This was something I had asked for a while back when discussing what the new website could have. I honestly do not know how popular this would be, but a lot of users of TMD do tend to play 93/94 as well. Having a separate to discuss stuff on this format would be awesome. A single sub-forum would probably be enough.
Best posts made by Hrishi
Old-School (93/94) Sub-forum
RE: JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE
I'm amazed by some of the comments in this thread. There's no results that say Outcome is dominating Vintage by any means, and yet I can't help but feel that going by this thread it's going to be restricted anyway. I'm not sure I really want to play a format where public opinion on the internet is the deciding factor of what cards do and do not get restricted.
If Outcome's results are oppressive, by all means restrict it. Until then I don't see any cause for restrictions. We seem to be restricting multiple new cards every year. Are we trying to get the restricted list to stretch for a mile long? Is Vintage not the format where you get to play all cards ever printed or does it come with the qualifier "you get to play everything but every powerful card ever printed will get restricted until we are playing highlander"?
RE: Vintage Buyouts
@MaximumCDawg I think if they expect these reprint sets to make a major impact, they shouldn't be of limited availability (like Modern Masters and Eternal Masters were).
Now, I own every card that I would need to build any sort of deck with Ancestral Recall and Force of Will in it, so this is completely irrelevant to me. I also own Moats. However, it sucks that people are now potentially priced out of owning Moats. The same happened with Library of Alexandria about a month ago, if I'm not mistaken.
As for having 22 years to buy Moats, I would point out that we have new players coming into Vintage ever so often who did not have 22 years to buy anything. As a personal note, I started playing Magic in 2013. People telling me that they had no sympathy for me needing to buy cards needed to play vintage because I had 22 years to buy them would have left an extremely sour taste in my mouth. Thankfully, most people aren't like that.
RE: Thoughts on restrictions
From a personal standpoint, I'm getting sick of cards being printed that do nothing but specifically hate on "vintage strategies". It's such binary gameplay and extremely boring. Call me a "blue mage" or whatever, but honestly I have the most fun when I play big blue or something like that, slinging the most broken spells ever printed against someone else doing the same, blue or otherwise. Some of my favourite games in Vintage were when I played against Prison Shops, or when I played Storm Combo versus a Big Blue deck, or indeed, big blue creature-less mirrors.
I do not have fun trying to answer a random human whose name I cannot remember whose text basically says "you cannot do X", where X refers to something specifically you do in Vintage.
RE: April 24th, 2017 Banned and Restricted update: GUSH AND PROBE/TOP in Legacy
@wappla First you used Rich's deck choice in a daily to attack him. Then you called him a hypocrite. Then you made a snide remark suggesting he was engaging in self-deception. Then you claim you are the one are being bullied?
RE: N.Y.S.E. Open VI?
While it's going to be hard for me to make it (to put it lightly), I just wanted to say that for the times I did, the prize support was a very minor part of the event. I would say that the main attraction was how well the event was run, the fun times to be had by all, and above all else, the fact that it was a large paper Vintage event, of which there aren't very many left! The prize support is secondary to being able to run the event, IMO.
For anybody on the fence, definitely consider going. This event was one of the best Vintage events I've ever been to.
RE: JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE
I mean, the power level argument is silly. We're playing Vintage, with the most powerful cards ever printed. Oath of Druids is legal as a 4-of in this format, is that not "super high power level with very little downside"? Saying a card has a high power level is not a sufficient reason to do anything. Cards that do not have a high power level do not get played in this format.
The restricted list is meant to keep format diversity, not restrict cards that people feel hit some arbitrary measure of power.
RE: Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO
This was a depressing read. I understand that people will either favor conceding or never conceding, but that is their own choice to make. Calling someone an asshole for favoring one position over the other is idiotic.
I will never hold it against someone for not conceding to me. Similarly, I will usually always concede to the person I am playing against in such a circumstance, unless there is specific reason to not do so.
To cut a long story short, it's idiotic to compare this to e-sports or anything of the sort. I am not being paid to play Magic. This is my leisure time and I can choose to spend it however I like, as long as it is within the rules. It is not my obligation to play every single round. I can choose to concede for any reason whatsoever, whether it's because I'm hungry, or because I would rather go home early, or because I simply do not want to play.
Stop confusing professional sports and our Vintage events. When I'm paid to play Vintage, then I'll take a different approach. Until then, I'll do whatever brings me the most personal satisfaction because, once again, it is my free time to do with as I choose.
Good god, I really feel sorry for @ChubbyRain because he does a lot of additional work in bringing metagame information every week, and streaming because it is helpful to bring newer players into the format. His reward is being called an asshole for conceding, an action which is perfectly legal by the rules of Magic, blamed for manipulating metagame information because of concessions and worse. I'm disappointed.
RE: August 28, 2017 Banned & Restricted Announcement
@apollogod Solitaire is a challenging one-person game too.
