Vintage Adept Q&A #12: Road Not Taken

[Demonic Attorney]

Why do most high caliber players tend to stray from playing Workshops?

[The Atog Lord]

This question makes an assumption which I'm not entirely sure is true. Many good players do, in fact, play Workshops. Roland Chang played them, and he's the only person ever to be the Vintage and Legacy champion at the same time. There are plenty of other good players who tend to favor Workshop decks, too. So, I think that this question is based on an assumption -- that good players don't play workshop decks -- which is false.

[voltron00x]

Why do most high caliber players tend to stray from playing Workshops?

What a loaded question that is...  

How do you define "high caliber" player?  Is / was Roland Chang a high-caliber player when he won Vintage Champs?  Nick Detwiler, in the midst of a pretty ridiculous winning streak in early/mid 2009, reached the finals back-to-back (with Mastriano), in 57- and 64- player tournaments, with Workshops - is he a high-caliber player?  What about Mykie Noble winning a 60-person Blue Bell with Workshops in 12/08, and then reaching T4 of the Philly Open IV - at both tournaments, he came in as the #8 seed with a Workshop deck and beat the #1 seed, both times:  Paul Mastriano.  Jeff Folinus reached the T4 of the NYSE II playing Workshops - he is normally a Tezz player.  He might not be a "name" player to a lot of folks but he's one of the best Eternal players I've ever run into (see:  beating Mastriano twice in the same tournament in the mirror match, at the NYSE III).

There was another thread elsewhere on TMD where Menendian was discussing the idea of "metagame" decks.  I fully agree with what was stated there:  people view Workshop decks as "metagame" decks (or "hate" decks, if you will, which is more or less an equally questionable term or description), and Vintage players seem to shy away from decks with that name regardless of their power level or position in the meta (see:  Meandeck Beats, Xmas Beats, G/W, most Workshop decks).  While Workshop decks have posted enough results that a lot of that stigma is no longer attached, to some extent its still present.

One factor that influences some Workshop decks, especially 5C Stax, is proxy limits and the cost of the deck (which runs 5x Moxen, Lotus, 4x Workshop, 1-2x Bazaar, and Ancesteral Recall, plus often Tabernacle in the SB).  This is an awfully costly deck to choose unless you're at 15+ proxies.

There's also a mindset that only decks with Force of Will are "good" or actually "win" tournaments, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.  I also think that Workshop decks are deceptively difficult to pilot correctly.  The mulligan decisions and general decision trees over the first 3 turns are critical to all players, but even moreso in a deck designed to attack resources and stunt the opponent's development.

[Smmenen]

Why do most high caliber players tend to stray from playing Workshops?

This is a GREAT question.

Here is the typical answer you might hear:

Mishra's Workshop decks have two primary weaknesses, which can further be subdivided into more particular weaknesses.   Generally speaking, Workshop strategies are perceived to be relatively inconsistent and not sufficiently resilient.    More generally, they are perceived to be less skill intensive, not in the sense of requiring technical know-how or superior play, but rather in the sense that it is more difficult to 'out-play' an opponent with a Workshop deck.

Let me elaborate.   First, Workshop decks are reliant upon Mishra's Workshop, a 4-of, to power out the most broken plays.   I think Pat Chapin had an article a few years ago where he showed the tremendous difference in match win % when the Workshop pilot draws Workshops in their opening hand than when they don't.   That inherently limits Workshop consistency.  Workshop therefore require more mulliganing than blue decks.    Second, Workshop decks are vulnerable to Silver Bullets like Rack and Ruin, Hurkyl's Recall, and Rebuild.   This limits Workshop resiliency.   Third, Workshops lack the library manipulation that blue decks have with Brainstorm, Ponder, and fetchlands.   This limits both consistency *and* resilience, since library manipulation, including tutoring, gives you more access to cards to both implement your strategy and weather counter-tactics.  Lower tier tutors, like Crop Rotation or Entomb, sometimes appear in Workshop decks to offset this.   This is also why they are often paired with Bazaar of Baghdad, which allows them to see more cards than they normally would.   Fourth, Mishra's Workshop decks necessarily lack the most powerful answer in Vintage: Force of Will.   Force of Will shows up in 60-70% of Top 8 decks on a regular basis going back YEARS.   The Lack of Force of Will is a loss of both consistency and resilience that other decks in Vintage from Combo to Fish to Drain decks enjoy.    

That is how I would characterize the 'perceived', if not 'received' Wisdom about Workshop decks.  However, despite the appearance of plausibility, I think that most of what I just said -- although not all of it -- is wrong, and not just in the specifics, but in degree.   What I've just stated is the avowed reason, but there is a deeper reason for why high caliber players tend to stay away from playing Workshops.

