The line that says "Chalice of the Void is unrestricted." is missing

@Soly asthetics is not valued higher than gameplay, it's valued higher than access and cost to play the format. Gameplay is the same either way.

But yes, it's a big part of these throwback formats, and I personally would not want to miss it. A completely different feel playing with the "real" stuff. Of course, it's not for everyone.

@Smmenen I love reading more oldschool content, and this is a very nice breakdown of the different sets and what they add to a specific environment. As always, quality work.

BUT in this case I think it is a little unprofessional, especially after stating that the format comes in a lot of flavours, to talk down on people that have another definition of the format. Something like

"I believe some Old School Groups have taken that up, and now legalize Summer edition cards. The irony, of course, is that Summer Edition is just a reprint of Revised, which many of these same groups do not permit. Intellectual consistency, I suppose, is the hobgoblin of small minds."

is really not helpful. You could have left out the last sentence and everyone would still have seen your point
I think you handled this pretty good in the Revised section.

That being said - keep up the good work. Hope to see more of this series!

@Smmenen said:

Enjoyment and fun are inherently subjective concepts. That's why I have objectified fun into a more quantifiable concept: "Meaningful Choice." People want to have meaningful choice in 1) deck selection, 2) color selection, 3) tactics, 4) strategy, and 5) in game decision making. As long as a format is diverse, with lots of card options, I have faith that players enjoy meaningful choices.

This is basically what I've also been trying to say (less eloquent obviously). But it seems people try to read other stuff into my posts, just because I also stated my personal weighting of these 5 and how Hatebears might have a different weighting than decks I personally favour.

This whole "us" and "you" thinking is really annoying, please don't give me a label and treat me as if I talked down on you when I actually argue that every one of us has different ideas what fun in Vintage means, and they're all valid.

I don't see this in a big blue shell that doesn't care about playing more spells. You'd have to bounce 4+ cards to get on par with Fact or Fiction, which sees no play at all. If this is going to be a card in any kind of strategy, it must be one that cares about you replaying cards (Storm, Mentor) or decks that can pretty much guarantee a 4+ bounce, which is no easy feat. I'll try it out in an Acdemy shell to see where it can got, but I doubt it is any good for ritual storm decks right now.

@Smmenen Thanks for pointing this out to a silly non-native speaker that feels pretty embarassed right now... and is amazed that you have an idiom that is refering to hobgoblins.

I think a point that might be overlooked is a problem with "you can't do X" cards that is also what lead to the most complaints about workshops:

The prison strategy makes it exceptionally important who goes first / drops their card first.

I can play land, mox, ancestral and a hatebear deck has no chance to stop me. They can drop Cavern, remove Elvish Spirit Guide and play Spirit of the Labyrinth. It is basically me having a starting hand of land, mox, sol ring and my opponent going Workshop + Trinisphere on the first turn. The impact of the sequencing of cards is very troubling, especially when cards are not just getting worse by your opponents plays, but completely being shut off.

I understand that variance is important and enjoyable, but people value different kinds of variants as good or bad for a game. The hatebear strategies don't really appeal to me, as (mostly) hatebears are very distinct and turn down different things - I wouldn't get much satisfaction out of having the exact right hatebear in my first turn, because I know I could have just sa well had the one that misses my specific opponents deck. Personally, I like to have the most control over what my deck is doing: tutors, library manipulation. But that is something that other people find boring.

With that in mind, I think that Magic is indeed moving in a direction that some of us don't like - be it because we are used to our "old ways" or because we just have a preference for specific types of variance or strategies. But I think we have to acknowledge that many people actually enjoy these new ways to play - Standard and Modern (and MTG in general) are exceptionally popular, so the kind of interactions that R&D showcases seem to resonate with a LOT of people.

@ribby I'm not talking about playing against them necessarily, I've played Hatebear decks in the past - but I feel like the lists a few years ago didn't have such a high variance as the power level was lower and you generally played mroe thats that esentially did the same thing. This was before e.g. Cavern arrived.
So let's take Cavern as an example. It is in your opening hand about 40% of the time, and that is something you cannot influence at all - but still it is a huge factor in beating certain openers from blue decks. That's the kind of randomness I don't like.

"If that Savannah was a Cavern you'd have lost on the spot - but you countered my first two creature and proceeded to win the game the next turn" kind of situations I personally find very frustrating, no matter which end I'm on.

