Unless you are playing for the sake of being competitive, play a deck that you enjoy. Tune it to combat mentor and workshops. MTGO and paper are different beasts. Focus on the things that make you happy.

There is another warning bell here. Many decks are designed from the start to be able to beat mentor decks. There is not a range of answer cards designed to trump mentor, whilst retaining applicability to other match-ups. Instead, people need to either attack the gush engine, or the paradoxical engine.

I still like to ask myself questions:

• Would gush mentor be as good if chalice of the void was not restricted?
• Would gush mentor be as good if lodestone golem was not restricted?
• If mentor was restricted, how would this impact walking ballista?
• If mentor was restricted, how would this impact smokestack?
• If mentor was restricted, how would this impact tinker?

I wonder whether the restriction of chalice was the real flood gate to the CMC1 glut that we see now: probe, misstep, preordain, ponder, recall, swords, flusterstorm, fragmentize, etc...

If chalice were unrestricted, would this help keep (predominantly blue) decks more honest with their CMC spreads?

@Islandswamp: real cards exist if people do not want to proxy. Real cards have a barrier to entry.

Let's look at something different. Imagine an art lover. Ideally, they would love to own original art. The prices for original art are often high, so they look at limited prints. Prints may also be too high, so they look to replicas, or even books that contain art. I guess what I am suggesting, is that people by necessity operate within their means. Means and desires are often at odds with one another.

I find it very hard to buy into the notion that any and all luxury items should be affordable. Certainly, this is different for staples such as food and shelter (hence the differentiator between luxury and staple), but I cannot see a future where MtG qualifies as a life necessity.

The catch here is that there is yet another barrier to entry: people cannot afford cards, and people do not really want to play with proxies.

At its heart, Magic has close ties to capitalism. Other card games take, and have taken different approaches that have resulted in a looser coupling to capitalism. Look at the secondary market for Pokemon or YuGiOh as examples. There is a valid question as to whether Magic's ties to capitalism should remain. Given the relationship with collectors and the notion of it being a collectible card game, I honestly do not know how or whether this could change.

In the meantime, the secondary market is open, and the internet makes it easy to co-ordinate large transactions. This is the world in which we currently live. This makes things hard for eternal formats.

I found myself hanging out to hear thoughts and opinions on a mentor restriction. It was alluded several times, but not explicitly discussed.

What are the formats standard and modern?

Whilst randomly packing away MtG paraphernalia this evening, a line of thought appeared in my mind. Something that had been bugging me for a while...

There was a period when the life expectancy of a vintage deck could be measured in years (floating around tier 1.5 to 2 perhaps?). New cards have had a significant impact on vintage deck building. Workshop-based decks have gone through multiple iterations to get to where they are today. The same is true of mentor. There are outlier decks that win events; but they are just that: outliers.

Whilst this may be an unfair comparison, look at legacy for a moment. It feels like new cards have had much less of an impact in legacy. This format is relatively healthy, with a variety of viable deck options. For vintage, this may well be a factor of questionable card design as it relates to the broader pool of cards. There are often comments suggesting the lack of vintage consideration in card design. On one hand, having many new high impact cards helps drive change. On the other, there are currently diversity challenges. Does anyone else find it unusual that vintage is evolving at a faster pace than legacy?

The uptick in b&r updates worries me. The current trajectory feels like there will be more restrictions this year. I still keep asking myself, where are new cards that help set things back on course? Provide balance through new cards.

I wonder whether this will cause a fork from URW to URW and UBW. Red will continue to lean on the greatest thief in the multiverse, together with pyro. Black will move towards tutors and tendrils. Tinker is likely to re-emerge too.

There are no full proxy vintage events at stores in the Bay Area.

In past years, there were three stores that sporadically ran proxy vintage events (anywhere between 10-20 proxies normally). There is currently only one store that runs monthly vintage (15 card proxy). This shop is Eudo Games. Their next vintage event is May 20th - this Sunday.

Interesting read. As usual, your work and thoughts are fun to digest.

There is another dimension in my mind around an evolving player-base brought about by: age/time availability; MTGO; the proliferation of proxy-friendly events; the rising costs of physical cards; and the viability of decks considered unpowered. It is interesting to see an influx of new players as a result. A downside here, is that there feels like there is more conflict within the community now. Maybe the conflict was always there, but it was invisible to me. Drama is not a mandatory skill for this game/format.

A possible side effect is that it feels like paper events are down from where they have been in the past, although, that may purely be geographically bound more so than anything else.

