How fair is Mishra's Workshop?

[Ifflejink]

Monstre: Workshop>Trinisphere is a 2 card combo. A two card combo that has to come down on turn one, which, in a deck with so little draw, requires a player to mulligan quite agrresively, is easily counteracted by Strip effects, and almost requires you to win the die roll. Workshop>Crucible is more of a 3 card combo, since it only wins the game when with a Strip Mine or Wasteland and is very, very easy to stop.
Quite frankly, Workshop is simply very limited, but effective mana acceleration that doesn't warp the format any more than Dark Ritual.

[xerxes]

I played in a type 1 tourny yesterday playing 4cControl and lost to one Stax deck(1-2). Both games that I lost were to a turn one trinisphere and I lost the coinflip.  If you go first, your chances of winning increase substantially. I'm not in favor of restricting Workshop(I feel my loss was due more to luck than anything else), but I am unsatisfied of the coinflip emphasis in the 4cControl vs. Stax matchup.

Here is some quick math to leave you with
Chances of a first turn Trinisphere = 22%
4 trin 7Excelerants(4 Workshop,1 Black Lotus, 1 Mana Vault, 1 Mana Crypt)excluding the chances for double moxen

Lets arbitrarily round this number upto 28% if you include the multiple moxen.

Chances for a first turn Force of Will = 37%
4 FofW 19 Blue cards including the previous Force of Wills

37>28

It is a given that this is not the endall of analysis, especially considering wasteland as a means to getting out of the lock, but it is important to note that FofWill decks can have a good matchup here statistically.

[monstre]

It's actually not that hard to come up with a first-turn trinisphere. Workshops have a compounding effect with the artifact mana and ancient tombs. Combined with aggressive mulliganing, my anecdotal evidence suggests it can happen in a majority of games. Nothing force of will can't fix of course, but there's not much else that can be done about it. Wastelands can be huge, but workshop decks can often recover faster than you. Unless you play workshops too, that is
Then again, maybe first-turn trinisphere is not bad enought to warrant a restriction. There's certainly some merit to either position as far as I'm concerned.

[Sagath]

The fact that it is almost impossible to run a testing gauntlet (because of the variety of powerful decks available) tells me that we have a healthy meta. If that's true, then Mishra's Workshop does not distort the format sufficiently to warrant restriction.

I couldnt of said it better. One Workshop deck in a top 8 is fine, two is fine. Five is not. When Top 8's consisted of 2 Togs, or 2 fish, or 2 dragons, people werent calling for a restriction of any of the cards in those decks. Why is workshop recieving this attention?

People tend to forget this at times but Workshop is alot like FoW in that it really helps to balance out the format. If it wasnt for Workshop we would be set back 3 years with old keeper decks (well not that far.) but if workshop was gone Combo would be king (which makes me wonder why Smmenen isnt going restrict it so deathlong.dec rules world!!!). Also if workshop was gone the format would run alot more controlish decks, and alot of card options, and decks just wouldnt be availible.

I am thinking the same thing myself. If Workshop is restricted, think about the meta game reaction. What are the decks everyone would play in a post-restricted workshop world? Without the possibility of workshop decks, sideboards get much tighter, maindecks recieve a bolster, combo decks just go nuts with no fear of 'br0ken' Turn one Trinisphere. Heres a thought. Stop and think for a second befor unwarrantedly crying for a restriction. Seriously consider what decks would be bolstered by no mishras and what decks would become Tier One with its absence. What decks suddenly fall off the planet?

The absolut root of these arguments dumbfounds me. I dont even own 4 Workshops, and I want to see them around. Simply because they are keeping a healthy metagame, well, healthy. Results all over the WORLD support this. 2 Stax Decks in a single Top 8 is not broken. 3 Is not. Adapt, change, META GAME. . Type One is played worldwide, and discussed CIVILY on forums around the world. Results from around the world do not show Workshops dominating. GushTog dominated, Long dominated, Minds Desire would have dominated. Workshops are not dominating. Options are available, and multiple decks exist to play.  People are definatly confusing powerful with broken. Force of Will is Powerful. Hell, its format defining. Workshop is powerful, not broken.


There is a very simple argument for this. I would love to see a single online tournament on IRC run, where they ban workshop. Can you honestly tell me it would BETTER the type one scene?

[dexter]

okay , the math is in the favor of force then,

but u cant reason in this way, okay u have the force on starting hand, u pitch counter the sphere, drop your land and go, perhaps throw out a mox. the staxx players throws another threat in your face, say you got a counter for that to. but but what are you gonna do when staxx plays "must counter"-card nr 3?

usually while playing against staxx u will get short on counters. and perhaps that has gotten to be its biggest problem, before it had less of thoose "must counter"-cards, after mirrodin block they have gotten, chalice, trinisphere, cruicible (in some matchups). what has left staxx for thoose cards are cards that you earlier didnt have to counter to still have a good chance were cards like sphere of resistence, winter orb.

A good point for the restriction of workshops is that they show up in multiple copies in t8´s both in us (gencon) and over here in europe even though they arent that easy to get. still restricting workshop would probably lead to a combo period, staxx has the power to keep kombo down even without trinisphere, but without trinisphere it would be a more normal matchup and loose thoose random first turn trinisphere win´s.

[Caelestis]

That's why Forcing the Trinisphere is not the only answer to the turn 1 Trinisphere problem, you have the option of Wasting the Workshop, as many have stated already. At any case, if they aggressively mulled into the MWS + 3Sphere start, either solution would be potentially devastating to the Workshop player. Must-counter cards are not a problem when they are unable to cast them themselves. Chalice has only shown itself to be extremely effective against certain decks, and it is not that particularly hard to play around it with most of the decks out there. Besides, there isn't much you can do when they just start a hand with Moxens, Workshop, Waste, Crucible, 3Sphere, and Chalice. T1 is a broken format, and things like that happens every so often, except your chance of being able to double Force is probably higher than them being able to toss a multitude of threats at you time after time.