Your disdain for combo decks is well documented. Thankfully not everyone feels the same way. I am excited for Bargain being unrestricted and will be playing Vintage again.
To address your earlier point, I do find it more fun to be killed by someone drawing 19 cards and comboing me out than being swung to death by idiotic humans whose text say "you cannot do x". Then again, I feel your question is somewhat rhetorical, but sometimes these things don't translate well over the web.
RE: Old School?
I had requested a sub-forum on 93/94 in this thread. Please upvote!
RE: SMIP Podcast # 69: Three Months Later AKA The Q2 Metagame
I think whenever unrestrictions are mentioned, people go into a frenzy and start panicking. This happened for all the last unrestrictions, each one being heralded as the end of Vintage.
Relax, the card pool can handle almost anything. I think dangerous unrestrictions ARE the way to go, rather than having a restricted list a mile long. Constantly balancing the format by adding more restrictions is not the way to go, in my opinion. It's not a sustainable approach.
Kevin's proposal is probably the most interesting to me, even if it's the most "dangerous".
RE: October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement
I think another big factor to take into consideration is that the metagame is barely 2 months old. Yes, people are going to say that Workshops have dominated for years, but why is that relevant? Before the restriction of Thorn and Mentor, Vintage was, in theory, a completely different beast. This applies to every single restriction.
Let's take this in for a moment. When I started playing Vintage the only changes to the B&R list were unrestrictions that were long overdue, such as Regrowth and Burning Wish. When these happened, hilariously, some in the community heralded the death of Vintage. Now, we've had 8 restrictions in short order.
Dig Through Time, Chalice of the Void
Gush, Gitaxian Probe
Thorn of Amethyst, Monastery Mentor
And now people want to increase that to 10? The above restrictions happened from January of 2015 to now. This is a staggering number of restrictions in less than 3 years.
It's pretty shocking that the simple concept of sportsmanship is such a complicated and twisted affair. Maybe it's because I used to play other sports, but it seems like the concept of sportsmanship should be obvious and people need to learn how to lose. What I mean by this is, learn how to lose a match with grace and don't throw a tantrum about somebody's luck or whatever else.
Too often I've been shocked at the public displays of bad mannerisms in public after a loss. Learning HOW to lose is just as important as learning how to play the game. I'll share a story from back when I first started playing Vintage (and indeed, magic itself), without naming names, but I have told this story before so some people know what I'm talking about.
It was my 3rd or 4th tournament overall, and I was slowly getting my Vintage collection together. I had just gotten a Black Lotus and was so excited! However, I had no dual lands and the proxy limit at an event I was going to was 15 cards, and I'd go over the limit since I chose to put my money into the Lotus first! So when I got to the event, I spoke to the person running the event and asked if I could trade my Lotus in for some Dual Lands for the purposes of competing in the event. The organizer was nice to wave me off and tell me not to worry and to go a few cards over the limit since it was obvious I was trying to get down to a zero proxy collection.
I was playing in the last round of the event, but wasn't going to quality for top 8 or anything. I had won the first game and he had won the second. We were in the third game and he had seen my lotus but proxied duals and commented on it lightly earlier. In game 3, I had cast my game winning Yawgmoth's Will. My opponent's expression visibly changed and harshly demanded that I show my deck to the judges to see if I was over the proxy limit or not. This was among my first events so I got scared that I had done something wrong. The judge came over, checked my deck and counted my proxies, then went off to the organizer.
Thankfully the organizer knew of my condition, of course, and said it was fine and to keep playing. I went through the motions, killed him with a Tinker and a Time Walk. My opponent stood up in a huff and left without another word.
It was absolutely shocking behaviour. Not only was he fully aware that I was new and trying to get into the format by buying cards slowly, he had also seen my Lotus and knew that I wasn't just throwing proxies onto everything. More importantly, he had no concerns about my deck UNTIL he saw that he was about to lose when I had cast the game winning spell.
Now, this person is actually a regular in the north east Vintage circuit and is apparently a nice person in general, but this display of behaviour permanently damaged my opinion of this person. I will never look upon him favorably because of the way I was treated when I was a newcomer. It all came down to throwing a tantrum when about to take a loss, instead of taking the loss with grace.
I remember hearing this when I was a lot younger, but I feel it's extremely relevant to this day.
And if should win, let it be by the code
With my faith and my honor held high;
And if I should lose, let me stand by the road,
And cheer as the winners go by.
RE: Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop
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.
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.
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.
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.
RE: Discussing Gush Mentor (beating it, restriction discussion, anything)
Gush is fun, something that seems to be increasingly devoid in Vintage due to the grievances of the few.
Careful with that. Fun is subjective and should very carefully used in B&R policy. There are plenty of people who do not find Gush fun, just like there were probably plenty of people who find Lodestone Golem fun. While Trinisphere was certainly a restriction using the "unfun" argument, I can probably name a number of cards currently restricted which are ridiculously fun too, starting with my favorite card, Mind's Desire.