It feels like the notion of change runs through this thread. People form opinions on whether they like or dislike each change. The impact of a change is measurable, although the method by which it is measured and conclusions drawn through analysis may be flawed. Correlating change and happiness is interesting. If people are happy, change often breeds uncertainty. For those who are unhappy, change can polarise sentiments. The funny thing with change, is that the options to deal with it are equally polarising: embrace it; or shy from it. The notion of dealing with change is agnostic of the perception of liking the change or not.

What does any of this have to do with this thread? As a format, vintage changes. Changes can be through, ban and restricted list updates, or the printing of new cards. It should be considered given that vintage will continue to change. People will play vintage based upon satisfaction or enjoyment. As @Smmenen suggested: enjoyment is subjective. Building upon this, I would suggest that this subjectiveness cultivates opinions. History shows us that there will always be differences of opinions. Conformity and unity are not required, or even desired.

Personally, I am in part saddened with the continued push towards the combat phase. That being said, I am not unhappy. Every change opens an ever increasing set of options. This is something that excites me. Do I like every change? No. Do I need to like every change? No. Would I like to understand why each change is being made? In the ideal world, yes, but I accept that the world in which we live is less-than ideal. Data is the critical thing! Changes may be deliberate or accidental, in so far as the scope for consideration of the consequences and ramifications of introducing change. This then leads me to think of channels or inputs that lead to change. I would like to hope that data is the primary instigator, although, I would not be surprised if creativity also played a large part.

@moorebrother1 I know many of the people in the area who play vintage. The challenge with organizing anything in the area is a combination of geography, and time availability. All pretty standard vintage event concerns.

I am in several of the Beasts of the Bay communications channels, but I tend to avoid the group for the most part. I may well be in the minority, but despite loving vintage, Old School is not for me.

If you have the contact details of people, then leverage them and run your own events. Before moving countries, I used to run most of the vintage events in Sydney. If you want to play, that is what you need to do.

Since Eudo is now gone, I find myself wondering whether I am now going to have to do the same for the Bay Area.

What has changed in the last eighteen months? Card prices have gone up? Card availability continues its downwards trend? Elapsed time since the last paper event fired? Personal circumstances have changed? Rules changes? New cards?

Any and all of the above may change how each of us feels about the game.

Vintage is really my only format, and I only really play in paper. Despite numerous attempts to "enjoy" MTGO, the reality is that digital is not for me. To the best of my memory, I have never used a proxy and I begrudge no one who does. Perhaps unlike others, I do not care about the quality of the proxy; alters, misprints, and reprints have numbed my senses. If and when in person vintage events are scheduled, and it they are safe to attend, I will do so.

Are new players entering the format in digital? Will players play paper using proxies?

Yes. That being said, assuming there are in person events, new players will also enter via that channel. As far as paper magic is concerned, proxies are a large part of the future. There is an interesting conundrum in that whilst proxies are a part of paper magic, they are what will keep WoTC at arms length. The unsupported nature of proxies combined with the reserve list limit growth. To my mind, none of this has changed much since the pandemic begun.

February saw a giant turn out of two people. Let's improve on this!

cough demonic consultation cough

@brass-man said in Should all Vintage be 100% proxy?:

When I see Alpha power? "Meh, must be nice."

It is, I enjoy playing with them. That being said, I was very lucky to be gifted the set many years ago.

As a vintage player from Australia, I can say that there are very few sets of power in the country. When last I counted (about 4 years ago), there were between 60-80 sets in the entire country. Australia is a large country with a tiny population. The largest sanctioned vintage events top out at 40 players; most big events fluctuate between 16 and 24 players. Proxy-friendly events almost never go beyond 12 players. The sad truth is that there is a lack of interest in the format.

Before moving to the US, I coordinated vintage in Sydney. Since moving, events stopped being scheduled, and the community disappeared. Proxy events can help smooth the transition curve to vintage - in my experience in Australia, this was unfortunately not the case.

In response to the OP: yes, and no.

I experimented 6-7 years ago with running 100% proxy events in Sydney, Australia. These events allowed a vintage community to be maintained, but, regardless of my efforts, it did not grow the player base. When I moved away from Sydney, the community collapsed.

A vintage meta-game is laudable. There's MTGO...

The reality is that vintage is not for everyone. Whilst I am certain cost is a barrier to entry, I am skeptical that going 100% proxy would drive significant adoption. I would hate to lose what little WOTC support there is.

I have no control over event scheduling!!! I am but a simple attendee, but I will pass the information along.

Yes. There is monthly vintage at Eudo. June has been scheduled for the 23rd. July has not yet been scheduled.

I should be there this time round! Back in the country, and ready to play!!!