I would recommend blanking a foil, either by using acetone to just take off the ink (blank shiny canvass) or peeling off the foil layer entirely (blank white canvass, my preference). Using thin sharpie markers you can then write on the text and approximate the art. I think this gives the clearest presentation, and even if you aren't amazing at art, the older iconic stuff you will be copying has simpler images that are so well known that even a passing resemblance should allow an opponent to clearly identify the card.
@kingleovold Hitting shop itself is equivalent to hitting shop and sphere. I don't know how many taxing effects the deck can tolerate with only 1 workshop. Ravager is so heavily creature based that you could probably still run 4 thorns, but ancient tomb damage stacks up quick. White eldrazi may wind up being the better deck at that point
@chronatog Berserk and Show and Tell are not on the reserved list.
And while it is true that wizards doesnt manage the secondary market and are not generally responsible for the prices there, they could be liable for losses incurred through reprinting, because of the promise that they made.
@wintage I posted a little bit above but basically it is about promissory estoppel. In order for promissory estoppel to come into play you need a few things:
- A promisor
- A promisee
- An economic loss suffered by the promisee as a result of their reliance on the promise.
- A reasonable person would have relied on the promise.
In this case, wizards (the promisor) promised the players (the promisees) that they would not reprint these cards. As a result, players continued to put money into the game because they knew that wizards was not going to tank the value of their investments by printing them into the ground. Wizards formally published these statements and made it official policy, which I would say a reasonable person would rely on. Because of this, if they reprint RL cards and the prices drop, they could be sued.
@chronatog A lawyer could confirm this, but the legal issue that I have always heard with the reserved list is promissory estoppel. Short form: they made a promise, and based on that promise people went and made financial decisions.
It doesn't matter if the cards actually hold value or not, but wizards promised that in the case of certain cards any hits in value would not be related to their decision to reprint them, and now they need to abide by that promise.
The other complicating factor here is how would you even negotiate with the people who own all the cards on the RL currently? I think in theory you could get rid of the list, but that the only 100% way to do it and not get sued is to work out a deal with the people who would be suing you.
And no, this would not be disclosed in the 10k. The standard for disclosure is "reasonably possible". The only way this would make it into their sec filings is if they actually reprinted the reserved list cards.
@sovarius I play paper vintage. If you filter by live tournaments only, mentor and shops are both at 23-24%. I couldn't tell you why the meta share is so much higher online, but paper is a bit more balanced, and I believe in line with historical share of the meta as far as workshops is concerned.
As someone who has done quite a bit of playing both with and against shops, for all the games where the other guy gets blown out hard, there are just as many where I wind up killing myself with ancient tomb. The deck was notorious for taking a chunk of the top 8 but not winning for quite some time. It needs redundant pieces because it can't filter cards or manipulate the library.
@joshuabrooks For me the old school event has already eclipsed NA vintage champs. If I had to choose only one event to play, it would be oldschool hands down, not even close.
@Wintage I don't think ballista NEEDS to go, but if it did it would be fine, we could just go back to triskelion. Losing ballista 100% dials back ravager shops a bit, without crippling it
@13nova I didn't say that removing misstep and mentor would make shops worse, I said that it would open the format up. Mentor essentially invalidates all other creature based strategies. Workshops invalidates, like belcher maybe? Being able to have the machine gun option at only 2 cmc in the form of ballista may be too much at some point, but in general the deck can be attacked a few different ways, and the hate cards are varied and have other applications.
Workshop can be a little un fun sometimes, but it serves a valuable role in our ecosystem. Removing mentor and opening up the potential of other creature based strategies could have interesting effects on shops.
Misstep is pure circle jerk btw, it's dead vs shops and is played because you have to play it, so you can fight over the other guys misstep. It has no positive implications on shops matchup. If you think mentor should be allowed to exist as a 4 of, you're just beyond all reason.
The whole thing seems very simple to me. Misstep needs to be banned, because it is a trash card that results in the wholesale avoidance of the 1cmc slot and adds nothing. It is the ultimate circle jerk card and it wrecks diversity. Mentor needs to go as well, because it chokes out all of the other creature strategies. Other than that? No changes. People managed to beat shops when it had 4x trinisphere. People managed to beat shops when it had 4x chalice. I could see restricting ballista at some point in the future, but really that's it.
It's comical to me to hear people arguing that shops is warping the format. Shops is eminently beatable, there are a ton of hate cards that have applications in other matchup, and the deck just loses to itself far more often than mentor.
Imagine a scenario where you can only hit either mentor or shops. What do you think the format looks like if you keep mentor? It will look the same. The same decks that are ridiculously outclassed are still ridiculously outclassed. If you ditch mentor and keep shops as is, you might actually see some new things pop up. Hitting mentor and misstep would go a long way towards opening The format upbagain.