Despite appearances, Magic is more about us -- the players -- than the cards.   Magic games are not played by computers, nor, even if they were, the decks are designed by people.   Magic players develop preferences and styles.   Those styles are inculcated through a series of informal teaching and experiences.    It is critical to understand what those experiences are.    People who are taught Vintage go through an exploration phase, where they enter the format and learn it.   During that period, they are often trying various decks.  Invariably, the decks of Vintage present a bewildering assortment of possibilities, but many of which produce frustration or exhaustion.   A relatively new players playing with a Workshop decks or a Combo deck often leaves that archetype almost as soon as they discover Fish or a Drain deck.   Eventually, a player tastes their first tournament success.    That tournament success, usually a Top 8 at a local tournament, is almost always with a blue deck.    What happens is that a powerful association is created.   The first success, and the positive feelings that accompany that success, are then subconsciously imprinted with the blue deck.  

Because the Weissman school has been so strong, from the inception of the game, and because Mishra's Workshop was restricted during the formative years of Vintage history, the Weissman legacy is most powerful school of Vintage thought.   Its tenets, its principles, its technology pervade Vintage, so much so that it's often invisible, yet ubiquitous.   Magic is taught by senseis to padawans.   Because the most experienced and advanced players tend to hail from that school, new players have the most to learn from its adherents or schools that have branched out from that general body of thought.    

Workshop Senseis are much harder to find, and harder to learn from as a result.    Where there are a few, a school can be founded, and learners can develop, but it's a much more difficult and painful process.   The learning curve is higher as a result of the lack of excellent teachers to learn from and the need for technological innovation is much greater, since a much large pool of people are innovating against you.    

The bottom line is this: great players go through stages that make them great players.   They are great players because they've been playing for a while.  Part of the reason they've been playing for a while is because they enjoy the game.   Part of the reason they enjoy the game is connected to some measure of success they experienced early on.   That success usually came because of an experience with a particular archetype.  It also came because of experience with good teachers who helped build skills through testing and helped development strong technology.  In both cases, it was unlikely that this came from Workshop teachers or a workshop deck.   As a result of the genealogy, so to speak, of the most experienced and skilled Vintage players, few gravitate toward Workshop decks. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

I think Steve's points are great.  Even his setup which he eventually attacks is instructful for its partial accuracy.

I would say his conclusions are still only a non-majority factor in why the workshop phenomena exists.

great players go through stages that make them great players.   They are great players because they've been playing for a while.  Part of the reason they've been playing for a while is because they enjoy the game.   Part of the reason they enjoy the game is connected to some measure of success they experienced early on.   That success usually came because of an experience with a particular archetype

This is true, but there's also another type of great player: the type that can win with whatever solid deck he chooses to pick up.  Brian Phelon is one of the better natural magic players I've ever seen.  During T1's initial rise (and before he left magic for poker) he won a series of mox tournaments with the following decks: Mono-Blue, GAT, Stax, Dragon, Rector Tendrils.  Whenever he comes out of a haitus he usually scouts around for what he views as the top deck and always at least T8's.  While very few have his level of skill, the point is that he's able to transcend the type of inherited archetype approach that does seem to permeate T1 'big blue' players.  What does he usually play?  Combo or combo control.  He may offer a different explanation, but I think it's actually quite simple:

In magic most spells resolve; play the most powerful spells you can.

There have been metagame moments in Vintage when Trinisphere or Goblin Welder or (maybe during Gush) Thorn of Amethyst were the best cards resolve.  However, often times workshop strategies simply don't trump what the best other win condition or bomb is in the format.  This is in addition to consistency and hate issues mentioned above.  Good players realize this and choose accordingly.

[Demonic Attorney]

For me (making the assumption I qualify as a "high caliber player" in my region), it all comes down to three interrelated concepts: adaptability, consistency, and resiliency.

1.  Adaptability.  Drain shells can be adapted to combat variations in the metagame better than Shop shells, because of their inherent consistency.  A crucial component to a Drain shell (and I'd say the most important one) is the draw engine.  A solid, backbone foundation of card draw and selection minimizes inconsistency between opening hands and makes sure you can find threats or answers as the situation demands.  A corollary benefit is that you tend to have a tad more room to play with.  While Drain shells achieve consistency with their draw engine, a Shop engine achieves consistency through design-- specifically a mass of 4-of's.  