I appreciate it when games are decided by in-game decisions, not necessarily stack-based interaction. As soon as there is decent tutoring in Hatebear strategies (and the white Recruiter is potentially promising) you can count me in.
And please don't reduce my example to the functionality of uncounterability, it was just to highlight that the impact of certain cards can be very hit or miss. This has absolutely nothing to do with card types or strategy. I dislike Belcher for the exact same reasons - opponent has Force T1 I loose, opponent doesn't have the Force I win. Some people might enjoy the thrill of taking a 60/40 chance on turn 1, but for me that is not what I consider fun or interesting gameplay.

@Islandswamp Which brings me back to my argument: It wouldn't affect the price of a real A/B Lotus, as reprints in general look horrible

Wow thanks so much for compiling this info. I'm currently building the top 2 decks from '94 with my oldschool pool, and now I can even go for the whole top 4 - cool stuff

Wow, that Spirit deck brings back memories of Spiketail Hatchling Really cool to see an unpowered player that far up in a field of broken plays.

As long as he is only doing it to your deck when you present it (meaning the deck was nicely shuffled to begin with) I don't see the problem here.

Of course it is not a "shuffle", but if cutting is ok, then this should be as well. If there is a requirement to shuffle, this is obviously not ok.

Cards to restrict:
None right now, the meta is still shifting a lot. I'd love it to settle first.

Cards to unrestrict:
Below are my picks for very likely safe cards, two of those should be unrestricted. Alphabetical order.

• Channel
• Flash
• Imperial Seal
• Memory Jar
• Ponder
• Windfall

Time of the full on only spells and mana decks is pretty much over I think. I don't see a deck with 4 Ponder 4 Preordain and running multiples of Windfall (which was always the card #60 in storm builds recently). Memory Jar's mana cost is also prohibitive, and if it is ever included then as a one-of Tinker target.

This is the kind of Hatebear I like. Even if the opponent removes this immediately, you still get the drain for 2 in. Also, it doesn't flat out say you cannot play certain cards - just makes your decision harder if it is actually worth it.

Exactly the type of hate I wanna see more of, next time just make it cost 2 ^^

@Islandswamp Which brings me back to my argument: It wouldn't affect the price of a real A/B Lotus, as reprints in general look horrible

Was in love with Unglued when they were printed, but since playing 93/94 I really grew fond of Alpha Basics. The colors, borders and artworks have something magical - but I'm not quite sure if they fit applications other than Oldschool and Vintage.
For newer formats, I'd prefer Zendikar Full art or still Unglued

I don't see this in a big blue shell that doesn't care about playing more spells. You'd have to bounce 4+ cards to get on par with Fact or Fiction, which sees no play at all. If this is going to be a card in any kind of strategy, it must be one that cares about you replaying cards (Storm, Mentor) or decks that can pretty much guarantee a 4+ bounce, which is no easy feat. I'll try it out in an Acdemy shell to see where it can got, but I doubt it is any good for ritual storm decks right now.

@Smmenen said:

Enjoyment and fun are inherently subjective concepts. That's why I have objectified fun into a more quantifiable concept: "Meaningful Choice." People want to have meaningful choice in 1) deck selection, 2) color selection, 3) tactics, 4) strategy, and 5) in game decision making. As long as a format is diverse, with lots of card options, I have faith that players enjoy meaningful choices.

This is basically what I've also been trying to say (less eloquent obviously). But it seems people try to read other stuff into my posts, just because I also stated my personal weighting of these 5 and how Hatebears might have a different weighting than decks I personally favour.

This whole "us" and "you" thinking is really annoying, please don't give me a label and treat me as if I talked down on you when I actually argue that every one of us has different ideas what fun in Vintage means, and they're all valid.

I appreciate it when games are decided by in-game decisions, not necessarily stack-based interaction. As soon as there is decent tutoring in Hatebear strategies (and the white Recruiter is potentially promising) you can count me in.
And please don't reduce my example to the functionality of uncounterability, it was just to highlight that the impact of certain cards can be very hit or miss. This has absolutely nothing to do with card types or strategy. I dislike Belcher for the exact same reasons - opponent has Force T1 I loose, opponent doesn't have the Force I win. Some people might enjoy the thrill of taking a 60/40 chance on turn 1, but for me that is not what I consider fun or interesting gameplay.