I'm not usually one to pounce on Monte or the polls (and I'll continue to leave the polls alone for the moment), but I don't really follow this article, and I think it's a definition problem. I've bracketed that discussion below the sblock.
[sblock=WAT?]
Monte seems to define "Vancian Magic" as "Magic that is used by first preparing your magic spells that you can use from a broader list of spells you may know, and later expending that preparation."
That's not one of the usual colloquial uses of the term (though to be fair to Monte, the colloquial uses of the term are all over the map).
He then goes on to say that there should be lots of different spellcasting systems in the game, probably. Okay. So far, so good.
Then he seems to leap out of nowhere with "something cool and magical, but not spells," without defining the apparently very specific thing he means by "spells."
Which is a problem. I have no idea what specifically he means by "spells." And he seems to mean something very specific, since apparently a "spell" and "a minor-at will ability" such as "a blast of force" or "a telekinetic ability like mage hand" or things that, in previous e's, were spells (faithful hound and floating disc), are not the same thing. Now they are not spells...for some reason?
As examples of "spells" he then points out, "fireballs and magic missiles."
I don't quite understand how he's distinguishing spells from other things here, or, really, why. Isn't a blast of force you can use at will just an at-will spell? Or are "spells" necessarily Vancian in nature (e.g.: they must be prepared, and are spent once cast)? And if that's the case then how is a spell that has a lengthy duration (like a faithful hound or a floating disc) necessarily non-Vancian? I am not following his verbiage on this one. "Spells" don't necessarily indicate the specific things he seems to be assuming we all know they are.
[/sblock]
IMO, to take on more of his general "magic systems" topic, I think the "Vancian" prepare-and-expend system is great for the archetypal D&D "magic librarian" kind of wizard. Knowledgeable, clever, forward-thinking, planning, preparing...all these things work really well with Vancian casting, which reinforces the archetype, which is excellent.
But it's not the only archetype of a "magic user" which is why it's awesome that they're exploring other systems. An ADE system makes sense for certain archetypes (warlocks come to mind, as they were in 3e as a trial run of the at-will system). A sorcerer's "x/day" kind of mechanic makes a lot of sense for other archetypes. A manna pool kind of mechanic makes a lot of sense for other archetypes (psionicistis?). A "chance to cast" kind of mechanic makes a lto of sense for other archetypes (clerics?). A pool of at-wills makes a lot of sense for other archetypes. And it's not just spellcasters -- there's no inherent reason martial characters shouldn't be able to try out different resource management systems if they want to. FIGHTERS should be able to prepare advanced moves for execution later if that's what the player wants and the DM is cool with it (a "strategist" sort of character makes a lot of sense with that kind of resource management system, in fact).
As much as I don't quite grok what Monte means specifically in his examples, I do hope they're keeping in mind that resource management models don't need to be necessarily married to one class or another, and that vancian fighters probably should be as viable as all-at-will wizards, and vice-versa.