To reliably get disruption online in the early game, a Shop deck needs to have at least most of the usual fare of 4 Shop, 4 Sphere, 4 Thorn, 4 Chalice 4 Wire, 4 Stack, etc.  On the other hand, a Drain shell doesn't need to commit to all those 4-of's in order to achieve consistency; some of its maindeck is there, at least in part, to serve that purpose.  So you see Drain shells including 1-of silver bullet cards designed to exploit the metagame; Drain shells, with their tutors and card draw, have more room for those metagame cards and can find them more easily.

2.  Consistency.  Going back to the issue of consistency, a Drain shell includes cards that function to provide consistency.  I guess there's less of these available since the restriction of Brainstorm, but the point still holds.  A Drain shell gives you restricted blue cards, Bob, Night's Whisper, Top, Skeletal Scrying, and other choices to function as the glue that holds your consistency together.  You're not always consigned to living off the opening draw and subsequent topdecks.  With a Shop sell, you're much closer to exactly that position.

Sure, there are aberrations like JuggernautGO's Dark Confidant Shop decks, and the rare card selection tool that's compatible with Shops like Sensei's Divining Top or in some builds, Bazaar of Baghdad, but by and large Shop decks don't have nearly as many tools to ensure consistency as Drain shells.  That was the problem I ran into over and over when playing Shop decks; I'd always have That Awful Round when I mulled to 5 in game 1 for an acceptable hand, and could never get back in the game, and then get stuck on a succession of bad draws in game 2 when I needed something to solidify an advantage or get back into the game.

3.  Resiliency.  To repeat the point above, because it also bears upon resiliency-- I've found it much easier to get back into the game with a Drain shell than a Shop shell when I've fallen behind.  The tutors and draw cards mean I'm more likely to find what I need, so I'm less relegated to just blindly ripping one off the top of my deck during my draw step.  What's more, Drain decks generally have better access to combo-finish win conditions like Vault/Key and one-card-combo bombs like Yawgmoth's Will or, to a lesser extent, Tinker, that can swing a losing game back in my favor.  Once an opponent has threats on the board, finds a functioning manabase, and starts pushing their gameplan forward, I've found there's much less Shops can do to get back into the game than Drains.

Aside from this, Drain decks strike me as much harder to hate out.  The familiar Shop hate cards consistently show up in Vintage sideboards:  Rack and Ruin.  Shattering Spree.  Hurkyl's Recall.  Rebuild.  Serenity.  Sacred Ground.  Viashino Heretic.  If one of these cards hits at a timely juncture, it can spell disaster for Shop decks.  But what do you bring in to hate out Drains?  Duress? REB?  Vexing Shusher?  These cards aren't nearly as back-breaking against Drains as Shop hate is against Shops.  The best option, Null Rod, doesn't hurt Drains as much as what I'd say is the best option against Shops, Serenity, hurts them.  

But even beyond that, Drains are inherently resilient to hate against them in a way Shops can't be.  I go into every match with between 8-12 cards that can prevent Null Rod from resolving, and an additional 1-4 that can remove it from play.  Shop decks can only pray they lock the opponent out of the game before they get to the threshold of 2R, 1W, 1U, or whatever they need to enable their hate; a much tougher proposition.

[Anusien]

Players have a perception of Mana Drains in particular and the color blue in general of being the skill-intensive color.  Richard Feldman wrote an interesting article where he shied away from beatdown decks for a while because he thought the Cryptic Command decks in Standard gave the opponents more chances to make mistake and more ways for him to outplay.  I wager that a large majority of players at a Vintage tournament would suggest they are better than the average player at that event.  Among players playing blue, it's doubtless even higher.  So partially that they want to let their opponents make mistakes, and partly because they think playing blue makes them look smart.  The easiest way to get respect is to win with Drains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect

[TheBrassMan]

Thinking about this has made me wonder if the real discrepancy here isn't good players = drains, bad players = shops, but something along the lines of "good self-promoters=drains, bad self promoters=shops"  Everything Stephen said about their being a Master-Apprentice dynastic relationship is completely true (I've been on both sides of that before, certainly).  However further than that, I feel like there's a Dynasty of drain-promotion on (go figure) The Mana Drain.  It was founded years ago by violent Keeper supporters.  Consciously or not, when Drain players are evaluating another player's playskill, they're going to assume that people who come to the same conclusions as them are better than those that don't (or they wouldn't have come to those conclusions in the first place.)  This has created a dynasty/culture of Drain players being talked up, promoted, for their results being exaggerated, and on some level nondrain players being deterred from posting at all.  Basically all that boils down to is that there is a difference between "High Caliber Players" and "Well Known High Caliber Players".  But that said:

