car: Sure, it's fun to pit Ferraris F50s and Saleen S7s against each other, but it gets kind of boring when only a handful of cars can compete at that level. Everything else just gets blown out of the water. In Magic terms, you either play Power9+Broken Blue Cards+Win Condition or you play 4Chalice4NullRod+Dudes, or you play Ichorid, or you play a Workshop deck.

Legacy is more like real street racing. You can tweak your Honda Civic and compete against a field of similarly tweaked street cars, all made by different manufacturers, with different engines, and so on. The cars might not be quite as exciting on an individual basis, but the field is more diverse and interesting as a whole. In Magic terms, you can compete with a much wider variety of decks and cards. Nothing is quite as "broken" as the stuff you can do in Vintage, but the games, in general, are less stereotypically alike due to different game plans being viable instead of the 4 primary ones (Bazaar+Graveyard, Workshop, Mana Drain, & NullRod+Chalice) seen in Vintage.

Great comparison.

Still, there's not much that is more fun in Magic then chaining the most powerful spells in the game after resolving a back breaking Will.

[Bardo]

Does vintages big money cards bother you?
Is its drastic change in game speed a factor?
Do you really see that much of a challenge change between legacy and vintage?
Would any of the banned cards listed in the other threads if unbanned make legacy gain some aspect that is contained currently only in vintage?


In order.

I wouldn't say I'm "bothered" about vintage costs (if someone wants to pay them, that's fine with me)--but I have no personal interest in paying a few grand to play competitively. Also, playing with proxies seem...sad. Basically, cost is prohibitive and I have zero desire or ability to buy in.

I don't know enough about Vintage these days to have an opinion about game speed and pacing compared with Legacy. FWIW, Legacy game pace seems perfectly fine to me.

What's a "challenge change?"

I don't think so. Hallmarks of vintage, to me, are SoLoMoxenCrypt, Ancestral, YWill, Bazaar, Mishra's Workshop, and maybe Mana Drain. Since no one is debating the unbanning of any of those cards, I don't think unbanning of the currently discussed cards will make Legacy similar to Vintage.

[TeenieBopper]

I'm trying to think of a shittier format than Vintage, and I can't come up with one. I think I'd rather play Kamigawa block constructed than Vintage.

There's something about going broke in Vintage that drives me nuts. It's not fun. The fact that I could do it too doesn't make it worth it. I also hate having an entire game invalidated by Yawgmoth's Will. Fuck that card.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Fun to goldfish.

[MTG-Fan]

I'd have to say, though, despite Legacy being a more balanced and generally more fun format, Vintage does have one thing going for it: because you are allowed to play the broken bombs of the game, games can be very swingy and thus more exciting. You can be dead next turn, then topdeck something like a Yawgmoth's Will, or a Black Lotus, or something equally broken, and pull some amazing play out of your ass and win, despite the state of the board. That can be exciting for some people.

Typically speaking, in Legacy, games tend to be either wars of attrition, or blowouts in favor of one deck. Most plays happen on a 1:1 basis. I don't think it's quite as easy to come back from being depleted, with your opponent about to win next turn, in Legacy as it is in Vintage, simply because there are no individual cards powerful enough to do this for you. Whether that is good or bad is a personal call. It can be fun for some, it can also be annoying for others.

[DrJones]

I played vintage until it became more stupid than what I could stand, that is, when Wizards separated the banned lists from Vintage and Legacy and 'promoted' the new format by making the previous one unplayable.

[Muradin]

Meh

Vintage is unfair, more luck dependant than any other format and sux for tournaments. Vintage is cool when played for fun though or on a very low level of competition because so many broken things can happen in this format.

[citanul]

I played two Vintage tournaments. My first ever was when I played Type2, just when Affinity was being discovered. I got annihilated, no surprise there.

The second time was a few months ago. Our team held their first Vintage tournament and I planned on competing. I got to borrow BUG Fish from a friend and made top8, finishing in 2nd place, losing to Tezzeret in the finals.

I'll probably never play Vintage again. The amount of 1-offs being run is enormous. Got an Ancestrall in your opening? Your up ahead in the game! So luck based. Also, when a person gets ahead, he gets ahead and disallows the opponent to ever come back. Every deck runs at least counters and having more cards in Vintage = having more counters = win.

[4eak]

I think Vintage can be elegant and beautiful, and without a doubt, the most complex of all the formats in terms of actual gameplay. Like a Rubik's cube, I can often stare at certain Vintage hands for a long time, considering which line of play is the best.

I don't consider the Vintage metagame to be any more or less stagnant than Legacy's. The top decks in both of these formats tweak, they don't revolutionize unless a sweet new card comes out. So your experience with any particular deck isn't immediately invalidated every rotation, and that leads to experience being a very integral part of these formats.

I appreciate the Vintage community's use of proxies, and it can often be less expensive to play Vintage than Legacy because of it; I think this removes financial disincentives to play and allows me to compete against a player's fullest potential (which is the state of an opponent I'm interested in playing against).

I think, on average, competitive Vintage players are the most skilled of the formats. I generally prefer the attitudes of Vintage players too, which are layed back and often a bit more mature. They are also the most receptive people to theoretical discussions and hypothetical questions, and game theory isn't some abstract and pointless study in their minds.

My one major problem with Vintage (perhaps with every multiplayer game I play) is that Skill isn't the exclusive factor to winning or losing. I consider that a serious injustice. Vintage, of course, has hands that just 'blow you away', and you were never in the game to begin with. This can be curbed to some extent by deckchoice, skill, and the scope of games considered (fewer games having greater likely variance). Regardless, Vintage isn't a format of justice in a small scope. Perhaps, in the end, I don't like how the tournament system works (because 2 of 3 doesn't show me a lot). When we play Vintage at home though, and we keep track of all our games over the years, we have much better ways to measure skill and desert. In that context, Vintage is my favorite format.






peace,
4eak

[goobafish]

I will try to answer the OPs questions as well as address a few misconceptions raised in this thread.

Vintage was my first competitive format, and it will always be my favorite format. It was through my success in Vintage that I began to meet more people who played other formats, eventually I made the move from being a Vintage player to being a Drafter, a Legacy player and now a constructed player. Magic has always been about the social aspect to me, I got into formats by making friends with people who play those formats, and I am closest with my local Vintage crowd.

Vintage teaches you the importance of seemingly the most minor decisions, because of the huge impact that even the most minor mistake can have on the outcome of the game. Not only this, but you get to see the effect of your "minor" mistake immediately, where in other formats, you may not notice it at all. The power of the cards makes the most minute decisions extremely important, they only need 1 card in hand to steal the game back. The format teaches you by pointing out your mistakes, and if you can learn from these mistakes, it will make you a better player. The power of the cards often lead to what 4eak described as a Rubik's cube, you need to make very complex decisions as soon as you look at your opening hand to determine the best line of play through seemingly endless options.

It doesn't bother me at all that two decks can have 10 cards different and be totally different archetypes, that is the nature of a format with so many powerful restricted cards. While I agree that it makes the decks seem stale, and it definitely does not leave room for a great deal of innovation in the popular "drain-based control" archetypes, the difference in those few cards will determine how well you do in a tournament.

I also disagree with it being "extremely luck based", you see good Vintage players consistently top 8ing exactly the same way you see good players from any other format consistently top 8ing. People complain that they show up at a Vintage tourney and get "blown out of the water" on the first or second turn. And while this does happen sometimes, and you can't stop it, maybe you shouldn't have kept that hand if you had no disruption on your first turn? Mulligan decisions are extremely important to being a successful Vintage player.

Personally, I am not bothered by the big money cards because I own them. For others, proxies really offset the cost of vintage, to the point where Vintage is as, if not more affordable than Legacy to play. A set of forces, a set of duals (normally seas) and a few commons/uncommons and cheap rares (mostly restricted cards) are all you need to play.

The game speed factor is a popular misconception. Vintage games go to time fairly often. Games may only last 3-4 turns sometimes, but the length of these turns, and the interactions during them are equivalent to many turns of play in another format.


Vintage is my favorite format because I love picking up a hand, and discussing with my friends for what can take hours, the many lines of play, and the ideal plays against a specific deck or a blind opponent. Just as 4eak said, it's like a Rubik's cube, but I can't solve those things, so I prefer to discuss Vintage hands :P.

[Nightmare]

Vintage is a format that occasionally piques my interest, often when there's a large event nearby; however I generally lose that interest pretty much entirely by the end of round 1. It's not the money, or the swinginess, or the power level of the decks that bores me, it's the monotony of the games in the format, I think (of all things...) that's the issue for me. There are approximately four cards in any given matchup that matter, and the entire format is shaped around resolving them. They may change from matchup to matchup, but realistically, it's just not that interesting to me. I like the variety inherent in Legacy, although that revelation is somewhat new to me, and vintage just doesn't have the same feeling to me.

That, and the fact that I can't run 4 Brainstorm, of course.

[4eak]

@ goobafish


Just as 4eak said, it's like a Rubik's cube, but I can't solve those things, so I prefer to discuss Vintage hands :P.

Eh, stick to Vintage if you have friends to play with (not many Vintage players here in Thailand). Becoming a great Vintage player (which I am not) is more difficult (and thus more fun!) than sub-20 second cubing, unless you are colorblind or lack index fingers/thumbs.





peace,
4eak

[jazzykat]

Type 1 was my first competitive format.

I like how random it is. I like how the decks change so infrequently even I was able to put in enough time to study the matchups in great depth. While broken things happen IMO there was never such a format as Vintage where given similarly powered decks as a single mistake can end you. All the other formats allow for time for your opponent to potentially give you back the game. I like the luck aspect as well as the unforgiving nature.

Legacy is fun because there are a whole bunch of competitive decks and the variety is what makes it interesting.

[Silent Requiem]

I used to play (unpowered) Vintage up to around 2003. But now I much prefer Legacy. I don't have to play with proxies, but I also don't have to play with a deck that costs more than my monthly wage.

Another issue is the sheer diversity. For whatever reason, I see more variety in the decks I face in Legacy than I ever did in Vintage. This keeps the game fresh and interesting.

-Silent Requiem

[DragoFireheart]

Do Vintage decks run Tarmogoyf at all?

[MEATROCKET]

Do Vintage decks run Tarmogoyf at all?

Absolutely. Check out these top 8s, which just happen to be the four most recent from morphling.de:

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1106
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1105
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1104
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1103

Goyf is obviously not as popular in Vintage as it is in Legacy, but it still gets play in any fish deck with green (which are gaining popularity), and plenty others.

