Honestly, I think you're both wasting everyone's time. Had anyone else used the word "sea" you would've attacked them for their choice of language - ambiguous, and devoid of any actual content or meaning. How can I debate whether there was a "sea"? You attack people for drawing conclusions based on data when relevant data isn't available (as is the case here - surely you understand its wrong to say Null Rod is "right" simply b/c Joe won the tournament?), but then engage exactly in that type of behavior when it suits you.
I'm not really a fan of Nick's rigid analysis of what's "right" in Shops as a general rule, while at the same time acknowledging that he has played a role in some of the best Shop decks of the past 2 years (and more), but I think you're also warping what he's saying. At least he's trying to say something as opposed to verbal flourishes that render your comments devoid of meaning.
The "sea" comment was dicta, meaning it wasn't critical to the point I was making.
If you want me to make a point that is meaningful, try this one on for size:
Looking at the two larges American Vintage tournaments in the last few months, Gencon and the Waterbury, we have seen an unbelievable variety and breadth in tactics and strategy. While all Workshop decks share mana denial cards like Spheres, Chalices and Wastelands, the one constant has been the lack of a constant.
Look at Michael Gouthro's deck. http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1310
0 Smokestack
4 Metalworker
4 Lodestone Golem
3 Trike
2 Sword of Fire and Ice
3 Staff of Domination
2 Port
His list is a mixture of Aggro, Control, and Combo. He used Staff to tap Predators, but also to combo out. He has tons of a creatures, and a bona fide beatdown strategy.
Then, compare that with Vinnie Vorino's list:
4 Smokestack
4 Serum Powder
4 Golem
3 Karn
2 Duplicant
2 Thorn
Totally different creature configuration. No combo option. Less beatdown emphasis, and only 2 Thorns. More on the control end of the spectrum.
Then Joe Brown's:
3 Smokestack
3 Null Rod
2 Duplicant
2 Karn
4 Golem
3 SB Trikes
2 Crucible
Again, very different.
Joe's list is capable of going beatdown, playing hard control, or tempo.
These decks evidence a range of potential ways to position yourself in the metagame, which I think goes to my main point:
The point is simple: there is no such thing as an objectively optimal Workshop list. We need to get beyond the misconception that we are moving towards an ‘optimal list.’ The MUD pilot may select from a mixture of optional synergies, and these options can be configured in many different ways, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses. The synergies that are optimal is a metagame question.
“You don't have to destroy a permanent to deal with it. Moat deals with Savannah Lion, but does not destroy it. Null Rod deals with Moxen and Time Vault.”
-
Null Rod does not have shroud. It can be destroyed, or otherwise removed. Once removed all of the initial problems that you had - an opponent who has established a mana base, an opponent who has established Vault/Key, etc., remain.
The same is true of Moat.
You have not dealt with anything.
Sure you have.
You have created a window in which you have a soft lock – a window that collapses the moment that your Null Rod is dealt with.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you've ramped a Stack or put them so far behind that their Oath is too late.
Spheres stop your opponent from being able to even cast the spells that they need in order to deal with your opponents. Something like Rebuild will make you look like a fool.
Null Rod also prevents the opponent from being able to even cast Rebuild, even more so when paired with Spheres.
-
“I am? That's news to me. I didn't realize that creating hypotheticals in which I demonstrate the functional similarities of Sphere and Null Rod created such a frame.”
-
You created two situations in which both cards served nearly identical roles. This is leading someone to believe that they are functionally similar.
-
That's because they are. Functionally similar =/ interchangeable.
“Null Rod actually sees alot of play. It was in the Waterbury winning MUD list for a reason.”
-
I saw no Juggernauts in the top 8 of Waterbury, but that’s another point I suppose.
Yes, it is.
You argued in your article that Shop Aggro is underplayed because the Shop pilots in the United States were raised as Stax pilots, and are making a fundamental error in their blindness. You have yet to show me a Shop Aggro list that has won a major tournament in the United States since the advent of modern MUD builds.
Yes I have. Michael Gouthro's list, see above. Again, you are being too reductionist. Decks aren't just "Shop Aggro," any more than the O'Brien deck was an "aggro deck."
I also pointed out Rich Meysts' list from the Waterbury, that got 9th.
In any case, this has nothing to do with Null Rod.
Your crusade to prove the parity between Shop Aggro and Stax builds is noted, though you have not given us American results from a major event (we’ll use your standards as to what a ‘major event’ is) in which Shop Aggro has won since the advent of modern MUD.