Personally I can tell you (if I can be so arrogant as to assume some people consider me a high caliber player), that I have played pretty much every archetype in tournaments, including shops, and have just been underwhelmed by them.  However, pinning down exactly why that is is a slippery subject.  It's possible shops are really just not as good as other decks (in most formats), but it's just as possible that I play them poorly, or dont have a correct list, or misrepresent my results to myself.  I have no way of knowing which is true.  I do feel that shop decks, like Ichorid decks, create the illusion of loss of control.  When you lose to a Rebuild or a Leyline, you barely feel like you were playing magic, and that's a bad feeling.  It's a bad association, and one that some players try to avoid whether they realize it or not.  Even if a control mirror was just as unwinnable, when you make a lot of decisions, you *feel* like those decisions mattered, even if they didn't.  And that feeling, to me, results in a more positive tournament experience.  It's hard for me to gauge how much that kind of psychology factors in, because I honestly feel like the combo control archetypes are legitimately the better decks, but I don't know if that's more "good player intuition" or more self deception.

[Twaun007]

This question makes an assumption which I'm not entirely sure is true. Many good players do, in fact, play Workshops. Roland Chang played them, and he's the only person ever to be the Vintage and Legacy champion at the same time. There are plenty of other good players who tend to favor Workshop decks, too. So, I think that this question is based on an assumption -- that good players don't play workshop decks -- which is false.

Why do most high caliber players tend to stray from playing Workshops?

What a loaded question that is...

My question to the Vintage Adepts originated from something Eric Becker said on the GWS boards. It wasn't supposed to be about defining what makes a player high caliber.  

BR stax is my favorite deck that I'll never play.

During Becker's time on the Vintage circuit he piloted GAT, Grimlong, Superlong, GWSlong, BUG Fish, Urbana Fish, I.T., Pitchlong, etc..... and not a single Workshop deck.

Look through Paul Mastriano's top 8 listings on Morphling.de. Its filled with Long.dec, Meandeck Gifts, The Meandeck, Quad-lazer Gush Tendrils, Drain Tendrils, Oath, and Tezzeret. He did play a Workshop deck in 2004 so all hope can't be lost. 

The same can be found for Brian Demars, Rich Shay, Jimmy McCarthy, Jason Jaco and countless others.

During my travels on the Vintage pro circuit I have been able to chit chat with each one of these guys and every one has said that they would never play a Workshop deck.

I'm not saying that good players don't play Workshops. I just don't understand the mentality in regards to Workshops of "never play".

[JACO]

This question makes an assumption which I'm not entirely sure is true. Many good players do, in fact, play Workshops. Roland Chang played them, and he's the only person ever to be the Vintage and Legacy champion at the same time. There are plenty of other good players who tend to favor Workshop decks, too. So, I think that this question is based on an assumption -- that good players don't play workshop decks -- which is false.

I agree with this in its entirety. The question at hand is based on a false assumption.

The same can be found for Brian Demars, Rich Shay, Jimmy McCarthy, Jason Jaco and countless others.

During my travels on the Vintage pro circuit I have been able to chit chat with each one of these guys and every one has said that they would never play a Workshop deck.

I'm not saying that good players don't play Workshops. I just don't understand the mentality in regards to Workshops of "never play".

Apparently you consider me a high-caliber player, so I'll give my reasoning for not playing Workshops.

Throughout my Vintage career I've played and tested nearly every Vintage deck I thought looked competitive, including numerous iterations of Workshop decks. TnT variants were my absolute favorite Vintage deck of all time, and my friend and teammate Nick Trudeau succesfully piloted a version of TnT I designed for him to a Vintage Championship Top 8 birth in 2004 with my physical cards when I was unable to attend GenCon that year.

Why don't I play Workshops now? I certainly test them as regularly as I test most other decks in Vintage, but aside from the omnipresence of Rebuild in nearly every deck sporting blue (which is a major ball buster), I believe there are usually many other decks that are better positioned to win the tournaments I attend, based on the expected field. So I would rather choose those decks to do battle with when I plunk down my $25 to enter a tournament.

[Prospero]

This question makes an assumption which I'm not entirely sure is true. Many good players do, in fact, play Workshops. Roland Chang played them, and he's the only person ever to be the Vintage and Legacy champion at the same time. There are plenty of other good players who tend to favor Workshop decks, too. So, I think that this question is based on an assumption -- that good players don't play workshop decks -- which is false.

@Rich - I would say that while there are a few good players who favor Workshops, Shops have nowhere near as many masters as Drains do.  There are only two players that I'm comfortable putting in the 'elite' status with Workshops - Roland and Vroman.  Both have (for the time being it seems) given up Workshops.

