Article: Rule of Law: Maximizing Mishra's Workshop in Vintage

[Smmenen]

http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/rule-of-law-maximizing-mishras-workshop-in-vintage/

Matt Sperling talks about MUD and Stax, post-Worldwake.

[Evenpence]

I've read the first two paragraphs and already I love this article.

EDIT:  No Mox Emerald.  No fourth Wasteland.  Not playing Balance is pretty bad too.  I'd rather have Balance in 5c Stax than probably any other card in the deck. This list reminds me of a half-breed between an established 5c Stax deck and something Travis would play in 2005.

Still, a great article.  I like his writing style and thoughts, even if they are ridiculously unorthodox.  We need outside-the-box thinkers to advance strategy.

[TheShop]

I read the 5 color list and I hate it...2 wires, 3 smokestacks, and rods in 5 color...wow. Giving up a consistent lock to try and banking on Lodestone (a 4 of) to beat then to death???  good luck with that

also attempting to find space for Balance and imperial seal is laughable given the success of shop decks last year.  Hey look!  We also dropped trike and moxes to run rod.

I agree with the MUD suggestion to drop metalworker more or less.

[Cyberpunker]

He also says that he just hopes he does not get paired with Dredge because he does not want to devote too many sideboard options to Dredge while losing out on other s/b options.

I don't know about that plan.  

Also note that Null Rod nukes his own mana as well. Unlike Selkie, he runs the full set of artifact mana. And if he is planning on abusing the sphere effects, he runs the danger of locking himself out.

[Delha]

I'm no Stax player, but what primers and such I've read here, several of his arguments didn't sound very convincing. Also, as kooaznboi1088 said, I'm no fan of just accepting that you are a bye to Dredge.

[Evenpence]

I'm no Stax player, but what primers and such I've read here, several of his arguments didn't sound very convincing. Also, as kooaznboi1088 said, I'm no fan of just accepting that you are a bye to Dredge.

I've never lost to Dredge in a tournament (faced it once recently since I've been back), but I board 4x Ensnaring Bridge and 4x other hate vs. it + run Welders for Recursion and Bazaar to find them easier.  Always have lost game one though.

I agree though, if you're going to go with the forfeit-a-single-matchup-plan in the sideboard, it might as well be Dredge.

[Delha]

I've never lost to Dredge in a tournament (faced it once recently since I've been back), but I board 4x Ensnaring Bridge and 4x other hate vs. it + run Welders for Recursion and Bazaar to find them easier.  Always have lost game one though.

What you've listed makes sense to me: accept that your mainboard won't cut it game 1, then side against 'em. That's how the matchup goes for just about everyone, no?

I was just saying that I don't like the fact that Matt suggested writing off game 2 as well.

[Evenpence]

I've never lost to Dredge in a tournament (faced it once recently since I've been back), but I board 4x Ensnaring Bridge and 4x other hate vs. it + run Welders for Recursion and Bazaar to find them easier.  Always have lost game one though.

What you've listed makes sense to me: accept that your mainboard won't cut it game 1, then side against 'em. That's how the matchup goes for just about everyone, no?

I was just saying that I don't like the fact that Matt suggested writing off game 2 as well.

Right, totally understandable.  There are 4-5 (or more) consistent dredge decks at Blue Bell, so writing it off is probably a bad idea, but if I were in a meta with less dredge, I would totally not sideboard anything for them.

Chances are you're not going to see it in the top 8 (even if a single dredge pilot gets in, you won't see him first round and probably not second round either), so as long as you don't get paired against it twice in the Swiss, you should be fine.  I think this is the viewpoint he was coming from.