[kl0wn]

It is not good debate practice to continually call people whose opinions differ from yours ignorant - and I have the facts to prove that I am anything but.

It is also not good debate practice to straw-man your opponent.  kl0wn didn't call you ignorant (which actually rather surprises me.  You're losing your touch, kl0wn!).  He said that calling for MWS restriction makes one look ignorant of the format.  And he's spot on.

Actually, I DID mean that calling for Workshop's restriction shows that you're ignorant of the format and Workshop decks in general. Excuse me for appearing to fall off the asshole wagon, I'm back in character now.

It's not a matter of opinion. Magic is a combination of mathematical equations and there are no opinions in math. Disagreeing with facts is not expressing a different opinion, it is declaring that you are simply wrong and willfully ignorant.

Where are my examples? Go play a Workshop deck for a few months and you'll understand. I know, there's an unwritten rule about telling someone to "go test it", but the fact is, if you hope to be competitive in Type 1 (and any format in general), you should be playing both with and against the top decks. Workshop is a top deck right now, so you should understand the intricacies of it.

Fact is, a deck using Workshop is an inconsistent deck. You have to be a gambler in order to take a Workshop deck to a tournament and expect to win; the deck will not pull through without luck. I will readily admit that people who play Workshop decks are delusional if they think they're going to be able to rely on their deck not crapping out on them...myself included.

For the people who argue that Mishra's Workshop is equivalent to Black Lotus:
You can only use Workshop for casting permanents (and only permanents that have "artifact" in their card type).
You can't use Workshop mana for casting instants, sorceries, enchantments, interrupts or even non-artifact creature spells.
You can't use Workshop to pay any activation costs.
Workshop costs you a land drop.

[dicemanx]

I think that right now the only cards worthy of restriction are Trinisphere and Crucible. These cards might not be part of a dominant archetype, but instead they can result in stupid first turn kills without requiring an ounce of brainpower or playskill. That to me is perfectly valid reason for restriction. Sure, they could restrict Workshop to try to alleviate the Trinisphere issue, but why axe something that spawns 4-5 reasonable archetypes when you can just nail the real problem card?

Furthermore I think they should axe Belcher. No deck should exist that can combo out turn 1 with such terrifying consistency, no matter how badly it can get hated out. They got rid of long.dec for exactly that reason, so why haven't they gotten around to Belcher yet?

As said, other lock cards such as sphere or resistance and chalice can take the place of trinishpere.  Not requiring skill to use a card is not a decent argument argument for restriction.  It take no skill to do many things in t1, such as going broken.  It's part of what makes the format what it is (read the first quote in my sig).

Belcher has nothing to due with this thread, but since you brought it up I will say this:  If it's so insane why aren't the results there to show it domintating.  People do playtest decks and they often won't play belcher because it is easy to h8 out as well as inconsistent.  Long didn't have those problems.

You missed my point.

My additional criteria for restriction is NOT that a card takes no skill to use. It's that it can result in a first turn kill all by itself. And you can't just excuse it by saying that T1 is a format where "broken things happen". When "broken things happen", it usually requires multiple cards to be played, many of which are probably restricted. This we cannot do anything about. But with respect to Trinisphere, something *can* be done about it. So please don't generalize when I want to focus on a *specific* card.

Oh, and I know that there are answers to a first turn Sphere. Sure, you can waste the Shop. Sure, you can break out of the lock simply by playing enough lands. Sure, you can play first and drop your Moxes/Lotus. The point is though that this one card can result in instances where it effectively kills you on the first turn. Some people will find that acceptable because it doesn't occur with enough consistency, but I question why we have to have this card in the format in the first place that leads to inane randomness. Because it can stop combo? Bad reason.


With respect to Belcher: just because it doesn't "dominate", partly because it's very susceptible to hate, doesn't mean that it shouldn't get the boot just like long.dec did. Very consistent first turn kills are in my opinion bad in T1. I accept T1 as a format where broken things happen, but turn 1 consistent kills are simply too extreme in my opinion.


What this really comes down to is a partial disagreement that I have with Smennen about what the criteria should be for restriction. Steve is content with having T1 be a "balanced" format even though it might not be entirely "healthy". He is extremely influencial to the point where he is directly responsible for affecting the B/R list, but this is just *one* person's personal opinion and one person's quest to mold T1 into a fomat that is ideal in his eyes.

[Moxlotus]

okay , the math is in the favor of force then,

but u cant reason in this way, okay u have the force on starting hand, u pitch counter the sphere, drop your land and go, perhaps throw out a mox. the staxx players throws another threat in your face, say you got a counter for that to. but but what are you gonna do when staxx plays "must counter"-card nr 3?

usually while playing against staxx u will get short on counters. and perhaps that has gotten to be its biggest problem, before it had less of thoose "must counter"-cards, after mirrodin block they have gotten, chalice, trinisphere, cruicible (in some matchups). what has left staxx for thoose cards are cards that you earlier didnt have to counter to still have a good chance were cards like sphere of resistence, winter orb.

A good point for the restriction of workshops is that they show up in multiple copies in t8´s both in us (gencon) and over here in europe even though they arent that easy to get. still restricting workshop would probably lead to a combo period, staxx has the power to keep kombo down even without trinisphere, but without trinisphere it would be a more normal matchup and loose thoose random first turn trinisphere win´s.

