August 13, 2012 6:58 AM PDT
Hmm. Not really a very interesting article, to me. Organised Play has never been especially interesting to me. That's fine - it just means I'm not in the target audience.
But I note that also Mark's articles usually have a couple of pages of comments by the time I get to them in the afternoon (UK time). This looks likely to be the third comment in the thread. Which suggests the content isn't particularly interesting to many other people either.
August 13, 2012 9:37 AM PDT
Yeah, tourneys and leagues and such don't interest me, BUT, I do like the historical look back at M:TG.
I started with one Revised Starter deck back in either '94 or '95 and was hooked. Bought InQuest magazine, dabbled with The Duelist and loved my Stasis deck. While I did stop from time to time and missed a lot of great sets, I'm back again and loving the current lot. There is part of me, however, that wishes I could go back and do it all over again. What I know now in the game versus then would have changed the way I played. ...and may have allowed me to learn to enjoy the organized aspect of Magic.
In any case, I like Mark's articles. He's an oldie AND a goodie.
August 14, 2012 12:45 PM PDT
I don't much care about tournaments either, but the early history does interest me. I started around Revised, fell away completely around Exodus (hello, irony), and only got back into Magic fairly recently. A lot of the early history, such as it was recorded, is locked away in old issues of the Duelist, Scrye, and InQuest. All of those are pretty much impossible to find scans of, and are prohibitively costly to collect fully in paper originals.
I have started to develop more of an interest in tourneys as I try to fill in that missing history. Most of my early play experience just barely had time to incorporate the lessons of Sligh, and between then and modern Magic, there's a lot of details that I've missed. This is especially true for successful archetypes of the past. Sadly, Magic tourneys are just big enough that each event will have several articles written about it, but small enough that there are no monolithic reviews of whole seasons to give those reports context. Filling in history requires a lot of dot-connecting, and I haven't found a good resource yet for the major events, decks, tech, and lessons of, say, the 1999 season. No sports almanac, if you will.