All great players came from somewhere - there was a point at which they learned from a master.  The Sensei/Padawan relationship in Vintage is important, and especially so with Stax.  Look at what Roland alone has done - in tutoring Raf Forino (with Raf eventually tutoring me) Roland laid the groundwork for N.Y.S.E. to exist, without even thinking that he was doing anything of the sort.  Who plays 5CStax in the U.S. anymore outside of us?  Maybe it's arrogant, but I think we can say that we're responsible for the best 5CStax lists available at the moment.  It all started with one great Shop master and it has flourished into a small community. 

So, to return to the initial point - yes, I agree that there are several 'good' Shop players, I just think that we're without Shop masters at the moment (as I would define a master, or what I've been calling 'elite' as someone with a mastery of technical play (evidenced by consistent wins/top 8's) and a mastery of theory.)  I've enjoyed running events so much lately that I haven't tested anywhere near as much as I had earlier this year.  Raf Forino is probably the closest thing that we have to a Shop master, though I'd like to think that I'm in the vicinity.  There are many Shop pilots on a second tier, now the question becomes: who will fill the void?  And, if this void isn't filled, will Workshops be met with the same general disdain of the Vintage community that they have been for as long as they have?  It seems like these responses to Shops aren't even the product of rational thought anymore, merely inchoate thoughts that abound because there isn't anyone to dispel them.  If this happens, the failure of Workshops will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

@Matt - I'd say that the distinction that should be drawn is between the Shop master and the good-borderline great Shop pilot.  I've won some events and I've generally done well with 5CStax, but I wouldn't consider myself a Master until I was consistent with my finishes.  There are good Shop pilots around, and there are guys who were great Shop pilots, but I don't think that there are any great Shop pilots around right now with Roland and Vroman moving on.  If some of my teammates and I perfect our deck and find ourselves on a healthy winning streak then I'd consider revising this statement. 

Why do most high caliber players tend to stray from playing Workshops?

Workshop Senseis are much harder to find, and harder to learn from as a result.    Where there are a few, a school can be founded, and learners can develop, but it's a much more difficult and painful process.   The learning curve is higher as a result of the lack of excellent teachers to learn from and the need for technological innovation is much greater, since a much large pool of people are innovating against you.   

The bottom line is this: great players go through stages that make them great players.   They are great players because they've been playing for a while.  Part of the reason they've been playing for a while is because they enjoy the game.   Part of the reason they enjoy the game is connected to some measure of success they experienced early on.   That success usually came because of an experience with a particular archetype.  It also came because of experience with good teachers who helped build skills through testing and helped development strong technology.  In both cases, it was unlikely that this came from Workshop teachers or a workshop deck.   As a result of the genealogy, so to speak, of the most experienced and skilled Vintage players, few gravitate toward Workshop decks. 

@Steve - this is spot on. 

I know that people think the deck is very vulnerable to hate, but I'd disagree (I don't think it's any more vulnerable than most other decks are.)  This isn't Dredge with a Leyline of the Void on the board.  The good Shop pilot can win a fight on almost any terms.  I've beaten turn 1 Energy Flux, 3 artifact mutations on all my relevant artifacts, the creature swarm on low single digits, 22 goblins off an ETW, Shattering Spree's that have killed my whole board, Oath pilots with all their creatures on the board, multiple Rack & Ruin's in one game, etc., etc., etc.  If you have built your deck properly it is possible to recover from all the hate that they throw at you.  And if you've built your board correctly, you can hate their hate right back (REB on E. Flux for example.)

[forests failed you]

I don't play Workshops because they cost $250, I don't own any, and I hate playing with proxies. 

There was actually a span of time in between playing Keeper and CS where I almost exclusively played Stax for about six or seven months.  But, I sold my shops and just never went back. 

If I actually knew somebody who would loan me shops I would gladly play a workshop deck at an event.

[TheShop]

Correct me if I am wrong(and pardon the analogy):

I feel like Stax players are like the Sith...there are very few, but very powerful.  Kevin, Roland, and Vroman have been my Magic idols for years and had hugely impressive victories.  But Stax is a dirty word- most people don't think it's fun to grind out a win.  There is something sinister about decompressing the game.

Also, it has been way cheaper to get to the proxy limit as a ritual or drain player FOREVER. 

Steve, you are dead on with the local tourney win assertion:  evidently budget Stax with Chalice at 1 trumps Sligh!!!  I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Stax after watching hundreds of frowns resolve off the stack while I played solitare with my brown cards.  I wish you guys had Gush back just so my chains could stay in the deck.

Blue decks have more lines of play...shops have a marching order to drop lock pieces nearly the same way every game, to a few players this never gets old.