So when Tog was showing up in multiples, we should restrict what?  What about when Fish was-why didn't we restrict anything.  4cc ususually shows up in multiples on both sides of the pond-better restrict something.  I saw a few TPS decks in Italy and a few have done well in other places-ban Tendrils.  Dragon has won and shown up multiple times in T8s in lots of places but we didn't restrict Bazaar.

So you're using Stax as an example for having multiple must counter cards.  What about ANY DECK IN THE FORMAT HAVING MULTIPLE MUST COUNTER CARDS.  If your deck doesn't have multiple must counter cards (unless its fis)  your deck sucks.  Every deck has multiple cards that win games.  Whether it be Tog with psychatog, Yawgwill, Cunning wish, or Ak.  4cc has Angel, big scrying, Yawg Will.  Dragon has 8 animate effects.  Combo has Draw 7s, Necro, Will, Bargain.  What is your point about having multiple cards that can win the game?

Also, what does Workshop do against Dragon?  Its not favorable
Combo?  Either have Workshop AND 3sphere or lose
Null Rod + stripmine?  Take forever and hope opponent stalls out.

Your points about stax can be said about most decks.  You neglected to list obvious weaknesses of the deck.  Stax is a good deck, but it is not "omfg this deck is so good."

[jpmeyer]

And you can't use Mishra's Workshop to cast restricted cards

[VGB]

Any deck in Type 1 that is not approaching degeneracy is not sufficiently competitive.  To say that a deck "approaches degeneracy" is, in T1, more or less equivalent to saying that it's viable.  I don't care whether or not they approach degeneracy, I care whether they step over the line.

Of all the decks in T1, the only ones that are purely coinflip oriented, steal games consistently first turn and play through the majority of hate aimed at them are Workshop based.  That may not be over the line, as it were, but it is a far cry ahead of any other deck.

It is also not good debate practice to straw-man your opponent.  kl0wn didn't call you ignorant (which actually rather surprises me.  You're losing your touch, kl0wn!).  He said that calling for MWS restriction makes one look ignorant of the format.  And he's spot on.

The "ignorant" comment seemed like a veiled insult - and one's knowledge or lack thereof of T1 is besides the point.  I doubt that every judge/member of the DCI is an avid T1 follower.  If they just look at sanctioned tournament results (which I know they don't anymore, but they used to), then Workshop must appear blatantly format distorting, as it has comprised 50% of a lot of sanctioned T8's recently.

I was also responding to Machinus's comment on page 3 with regards to the quasi ad-hominem attacks.

Long was restricted in large part because a number of very influential--and very good--players' extensive testing results indicated that it should be dominating the format.  I happened to agree at the time, and still do.  Regardless, are you claiming that you, and a number of other players, have testing results that indicate that some Workshop-based strategy should be dominating the Type 1 metagame, whether or not it actually IS dominating at the moment?  If so, I'd like to hear it.  Post the results, and we can try to verify them.  Lord knows Smmenen wrote a few billion words about Long and how good it was when he became convinced that it needed to be dealt with.  Follow his example.

Smmenen wrote a hell of an article and outlined a policy for nixing playsets that is dead to rights - and identified when a format rife with degenerate decks is not necessarily exclusive of being a balanced one, but the issues surrounding Long's demise were a lot more political.  Long.dec was often called "Satan.dec" by non-T1 players (read: casual and T2), due to the fact that it did turn T1 into a coin flip format.  That sort of press was bad for the game of Magic in general, so the DCI acted accordingly, with no small amount of nudging from Wizards I'd wager.

I assume he wasn't joking, but regardless, I'll echo his statement and assure you that I'm quite serious.  Post this Workshop list that you have decided should be dominating the format, that is so broken that Workshop needs restriction.  I haven't seen one yet.

I haven't seen a one, either - there are virtually limitless configurations, all viable, and all similarly vicious.

Workshop is not degenerate because it is both inconsistent and highly vulnerable to the best hate card in the format, in fact, the only hate card to become the metagame--Null Rod.

That is patently untrue.  Welders, Juggernauts, Smokestack, Trinisphere, Tangle Wire, Chalice, Crucible, and Titan are all unaffected by Null Rod.

More experience would help here. If anyone remembers the days of Geddon decks in T2 or Elf decks in 1.x they can tell you that the all mana, big spell decks are extremely inconsistent. Fires of Yavimaya being the rare exception to the rule (in part because the "big mana" spells weren't that being and were amply supported by more reasonably costed spells). Workshop based decks are the ultimate zenith of the big mana type decks. As Jacob Orlove told me once: "A gameplan built around 4-5cc spells in a format with turn one kills is not a great idea." Workshop makes that possible, it makes it viable, but no results that we have seen yet shows that it makes it degenerate.

Those "big mana" spells virtually cost nothing in decks tuned to do one thing: cheat them into play by eliminating those costs or drastically reducing them.  These decks use everything from Tinker to Welder to Ancient Tomb to Workshop, and also more hate susceptible cards like Metalworker and mana artifacts.  Chief among these components is Workshop, as it is the one omnipresent card in all brown decks.

I am not going to flat out say that Workshop deserves restriction, but the fact that the format may:

1) Become less coinflip oriented
2) Become less discouraging to new players
3) Allow many more budget and currently shelved/obsolete decks to become playable

is something that needs to be seriously considered.