Also, I completely agree with 4eak. Vintage is my favorite format for quite a few reasons, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I started playing in early '96 and I grew up being familiar with a ton of these broken cards. :tongue:

[AngryTroll]

Absolutely. Check out these top 8s, which just happen to be the four most recent from morphling.de:

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1106
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1105
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1104
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1103

Goyf is obviously not as popular in Vintage as it is in Legacy, but it still gets play in any fish deck with green (which are gaining popularity), and plenty others.


Those lists look awesome. Most of those fish decks are running 2 Goyfs each, with a third Goyf sneaking into a few lists. They are all running 4 Cold-Eyed Selkies. 4 Noble Heirarch and 2 or 3 Pridemages back up Selkie, but is that dude really that good? I mean, apparently, but weird. And cool.

[frogboy]

I think I'd rather play Kamigawa block constructed than Vintage.

Die. That format ruled.

[TeenieBopper]

Die. That format ruled.

Mirrodin Block Constructed then? Onslaught? I dunno, I've never been big on block constructed formats (but they're all better than Vintage). I just remember reading about how people hated KBC.

[MTG-Fan]

Lorwyn Block Constructed -

"Turn 3, I attack with 5 Elves/Faeries/Kithkin, bringing you down to 6 life, go."

"Ok, my turn, I attack with 5 Elves/Faeries/Kithkin, go."

That's the format of champions right there.

[keys]

I gotta say some of the fish decks and other heavily metagamed aggro decks with like 10 hate bears maindeck look fun as hell to play, and I'm surprised how many different variations make T8. :laugh: Probably an uphill battle though.

The one "eva green" deck with Hyppies and Oona's Prowlers made me lol.

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1105

[Dan Turner]

I play a lot of vintage and honestly I am one who believes in playing with your cards so even though I play in some 10 card proxy tournaments I run what power i do have ( i proxied a common once it was pretty funny to play a real Black lotus then drop a tendrils proxy)

[Jak]

I play a lot of vintage and honestly I am one who believes in playing with your cards so even though I play in some 10 card proxy tournaments I run what power i do have ( i proxied a common once it was pretty funny to play a real Black lotus then drop a tendrils proxy)

Nice.

I've never even tried to play Vintage because oft he cost, but I also don't try to online as well. It just doesn't seem fun enough. There is hardly any variety and the cards are so powerful that the format becomes more luck based.

[TeenieBopper]

Lorwyn Block Constructed -

"Turn 3, I attack with 5 Elves/Faeries/Kithkin, bringing you down to 6 life, go."

"Ok, my turn, I attack with 5 Elves/Faeries/Kithkin, go."

That's the format of champions right there.

Better than "Yawgmoth's Will. Kill you." At least you get to swing with dudes.

[ClearSkies]

I find it funny that some people complain about Vintage being too "luck-based" when in fact, "luck" plays in any type of Magic Format. Unless you have library manipulation, it is "luck" that gives you the card you need or don't need when you draw or start the game. It is that "luck" that can give you those winning card or not give you those cards.

Vintage is an interesting format to me because it plays some of the most powerful cards in magic. It seems to be more fun than the other formats, besides maybe Legacy. The cost of the cards is a big factor if you can't proxy them.

[Dembones]

Better than "Yawgmoth's Will. Kill you." At least you get to swing with dudes.

Nothing is more fun then swinging with lame tribal vanilla creatures, right?

It's not so much about killing with the Will, it's getting there.

[MEATROCKET]

There is hardly any variety and the cards are so powerful that the format becomes more luck based.

Crap like this just isn't true. It seems like people who say this are also the people who say stuff like:



I've never even tried to play Vintage...I also don't try to online as well.
Oh, wait.

[Jak]

Crap like this just isn't true. It seems like people who say this are also the people who say stuff like:


Oh, wait.


Then what is true? Cards like Recall, Lotus, Sol Ring, etc are very powerful and more often than not will win you the game if someone has them in their hand and you don't. But w/e I don't play it because I hear about this stuff too often so you don't need to even reply to this.

[Nessaja]

I find it funny that some people complain about Vintage being too "luck-based" when in fact, "luck" plays in any type of Magic Format. Unless you have library manipulation, it is "luck" that gives you the card you need or don't need when you draw or start the game. It is that "luck" that can give you those winning card or not give you those cards.
There's more luck involved in drawing a card which you can only draw 1 off then drawing a card which you have 4 off.

I didn't call Vintage luck based, I simply don't know if it's the case. But there's a logical basis behind calling it more luck based then legacy.

[ClearSkies]

There's more luck involved in drawing a card which you can only draw 1 off then drawing a card which you have 4 off.

I didn't call Vintage luck based, I simply don't know if it's the case. But there's a logical basis behind calling it more luck based then legacy.

The first situation you just described can be applied to many decks that runs tutors and a single to win. (Example: Combo topdecking Ad Nauseam, Stax going 1st Turn Trinisphere, 2nd Turn Smokestack, 3rd Turn Crucible, and the list goes on.)

Well, the logical basis is because they are so focused on Vintage being "luck-based" that people tend to forget that all the other formats can be considered "luck-based" as well.


Then what is true? Cards like Recall, Lotus, Sol Ring, etc are very powerful and more often than not will win you the game if someone has them in their hand and you don't. But w/e I don't play it because I hear about this stuff too often so you don't need to even reply to this.

That can applied to other formats as well. A person plays Ad Naseum Combo, and another person plays some Homebrew Standard deck . The person playing the Standard deck will lose because they don't have those powerful Legacy cards to stop the combo. That person playing combo will most likely just win.

[Dembones]

There's more luck involved in drawing a card which you can only draw 1 off then drawing a card which you have 4 off.

I didn't call Vintage luck based, I simply don't know if it's the case. But there's a logical basis behind calling it more luck based then legacy.

The decks in Vintage are designed to be able to find the one of cards that facilitate your win. Alot of the decks are tutor driven, and this is why it looks like it's so luck based, with all those one ofs. I'd actually argue the opposite. These tutors give you access to the card you need, when you need it.

This is where the skill in Vintage lies. You can grab any bomb and play it, but there's always the best choice. Lesser players, like myself, don't always see the best choice, we just see a decent play, and make it. Playing with a card like Gifts Ungiven will show you what I mean.

[Nessaja]

The first situation you just described can be applied to many decks that runs tutors and a single to win. (Example: Combo topdecking Ad Nauseam, Stax going 1st Turn Trinisphere, 2nd Turn Smokestack, 3rd Turn Crucible, and the list goes on.)
Magic is a luckbased game, I never said that luck didn't play a factor, but you're less lucky when the probability is higher. Again, I'm not saying that Vintage is luck based but having some sort of lock on the table (first turn trinisphere or first turn chalice) actually has a much higher probability then having a 1-off in your opening hand. As such, you're more lucky when you have that 1 off in your opening hand. Nobody said that any format wasn't luckbased, but if you want to know where the statement that Vintage is more luckbased comes from there's your reasoning.


The decks in Vintage are designed to be able to find the one of cards that facilitate your win. Alot of the decks are tutor driven, and this is why it looks like it's so luck based, with all those one ofs. I'd actually argue the opposite. These tutors give you access to the card you need, when you need it.
I figured as much, I honestly quite simply don't know if it's more luckbased or not, tutoring does mitigate it a bit but it doesn't neglect it entirely, I could build up some statistical analysis for this but I just don't care enough to do that really..

All I know is that for me, that vintage is a format with may more restrictions then legacy and as such the deck variety is much lower. That's boring to me.

[blacklotus3636]

The first situation you just described can be applied to many decks that runs tutors and a single to win. (Example: Combo topdecking Ad Nauseam, Stax going 1st Turn Trinisphere, 2nd Turn Smokestack, 3rd Turn Crucible, and the list goes on.)

Well, the logical basis is because they are so focused on Vintage being "luck-based" that people tend to forget that all the other formats can be considered "luck-based" as well.



That can applied to other formats as well. A person plays Ad Naseum Combo, and another person plays some Homebrew Standard deck . The person playing the Standard deck will lose because they don't have those powerful Legacy cards to stop the combo. That person playing combo will most likely just win.

It makes perfect sense that vintage tends to be more luck based because of the power level of the cards that win compared to the amount and strength of cards that disrupt. In vintage there is a shit ton of bombs that can be played really quickly while there is a much more narrow number of cards that can disrupt very quickly and effectively on the opponents turn. Force is really all you can do to disrupt your opponent when its not your turn compared to the utterly retarded amount of stuff I can play to win on my turn AND I can play my own disruption as backup. Its true that in all formats, active players tend to have the advantage but when you can easily kill your opponent in a turn or two it becomes more 'swingy' hence the term luck based.

[Dembones]

It makes perfect sense that vintage tends to be more luck based because of the power level of the cards that win compared to the amount and strength of cards that disrupt. In vintage there is a shit ton of bombs that can be played really quickly while there is a much more narrow number of cards that can disrupt very quickly and effectively on the opponents turn. Force is really all you can do to disrupt your opponent when its not your turn compared to the utterly retarded amount of stuff I can play to win on my turn AND I can play my own disruption as backup. Its true that in all formats, active players tend to have the advantage but when you can easily kill your opponent in a turn or two it becomes more 'swingy' hence the term luck based.


Have you ever played with a Stax deck? The entire thing is built to disrupt your opponent using triggered effects at the beginning of their upkeep.

Mana Drain decks were making top 8's at an absurd rate before the restriction of TfK, as well, so there goes your inability to stop your opponent.

[Jak]

That can applied to other formats as well. A person plays Ad Naseum Combo, and another person plays some Homebrew Standard deck . The person playing the Standard deck will lose because they don't have those powerful Legacy cards to stop the combo. That person playing combo will most likely just win.

I wasn't talking about owning them. I was saying that having an opener with a Recall while the other person does not makes it a lot less fun for me. The cards allowed in Vintage just swing the game way too much for me to be interested in it.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Mirrodin Block Constructed then? Onslaught? I dunno, I've never been big on block constructed formats (but they're all better than Vintage). I just remember reading about how people hated KBC.

Kamigawa block constructed was of the most fun and diverse block constructed formats of all time and was breath of fresh air after the stale one deck(Affinity tuned to beat the mirror) format that was Mirrodin block constructed.

People hated Kamigawa in standard due to the low power level of cards compared to the power level of cards from Mirrodin block. This has more do with Mirrodin block being overpowered due to poor design than it had to due with Kamigawa Block. A total of 9 cards from Mirrodin block got the axe in standard; a record only topped by Urza's block.


