You're going to get some incredibly different opinions on what the "best" Vintage format was due to the question being so subjective and mired in nostalgia. That being said, I'd rate the format from the unrestriction of Regrowth in 2013 till the printing of Khans of Tarkir quite highly.

I also think the current format is very diverse and in a good place. If anything the only real difference between then and now is that Vintage was not on Magic Online and the calls for restrictions were not as loud. Of course there were grumblings on TMD, but that was it. There were no "calls to action" by public figures attempting to affect DCI policy. In fact, the time period mentioned above was at the tail end of WOTC slowly unrestricting card after card that were safe but had no restrictions since 2009.

Hope this helps.

@moorebrother1 said in Vintage Meta-game:

Moreover, I am frustrated with Wizards. I understand that they do not print cards for Vintage per se, but the cards that have been coming out lately leave something to be desired.

Don't be. The last time we had a somewhat larger selection of cards that had applications in Vintage, it didn't seem to go over well (I'm talking about Treasure Cruise, Dig through Time and such). Heck, there's even a massive amount of pushback to the printing of Hollow One and Paradoxical Outcome, even though those cards do exactly what you are looking for.

But on the flip side, the cards that would need to be printed would need to either be so powerful (such as Cruise, again) or so debilitating to current Vintage strategies (such as Grafdigger's Cage) to see widespread use.

I do like this in Rune-Scarred Demon Oath. Not sure if that's still a good enough strategy, but it really fits in well. It was good enough when I tried it out a while ago.

My biggest question here is what are restrictions actually for? Are they to bring problematic decks and metagames in line or are they a tool to shake up and create a metagame? It feels like, more and more, some people want restrictions to create a "better" metagame and to shake up the format. I've always said restrictions should only be used as a last resort.

Imagine if we restricted Dark Petition 2-3 years ago when people clamored for it. It would very likely remain on the restricted list for a long time to come, and nobody would entertain the idea that it could be safe. However, as we've seen, it's not even close to being a problem. It's ludicrous to even think about.

Vintage is the last place where people get to play all cards. While an argument can be made that restrictions still let you play with them, in reality this isn't actually true. Many cards are very playable as a 4-of, but completely unplayable as a 1-of.

Essentially, when cards get restricted, one of three things happen.

1. The card is so busted that is still finds a home as a 1-of in almost any deck that can support it. It can remain a card that people build around even as a 1-of. An example is both Tinker and Yawgmoth's Will.

2. The card sometimes sees play as a 1-of in decks but it isn't strong enough to go everywhere, but it has only a small presence in Vintage. An example is Gush, Memory Jar and Merchant Scroll.

3. The card is effectively "banned". What I mean by this is, the card can see play as a 4-of, but is essentially pointless as a 1-of as the card requires building around, and it's not worth doing so when you play a single copy. You might still see it from time to time but it's virtually non-existent. Examples include Windfall, Channel and Fastbond.

What I mean by this large rant is, when people want cards restricted, sometimes those cards actually get banned, for all intents and purposes, because it's not really possible to play many cards as a 1-of. Vintage is the last place people can play these cards, and I would highly prefer a very lenient restricted list in order to make this possible. Instead of making Vintage a format where you get to play with all iconic cards of MTG's history, many of them are actually "banned".

I get incredibly disappointed each time I look at the restricted list and see a number of cards I never got to experience in its heyday, and probably never will get to experience because of the way the restricted list is slow to change.

Vintage, to me, is not just about playing shiny new Standard Mythic with Moxen. There's nothing special about that. It's meant to allow cards from MTG's entire history. Instead, the way things are going, we'll end up with Highlander, with a restricted list stretching miles long.

I personally like the name association, but that does not necessarily mean you need to fit everything to a name? If I were you, I'd fit in names wherever I could, but just use generic names for ones that don't have them (like the Combo school). Regarding the Reanimator question you had, I'd have difficulty associating the "Comer School" with anything other than Xerox, so even if Comer did come up with the modern version of Reanimator, is it a problem to simply refer to it as the "Reanimator School"?

Anyway, just my 2 cents regarding the topic. Good luck with your reviews!

@oestrus said in Enchantress Viability?:

It does matter when you're trying to lay the groundwork, and your bricks all fold to Misstep (e.g. Wild Growth, Utopia Sprawl).

As I indicated, I did not play these cards. Please read my reply entirely before responding. If you want to play 3 colours, you cannot afford to play these cards and get 3-for-1'd by an opposing Wasteland. The only 1 cmc cards I cared about resolving was Mystic Remora.

Blue Mages hate him!

(In all seriousness, those threads were very interesting to read.)

It's not bad at all, but it kinda falters without it's engine (as expected). I put in some work into the deck before the Gush restriction by pairing the Enchantress engine with Mystic Remora ending in a Solitary Confinement lock. I did not play the usual suspects of Utopia Sprawl etc, because I wanted to play 3 colours and not be punished by Wasteland turned into a 2 or 3 for 1.

@oestrus said in Enchantress Viability?:

Also, Mental Misstep is a Thing.

I don't think this really matters. Once your Enchantress engine is online (which cannot be stopped by anything but FoW really), you can trade cards for Misstep since you're drawing for every enchantment you play. In the version I was testing, outside of Remora I did not play any other cards that had a mana cost of 1 which I cared about resolving that much.

If I were you, addressing the deck's consistency issues would be the first step. The deck's gameplan itself is very powerful and Vintage decks don't run enough answers to enchantments so you attack the metagame is a very different way.

From an ease of understanding standpoint, I like Scourge being chosen as the last set, since as @Brass-Man pointed out, it's the last set with old-borders, making a clean break from Modern-legal sets.

This sounds like the sort of format I've love to play, seeing as I missed out on that era of Vintage!

I agree with @13NoVa here. I dislike diluting the manabase to more than 2 colours unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't think Empty the Warrens is a sufficient reason for this. You can win without needing to rely on Empty by using Chain of Vapor or whatever else along with Defense Grids. Rest is Peace is absolutely not difficult to win through. You shouldn't be relying on your graveyard that much in post-SB games anyway.

I also disagree that the Hurkyl's plan is bad against shops. If anything, with the restriction of more and more prison pieces, it's become a lot more viable of a plan than it ever has been in the past few years. It's actually fairly trivial to cast Hurkyl's with the lack of lock pieces presented by a shops opponent these days. You don't need to necessarily hold your moxen because you can generate storm count in other ways, so you can make a judgement call based on the game.

Perhaps the plan isn't viable because you're destroying your own manabase by not playing basics since you play 3 colours? I'm not sure. Hurkyl's has never been easier.