[Ric_Flair]

Steve told me that it would be good to air out this issue, so here goes:

After a good deal of debate on TMD, some articles and letters posted on SCG, and a few DCI actions followed by clarifications on www.magicthegathering.com the Vintage community has basically come to accept that the following, as articulated by Steve and refined by others, are the criteria used for restricting a card in Vintage:

1) Is the card the key factor in an dominant deck?
2) Is the card a key factor in a deck that is excessively metagame distorting?
3) Is the card too powerful on its own?
4) Does the card distort 1.5?
5) Does a card create an unrecoverable early game swing?

I think that criteria 4 is stupid since 1.5 should have its own list, but until that day comes, I think we all know that it is something that the DCI considers given that Entomb and Earthcraft are still on the list.

First, let's look at what each factor examines or the types of cards previously restricted because of the given criteria (note: this works for 1.x and T2 bannings as well).  

Factor one generally is used to take action against cards like LED in Long or Gush in GAT, cards that are the fulcrum of a broken deck or cards that are the thing that make these good decks broken.  Factor two is something that is used to justify restrictions of cards like Black Vise and Strip Mine, which, while not as powerful as certain cards, are so good and virtually "unavoidable" that they need to be restricted to prevent ridiculous Spy v. Spy decks (like T2 decks with 12 1cc or less cantrips, the U/W decks that ran 4 Barbed Sextants, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 4 Zuran Orb (before it was restricted) to avoid Vise damage).  Factor three relates to cards that are so powerful, so obviously broken that virtually no experience is required to show that these cards, if left unchecked, would utterly ruin the metagame.  Here cards like Tolarian Academy and, more recently, Mind's Desire come to mind.  Note however, that these cards are VERY VERY rare and instantly ruin the metagame.  Factor four is something we generally are not considering, but cards that come to mind are Entomb and, maybe Earthcraft.  The final factor, one that I tried to spell out a little more clearly, is aimed at cards in the 1.x card pool like Ancient Tomb, but can be used as retroactive justifications for the restrictions of the Moxen, Sol Ring, and the like.  This could be seen as the fast mana rule, but their are other cards that fall into this category, like Oath of Druids in 1.x or Goblin Lackey.  I guess that Channel or Fastbond could fall into this category, as could Ancestral Recall and Balance (when used as in a Maysonnet Balance/Rack deck).  Basically these cards are cards that have effects that could be fairly priced but aren't, as opposed to effects like Mind's Desire which cannot ever be priced correctly.  The criteria are basically things we have gleaned from watching the DCI for 11 years.  So we have the criteria, let's see where Workshop fits in, if anywhere.  

As Steve's article lays out, all but Factor three are based on tournament performance.  Thus far, Workshop has not had a run equivalent to GAT, Long, Trix or Academy, in either the Prison iteration or the aggro iteration.  It has always a good deck and sometimes a tier one deck, but never THE deck.  As such without the incredible tournament streak Factor's 1 and 2 don't apply.  

Factor 3, the overpowering card also fails to apply.  The thing with Factor 3 cards is that they are not close calls.  These are cards that CANNOT be borderline calls.  They blow everything out of the water, they generate turn 1 wins with stunning regularity.  Workshop is not one of these cards.  It is not powerful enough, sufficiently limited, and vunerable to the two best hate cards in the format: Wasteland and Null Rod.  It is not a Factor 3 card.

1.5 seems to have done fine with Workshop decks as they have, like in Vintage, dropped in and out of the top tier.

The only conceiveable Factor that applies is Factor 5, the early game swing.  But here comes my initial comment--Belcher sets the pace.  In a format with INSTANT KILLS on turn 1 (in various forms), a 0cc hard counter, and Chalice of the Void, Workshop, which cannot kill immediately, is merely a balancing factor to the metagame, not an imbalance.  It does not create a deck that works significantly faster on a regular basis than the spells in other decks.  Last time I checked combo theoretically can kill on turn 1, control can counter on turn 1, and with Workshop, prison can lock up the board on turn 1.  That is not always true, but it is theoretically possible.  As such Workshop perfectly matches the speed of the format.  It helps populate the format in a healthy way.  Without Workshop we lose one of the three pillars of the metagame.  

In short, Workshop does not cause an unfair early game swing, but instead helps "balance" out that swing.  It keeps Prison up to speed and maybe does the same for aggro.  It is not too fast, but just right (at best) or a half turn or so too slow (in all likelihood).  

Workshop should not be restricted because it does not fit ANY of the current criteria used by the DCI to take actions against cards.

[Machinus]

If it is true that the DCI pays attention to higher level Type 1 players, I hope they have the good sense to say that everything is dandy except for FORK. I WANT MY FORKS BACK!

[EDIT: I think the safety and balance of workshop has been established. Can we just accept it?]

[MuzzonoAmi]

Normally I'd try to deal with multiple arguments from multiple people, VGB. But in this case your post was so assinine that I feel compelled to handle it individually.

Any deck in Type 1 that is not approaching degeneracy is not sufficiently competitive.  To say that a deck "approaches degeneracy" is, in T1, more or less equivalent to saying that it's viable.  I don't care whether or not they approach degeneracy, I care whether they step over the line.

Of all the decks in T1, the only ones that are purely coinflip oriented, steal games consistently first turn and play through the majority of hate aimed at them are Workshop based.  That may not be over the line, as it were, but it is a far cry ahead of any other deck.

Combo is still alive and the most potent pure combo deck in the format, TPS, still has alot riding on the coinflip, especially with Workshops and MonoU in the environment. Belcher lives and dies by the conflip and to say Workshop decks are even remotely similar in that regard is just to show again your ignorace of the format and metagame.

Furthermore any good combo deck can play through the majority of the hate aimed at it. Dragon and TPS are perfect examples of this. Belcher has the ability to run Chain of Vapor to deal with Null Rod if need be.