Absolutely. Check out these top 8s, which just happen to be the four most recent from morphling.de:

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1106
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1105
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1104
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1103

Goyf is obviously not as popular in Vintage as it is in Legacy, but it still gets play in any fish deck with green (which are gaining popularity), and plenty others.

Also, I completely agree with 4eak. Vintage is my favorite format for quite a few reasons, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I started playing in early '96 and I grew up being familiar with a ton of these broken cards. :tongue:

Those top 8 lists also prove that rogue decks can win in Vintage. Goblins and Elves! both earned themselves a #1 slot.

[vigilante]

The Source's thoughts on vintage?

Vintage is both concentrated and supersized. Legacy is still supersized, but not as concentrated as Vintage.
(...and whatever other shit mercenarybdu was rambling on about).

[JeroenC]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand any of that?

[vigilante]

Here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=362688&postcount=1373).

[JeroenC]

Oh. Something about voices he's hearing, makes sense that I wouldn't understand.

[blacklotus3636]

Have you ever played with a Stax deck? The entire thing is built to disrupt your opponent using triggered effects at the beginning of their upkeep.

Mana Drain decks were making top 8's at an absurd rate before the restriction of TfK, as well, so there goes your inability to stop your opponent.

Things happen so fast in vintage because of the power level of the cards. In legacy and other formats you can do some pretty ridiculous things in one turn but most of the time if someone drops a bomb you have at least a turn or two to deal with it. In vintage you don't have a turn or two to deal with anything. You either have the answer now and disrupt them now or you die. When things are like that it means that games are often determined by who draws better. In legacy one of the most broken things you can do is turn 2 dreadnought/stifle. Even in this example you have until turn 4 before you answer a threat or die and a two card combo like that is alot less likely and more vulnerable than just drawing a tinker or will for the win.

[Mijorre]

Did I hear someone say turn 1 Ad Nauseam with protection? I think I heard someone say that.

[voltron00x]

Things happen so fast in vintage because of the power level of the cards. In legacy and other formats you can do some pretty ridiculous things in one turn but most of the time if someone drops a bomb you have at least a turn or two to deal with it. In vintage you don't have a turn or two to deal with anything. You either have the answer now and disrupt them now or you die. When things are like that it means that games are often determined by who draws better. In legacy one of the most broken things you can do is turn 2 dreadnought/stifle. Even in this example you have until turn 4 before you answer a threat or die and a two card combo like that is alot less likely and more vulnerable than just drawing a tinker or will for the win.

Legacy T1 plays:

T1 Magus of the Moon / Blood Moon
T1 Trinisphere (note: restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via Belcher (note: 4x LED, 4x Lotus Petal both restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via ANT, with Pact / FOW back-up, OR T2 with Orim's Chant backup (note: 4x LED, 4X Lotus Petal both restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via LED in Ichorid (note: 4x LED, restricted in Vintage)

Tell me again why you think this format is less broken than Vintage? Legacy allows 4x Mystical Tutor and 4x FoF alongside 4x Trinisphere, LED, Burning Wish, Lotus Petal.... both formats are fast and brutal and full of broken plays, its just that in Vintage, there are more options and many are restricted to singletons. Drawing arbitary comparisons is ridiculous. I've seen Vintage games centered on creature combat and I've seen Legacy games with ANT vs 43 Land where neither deck ran a single guy. I've seen TPS Mirror matches that are brutally fast in Vintage, and Stax mirrors that take all day to play, just like in Legacy i've seen CB/Top mirrors draw out and I've seen matches take less than 5 minutes... ask my Champs opponents from rounds 2 or 3 last year how fair it is playing aggro against Belcher in Legacy.

[blacklotus3636]

Legacy T1 plays:

T1 Magus of the Moon / Blood Moon
T1 Trinisphere (note: restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via Belcher (note: 4x LED, 4x Lotus Petal both restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via ANT, with Pact / FOW back-up, OR T2 with Orim's Chant backup (note: 4x LED, 4X Lotus Petal both restricted in Vintage)
T1 win via LED in Ichorid (note: 4x LED, restricted in Vintage)

Tell me again why you think this format is less broken than Vintage? Legacy allows 4x Mystical Tutor and 4x FoF alongside 4x Trinisphere, LED, Burning Wish, Lotus Petal.... both formats are fast and brutal and full of broken plays, its just that in Vintage, there are more options and many are restricted to singletons. Drawing arbitary comparisons is ridiculous. I've seen Vintage games centered on creature combat and I've seen Legacy games with ANT vs 43 Land where neither deck ran a single guy. I've seen TPS Mirror matches that are brutally fast in Vintage, and Stax mirrors that take all day to play, just like in Legacy i've seen CB/Top mirrors draw out and I've seen matches take less than 5 minutes... ask my Champs opponents from rounds 2 or 3 last year how fair it is playing aggro against Belcher in Legacy.

ok I'm just going to shoot down each one of those one by one.
1.Belcher sucks its vulnerable to the smallest amount of disruption
2.magus of the moon is good but not game against many decks in the field
3.trinisphere hardly ever comes out turn 1 because you need 3 specific cards to make that happen and once again even then that isn't game against most of the field because most decks played in legacy are not combo unlike vintage
4.ANT can be played with backup turn 1 but usually its played a little later than that and most of the time I've played against it you can get them to a low enough life that ANT can accidentally kill them
5. ichorid can do that but its alot like belcher in that its easily disrupted and generally is not turn 1 material most of the time.

I should also note that every deck in legacy that actually can win very quickly(turn 1 or 2) has to be very dedicated to that combo(dredge, belcher, ANT)
I can throw a tinker,will, jar and solomoxen into most any vintage deck and call it a day. I'm a reasonable guy but your never going to convince me that a magus, belcher, and a trinisphere(without workshop) is equal to will,tinker,jar and solomoxen. nuff said

[voltron00x]

ok I'm just going to shoot down each one of those one by one.
1.Belcher sucks its vulnerable to the smallest amount of disruption
2.magus of the moon is good but not game against many decks in the field
3.trinisphere hardly ever comes out turn 1 because you need 3 specific cards to make that happen and once again even then that isn't game against most of the field because most decks played in legacy are not combo unlike vintage
4.ANT can be played with backup turn 1 but usually its played a little later than that and most of the time I've played against it you can get them to a low enough life that ANT can accidentally kill them
5. ichorid can do that but its alot like belcher in that its easily disrupted and generally is not turn 1 material most of the time.

I should also note that every deck in legacy that actually can win very quickly(turn 1 or 2) has to be very dedicated to that combo(dredge, belcher, ANT)
I can throw a tinker,will, jar and solomoxen into most any vintage deck and call it a day. I'm a reasonable guy but your never going to convince me that a magus, belcher, and a trinisphere(without workshop) is equal to will,tinker,jar and solomoxen. nuff said

1. I came in 3rd at last year's Legacy Champs with Belcher. It was my 2nd Legacy tournament. Ever. Belcher also made top 8 at a side event at GP Boston last weekend. There are plenty of instances of it doing well on deckcheck and it was one of the best performers at Worlds 2007's Legacy portion. I had 4 turn-one kills throughout the 8 rounds of swiss (I started 6-0 and had two IDs, so really through 6 rounds). I beat blue decks with force of will in rounds 4, 5, and the quarterfinals before finally losing to one in the semis. I also beat Sui Black and Dark Boros, through Duress / TS / Hymn.
2. Magus of the Moon is devastating against CB/Top and good to very good against many other decks (see: Imperial Painter and Dragon Stompy, among others). Some decks WILL fold to that play on T1.
3. Dragon and Faerie Stompy are DESIGNED TO PLAY T1 Trinisphere, along with several other less popular decks. I mean, really?
4. That's why I said turn 2 with protection. The deck can win on T1, especially on the draw against decks that don't run FoW / Daze. The first time I played Legacy I got killed T1 by Iggy Pop and then T2 by Iggy Pop. In the past 8 months I've played, I don't know, call it 50 rounds of tournament Vintage, and I've been killed on the first turn exactly zero times.
5. Of course Ichorid CAN be easily disrupted, yet players like Parcher continue to rack up top 8 after top 8 with the deck. Again, take a look at Morphling or Deckcheck. Ichorid is all over the place in top 8s worldwide.

Your little summary statement proves that you don't play Vintage at all. Turn 1 kill decks see little to no play AT ALL in today's Vintage meta, which is dominated by Tezzeret, followed by Ichorid and Workshop decks, and then Null rod aggro (Fish in particular). Somewhere down the line you get to modern TPS decks, which are designed to be resilient and often run Mana Drain. These decks aren't really similar to Belcher or ANT at all. Will and Tinker are broken cards, but Jar is hardly seeing any play right now. Solo Will and Tinker are IMO no more or less broken than allowing a format to have 4x Burning Wish, LED, and Lotus Petal. They're both acceptably broken.

[Adan]

I like Vintage very much, I play it because it was my first competitive format (where I was also able to have at least some success with UW Fish back then) and because I met a lot of cool people there.
The most comfortable thing about Vintage is for me that the community doesn't consist of stupid people (not in view of playskill but in view of... like emissions and such). Each single person is more mature than the guys I meet (or unfortunately have to meet) at the Legacy tournaments.

I remember someone saying that I was a terrible noob while he was standing right behind be, but 1 round later scrubbed out against me simply because he did not say his Cursecatcher to my Dread Return (not to counter DR which I could pay for, but to RFG the Bridges for that I can't fuck him over. I'd have lost immediately otherwise).
I also had one guy who just didn't want to trade with me. Maybe he was afraid of my pink poloshirt or something, but I still don't get it.

And the Vintage guys are all showered and cared unlike some of the Legacy players who have not adapted to today's culture of personal hygiene.

Anyway, about the whining of the format:

It's a myth that Vintage is all about Turn 1 kills. I'd say only Grim long and Ad Nauseam Tendrils are able to do that. But even if you have the possibility to do so, you need protection against at least half of the format's field (i.e. all Draindecks).

I play Ichorid and from my feeling, 3rd Turn is already superfast (if Ichorid runs normally, you really do win on Turn 4 at the latest). It's true that there are retarded topdecks sometimes, but that's how the format is (and as a Ichorid player, I can't do anything against topdecks, so this is one point I've learned to accept pretty fast. Better for the blood pressure).