[forcethewill]

I've run rods in 5c before and they were much better when people would drop vault and key.  They seem highly suboptimal in this deck.  After saying that he cut the 4th wasteland because he wanted colored mana for colored spells, null rod cuts off his colored sources much faster. 
Not running the emerald in this list with a crop rotation main seems very awkward.  id rather have cut the pearl over the emerald.  drawing the pearl in game 1 is much worse than drawing the emerald, at least you can cast the crop rot off it. 
He needs to up the wires to 4 and the stax to 4.  5/3 don't lock people our as fast as losing permanents at an alarming rate.  Its the greatest feeling saying sac your permanents first then tap to an opposing player.  turn 1 null rod will just feed the moxen to the stack and allow them to just be tapped later.  the mox monkey is more effecient at dealing with them. 
The name of the game is we hate permanents not let them sit out there and be useless.  having those moxen out there makes topping an academy and casting spells much much more of a threat. 
I also think that the recall should be cut but that is a personal preference that i have had with ancestral.

[Cyberpunker]

Running Metalworker is very very strong I think. Metalworker shouldn't be just dismissed as mana. It is a threat in itself because of the combo and also what you can do after you resolve him. I mean everyone counters Metalworker if they do not think they can win the very next turn. Unless I am mistaken somehow and have been playing wrongly for the whole time.

[Bill Copes]

Running Metalworker is very very strong I think. Metalworker shouldn't be just dismissed as mana. It is a threat in itself because of the combo and also what you can do after you resolve him. I mean everyone counters Metalworker if they do not think they can win the very next turn. Unless I am mistaken somehow and have been playing wrongly for the whole time.

I think it's highly dependent on the environment, but you're generally right.  Currently, metalworker is terrible in the face of 1st turn Oath.  Against a Tezz-dominated meta, Metalworker basically reads:   : Play more threats than your opponent has counters for.

[madmanmike25]

Yet on the other hand, if you have a first turn Metalworker against Oath it can still be pretty good.  They won't be able to Pierce your spells and if you have Staff its gg.  And yeah, I've had lots of first turn Metalworkers countered which allows me to resolve REAL threats.  Another thing about decks with Metalworker is that they generally don't run as many lands as lists without.  I think including Metalworker totally depends on the MUD deck.  I'm not convinced that Metalworker "sucks".

As to his MUD list, what's up with the lone Smokestack??  I doubt maindeck Juggernauts can do a better job of beating Oath.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I think many people are underestimating the power of Null Rod.  Null Rod, on its own, is the single most powerful lock component in a workshop deck, because in most matchups it immediately takes out around 38% of your opponent's mana base.  This means that instead of their deck being around 40% mana sources, they are down to 25%, which is absolutely crippling.  Furthermore, the cumulative effect of Null Rod when combined with other lock components such as Wasteland or Sphere is often enough to shut down other decks completely.

Null Rod also synergizes well with Lodestone Golem, effectively negating the drawback that Golem doesn't stop your opponent's artifact acceleration..

Vroman has also pointed out that Null Rod is one of the best cards you can play to "catch up" when you are on the draw and your opponent leads with several pieces of artifact mana.  Running Null Rod therefore helps to address a critical weakness in the Workshop archetype.

Oh, and did I mention that it shuts off Vault+Key?

Unless you're playing against other Workshop decks each round, I don't see why you'd prefer Metalworker to Null Rod.

[Neonico]

@Gandalf : It's really metagame dependant IMO.

[pierce]

I liked his style and that there was an article about a workshop deck. I don't see stax varients get much press time.

The tangle wire count was suspicious. That card is quite good, and potent in well timed multiples.

I took the "just dodge dredge" route in my sb design for my past two tournaments. On paper, this looked correct- the first event had just one dredge player, and at the next I spotted two. These events did not go well for me. Dredge ended my tournament twice.   

My understanding of the plan to not play dredge is that if you do get paired, most top eights allow a player to take a loss. But if you've taken a loss that thought process seems terrible. Especially in 30 person winner take nearly all events where it's harder to dodge to begin with, and the x-1 bracket gets thin with those you haven't played rounds 3-5. 

[Delha]

What Pierce said.

I can understand how people come to the conclusion that taking a single auto-loss is fine since it doesn't knock you out, and you're unlikely to hit the matchup twice. I disagree with that line of thinking because it requires you to now need to win everything else. Bearing in mind that we're talking about the format where you are most likely to get blown out, and compounded by the fact that your 60 doesn't include FoW, it makes your entire tournament experience a bit more dependent on uncontrollable variables than I'd like.