I assume he wasn't joking, but regardless, I'll echo his statement and assure you that I'm quite serious.  Post this Workshop list that you have decided should be dominating the format, that is so broken that Workshop needs restriction.  I haven't seen one yet.

I haven't seen a one, either - there are virtually limitless configurations, all viable, and all similarly vicious.

There's no evidence to show that there is a single deck, or even some super archetype if you want to break the format into 5 axes that is showing any sort of dominace. Let alone dominace to the point where restriction enters the picture. There is so much difference between, for example, TnT and $T4KS, that they are only related by the presence of Workshops and a high concentration of artifacts. The function of the cards played with the mana provided by the Workshops is so different that even if there is a case to be made for the restriction of Workshop, it is impossible to make it by taking a top8 that contains even 7 Workshop sporting decks if each of those decks is as different as TnT and $T4KS. For example, I consider a top 8 of Belcher, TnT, TMS, $T4KS, Aggro Modular, and Stacker (5/3) to be balanced simply because the decks represent a wide variety of strategies and combo is STILL in the top 8, which (especially in the case of Belcher as we know it today) should be absolutely destroyed by a Workshop dominated metagame. Now, if such top8s presist for even a month, we may have a problem on our hands. But since such an event has never occured, if one did, we could most likely count it as an abberation until other results were brought foward to corroborate the original idea that Workshops were distorting the entire metagame to the point where non-Workshop decks were either unviable or greatly handicapped.

Workshop is not degenerate because it is both inconsistent and highly vulnerable to the best hate card in the format, in fact, the only hate card to become the metagame--Null Rod.

That is patently untrue.  Welders, Juggernauts, Smokestack, Trinisphere, Tangle Wire, Chalice, Crucible, and Titan are all unaffected by Null Rod.

And all of those cards are, for nearly all practical purposes, just as easy to get out with 1 Shop, 4 Ancient Tomb, 1 Tolarian Academy, and 8SoLoMoxCrypt as they are with a similar 4 Workshop configuration. Except that the decks become even more inconsistent and less of a check to combo. If there is one thing you are either ignorant of or forgetting, it is that modern Type 1 combo has evolved much quicker than modern Type 1 control. I even hesitate to say that the metagame is unhealthy today. There are not only new decks coming out with frequency (most recently The Man Show) but there are also revivals of old decks as forces in a particular metagame (MonoU).

More experience would help here. If anyone remembers the days of Geddon decks in T2 or Elf decks in 1.x they can tell you that the all mana, big spell decks are extremely inconsistent. Fires of Yavimaya being the rare exception to the rule (in part because the "big mana" spells weren't that being and were amply supported by more reasonably costed spells). Workshop based decks are the ultimate zenith of the big mana type decks. As Jacob Orlove told me once: "A gameplan built around 4-5cc spells in a format with turn one kills is not a great idea." Workshop makes that possible, it makes it viable, but no results that we have seen yet shows that it makes it degenerate.

Those "big mana" spells virtually cost nothing in decks tuned to do one thing: cheat them into play by eliminating those costs or drastically reducing them.  These decks use everything from Tinker to Welder to Ancient Tomb to Workshop, and also more hate susceptible cards like Metalworker and mana artifacts.  Chief among these components is Workshop, as it is the one omnipresent card in all brown decks.

So now you're saying that simply because Workshop decks can play bigger spells than the rest of the decks in the format, Workshop should be restricted? Aside from being flat out wrong, you fail to even notice cards like Mana Drain. With Control Slaver being clearly superior to Workshop Slaver, one must ask why we're even talking about Workshop dominace when there are at least as many Mana Drains in top 8s as there are Workshops. Drain also creates a greater tempo swing because it litereally steals tempo from one player and gives it to another. If you restrict Workshop, all you do is give combo more leeway and reduce the number of viable aggro decks - forcing control to become even more oppressive than it already is to fight combo, which would likely squeeze out the remaining non-Fish aggro decks, save a few Madness builds.

I am not going to flat out say that Workshop deserves restriction, but the fact that the format may:

1) Become less coinflip oriented
2) Become less discouraging to new players
3) Allow many more budget and currently shelved/obsolete decks to become playable

is something that needs to be seriously considered.

1) For all the reasons I've give above, Workshop's restriction makes the format more coinflip oriented
2) A diverse, healthy, balanced metagame always attracts new players. That's what we have right now
3) Don't talk to me about the viability of budget decks. I've spent too much time testing and weeding out the best of the best budget decks and still tune many decks I can't post. Do many have trouble with Workshop decks? Yes. But more have trouble with combo decks, and several with control decks. The nature of the budget cards is strictly inferior to their more expensive and powerful counterparts. There is NO SUCH THING as an 'optimal budget deck' simply because of the nature of the cardpool. And believe me - I want more than anyone else here to have good budget decks for the format.  As for shelved/obsolete decks, I don't want to have to deal with Sligh, White Weenie, and Stompy when I go to a tournament. They are dull decks for dull people to play when they can't think of a viable alternative. Their single-mindedness and lack of effective threats/answers is why they don't work. To render their threats and answers effective by restricting a card that makes our metagame unique and interesting is not in the best interest of the format.

[Smmenen]

Workshop is not degenerate because it is both inconsistent and highly vulnerable to the best hate card in the format, in fact, the only hate card to become the metagame--Null Rod.

That is patently untrue.  Welders, Juggernauts, Smokestack, Trinisphere, Tangle Wire, Chalice, Crucible, and Titan are all unaffected by Null Rod.

.

I think Ric Flair is right in all but the card he mentions.  Wasteland is the card that ruins Workshops.  Workshop Trinisphere is begging to be destroyed by Wasteland.