But from my feeling, you need slightly more skill to master a deck in Vintage. I also think mistakes are punished harder. Another point I like about Vintage: Bad players are punished immediately and frequently. Of course someone can lucksack himself right back into the game, but I only saw that once or twice.

[Dembones]

I'm a reasonable guy but your never going to convince me that a magus, belcher, and a trinisphere(without workshop) is equal to will,tinker,jar and solomoxen. nuff said

The power level of Legacy as a whole is lesser than in Vintage.

With that said, a first turn Magus, Trinisphere, or Stifling out a Dreadnought are comparable plays to Tinker, Moxen, or Will in Vintage.

[blacklotus3636]

The power level of Legacy as a whole is lesser than in Vintage.

With that said, a first turn Magus, Trinisphere, or Stifling out a Dreadnought are comparable plays to Tinker, Moxen, or Will in Vintage.

by saying this you lose all credibility

[Shanghi Knights]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if i put several posted view points i come up with what follows as one collected perspective on the difference of the formats stradegy. (doesn't address all view points expressed in the thread, yet)

Many of you dislike how vintage decks can have multiple stradegy's based on just a few cards packed into them. Such as tinker for darksteel and a tutor package for a tendrils kill and grindstone/painter servant all in the same deck. Not that this is the disliked part but it really over loads the game with ways of attack. (not actual "swing" attacking) basically if the meta stops route 1 you just go route 2 as quickly as possible. which somewhat brings up the speed of vintage which many comment about.
But compared to legacy you have more concentrated deck construction and the decks focus on just one of these stradegies and your left over space in the deck is devoted to how do i make sure it works in the meta.

[Skeggi]

The big difference between Legacy and Vintage is variaty of the format and exclusivity. You have to be a dedicated magic nut to start playing Vintage, even if it's 'only' Ichorid.

That said, Vintage is alot more predictable having such a small competitive variety of decks. Yes, rogue decks pop up here and there, but they're still more an exception than a rule. Legacy also has a wider selection of competitive decks, and even with this broad variation rogue decks with even more variation top 8 regularly.

I've considered for quite a while to start playing Vintage (y'know, because it's hardcore :wink:), a couple of my friends do, but so far, it's too much of an investment. Especially since I like Workshop Aggro...

[overseer1234]

Well I play both legacy and vintage, and I like both of the formats.

The fact that it cost's a ton doesn's bother me that much because there are plenty proxy event's to compensate my lack of power. (even thoug I get a lot more satisfaction out of Beating a Full powered Deck With a Deck that cost less Than just 1 of their cards)


Thinking vintage is luck based and has no interaction is just pure ignorance as I like to Quote something a friend of mine once sayd:


Okay, he scoops on turn 1 of game 1, and he wins game 2 on turn 3 or 4, and you get stuck on 1 mana in game 3. Yet you still went to turns? Vintage cannot possibly be that hard.

Trust me, I see goblin welders going for the win, and combo deck in the mirror going to time constantly.


The Format difersity might be a bit of a problem at the moment since the DCI king of nerfed an entire engine with the latest two reastrictions and 1 deck is really dominating (TEZZ), then again this make's building hate decks a lot better since you can perfectly metagame it.

Even goblins can compete because things like:
T1 lackey, T2 smack, throw in warchief, prowl earwig squad: GG..... (Most decks win on a tinkered innkwell leviatanm a tendrills or tezzeret, usually oneoff's so...) since going infinte turns will result in them decking themselve's....

Or a Dragon Stompy like Deck with main deck chalice, null rod, magus, SSG, ReB, And mox monkey's, fanatic's,.... Trust me, a lot of decks Get whooped with this.

[Ectoplasm]

My nephew once won a Vintage tourney with ichorid through stinkweed imp beatdown :D
Vintage seems like a fun format, simply because it's cool to play with all these sick cards, but it's just too big a threshold for me to start shelling out for cards.

[Jak]

How does attacking with Goblin Welder make the format fun?

Guys, Vintage isn't ridiculously fast like you think! I win games all the time by attacking with my Goblin Welder or beating with my Stinkweed Imps!

That sounds terrible and doesn't even make me want to try to play the format. I am not dissing Vintage here, but the people defending it saying how it isn't broken and boring by saying they win by attacking with 1/1s all the time are bull shit.

[overseer1234]

My nephew once won a Vintage tourney with ichorid through stinkweed imp beatdown :D
Vintage seems like a fun format, simply because it's cool to play with all these sick cards, but it's just too big a threshold for me to start shelling out for cards.

Seriously, without bazaar Ichorid is just cheap as hell, and mostly you can just proxy those.

Also, you can build an effective hate deck that costs less than a mono colored sligh deck...

[kkoie]

I would like to point out that while Vintage is expensive to get into (assuming you want to play a competative deck) it is cheap to maintain, as is Legacy.

It is a cheaper tournament format to maintain a competative cardpool in than Standard. Of all formats I personally would label standard the most expensive. You may not have to lay down $1000 to $3500 to develope a competative deck, but you are spending quite a bit of cash every 3 months to ensure you have the strongest cardpool.

After completing my sets of power9, bazaars, and shops 2 years ago, I have spent very little cash on maintaining my vintage cardpool. But considerably more maintaining a half-way decent FNM standard deck.

Any Legacy player who has a decent cardpool should easily be able to create a 10 proxy vintage deck.

[Dembones]

by saying this you lose all credibility

I can't convey what I mean to you. You refuse to look at things objectively.

[keys]

I would like to point out that while Vintage is expensive to get into (assuming you want to play a competative deck) it is cheap to maintain, as is Legacy.

I'm not saying there aren't expensive Legacy decks, but you can get into the format and play competitively without proxies for $100. You can't do that in Vintage. The up front cost of Vintage staples is an investment many people aren't willing or able to make.

I don't play Standard either, for the same reasons you mentioned.

[kkoie]

you can get into the format and play competitively without proxies for $100.

This sounds like the makings of a TV show or contest.


You have a budget of $100, American, and 30 days to buy and build a legacy deck. The first person to win a 30+ player tournament wins the grand prize!

[voltron00x]

I'm not saying there aren't expensive Legacy decks, but you can get into the format and play competitively without proxies for $100. You can't do that in Vintage. The up front cost of Vintage staples is an investment many people aren't willing or able to make.

I don't play Standard either, for the same reasons you mentioned.

I challenge this.

First of all, I'd like to see a competitive Legacy deck that costs under $100 to buy from scratch. The only obvious one is Ichorid, and that deck is just as cheap to build for 15-proxy Vintage.

Here is an article I wrote proposing a competitive 15-proxy Vintage deck for under $200, Starcity prices.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17730_The_Long_Winding_Road_Vintage_Elves.html

If you don't believe that this deck is competitive, here's a link to a TO report showing this deck won a 30 person tournament just a few weeks ago:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38452.0

Secondly, if you're discussing Proxy Vintage, the staples you need (blue duals, fetches, force of will, thoughtseize, goyf, etc) are basically identical to what you need in Vintage, and then you proxy the drains and power, or power and shops, or bazaars. The real difference is in Legacy you need to own everything, making some decks actually cost more in Legacy than they do in Vintage if you're talking about buying decks from scratch.

[Tacosnape]

I'm saying it's closer to $200 for Legacy unless you want to play Burn. Even Elf and Sligh decks add up pretty quickly for the 4-of rares. My average less expensive decks are around $350ish.

My problem with Vintage isn't the price tag, though. I just don't like playing in formats where the answers are weaker than the questions.

[paK0]

Well, there is no Vintage Scene ant hand, nor money for the power, so playing Vintage is kinda out of the question for me.

I play on MWS occasionally, but there are so many bad players thats its almost no fun.

[Adan]

I'm not saying there aren't expensive Legacy decks, but you can get into the format and play competitively without proxies for $100.


LEDless Ichorid? Affinity? Stupid Burn?

-> that's all. And they all suck. Really, these decks should have no right to exist and shall burn in hell. There's almost no interaction when playing against burn and I'm sick of the mimimimi they do after I smash them with CBalance.

Except for Ichorid, that is the most skillintense of all budget decks and can be boosted seriously if you put 4 LED into it. It's very cool, I like it, but lack experience.

[Nessaja]

I challenge this.

First of all, I'd like to see a competitive Legacy deck that costs under $100 to buy from scratch. The only obvious one is Ichorid, and that deck is just as cheap to build for 15-proxy Vintage.

Here is an article I wrote proposing a competitive 15-proxy Vintage deck for under $200, Starcity prices.
Here's the thing though, in order to have fun in Legacy you do not need to dish out a lot of money, even when playing against Counter Balance, even when you bring mono white Kithkins you'll have a good shot (cough (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28001)). You don't need a group of elite friends that all dished out a lot of money to play Legacy, pretty much everyone can play Legacy and in fact, there are a lot of decks that can do alright without a huge money investment. Even random jank.dec can have a good time in Legacy and that's not theoretical that actually happens. Playing against Vintage you'll just sit on the other side of the table watching the opponent take a turn of 20 minutes. That's the difference.

[voltron00x]

Here's the thing though, in order to have fun in Legacy you do not need to dish out a lot of money, even when playing against Counter Balance, even when you bring mono white Kithkins you'll have a good shot (cough (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28001)). You don't need a group of elite friends that all dished out a lot of money to play Legacy, pretty much everyone can play Legacy and in fact, there are a lot of decks that can do alright without a huge money investment. Even random jank.dec can have a good time in Legacy and that's not theoretical that actually happens. Playing against Vintage you'll just sit on the other side of the table watching the opponent take a turn of 20 minutes. That's the difference.

The problem is, that isn't even remotely accurate. A Faeries deck won a 40+ person Vintage tournament. Null Rod strategies are reasonably viable and are especially popular in Europe, where proxies aren't the norm. Saying you can "have fun" is a sort of ridiculous argument because how can you even measure that? Who is to say it isn't "fun" to play stupid red burn in Vintage? You'll win some games with it, no doubt, just like you would in Legacy, but that doesn't make it competitive.

Full, non-proxy Legacy decks that win tournaments - Merfolk, Landstill, CB/Top, LED Ichorid, Dreadstill, etc - are not cheap. Even Zoo requires investment in Duals, Fetches, Chain Lightning, and so on. A 15-proxy version of 5C Stax is not that expensive compared to Dreadstill or CB/Top in Legacy. Most of its rares you can grab on ebay for $3 each - Smokestack, Thorn/Sphere, Tangle Wire, Karn, Crucible, etc. 15 proxy means you don't need to buy 4x shop, 5 mox, lotus, recall, etc.