I'm admittedly risk averse, but even from an objective standpoint, Matt's approach seems to push things towards the coinflip format Vintage already has a bad rep for.

[TheShop]

In reply to Gandolf:

I don't know about MUD, but in 5 color running rod is the equivalent of a deck with 9 sac lands running suppression field....except that you become even more suceptible to wasteland (and you need the mana more than they do).  It's great when you run ways to filter out the dead draws...but you run the dangerous risk of being locked under your own spheres.  Too symetrical to be playable.

Again, I think everything is being compared by it's ability to syngergize with Lodestone:  a 4 of that has to swing 4 times to win.  He is not bad, but not worth building an entire deck around.

[Bill Copes]

I'm a fan of Null Rod as a 1 or 2-of in 5 color.  You usually don't want to see it while you're developing, but after turn 2-3, it's usually back-breaking tinker/tutor target.

[TheShop]

I could agree with it as a 1 of to tutor.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

In reply to Gandolf:

I don't know about MUD, but in 5 color running rod is the equivalent of a deck with 9 sac lands running suppression field....except that you become even more suceptible to wasteland (and you need the mana more than they do).  It's great when you run ways to filter out the dead draws...but you run the dangerous risk of being locked under your own spheres.  Too symetrical to be playable.

I'd like to point out that your argument is as applicable to Sphere of Resistance as it is to Null Rod, yet no one seems to question the inclusion of Spheres.  

Null Rod is more powerful than Sphere, however, because in addition to making it more difficult for your opponent to cast future spells, it also immediately affects the mana they have available on the board.

Again, I think everything is being compared by it's ability to syngergize with Lodestone:  a 4 of that has to swing 4 times to win.  He is not bad, but not worth building an entire deck around.

My argument about synergy was merely one point.  Using Null Rod in stax/mud is not "building an entire deck" around Lodestone.  But keep in mind that the power of Workshop decks is in the cumulative effect of their lock components, so synergy is an important aspect to consider.

I could agree with it as a 1 of to tutor.

I would rather just draw it.

[TheShop]

I was worried about Rod in conjunction with sphere...I think if we are talking either or (and depending on the meta) you will be fine.  If I was to run one, I feel less likely to be screwed with a single sphere than with a single rod.  Rod is just too fair in 5 color unless you have found a way to filter more cards out of hand.  It inhibits your ability to tutor and play answers(the only thing keeping you from being mono red and running rods) nearly as much as it inhibits them.

I am still fine with tutoring it when it is convenient over drawing it...that is what tutors are for in your deck!  I still think it speaks worlds that the recent 5 color winners didn't need to run rod to have favorable matchups with Tez.

[Neonico]

Problem in 5cStax for null rod is really simple : it doesn't avoid your opponent's board developpement, minimizing the impact of many cards in your deck, mainly smokestack.
Null rod is a tempo element, so IMHO, only good in a lock + beatdown version of shop decks...

[Cyberpunker]

Maybe we can get him to comment on this board to explain somethings.

Anyone here have connections to ChannelFireball?

[Delha]

There's always the comments section right under the article.

He also mentions that he's on Twitter at mtg_law_etc.

As a third option, LSV should probably be able to get ahold of him, and has an acct here on TMD.

[madmanmike25]

I think many people are underestimating the power of Null Rod.  Null Rod, on its own, is the single most powerful lock component in a workshop deck, because in most matchups it immediately takes out around 38% of your opponent's mana base.

That's funny, becuase sometimes I think people overestimate the power of Null Rod.  Oath can still be cast off 2 lands, and Tinker will just take 3.  Sure you took away Vault+Key win, but not many decks rely solely on that.  How powerful is Null Rod against Fish or Ichorid?