Name me one non combo deck besides Control SLaver that doesn't run 4 that is Gencon Top 8 level of good.  In my view, the card that really makes Mishra's Workshop weak is Wasteland.  The deck becomes a pile of overcosted crap unless you can accellerate out something else like Gilded Lotus or an Ingot.  

Mishra's Workshop was at the peak of its powers, imo, when 4 Gush GroAtog was THE deck.  Workshop could do whatever it wanted and knew it wasn't going to dissapear or be Back to Basics locked in a turn.  Without Chalices or even Trinisphere or Crucible, Stax back then was simply brutal.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5273

It was at that point that I actually thought Workshop should be restricted.  The inconsistency issue revealed itself to me then.  

I think that right now the only cards worthy of restriction are Trinisphere and Crucible. These cards might not be part of a dominant archetype, but instead they can result in stupid first turn kills without requiring an ounce of brainpower or playskill. That to me is perfectly valid reason for restriction. Sure, they could restrict Workshop to try to alleviate the Trinisphere issue, but why axe something that spawns 4-5 reasonable archetypes when you can just nail the real problem card?

Furthermore I think they should axe Belcher. No deck should exist that can combo out turn 1 with such terrifying consistency, no matter how badly it can get hated out. They got rid of long.dec for exactly that reason, so why haven't they gotten around to Belcher yet?

As said, other lock cards such as sphere or resistance and chalice can take the place of trinishpere.  Not requiring skill to use a card is not a decent argument argument for restriction.  It take no skill to do many things in t1, such as going broken.  It's part of what makes the format what it is (read the first quote in my sig).

Belcher has nothing to due with this thread, but since you brought it up I will say this:  If it's so insane why aren't the results there to show it domintating.  People do playtest decks and they often won't play belcher because it is easy to h8 out as well as inconsistent.  Long didn't have those problems.

You missed my point.

My additional criteria for restriction is NOT that a card takes no skill to use. It's that it can result in a first turn kill all by itself. And you can't just excuse it by saying that T1 is a format where "broken things happen". When "broken things happen", it usually requires multiple cards to be played, many of which are probably restricted. This we cannot do anything about. But with respect to Trinisphere, something *can* be done about it. So please don't generalize when I want to focus on a *specific* card.

Oh, and I know that there are answers to a first turn Sphere. Sure, you can waste the Shop. Sure, you can break out of the lock simply by playing enough lands. Sure, you can play first and drop your Moxes/Lotus. The point is though that this one card can result in instances where it effectively kills you on the first turn. Some people will find that acceptable because it doesn't occur with enough consistency, but I question why we have to have this card in the format in the first place that leads to inane randomness. Because it can stop combo? Bad reason.


With respect to Belcher: just because it doesn't "dominate", partly because it's very susceptible to hate, doesn't mean that it shouldn't get the boot just like long.dec did. Very consistent first turn kills are in my opinion bad in T1. I accept T1 as a format where broken things happen, but turn 1 consistent kills are simply too extreme in my opinion.

I respect your opinoin quite a bit Peter, but I'm left wondering where we draw the line.  My way, the lines are clear - it is principled and restriction should be performed according my to my critieria.  Under any other test, subjective tests, line drawing is a difficult, if not impossible issue.  Do you restrict any deck that can win on turn one?  Tog can win before the opponent gets a turn.  So can Dragon.  What is that threshold for Belcher?  Is it "you know it when you see it"?  

I find that randomness acceptable becuase it is controllable over the long run.  Contrary to some people, T1 is not a coin flip.  With LongDeath, I expect to beat Stax, even if Stax is going first becuase, first, I am going to win the game i play first.  Second, if they mull into Trinisphere one of the games I can break out of it by topdecking more land and then Wish Hurkyl's.  Third, Workshop is far more inconsistent than my deck and will poop on itself once every two matches or so.  

With mono blue, I am willing to give up one game a match to Workshop.  These are acceptable losses.  The problem for Workshop isn't that it randomly wins, but that it can't randomly win enough to win matches sufficiently enough to be restriction worthy.  If Workshop was restricted, I think that entire archtype is dead.  No one is going to play with Ancient Tombs or City of Traitors.  Those are pretty awful.  The card I am most concerned about is Crucible of the Worlds becuase it can take away the real weakness Workshop has: Wastelands.

[Saucemaster]

Post this Workshop list that you have decided should be dominating the format, that is so broken that Workshop needs restriction.  I haven't seen one yet.

I haven't seen a one, either - there are virtually limitless configurations, all viable, and all similarly vicious.

That had to have sounded like a cheap cop-out even when you wrote it.  I'll restate my original challenge: post a Workshop list--ANY Workshop list, since you seem to think there are so many--that is currently dominating the format, OR unveil the testing results you've compiled showing why such a deck SHOULD be dominating the format.

I am not going to flat out say that Workshop deserves restriction, but the fact that the format may:

1) Become less coinflip oriented
2) Become less discouraging to new players
3) Allow many more budget and currently shelved/obsolete decks to become playable

is something that needs to be seriously considered.

Every one of those conditions is also met if we ban the Power 9, too. Or, for that matter, if we restrict Bazaar, which no one's calling for right now.  Restricting a card may result in every one of the above and that would still not be enough reason to have done so.  You either need to show why, under the systematic criteria so far accepted (which Ric_Flair has been forced, once again, to reproduce and discuss at length), Workshop needs to be restricted, or you need to come up with a new criterion/set of criteria that encompasses the Workshop debate and then convince us all why we should accept that criteria, despite the fact that the large majority of T1 players seem satisfied with the balance of the environment right now.