[Nessaja]

The problem is, that isn't even remotely accurate. A Faeries deck won a 40+ person Vintage tournament. Null Rod strategies are reasonably viable and are especially popular in Europe, where proxies aren't the norm.
This is actually exactly what I mean. In order to participate at the format at all you already require knowledge of the format and need to run hate cards in order to compete whereas in legacy you can bring a T2 deck and still do decent. You can go in a store where only extended/T2 and casual is played and still have people to play against and it's not even like you'll win everything either with your established deck either. Take a Countertop deck against a random homebrew aggro deck and you'll still lose games.

I started several years ago with Rebel Elves and played against lots of other Legacy decks, sure, I didn't win more then 50% but I gave them a damn good challenge while I was running exactly zero legacy staples.

What do I mean to illustrate? That you can get in the format with your own homebrew deck, do decent without any investment at all and no need to run cards that you might not like either because they are a requirement to compete (like Null Rod).

[MTG-Fan]

The problem with Vintage is, as I have already pointed out several pages earlier, is that to *compete* you absolutely *must* run either:

a.) Power9+BrokenStuff+WinCondition

b.) 4xChalice+4xNullRod+HateBears that specifically hates out option a.

c.) a Workshop deck, which may or may not also run expensive BrokenStuff+Power9 in addition to the 4 Workshops

d.) A Dredge deck that doesn't care about BrokenStuff/Power9

Period. If you don't run one of the 4 options, you can't even hope to survive longer than a minute. You will have no fun at all playing anything else.

Some people don't want to be locked into those 4 choices. Maybe some people don't like beating face with Hate Bears while your opponent is locked out of the game with Null Rods and Chalices, if they can't, or don't want to, play Power9+BrokenStuff, because that's about their only other option.

In Legacy, you can play a damn Burn deck, and if your skill level is high enough, do reasonably well and even win stuff occasionally. You can play a mono-colored control deck (Quinn/MUC) and do well. You can play a deck full of nothing but creatures and do well. You can play a combo deck that tries to win within the first few turns (Belcher/ANT) and do well. You can play a whole bunch of different stuff and if you metagame decently, practice, you have a shot at doing well, and if you don't, you will still have fun. You will never feel "blown out of the water" as you would playing Rogue stuff in Vintage.

It's not entirely about the cost of the cards; it's just the fact that there are so few options in Vintage as to what you can run.

[voltron00x]

The problem with Vintage is, as I have already pointed out several pages earlier, is that to *compete* you absolutely *must* run either:

a.) Power9+BrokenStuff+WinCondition

b.) 4xChalice+4xNullRod+HateBears that specifically hates out option a.

c.) a Workshop deck, which may or may not also run expensive BrokenStuff+Power9 in addition to the 4 Workshops

d.) A Dredge deck that doesn't care about BrokenStuff/Power9

Period. If you don't run one of the 4 options, you can't even hope to survive longer than a minute. You will have no fun at all playing anything else.

Some people don't want to be locked into those 4 choices. Maybe some people don't like beating face with Hate Bears while your opponent is locked out of the game with Null Rods and Chalices, if they can't, or don't want to, play Power9+BrokenStuff, because that's about their only other option.

In Legacy, you can play a damn Burn deck, and if your skill level is high enough, do reasonably well and even win stuff occasionally. You can play a mono-colored control deck (Quinn/MUC) and do well. You can play a deck full of nothing but creatures and do well. You can play a combo deck that tries to win within the first few turns (Belcher/ANT) and do well. You can play a whole bunch of different stuff and if you metagame decently, practice, you have a shot at doing well, and if you don't, you will still have fun. You will never feel "blown out of the water" as you would playing Rogue stuff in Vintage.

It's not entirely about the cost of the cards; it's just the fact that there are so few options in Vintage as to what you can run.

So... you enjoy formats that provide "fun" because suboptimal decks can sometimes win tournaments?

You're painting with strokes so broad, you fail to see how they apply to Legacy, which breaks down into:

1 - tribal aggro
2 - LED combo
3 - CB/Top control
4 - standstill control

The rest of the decks that you "can" play - Sui Black, Enchantress, 43 land, Goyf Sligh, etc - aren't really good enough to be tier 1. EVERY MAGIC FORMAT HAS A TIER ONE. You can go through morpling and deckcheck and find plenty of instances to prove your previous statement incorrect. Goblins have won tournaments in Vintage. So have R/G aggro decks. It is rare, but it happens.

[(nameless one)]

I'm saying it's closer to $200 for Legacy unless you want to play Burn. Even Elf and Sligh decks add up pretty quickly for the 4-of rares. My average less expensive decks are around $350ish.

My problem with Vintage isn't the price tag, though. I just don't like playing in formats where the answers are weaker than the questions.

i built my elf deck for about $100 Canadian... but i dont run Gaea's Cradle.

and not all aggro revolves around tribal... you forgot about zoo, aggro-stompy, sligh deck....

If i were to play vintage though, i'd run mono-red goblins with 4 null rods and CotVs

[voltron00x]

i built my elf deck for about $100 Canadian... but i dont run Gaea's Cradle.

and not all aggro revolves around tribal... you forgot about zoo, aggro-stompy, sligh deck....

If i were to play vintage though, i'd run mono-red goblins with 4 null rods and CotVs

Zoo is pretty decent lately because of the way the metagame is shaking out but there are times when it is basically unplayable. Zoo has actually won some smaller Vintage tournaments as well.

Admittedly Dragon Stompy did well in Chicago, but most people consider it a relatively bad deck. Faerie Stompy is more or less a dead deck at this point.

[MTG-Fan]

The rest of the decks that you "can" play - Sui Black, Enchantress, 43 land, Goyf Sligh, etc - aren't really good enough to be tier 1. EVERY MAGIC FORMAT HAS A TIER ONE. You can go through morpling and deckcheck and find plenty of instances to prove your previous statement incorrect. Goblins have won tournaments in Vintage. So have R/G aggro decks. It is rare, but it happens.

The difference here is that in Legacy, the tier 2 and the tier 1 are not so far apart in power as they are in Vintage. A skilled player can do well with tier 2 stuff, and even steal some top8 spots. In Vintage, you practically cannot beat the Power9+BrokenStuff unless you run Ichorid, Workshop, or 4xNullRod+4xChalice+HateBears decks.

Your previous example of Burn being playable in both formats is ludicrous. A burn deck beating a fully powered Vintage deck? I don't think so. Not unless it runs 4xChalice+4xNullRod, and then you might as well play one of those decks instead of 4xChalice+4xNullRod+Burn.

In Legacy, however, a decent player could do some serious damage with a Burn deck. Sure, he'd lose to other stuff playing Chalice or CounterTop, but he can always sideboard some Ancient Grudge and pose serious problems for other players. In Vintage? Uh, no. He's getting owned.

The raw power of the Power 9 is such that they warp any format that allows them to be played. Those cards are just so much better than everything else, that a deck that has access to them is basically on steroids. Unless you run the antidote to those steroids (4xNullRod+4xChalice+Hate) you can't compete with them on equal terms.

This leads to a very narrow metagame where the best decks in the format are just a collection of singleton BrokenStuff like Yawg Will, Tinker, Time Walk, Recall etc all powered by the Power9 artifacts. All that differentiates the decks is their win condition. One deck might run Oath of Druids, another might just run Tendrils, and yet another might run Vault+Key, etc. Then, because the only other option, if you don't want to build around BrokenStuff, but you want to cast spells, is to play hate, you can build an aggro deck around 4xChalice+4xNullRod. And if you don't mind not casting stuff, because Dredge is powerful enough on its own and sidesteps the need to play with mana, you can play that. And finally, because Mishra's Workshop itself is so powerful, like the Power9 artifacts, you can build a deck around that. But those are your only options. You are locked into Stax, Chalice Aggro, BrokenStuff, or Dredge. Anything else is so subpar compared to this stuff it's not even worth considering.

Compare this to the Legacy metagame, where you have a definite tier1 consisting of CounterTop, Landstill, Tribal Vial Aggro, etc, but you also have a vast tier2 consisting of many decks that are perfectly capable of beating the tier1 with their diverse strategies, if put in the hands of a capable player. I could beat a CounterTop player with 20+ different decks of various strategies. These decks might not be good enough to consistently give me high-quality results, but I could definitely have some good games and win quite a few matches. If I took anything but BrokenStuff, Dredge, Chalice Aggro, or Stax to a Vintage tournament, I would LOSE. Horribly, and repeatedly.

Try this out: plug "Enchantress" into deckcheck under the "Legacy" section, and see how many results you get. Now search Vintage decks for "Enchantress" and see how many results you get.

Interesting decks like Enchantress can win tournaments in Legacy. But they're completely absent from the Vintage metagame because if you're running Power9, there is no reason to run anything interesting, because you are almost always better off just running one of the established win conditions like Tendrils or Vault+Key. There is no reason, in such a warped format, for anything remotely different from the established 4 archetypes and their streamlined, ridiculous win conditions.

[voltron00x]

The difference here is that in Legacy, the tier 2 and the tier 1 are not so far apart in power as they are in Vintage. A skilled player can do well with tier 2 stuff, and even steal some top8 spots. In Vintage, you practically cannot beat the Power9+BrokenStuff unless you run Ichorid, Workshop, or 4xNullRod+4xChalice+HateBears decks.

Your previous example of Burn being playable in both formats is ludicrous. A burn deck beating a fully powered Vintage deck? I don't think so. Not unless it runs 4xChalice+4xNullRod, and then you might as well play one of those decks instead of 4xChalice+4xNullRod+Burn.

In Legacy, however, a decent player could do some serious damage with a Burn deck. Sure, he'd lose to other stuff playing Chalice or CounterTop, but he can always sideboard some Ancient Grudge and pose serious problems for other players. In Vintage? Uh, no. He's getting owned.

The raw power of the Power 9 is such that they warp any format that allows them to be played. Those cards are just so much better than everything else, that a deck that has access to them is basically on steroids. Unless you run the antidote to those steroids (4xNullRod+4xChalice+Hate) you can't compete with them on equal terms.

