Other than people bickering on and on about things on occasion to where it takes over an entire thread (which you can just kinda browse/skip past when that nonsense is going on), I don't really see anything wrong with the site. I don't think that I would want a ton of crazy rules - just being mutually respectful is enough for me.
I'm certainly not the first person to mention it, but I always thought having card(s) with cycling and, when it is cycled, destroy target X permanent type would be a great way to get around resistor effects. Would also be a great way to get around most counterspells as well.
I feel like realistically the best alternative entries into Vintage are going to be other, newly-printed broken strategies, such as the newest crop of Eldrazi, that allow a real budget option entry into the format. This in no way tarnishes the promises implied in the reserve list while still creating in-roads to Vintage.
@forceofnature I thought something very similar; Urza's Workshop has not been used as a card name so I was going with that and, in addition to giving you two colorless usable only for casting artifacts, having the mana from Urza's Workshop be able to be used for activating artifact abilities as well.
I initially thought your "Shadows Over Vintage" was speaking to the dark conspiracy whereby certain, shadowy individuals are manipulating the Vintage format via VSL bitching and shops-oppressive restrictions ...
Not what I expected -- but it was great as set review!
I honestly don't think that the restriction had much if anything to do with how "dominant" shops decks were, but rather what kind of decks that they want to be good in modern-day magic (regardless of the fact that this is Vintage we are talking about here). The fact that shops is trying to lock the game up is way out of alignment with current card-design and meta-game building.
I wrote a similar comment in the restriction thread and I agree with you 100%. This restriction had more to do with the type of deck they want to be powerful rather than actual % of the field. Similarly, I think they were actually being honest when they wanted Chalice restricted because "we want people to be able to play their moxen" - just like LSG is now on the restricted list for creating too many non-interactive games.
Where this leaves the metagame post-LSG restriction remains to be seen. I suspect that, without a fair number of shops decks to keep explosive combo decks and gush decks in check, we are likely to see another restriction necessary from the emerging decks...
I agree with all of your points - one thing i would like to add regarding the following:
If you want to buy a card, there are few options outside of buying it (i.e. you buy it; or you don't). You then need to find a copy of the card at a palatable price point.
...is that you do not necessarily need to buy a card in order to have access to play that card. As an example, the current vintage champion took down the crown with borrowed Power. Borrowing cards and ownership collectives might end up being a bigger part of the future of sanctioned paper Vintage as we move forward.
I feel like there should really be more answer cards printed in Commander/Conspiracy/Planechase/etc. Instead of leaning on more restrictions. I'd actually like to see things come OFF the restricted list and just have better cards for answering the "problem" cards/decks. Strange that there isn't at least one person pushing for this at Wizards...