[ElderDruid]

I've just sold (2) VF quality Workshops on eBay for $140 and $145.  I hope I made a good decision.

[dicemanx]

Under any other test, subjective tests, line drawing is a difficult, if not impossible issue. Do you restrict any deck that can win on turn one? Tog can win before the opponent gets a turn. So can Dragon. What is that threshold for Belcher? Is it "you know it when you see it"?

Yes, "line drawing" is difficult, but I prefer to treat the two issues (Trinisphere and Belcher) along the lines of the last sentence of yours that I quoted. Belcher just "feels" wrong to have in the environment (pardon my less than scientific approach), while Trinisphere is just too randomly powerful. If both got the axe they would not be missed; if anything, the results would be positive because T1 would be made just a little less random.

Playing against Belcher is not Magic. It's poker where you flip your hands over immediately to see who wins. Same goes for Trinisphere.

[Smmenen]

Which raises my other point: is acceptable losses part of magic, even if that means losing to unwinnable hands?  I think so.  I think magic is a game of probabilities and all you are trying to do is, in any small way, trying to maximize your chances of winning a match .  Playing Belcher or Workshop causes problems becuase your overall probability of winning is unacceptably low becuase good decks try to capitalize on the fact that you will go nuts one game and cough up blood another game and you'll be playing 2nd in a third.  

You are too focused on individual games and missing the bigger picture, I think.

The same issues can come up in any format but in different context and manner.

So let me ask you this, do you think that playing percentages is not good enough?  What other factors can bring a person over the top?  What other factors can bring you under?

[Elric]

If you think about it, game 1 win percentages going first and second don't matter individually.  What actually matters in game 1 is only average win percentage, so (win percentage going first + win percentage going second)/2.

Post-sideboard games actually follow a different rule.  If your deck has the advantage game 1, you care less about "breaking serve" and winning when going second and care more about "holding serve" because usually you only have to win one out of the two games.  If game 1 is against you, you had better be able to win a game "receiving serve" (going second), because you usually have to win two in a row.

Obviously winning the coin flip is to your advantage, but when you think about constructing a deck for a given matchup game 1, winning 60% of the time going first and 40% going second is exactly the same as winning 80% of the time going first and 20% going second.  The same can't be said about post-sideboard games.

[dicemanx]

You are too focused on individual games and missing the bigger picture, I think.

This is exactly it, but you make it sound like focusing on individual games is a bad thing . I am avoiding the "bigger picture" on purpose.

Playing Belcher or Workshop causes problems becuase your overall probability of winning is unacceptably low becuase good decks try to capitalize on the fact that you will go nuts one game and cough up blood another game and you'll be playing 2nd in a third.

I've never heard of Belcher winning any event, and yet there are people that insist on running the deck despite the fact that their "overall probability of winning is unacceptably low".  I've faced Belcher a number of times, and the match-ups were purely statisitcal in nature. We played Poker, not Magic. Sure, my primary goal when entering a tournament is to win, but I want to play some good games of Magic and I dislike sheer randomness even if the probabilites are ultimately in my favor.

[Smmenen]

The next question then is, should we take away their fun if it doesn't harm anyone?  Keep in mind that a guiding principle behind T1 restriction policy is the lassez-faire, we get-to-use-every-card-ever-printed and we don't ban cards for powere level.

@Elric
I think that is a serious error in T1.  You need a plan for beating a matchup if you lost the coinflip.  You can't just say that I'm going to win on average, becuase that could mean you win 100% going 1st but lose 90% going 2nd.  You have a high win average, but you lose that match and get knocked out of the swiss.  The difference between going first and second is so important that ignoring that will keep you out of contention.

[dicemanx]

The next question then is, should we take away their fun if it doesn't harm anyone? Keep in mind that a guiding principle behind T1 restriction policy is the lassez-faire, we get-to-use-every-card-ever-printed and we don't ban cards for powere level.

If such a guiding principle exists, why is the B/R list filled with cards like:

Braingeyser
Gush
Fork
Dream Halls
Doomsday
Crop Rotation
Earthcraft
Entomb
Fact or Fiction
Frantic Search
Mind Over Matter
Voltaic Key
Time Spiral
Necropotence

If Belcher sets the benchmark as a "fair" consistent turn 1 kill deck (and by "fair" I mean easily disruptable), then surely combo decks that revolve around cards like Doomsday, Mind Over Matter, Time Spiral, Voltaic Key or Dream Halls cannot be any worse. Gush probably shouldn't be restricted anymore because I cannot envision GAT dominating in today's environment, and Ritual-Necro is about as random and game winning as Workshop-Sphere. And what about Fact or Fiction - the format is a mix of fast combo/prison decks and slow control, so FoF might not be too dominating. FoF is probably weaker than Skeletal Scrying anyways, while its arguably on par with something like Thirst for Knowledge.

After all, we should use every-card-ever-printed and don't ban cards for power level. Let's unrestrict some of this stuff, and see what happens in the current T1. Why limit the randomness to just Trinisphere or decks like Belcher?

[Wollblad]

I'm sorry for not reading the whole discussion, but these are my thoughts:

1) When a meta game by sideboarding and main decking cannot hate a deck out of the format, something should be done about it. Dragon for example made a fast apperance and was then hated out by grave yard removal. Here in northern Europe, we have reached a point where sidebaords and maindecks are packed with artifact desruction, but still Stax is dominating showing a 70 % match winning statistics in average. It is way too strong at least in my oppinion since no other deck archetype is even close.