This leads to a very narrow metagame where the best decks in the format are just a collection of singleton BrokenStuff like Yawg Will, Tinker, Time Walk, Recall etc all powered by the Power9 artifacts. All that differentiates the decks is their win condition. One deck might run Oath of Druids, another might just run Tendrils, and yet another might run Vault+Key, etc. Then, because the only other option, if you don't want to build around BrokenStuff, but you want to cast spells, is to play hate, you can build an aggro deck around 4xChalice+4xNullRod. And if you don't mind not casting stuff, because Dredge is powerful enough on its own and sidesteps the need to play with mana, you can play that. And finally, because Mishra's Workshop itself is so powerful, like the Power9 artifacts, you can build a deck around that. But those are your only options. You are locked into Stax, Chalice Aggro, BrokenStuff, or Dredge. Anything else is so subpar compared to this stuff it's not even worth considering.

Compare this to the Legacy metagame, where you have a definite tier1 consisting of CounterTop, Landstill, Tribal Vial Aggro, etc, but you also have a vast tier2 consisting of many decks that are perfectly capable of beating the tier1 with their diverse strategies, if put in the hands of a capable player. I could beat a CounterTop player with 20+ different decks of various strategies. These decks might not be good enough to consistently give me high-quality results, but I could definitely have some good games and win quite a few matches. If I took anything but BrokenStuff, Dredge, Chalice Aggro, or Stax to a Vintage tournament, I would LOSE. Horribly, and repeatedly.

Try this out: plug "Enchantress" into deckcheck under the "Legacy" section, and see how many results you get. Now search Vintage decks for "Enchantress" and see how many results you get.

Interesting decks like Enchantress can win tournaments in Legacy. But they're completely absent from the Vintage metagame because if you're running Power9, there is no reason to run anything interesting, because you are almost always better off just running one of the established win conditions like Tendrils or Vault+Key. There is no reason, in such a warped format, for anything remotely different from the established 4 archetypes and their streamlined, ridiculous win conditions.


How on earth is "Broken stuff" an archetype?

You're telling me TPS = Gro = Tezzeret = ANT = Oath because all run most of the Power 9? Come on.

You think 5C Stax = Workshop Aggro = Metalworker?

G/W Beatz = G/R Beatz = BUG Fish = Faeries = UGW Fish?

Dream Halls combo has made a few T8s this year. Elves has won a tournament and T8 others. Menendian made T4 at the Waterbury with Gro. Fish won both days at the ICBM open. Faeries won a 40-person tournament. ANT won a huge tournament in Europe. I won a 40+ person tournament with Oath of Druids. The 2nd place deck from the NYSE event on 7/25 was a totally different take on Oath (with Platinum Angels and Pacts) than my Hellkite Oath, based on James King's list. Vintage has at least 8 or 9 distinct, viable decks. The fact that they revolve around 5 "pillars" - Dark Rituals, Mana Drains, Shops, Bazaars, and Null Rod - doesn't mean there are only 5 decks. Trying to state that is the case is incorrect and misleading.

[MTG-Fan]

How on earth is "Broken stuff" an archetype?

You're telling me TPS = Gro = Tezzeret = ANT = Oath because all run most of the Power 9? Come on.


The basic gameplan is the same for all of these decks. You use Power to generate fast mana and then try to play your broken stuff like Tinker/Yawg Will/Time Walk/Recall, and you use Force of Will/Mana Drain and/or Duress/Thoughtseize to protect your broken stuff. Then you use a win condition like Dryad, or Oath, or Tendrils, or Vault+Key to win the game.




You think 5C Stax = Workshop Aggro = Metalworker?


There are two ways to abuse Workshop: you either play Smokestacks and Spheres, or you go the aggro route and focus more on artifact creatures. Both share many similaraties, and both revolve entirely around Workshop.



G/W Beatz = G/R Beatz = BUG Fish = Faeries = UGW Fish?


There are only a few creatures you can realistically run in 4xNullRod+4xChalice decks. Because of the BrokenStuff decks, you pretty much are forced to play guys that have hate properties like Trygon Predator, Gaddock Teeg, Ethersworn Canonist, etc.

So alot of these lists end up looking very similar.



Vintage has at least 8 or 9 distinct, viable decks. The fact that they revolve around 5 "pillars" - Dark Rituals, Mana Drains, Shops, Bazaars, and Null Rod - doesn't mean there are only 5 decks. Trying to state that is the case is incorrect and misleading.

Vintage has 4-5 playable decks based on those pillars, all of which are tweaked slightly by players to create minor variations on the same basic concepts. Anything that strays further from those 4-5 core strategies simply cannot compete on any level. Compare this to Legacy, where entirely different strategies are viable (never dominant, but definitely capable of winning) apart from the core of the tier1 composed of CounterTop, AEther Vial Tribal, and Standstill Variants.

[Nessaja]

So... you enjoy formats that provide "fun" because suboptimal decks can sometimes win tournaments?

You're painting with strokes so broad, you fail to see how they apply to Legacy, which breaks down into:

1 - tribal aggro
2 - LED combo
3 - CB/Top control
4 - standstill control


Just in the DTB forum you're proven wrong already

Zoo doesn't fall under your categories,
Tempo thresh doesn't fall under your categories.
Survival doesn't fall under your categories.
And in fact, Merfolk doesn't fall under your categories either (it's not an aggro deck)

Also, there's not that big of a difference between tier 1 and the following decks

Dragon Stompy
Ichorid
The Rock
Eva Green
Goyf Sligh
Team America
MUC
Enchantress

All of the above are solid decks with very realistic chances of winning a tournament or at least coming in the top 8. If you claim otherwise you don't understand Legacy very well, sorry. It is not rare, weird or uncommon for these decks to show up in the top 8 and beating several of the T1 decks. Vintage has variety (http://www.deckcheck.net/format.php?format=Vintage) but it doesn't compare to legacy (http://www.deckcheck.net/format.php?format=Legacy).

[emidln]

The basic gameplan is the same for all of these decks. You use Power to generate fast mana and then try to play your broken stuff like Tinker/Yawg Will/Time Walk/Recall, and you use Force of Will/Mana Drain and/or Duress/Thoughtseize to protect your broken stuff. Then you use a win condition like Dryad, or Oath, or Tendrils, or Vault+Key to win the game.

So Vial Goblins = Dredge = Landstill = Stax = Threshold = Merfolk = ANT = every competitive deck because the basic gameplan is to use available mana to play ridiculous bombs which produce an advantage while using disruption to protect their bombs and prevent the enemy from playing bombs?

[Blitzbold]

I will try to answer the OPs questions as well as address a few misconceptions raised in this thread.

Vintage was my first competitive format, and it will always be my favorite format. It was through my success in Vintage that I began to meet more people who played other formats, eventually I made the move from being a Vintage player to being a Drafter, a Legacy player and now a constructed player. Magic has always been about the social aspect to me, I got into formats by making friends with people who play those formats, and I am closest with my local Vintage crowd.

Vintage teaches you the importance of seemingly the most minor decisions, because of the huge impact that even the most minor mistake can have on the outcome of the game. Not only this, but you get to see the effect of your "minor" mistake immediately, where in other formats, you may not notice it at all. The power of the cards makes the most minute decisions extremely important, they only need 1 card in hand to steal the game back. The format teaches you by pointing out your mistakes, and if you can learn from these mistakes, it will make you a better player. The power of the cards often lead to what 4eak described as a Rubik's cube, you need to make very complex decisions as soon as you look at your opening hand to determine the best line of play through seemingly endless options.

It doesn't bother me at all that two decks can have 10 cards different and be totally different archetypes, that is the nature of a format with so many powerful restricted cards. While I agree that it makes the decks seem stale, and it definitely does not leave room for a great deal of innovation in the popular "drain-based control" archetypes, the difference in those few cards will determine how well you do in a tournament.

I also disagree with it being "extremely luck based", you see good Vintage players consistently top 8ing exactly the same way you see good players from any other format consistently top 8ing. People complain that they show up at a Vintage tourney and get "blown out of the water" on the first or second turn. And while this does happen sometimes, and you can't stop it, maybe you shouldn't have kept that hand if you had no disruption on your first turn? Mulligan decisions are extremely important to being a successful Vintage player.

Personally, I am not bothered by the big money cards because I own them. For others, proxies really offset the cost of vintage, to the point where Vintage is as, if not more affordable than Legacy to play. A set of forces, a set of duals (normally seas) and a few commons/uncommons and cheap rares (mostly restricted cards) are all you need to play.

The game speed factor is a popular misconception. Vintage games go to time fairly often. Games may only last 3-4 turns sometimes, but the length of these turns, and the interactions during them are equivalent to many turns of play in another format.


Vintage is my favorite format because I love picking up a hand, and discussing with my friends for what can take hours, the many lines of play, and the ideal plays against a specific deck or a blind opponent. Just as 4eak said, it's like a Rubik's cube, but I can't solve those things, so I prefer to discuss Vintage hands :P.

I have to second every single word of this excellent post. Even when it comes to Rubik's damn cube.

[voltron00x]

Let me try this again, since several of you are trying to discuss this reasonably, and others are not. I understand that Legacy has more than 4 pillars - I was being purposefully broad to illustrate that a similar view of Vintage is narrow-minded and incorrect. See if this is more accurate:

Pillars - Vintage:
Dark Ritual
Workshop
Bazaar
Mana Drain / FoW
Null Rod Aggro

Pillars - Legacy:
Aether Vial
Standstill
LED
Trinisphere + (Ancient Tomb / City of Traitors)
CB / Top
Goyf Aggro / Tempo

Competitive Tier 1 decks - Vintage
Tezzeret Control
Time Vault Combo (this has developed and branched out from Tezz Control)
TPS / Drain Tendrils
Ichorid (mana, manaless)
5C Stax
Workshop Aggro
BUG Fish
G/W/(b) Null Rod Aggro
Oath (Hellkite / Tyrant)

2nd Tier Decks (limited success, viable but not tier 1) - Vintage
Combo Elves
Dream Halls
Strategic Slaver
Painter
ANT
Bomberman
Snake Pit / Alabama Black Snake
Selkie Strike

Competitive Tier 1 decks - Legacy
CB/Top Control / NLU
Dreadstill
Standstill
Canadian Thresh
LED Ichorid
ANT
Goblins
Merfolk
Zoo

2nd Tier Decks (limited success, viable but not tier 1) - Legacy
Team America (note: this was T1 in 2008 but has not placed in large events in 09)
43 Land (Made top 4 - GP: Boston side event)
Enchantress
Painter (Made top 8 - Legacy champs 2008)
Dragon Stompy (Made top 8 - GP: Chicago)
Belcher (Made top 4 - Legacy champs 2008)
Survival
Cephalid Breakfast (dominated Legacy portion of worlds 2007 but more or less trumped by LED Ichorid)

We can clearly see there is overlap between the Vintage pillars. For example: Drain Tendrils, Uba Stax, and Time Vault Control. Some Oath decks SB Null Rod - Oath is particular doesn't fit well into this "pillar" structure.