If I had to label an artifact as the "most powerful lock component" it would easily be Chalice.  When you know what to set it at (such as the cmc for opponents win-cons) I think in terms of sheer power Chalice wins.  Null Rod has a really strong blanket effect and as you stated works lovely with Lodestones, but then again so does a CotV@0 on the play.  It is also 'free'.  We also must take into account that Null Rod hurts MUD as well.  It prevents you from running cards such as Karn or Trikes.  Running all 9 artifact mana sources also means Rod impedes your development as well, at least when you cast CotV@0 you play your moxen first.  In decks that have both Rod and Chalice, such as the decklist up for discussion, I'm really surprised there is only 1 Smokestack.

Vroman has also pointed out that Null Rod is one of the best cards you can play to "catch up" when you are on the draw and your opponent leads with several pieces of artifact mana

Agreed, but then again so is Tangle Wire.  Karn is another card that complements Lodestones and creates a clock the likes of which Juggernaut simply cannot compete with.  When I played them, Powder Kegs were also decent on the draw in terms of popping off moxen.  Kegs are also a reasonable way of dealing with low cc creatures as well.

Don't interpret all this as me thinking Null Rod isn't a good card or anything.  It's just that in some decks it simply is not needed as there are alternative strategies to consider.

[voltron00x]

I think the problem with making a blanket statement like "Null Rod is amazing in Stax!" is that Null Rod's relevance is highly dependant on the metagame.  When I first started testing Twaun's B/R Stax deck in late '09, I found Null Rod to be amazing... but testing it this Spring against a field that is heavily comprised of Fish, Dredge, and Workshop decks, it seems terrible.  Obviously the fact that it is bad in my meta doesn't mean it isn't great in Matt's meta, thus the conclusions he reached when writing the article.  I think Null Rod definitely falls into the "free" or "metagame" slots in a traditional Stax deck, and I don't believe its ever right to suggest that the card must be played, just like I believe its wrong to suggest the card should never be played.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I think the problem with making a blanket statement like "Null Rod is amazing in Stax!" is that Null Rod's relevance is highly dependant on the metagame. 

Of course.  I was arguing for the inclusion of Null Rod based on my understanding of the current metagame, since Null Rod is good against Tezz, Oath, and Combo.   All of these seem fairly popular to me right now although Tezz is not as played as it once was.

Null Rod isn't good in the matchups you've mentioned, but I think this is an acceptable trade-off because every lock piece has strengths and weaknesses depending on the matchup (e.g. Stack and Wire suck against Dredge, Spheres and Wire are bad against Stax).

[forcethewill]

Just as a quick thought. How does null rod stop a 7/7 flying over the top? I don't see how null rod is all that great vs oath?  I agree its good vs tez but against oath I'd rather have keg

[Delha]

I was thinking the same. I recall several older Oath lists running Rod + Waste, what is it that makes Rod so crippling now? Assuming they've got a second land, it only slows them by a turn.

Against combo, I was led to believe you have to guess "do they have the Mox hand or the Rit hand" when dropping Chalice. That said, doesn't Rod just end up being a less flexible and (sometimes) more expensive version of the same? This also ignores that Chalice on 0 and 1 locks them out pretty brutally, while multiple Rods are redundant.

[voltron00x]

I was thinking the same. I recall several older Oath lists running Rod + Waste, what is it that makes Rod so crippling now? Assuming they've got a second land, it only slows them by a turn.

Against combo, I was led to believe you have to guess "do they have the Mox hand or the Rit hand" when dropping Chalice. That said, doesn't Rod just end up being a less flexible and (sometimes) more expensive version of the same? This also ignores that Chalice on 0 and 1 locks them out pretty brutally, while multiple Rods are redundant.

I used to sideboard Null Rod in King James Oath from time to time.  It was ok, but  never great.  Similarly it wasn't really effective against that deck.  However, that build didn't run Sol Ring, or Mana Crypt, or Key/Vault, or Top (or if it did, would SB out Top for Null Rod).  Today's Oath lists are more reliant on artifacts.  It still isn't AMAZING against Oath - Chalice is much better, for example - but it does affect the deck and can cripple some hands single-handedly.