Comments on: Insider: Assessing the Effect of New FNM Formats https://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/10/insider-assessing-the-effect-of-new-fnm-formats/ Play More, Win More, Pay Less Tue, 18 Jan 2022 02:31:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: James Erickson https://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/10/insider-assessing-the-effect-of-new-fnm-formats/#comment-207662 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:58:26 +0000 http://www.quietspeculation.com/?p=52737#comment-207662 In reply to David Schumann.

No reason to exclude it, however. If there isn’t a market for it in an area, then the LGS should simply not schedule a Vintage FNM.

I suppose that a Build Your Own format would technically work to solve for this, though.

]]> By: David Schumann https://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/10/insider-assessing-the-effect-of-new-fnm-formats/#comment-207636 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:04:28 +0000 http://www.quietspeculation.com/?p=52737#comment-207636 In reply to GenericMagicEnth..

Legacy Constructed, Modern Constructed, EDH….they have eternals…just not vintage. I imagine the biggest reason not to include vintage is simply that WoTC does NOT allow the use of Proxies in sanctioned tournaments…and with the exception of very few areas/stores it’d be impossible to have an 8 man vintage tournament with no proxies.

]]> By: GenericMagicEnth. https://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/10/insider-assessing-the-effect-of-new-fnm-formats/#comment-207591 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:17:59 +0000 http://www.quietspeculation.com/?p=52737#comment-207591 In reply to Niels Rietkerk.

for sure. Why do that have all these goofy formats nobody is going to play and no eternals. So f’ing weak

]]> By: Niels Rietkerk https://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/10/insider-assessing-the-effect-of-new-fnm-formats/#comment-207571 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:34:32 +0000 http://www.quietspeculation.com/?p=52737#comment-207571 An interesting oversight was the exclusion of Vintage, I think it was Aaron Forsythe who already tweeted that the list is not exhaustive and that Vintage would be an option as well.

]]>