In Legacy, we see the same. Say what you want, there is actually plenty of overlap between Goblins and Merfolk. Both run Vial and a mana disruption package (Stifle + Wasteland, Wasteland + Port) and exploit tribal interactions to win (Goblins has a better tutor / draw / cost reduction package while Merfolk is much better against Combo because it is a blue deck). Clearly you see considerably overlap between decks like CB/Top compared to Dreadstill compared to Landstill.

Similarly, plenty of cards anchor Legacy just like the P9 / restricted list anchors Vintage. Clearly cards like FoW, Daze, Brainstorm, Stifle, Standstill, Counterbalance, Top, Goyf, Fire/Ice, Wasteland, Bolt, Vial, etc overlap plenty of the decks I listed above, it just so happens that you can play 4x of them. Every format has its best "anchor" cards for each archetype, it just so happens that Vintage allows the most powerful cards and restricts tutors, so that you end up with a lot of decks that run powerful bombs and a lot of tutors to make the decks more consistent. This style of play appeals to plenty of people. Why? Although Vintage can be "swingy" at times, it is also NOT particularly luck-based because you can run so much card draw / filter / tutors.

Many of my friends played competitive Vs. and point out that the game became ridiculously skill-based as it went on because you could play so many tutors. Vintage is very skill testing because EVERY play matters immediately - the format is fast, brutal, and you can sculpt your plays many turns in advance, but you have to have the skill and foresight to be able to do so.

I enjoy Legacy because the metagame is still so fractured. People run 20 different decks, despite many of them being suboptimal, because Legacy is still a very localized format with wildly different metas. The difference between playable and Tier 1 IS smaller in Legacy, but similarly the fact that you can't play the BEST cards still makes some people feel like it is Vintage "lite". I don't really feel that way - they're both fun formats with powerful cards. Running 4x Trinisphere or 4x LED or 4x Fact or Fiction is also fun for me - Legacy is plenty broken in its own way. Legacy does have more room for innovation amongst its pillar cards, which I like, and because the meta is still developing, different decks will continue to come in and out of prominence, which is fun.

I think you'll find that I write plenty about Legacy AND Vintage and will be playing in champs for both this year. Both formats are awesome, and you can toss ridiculous and ungrounded complaints at both formats, but what's the point? IMO these formats are both good for each other. Eternal players need to do what they can to support each other and make sure their formats retain relevance as time goes by. Underground Sea isn't going to be any cheaper in 5 years, guys. How are you going to defend Legacy in 5 years when people complain that they have to buy $35 Force of Wills and $75 Underground Seas and $50 LEDs? Just food for thought.

[DrJones]

I'm currently making a campaign to ban Force of Will, myself. It's all for the sake of Legacy, you know. \o/

[Nessaja]

Pillars - Legacy:
Aether Vial
Standstill
LED
Trinisphere + (Ancient Tomb / City of Traitors)
CB / Top
Goyf Aggro / Tempo

Competitive Tier 1 decks - Legacy
CB/Top Control / NLU
Dreadstill
Standstill
Canadian Thresh
LED Ichorid
ANT
Goblins
Merfolk
Zoo

2nd Tier Decks (limited success, viable but not tier 1) - Legacy
Team America (note: this was T1 in 2008 but has not placed in large events in 09)
43 Land (Made top 4 - GP: Boston side event)
Enchantress
Painter (Made top 8 - Legacy champs 2008)
Dragon Stompy (Made top 8 - GP: Chicago)
Belcher (Made top 4 - Legacy champs 2008)
Survival
Cephalid Breakfast (dominated Legacy portion of worlds 2007 but more or less trumped by LED Ichorid)

We can clearly see there is overlap between the Vintage pillars. For example: Drain Tendrils, Uba Stax, and Time Vault Control. Some Oath decks SB Null Rod - Oath is particular doesn't fit well into this "pillar" structure.

You didn't mention The Rock or Aggro Loam while they're both tier decks.

I really do think that it's easier for Legacy to go outside these pillars then it is for Vintage. On top of my head:

- You can play combo Elves or even Aggro Elves (doesn't fall into any of the above strategies or pillars)
- You can play Deadguy Ale and you would be playing something that is perfectly viable.
- Likewise mono black aggro
- You can play aggro elves and win tournaments without any of the required pillars
- Another deck that's perfectly viable but doesn't fall in your categories is Train Wreck
- Fairy Stompy doesn't fall into your categories either
- Same counts for Solidarity
- ITF is not a Goyf Aggro or Tempo deck but is perfectly viable and gets plenty of 8s

I really do think that it's harder in vintage to do something outside the box. These above decks are perfectly viable decks just not very popular. Their lack of popularity has more to do with players following eachother like sheep then the actual viabilities of the above decks. The few players that do play these decks usually do get T8s.

I'm not saying that Vintage is a terrible format, I do think it's much more restricted then Legacy and it's much harder for newcomers to pick up the format and play a viable deck without putting themselves in any of the established pillars.

[voltron00x]

I'll go through these one by one.

Deadguy Ale is an outdated metagame deck.

Natural Order Rock has the potential to be viable, but hasn't proven popular and definitely needs to see more play before I'd consider it a solid tournament deck. My friend piloted it to a 12-3 record with no byes at GP:Chicago. If you want to add Natural Order decks to the "viable" category, I wouldn't oppose it.

Sui Black and Eva Green are both outdated and their recent results prove this to be the case. Just because people continue to play them in numbers doesn't mean that they're any good. The latter is played primarily because its a budget choice. I think they're both awful despite some writers continuing to post them on various websites.

Aggro Elves hasn't won any decent sized tournaments that I'm aware of. Again, this is a budget deck. It did T8 Legacy Champs 2008, admittedly. Combo elves has been a total wreck in Legacy because of the rise of Counterbalance (the absence of which helped explain its success in Extended last year).

I'm not familiar with Train Wreck or ITF. It's hard to keep up with all of the Legacy decks that T8 small events. If you want to describe them or post a link, I'll be happy to review and discuss. However, see my comment below re: tournaments you should look at when declaring something tournament viable.

Faerie Stompy is a poor choice in today's Legacy meta, and the decline in its numbers played and T8s shows this to be true. I am aware of at least one person who made day 2 at GP: Chicago with it, but he had 3 byes. He does swear by the deck. I also know of other people who have given up on it after multiple bad finishes with the deck, including my friend who went 12-3 with Natural Order Rock.

Solidarity is outdated and particularly bad in this meta.

I hope you realize that you're stretching to prove your point.

For example, Landstill has one advocate in my local Vintage meta, AJ Grasso. The guy has absolutely dominated the Blue Bell events this year and is #1 in Champs points for those events (the local TO tracks finishes and has his own rating system; winner each year gets free entry into his events in the following year). Vintage Standstill isn't generally considered an archetype but he's won 2 events and T8 at least 2 others with the deck. Its most broken first-turn play is like, Mox, land, Standstill, go. However, I'm not going to throw it out there because that's one guy, playing one deck, in one local metagame. You need to realize that a lot of the decks you THINK are viable, really aren't. Just because a store runs Legacy every month, with teh same 20 people, and one guy keeps making top 8 with a fringe deck, doesn't mean it is actually good. Look at the results from the GP, the SCG $5K, Worlds 2008, Champs 2008, and so on. These are events with 100s of players and show you what is really viable... and what isn't. There are some decks that seem to T8 in a multitude of these small events (Dragon Stompy, Survival, etc) which is why I listed them out in the second tier.

Obviously Tier discussions always are contentious and I get that. My point is that there isn't nearly as much difference in these formats as some people have stated. You can't just walk into legacy and design some Soldier Tribal deck and expect to do well. There are serious design limits at work in Legacy.

Can you survive a T1 kill from ANT, Ichorid, or Belcher? Can you survive against the turn 3/4 goldfish from a deck like Zoo or Goblins, or even lesser played aggro like burn, goyfsligh, or affinity? Can you beat a resolved Counterbalance? Can you protect yourself against a 3rd turn Natural Order into Progenitus, or Hellkite Overlord, or Empyrial Archangel? Can you beat a T1 Trinisphere?

Blue decks mostly run on a similar core involving fetches, duals, Brainstorm, Daze, and Force of Will. From there, you go into draw engines (Standstill), disruption (Stifle), additonal counter-magic (Counterspell, Spell Snare, Counterbalance), and so on. Landstill, Dreadstill, Canadian Thresh, and CB/Top have many similarities but they're all clearly different decks. The same is true in Vintage. Workshop Aggro, Uba Stax, and 5C Stax are NOT the same deck.

I agree, Vintage is one of the harder formats to get into AT FIRST, but once you spend a little time, it is very easy to play competitively for the rest of your Magic-playing career. Some people LIKE the fact that the format evolves slowly. They LIKE the fact that the format offers the most interaction and strategy from turn 1 as compared to all other magic formats. They LIKE playing in a format that is built on a foundation of NOT banning cards for power level reasons.

Others want their games to be less "swingy" or don't like having to deal with the tutors & bombs aspect of blue Vintage decks, or don't like proxies, or don't like spending $5K on a deck to play non-proxy. I get that, and so did the DCI, hence Legacy.

They're both awesome formats. I'd rather play Legacy and Vintage than any other format of Magic, even though I do play Extended, Standard, Draft, Sealed, EDH, and so on because I love this stupid game in almost all of its forms, and Eternal Magic formats aren't as commonly played.

I just don't get why people from Vintage feel any need to bash Legacy and vice versa. People who play one will probably like the other, if they give it a real try. There is a lot of value to both formats, and having players from one format play the other will help both formats grow and evolve.

[Nessaja]

Deadguy Ale is an outdated metagame deck.
No it isn't, there's nothing metagame about the deck, it's running the strongest aggro control cards from black and white. I don't see how you can call: this (http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?page=1&type=Deadguy+Ale&format=Legacy) not legacy viable. And do the same for all the other decks I mentioned.


Sui Black and Eva Green are both outdated and their recent results prove this to be the case. Just because people continue to play them in numbers doesn't mean that they're any good. The latter is played primarily because its a budget choice. I think they're both awful despite some writers continuing to post them on various websites.
Maybe on Sui Black, on Eva Green you're just plain wrong, I don't need to link you to deckcheck. Eva Green is a solid deck in todays meta and gets consistent finishes.