2) If there were an unlimited supply of cards, Stax wouldn't be as good as it is since Stax will get a very hard duell if the other player starts and drops land and two mana aceelerants. That is probably one of the explanation for Stax weaker preformance in the States where proxy tournaments are common. But the restriction list should be adjusted after a non-proxy environment and therefor, only non-proxy tournaments should be considered. Much of the adjustment against Stax is by playing decks which playes large creatures using Workshop and that is why the small printrun of Antiquities is a valid argument.

[dexter]

okay,

first of all i think some people think im for restriction workshops which isnt the case, the cards that in my opinion gives staxx to much power right now is trinisphere and in some extent cruicble.

you who said that we should restrict fish and tog decks cause they show up in multiples didnt understand the point at all, the tog decks and fish decks dont run 4 of a card that is harder to get perhaps than p9. and in tog the cunning wish and accus arent "must counter" - cards.

the argument that "t1 is a format where broken things ARE supposed to happen" just suxx. yeah t1 has broken plays its a part of the format but usually thoose broken plays are accomplished by cards on the restriction list.

for you people who are waiting to se staxx dominate in proxy 10 tournaments i think you have to wait a while for that since staxx isnt a deck you just can netdeck, its a deck you have to learn how to play in a bigger extent than perhaps decks like fish and tog.

just as wollblad points out when much of sideboards are used up to beat a deck then something is wrong. but i got the feeling that just as before when this issue has been discussed in over here, it will never end, thoose of you who dont feel that staxx is a problem you wont realize that anytime soon. and we who acctually has to see staxx dominate one big tournament after another we will think the deck is retarded right now.

[Kerz]

This dicussion isn't "Is Workshop Restriction Worthy?".

It is "Will R&D restrict it based on power level alone?"

The answer to this question is a flat out no, Wizards has made this a point before. Workshop decks have not dominated in the past, nor are they dominating right now. They provide an essential element to Vintage itself- the prison archetype. There was a solid amount of Workshops in GenCon's top eight, but nowhere near "dominace"-level.

The results are not there. Therefore, Wizards absolutely will not restrict the card.

Don't get me wrong- Workshop surely has results. However, these results are nearly comparable to Long.dec, GAT, or Mono U (with 4 FOF), the last 3 decks to cause restrictions.

There should be no argument whether the card itself is too powerful or not, because this is a completely moot point.  When a deck that (ab)uses this card begins to put up overwhelming numbers, that is when you will see them restrict Workshop.  It has nothing to do with the card itself, but everything to do with the deck it is in.

In conclusion, I just have to use a Smmenen Quote:

Show me tournament data with rampant deck domination and I can show you restricted cards

If you want cards to restrict based on dominance...well... you might want to look at
the card that appeared twenty four times in the  GenCon Top Eight

[jazzykat]

workshops are powerful indeed, but I see them as a foil to mana drain.

The only problem I see with looking at purely T8 statistics is the small print run of shops, which means it is quite difficult to get a playset of them. Which I would assume in Europe would slightly skew the numbers. In the proxy tourneys in the US I would have to lean towards less skewage. Anyway...if you pack enough hate you can rock the shop. Just look what happened to the tog!

[dexter]

another thing for thoose of you who ways the results arent there.

look over to europe, dont just look at the american metagame and then judge a deck, staxx decks has won most of the recent europeen tournaments if you look at morphling.de. and just here in sweden we have had 5 bigger tournaments this year and every one of them except 1 has been won by staxx decks. so results from staxx are there but it feels like people arent prepared to accept europeen results as a part of t1.

[Caelestis]

That point has been brought up before, and it is readily apparent that it is not the whole of Europe suffering from a Stax/Workshop infestation, but rather just Sweden.

[Dante]

I am not going to flat out say that Workshop deserves restriction, but the fact that the format may:

1) Become less coinflip oriented
2) Become less discouraging to new players
3) Allow many more budget and currently shelved/obsolete decks to become playable

is something that needs to be seriously considered.

with respect to #3, frankly, with proxy tournaments becoming the norm, I really couldn't care less about budget players, nor do many players.  If I wanted to play a format where people threw out a bunch of creatures and attacked each other, I'd play another format.  I want to face players playing what they feel is the best deck, not what they feel is the best deck they can make with the cards they have.  If every tournament was a 10-proxy tournament and we never had a sanctioned Type 1 event again, that would be fine with me - then people can proxy a playset of drains/shops/bazaars and 6 of the power cards.

Also, if you think restricting Workshop makes many more decks viable, you should probably think again - modern combo decks punch through control (and aggro is generally a bye), so all of a sudden, DeathLong, TPS, and Belcher have no foil (aka workshop decks that play the spheres (trini or resistance)).

proxies make #2 a non-issue.

w.r.t. #1 going first is ALWAYS going to be an issue for ANY kind of game where there are distinct turns and it's not evened out (like baseball where the home team gets to bat in the bottom of the ninth if it needs to).  Look at a game like C-h-ess, which is 100% skill-based.  If you have two evenly matched players, the White player (playing first) has a huge advantage.  The real issue is how much of the coinflip is acceptable.  

Bill

EDIT - why do all the Workshop decks get lumped together?  The basic argument people seem to have is with the "fast lock" of Stax.  Stax plays like a control deck, the Agro decks don't.  They just happen to have the same core set of mana base, welders, draw spells, and trinisphere/crucible.

to all who wonder why "dumb americans play fat in their workshop decks instead of Stax" - it is to offset the inconsistent nature of Stax (and workshop in general), and by inconsistent I mean the non-artifact draw with workshops and the artifact draw with no workshops.  With Stax, you can't just put out 1 or 2 lock parts, you need a whole cohesive lock to come together.  Throwing out a Juggernaut turn 1 or 2 is something needs to be dealt with, which helps smooth out inconsistency