Are you conceding this point in your promotion of Joe Brown’s MUD build, which is clearly much more related to a prison strategy than a Shop Aggro strategy? Or would you argue that a deck that runs eight creatures maindeck is an aggressive deck?
Yes, I have.
And, what does this have to do with Null Rod?
“Then why did Joe Brown's list run both?
-
Null Rod is just like Sphere in slowing down the opponent's ability to play those cards. In fact, if your opponent has multiple Moxen or a Mox and another artifact accellerant, it's better than a Sphere, since it's like double Sphere, or better.”
Clearly this means that Joe’s list is a Shop Aggro list then? He has Smokestacks, Crucibles, Tangle Wires and Ghost Quarters. His build is a Shop prison build.
He also runs 4 Golems, 3 sideboard Trikes, and 4 other maindeck creatures. Clearly his deck is aggro.
Sic.
It's both. And that's the point. He can play Aggro, Control, and tempo. Again, see my article.
Most importantly, his list ran Null Rod.
-
Funny, but outside of the 13 man event, I haven’t seen you play MUD. In fact, you have admitted to being an inexperienced Shop pilot several times recently, both to people I call close friends and online.
No I didn't. I never said I was an inexperienced Shop pilot. As I said several times, I helped create modern Stax, and I've played it in many, many tournaments over the last 7 years. I got 9th place at one of the SCG p9 tournaments with 5c Stax, for example.
You have not performed well in what you would define as a ‘major’ event, so I wouldn’t know about your preference for Null Rod outside of the forums and your articles.
-
It would?
Tangle Wire does the same thing: it prevents the opponent from playing Oath in the same scenario.
I could create the same scenario, except substitute Tangle Wire. Yet, I would not be saying that those cards are interchangeable.
I never said those cards are interchangeable, nor imply as much.
In fact, if your opponent's mana is Orchard, Black Lotus, clearly Null Rod is much better than Sphere.
-
We could argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin next if you prefer. That one has gotten people going since the Middle Ages.
The point, which I suppose you missed, is that your theoretical situations prove nothing, as I can create theoretical situations in which my choices are superior.
No, the point is that you thought I was saying that Sphere and Null Rod were interchangeable. I did not.
This drives me back to the original point – what else would you have us rely on, but results? Because the results show that you are wrong.
On the contrary. The results support my view that your narrow view of what's optimal is wrong.
-
I never said those two cards are interchangeable. I was simply showing how Null Rod and Sphere can produce similar mana denial effects. Not identical. But sometimes similar.
-
You created a situation in which they functioned in a strikingly similar manner. What would you have someone believe then?
That both card can create functionallly simlar board states, that they both deny the opponent's vital mana, and help control the board. That's a far cry from saying they are interchangeable.
-
First of all, that's simply a loaded question. Null Rod doesn't stop you from playing any of those cards, as Joe Brown's list demonstrated.
Secondly, it's because you want to lock the opponent out, and it hurts them more than you.
Third, you are framing the issue as if I'm saying that Null Rod is always optimal. That's one of the key points I make in this article
-
The point of all of this was that theoretical situations are nice in a vacuum, but not worth enough that they should determine what you build and how you build it.
-
And that's a judgment call. In some metagames its not. Yet, Joe Brown's performance pretty much proves you wrong in your own metagame. He ran Null Rod and won the tournament in a sea of Time Vault decks. Coincidence? I think not
-
You have stated that Shop Aggro is being ignored by the Shop sensei’s because they are all Stax pilots. Does your advocacy of Joe Browns interpretation of a prison deck evidence your concession of your point? Or are you claiming a deck with 8 creatures to be an Aggro MUD deck?
You misread my footnote. I didn't say Shop Aggro was being ignored. Secondly, you aren't addressing my point about Null Rod. In fact, you haven't once addressed the fact that his list has Null Rods.
What about Juggernaut Steve? Isn’t that what started all of this?
No, read the article. My position is the contextual, flexible one, not the extreme one.
My position is not, has never been, and was not that certain cards are optimal. Rather, it's my disagreement with the position that they are always suboptimal. Null Rod is where this all started.
To reiterate my points from before: if you had put up the results with Workshops that showed you to be an experienced and accomplished Shop pilot, I would give more credence to what you have written. As things stand, you have said (in this thread already) that you rely on theory, and that you are not a Shop master.
So, why are we listening to you then?
Then don't.