Aggro Elves hasn't won any decent sized tournaments that I'm aware of. Again, this is a budget deck. It did T8 Legacy Champs 2008, admittedly. Combo elves has been a total wreck in Legacy because of the rise of Counterbalance (the absence of which helped explain its success in Extended last year).
I know atleast one because I was at the tournament: http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=23008 and that was in a meta infested with Counterbalance. Aggro Elves, maybe, I disagree but I'm not able to link you to 100+ man events but I don't disagree with that as a definition for a deck being viable. T8ing in 40+ man tournaments is already in indication that the deck is capable of beating other tier decks and aggro elves is 100% certain capable of doing that.


I'm not familiar with Train Wreck or ITF.
Check deckcheck.net for them.


Faerie Stompy is a poor choice in today's Legacy meta, and the decline in its numbers played and T8s shows this to be true. I am aware of at least one person who made day 2 at GP: Chicago with it, but he had 3 byes. He does swear by the deck.
Here's our discussion, is this deck not a viable Legacy deck. You claim so because it doesn't T8 in 100+ man tournaments. But that is not a requirement for a deck to be a viable Legacy deck as that is influenced by much more then just the deck choice.


Solidarity is outdated and particularly bad in this meta.
I know some people in real life that still swear by it. And not because they're stubborn but because they can consistently do good with the deck. They do top 8 with it, I don't know i they did at big tournaments. But I'm not in agreement about your definition of a viable deck.


I hope you realize that you're stretching to prove your point.
I'm honestly not. And you forgot Aggro Loam.


You need to realize that a lot of the decks you THINK are viable, really aren't. Just because a store runs Legacy every month, with teh same 20 people, and one guy keeps making top 8 with a fringe deck, doesn't mean it is actually good.
I'm lucky that I live in a country where the most populair format is Legacy and to be quite honest it has one of the strongest metagames around. Assuming that I'm talking about 20 man tourneys is quite frankly insulting. And in addition far from the truth.


Look at the results from the GP, the SCG $5K, Worlds 2008, Champs 2008, and so on. These are events with 100s of players and show you what is really viable... and what isn't. There are some decks that seem to T8 in a multitude of these small events (Dragon Stompy, Survival, etc) which is why I listed them out in the second tier.
Your view on what is Legacy viable seems to be heavy influenced by amercian standards. I know that you guys are the center of the world but by all means, you aren't defining the Legacy scene. From the GP I know that it wasn't that good of an indication of the Legacy metagame, a large percentage of the players didn't even play Legacy as their main format, heck, the winner even didn't.

I define viable as decks that are able to top 8 in 40+ man tournaments where pretty much everyone has Legacy as their main format. We all have our own perspectives.

To be honest, I don't think much of 100+ man tournaments - as in - I don't value them as defining the format. A lot more factors play a role in winning such a tournament then just taking the right deck. Also, because of all the sheep in Legacy, the chances of one of the DTB's showing up their is much bigger then a less popular deck and that's assuming that someone with the right skill level is piloting that deck too.


You can't just walk into legacy and design some Soldier Tribal deck and expect to do well. There are serious design limits at work in Legacy.
For one thing you'll be able to beat pretty much all aggro decks with Soldier Tribal. As well as have a good aggro control matchup. And I'm dead serious here. A new player that comes in a shop with veteran legacy players can join in with a Soldier Tribal deck and win more then 20% of the games. Can you say the same about vintage?

[voltron00x]

What I said is true, IMO, of the American Legacy scene. I didn't mean to reference that of the entire world. The Legacy scene is Asia is also probably quite different than what you listed. You're right, I have no idea what's good in Europe, and I certainly have no interest in spending all day on deckcheck looking up european decks. Maybe someone from Australia or Japan will chime in now and say how wrong you are. Does that prove anything re: Vintage?

Nevertheless, claiming that 20+ archetypes are all equally viable is just not correct, no matter what you believe. And that Soldier Tribal comment doesn't really help your cause. The top tier decks are always going to be a small handful, not 35 decks that all have made a T8 somewhere in the past 24 months.

Debating how many Legacy decks are viable really has nothing to do with Vintage anyway, so I'm not even sure how we got to this point. If I had nothing better to do, I could data mine the globe for strange and obscure Vintage decks that made T8 and claim those are viable, too.

[mossivo1986]

What I said is true, IMO, of the American Legacy scene. I didn't mean to reference that of the entire world. The Legacy scene is Asia is also probably quite different than what you listed. You're right, I have no idea what's good in Europe, and I certainly have no interest in spending all day on deckcheck looking up european decks. Maybe someone from Australia or Japan will chime in now and say how wrong you are. Does that prove anything re: Vintage?

Nevertheless, claiming that 20+ archetypes are all equally viable is just not correct, no matter what you believe. And that Soldier Tribal comment doesn't really help your cause. The top tier decks are always going to be a small handful, not 35 decks that all have made a T8 somewhere in the past 24 months.

Debating how many Legacy decks are viable really has nothing to do with Vintage anyway, so I'm not even sure how we got to this point. If I had nothing better to do, I could data mine the globe for strange and obscure Vintage decks that made T8 and claim those are viable, too.


I'd just like to point out that to encourage the arguing in this thread pikula and Eva Green arn't even on the tier. Their simply decks that see some play and do well.

Also I'd like to point out that as a legacy player (who played vintage for a while) I am very dismayed at the formats lack of intuitiveness (m10 referances FTL.)

Anyways Hope my 2 cents didn't help.

<3 Mossy

[Nessaja]

On Eva Green, where I live it's currently a DTW with 9 t8's in the past month. It is incredibly short sighted to not call it on tier.


What I said is true, IMO, of the American Legacy scene. I didn't mean to reference that of the entire world. The Legacy scene is Asia is also probably quite different than what you listed. You're right, I have no idea what's good in Europe, and I certainly have no interest in spending all day on deckcheck looking up european decks.
That's fine as long as you realize that what you're saying doesn't count for Legacy as a format. However, this only relates to how much people are required in a tournament for it to be called competitive. If on average the tourneys in my country consist of better legacy players but have less people overall a deck can still be viable. You do not need a 100+ tournament for that.


Maybe someone from Australia or Japan will chime in now and say how wrong you are. Does that prove anything re: Vintage?
No. This isn't something that is meta specfic, the discussion I brought up was that merely for the US you can only take 100+ tourneys into account. You're using your own reference point and generalize it for the entire Legacy scene, it doesn't work that way.


Nevertheless, claiming that 20+ archetypes are all equally viable is just not correct, no matter what you believe.
I said viable and you make it equally viable, I'm not sure why you're twisting my words.


And that Soldier Tribal comment doesn't really help your cause.
Just because I happened to have done extensive Soldiers tribal testing my case is suddenly weaker? Most interesting. It's a tier 2,3 deck that can beat aggro and aggro control decks. If a new player would bring this deck to a shop he can play legacy games sitting at the other end of the table and able to put up a challenge against pretty much any deck but combo, can you say the same about vintage?


The top tier decks are always going to be a small handful, not 35 decks that all have made a T8 somewhere in the past 24 months.
And I have never claimed otherwise. I'm talking about viable decks, unless you're not arguing with me here you are twisting my words.


If I had nothing better to do, I could data mine the globe for strange and obscure Vintage decks that made T8 and claim those are viable, too.
Bolded for emphasis, that's the exact difference, these decks I named (Eva Green, The Rock, Combo Elves, Trainwreck, ITF, Feary Stompy) are not obscure decks. They are a perfectly legitimate choice that only have a much smaller chance at winning because they show up at much smaller numbers. Otherwise it would be a smaller percentage but not by as much by far. By no means is Eva Green inferior to Goblins in terms of matchups and Feary Stompy doesn't do under to Dragon Stompy in terms of positive matchups either, I can go on.

[emidln]

Interestingly enough, soldier tribal would probably give Stax and Fish a decent run for their money in Vintage. Depending on the particular event, you're looking at roughly 50% of the field that probably doesn't want to see an opponent open with Plains, creature, go.

[cjva]

I can't see where this discussion leads. ofc an un-powered deck will do pretty bad in Vintage. The main difference i can see between the formats (and i mainly play leacy, but _love_ vintage) is that you need less money to play legacy. There is still stable cards that you need to get to be able to build a viable deck.

You need to value a format, not from the perspective of how well a "soldier tribal" (i read random bad kiddiedeck) will do against a viable deck in the meta, but how well defined and viable decks will do against each other.

I can somewhere agree on that their is a lower amount of viable decks in vintage, at least compared to legacy, and one of the bad things with legacy, and something that makes legacy far more random then vintage is the amount of decks that are viable.

But there is still enough viable decks in vintage for it to be a healthy format.

I can't understand why people bash formats that they don't like. There i obviously people liking the formats, and people who play the format competative. Bashing each others formats only shows lack of knowledge of the format, not that the format are bad or unhealthy.

And finaly my view on vintage.

I love the rush. The thought process begins with the mulligan, and from there every choice you make, no matter how small it seams can make or break your game. I love the rush of adrenaline i get when i start comboing of or when im hoping my opponent wont draw will from the top, or when my only out is a top-decked will. I love the raw power you find in vintage cards.

[Nessaja]

You need to value a format, not from the perspective of how well a "soldier tribal" (i read random bad kiddiedeck) will do against a viable deck in the meta, but how well defined and viable decks will do against each other.
This for me was merely to illustrate that it's easier to find people to play with with a Legacy deck then a Vintage deck. Having people to play with is a reason for me to dislike a format. As the question for this topic was: "thoughts on vintage?" I don't see why I shouldn't list something I dislike about Vintage as a format.


I can somewhere agree on that their is a lower amount of viable decks in vintage, at least compared to legacy, and one of the bad things with legacy, and something that makes legacy far more random then vintage is the amount of decks that are viable.
Alright, we agree that Legacy is a more random and diverse format then. And personally, I love playing against 7 different decks in a tournament and even meeting homebrews at the top tables on occasion. It's perfectly fine for other people to not like that, I was merely stating my opinion there.

I haven't been "bashing vintage", I'm quite simply stating what I don't like about it.

[kkoie]

A lot of vintage players, beyond myself, that I know do not bash legacy. In fact if you look at big legacy tournaments, such as Chicago, a lot of the notable players from the vintage scene, actively participate in Legacy as well.

[majikal]

I personally love the complexity of Vintage. I used to play tournament chess when I was younger, and Vintage Magic really brings back some of the same feelings. So many decisions to make!