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

[LotusHead]

@LotusHead
How have the Stirrings been?  Cutting a Chalice and a Welder is counterintuitive to me, so I'm curious as to what you think of the deck in this form.  

The Stirrings have been great! Only once did I not get what I really wanted (I wanted a land, but got stuck with another lock piece).

The thing that I've had to keep to myself is that with welders, ancestral and stirrings, I wasn't THAT eager to run out a Chalice for 1.  So Chalice for me has been on Chalice for 0 duty.  

Null Rod has the same effect so it's like I'm playing 3 chalices and 3 null rods and 3 Ancient Stirrings that can search for either.  If I wasn't playing Null Rod I would never cut the 4th Chalice.

Some shop builds have played less than 4 Goblin Welders, so playing 3 didn't seem like sacrilege to me.  Pluse, I really wanted to play with Ancient Stirrings.

EDIT: Also, thanks for chiming in this thread.

[matt_sperling]

Took everyone's advice and added 3rd tangle wire.  Cut the Vampiric Tutor.  Added 2nd Bazaar instead of 4th Gemstone. 

Played a 10 game set last night and liked having 3 Wire.  Not a huge sample size, but so far so good.  Thanks for everyone's comments, they're helpful. 

I'm thinking of moving Balance back to the main instead of Crop Rotation, along with making the Emerald a Pearl again.  Other than that I like where I'm at for the moment.  Tangle Wire might need to go to 4, I just don't want to go from 2 to 4 without playing a ton of games at 3 to get a feel for that.

@voltron00x:
Keg, Karn, Shaman can be effective on the draw, true, but when you're on the play, they aren't pro-active enough at stopping artifact mana, in my opinion.  Null Rod isn't the be-all end-all but I like where its positioned at the moment.  As for Vault/Key not being as rampant, I can't comment on the state of every metagame, but I expect alot of Oath in events I expect to play, as well as BobTezz.  Plus, it isn't like Mox Monkeys and Karns shine against Fish, though they will of course be better than Rod.  You need some slots dedicated to artifact hate, its just a matter of which card to use. 

CURRENT LIST:

// Lands
    2  Bazaar of Baghdad
    4  City of Brass
    3  Gemstone Mine
    4  Mishra's Workshop
    1  Strip Mine
    1  Tolarian Academy
    3  Wasteland

// Creatures
    1  Duplicant
    4  Goblin Welder
    4  Lodestone Golem
    1  Sundering Titan

// Spells
    1  Ancestral Recall
    4  Chalice of the Void
    1  Crop Rotation
    3  Crucible of Worlds
    1  Demonic Tutor
    1  Mana Crypt
    1  Sol Ring
    1  Mana Vault
    1  Black Lotus
    1  Mox Emerald
    1  Mox Jet
    1  Mox Ruby
    1  Mox Sapphire
    3  Null Rod
    3  Smokestack
    3  Sphere of Resistance
    3  Tangle Wire
    1  Tinker
    1  Trinisphere

[matt_sperling]

@LotusHead
How have the Stirrings been?  Cutting a Chalice and a Welder is counterintuitive to me, so I'm curious as to what you think of the deck in this form.  

The Stirrings have been great! Only once did I not get what I really wanted (I wanted a land, but got stuck with another lock piece).

The thing that I've had to keep to myself is that with welders, ancestral and stirrings, I wasn't THAT eager to run out a Chalice for 1.  So Chalice for me has been on Chalice for 0 duty.  

Null Rod has the same effect so it's like I'm playing 3 chalices and 3 null rods and 3 Ancient Stirrings that can search for either.  If I wasn't playing Null Rod I would never cut the 4th Chalice.

Some shop builds have played less than 4 Goblin Welders, so playing 3 didn't seem like sacrilege to me.  Pluse, I really wanted to play with Ancient Stirrings.

EDIT: Also, thanks for chiming in this thread.

Makes sense.  I'll give the Stirrings a try next time I can test.  Part of me wonders if we can just go to RG instead of 5c if we're playing stirrings.  I guess the gains aren't that big, so what's the point (Taiga isn't that much better than City of Brass).  Just thinking out loud here, food for thought. 

[meadbert]

Dredge is more common than Null Rods?   Where is your data for that?   

It looks like I made compounding mistakes.  First I really only meant Fish based Null Rod decks so I was not counting any of the stacks decks.
Then it looks like my data is old.  My out of date Gauntlet which was built in maybe February has 20 decks and 5 of those are Dredge decks and only 2 maybe were Rod based Fish.  I retract my statement, however Dredge hate does hate out dredge more effectively than Fish hate can hate out Fish so even though Dredge is played less it still needs more spots in the board.

[matt_sperling]

Dredge is more common than Null Rods?   Where is your data for that?   

It looks like I made compounding mistakes.  First I really only meant Fish based Null Rod decks so I was not counting any of the stacks decks.
Then it looks like my data is old.  My out of date Gauntlet which was built in maybe February has 20 decks and 5 of those are Dredge decks and only 2 maybe were Rod based Fish.  I retract my statement, however Dredge hate does hate out dredge more effectively than Fish hate can hate out Fish so even though Dredge is played less it still needs more spots in the board.

I concede defeat on the Dredge front.  I allowed my view of the metagame to be warped by local trends and anecdotal observations about Dredge underperforming.  I don't anticipate playing Zero dredge hate in Vintage Championships, for example.  The data on dredge is convincing to me.

[LSV]

I know that I have always feared Null Rod more than non-Null Rod decks, simply because it restricts my options way more. What Matt said about being on the draw is spot on; there is nothing better than dropping two Moxes on the play against Stax in g3 and knowing they have few outs.

As for Dredge: Like Pierce said, Vintage tournaments are too small to reliably dodge Dredge, especially if one slips into the Top 8. If we REALLY needed the sideboard space for something else, I could maybe buy it, but how many matchups do you have where you want to sideboard more than a few cards? Whenever I try to cut dredge hate for other stuff, I just end up with too many board cards vs the other decks, which is mostly a waste of sb space. I would much rather just have my bases covered. Of course, if you are really good about scouting and know there are few dredge decks in a given field, go for it.

Also, Webster and I would certainly be interested in some sort of Vintage challenge (he even participated in one at PT Honolulu). We should definitely get something set up for GP Columbus (and if dave williams and efro are going they would probably be in too)

[Smmenen]

without question null rod is far scarier than almost any other lock part in Vintage except Trinisphere.   I think your point, matt, about Null Rod being like 2 spheres is pretty much right.   Traditional Drain decks have 10 artifact accelerants and 15 lands, so Null Rod hits 40% of their mana base.   With the onset of Painter and then Time Vault era, Null Rod is not just  tactical disruption or strategic lock part, but actually strategic nullifier, living up to its name.  

I agree - in principle -- that Workshop decks should run Null Rod.   However:

1) Null Rod has always been miserable in 5c Stax.   There are a number of reasons for this.  First and most importantly, your moxen are actually better than your opponents -- substantially so.   Every off color mox is pure gold in 5c Stax, since you can use it.  White mox?  Balance and Seals etc.   Green mox?  Crap Rotation, etc.   Blue mox?  Tinker, In the Eye, etc.   Red Mox? Welders, Shamans, etc.   Black mox?  Vamp tutor, Imperial Seal, Dt, etc.   Null Rod is almost always worse for you than your opponent.  

Vromans Uba STax (4 Bazaar, 4 Null Rod, 4 Welder, 4 Stack, 4 Uba Mask rest similar lock parts) was the first STax deck to successfuly abuse Null Rod, but it was totally different than its predecssors.  If you are playing Mono Red Stax or 2c Stax, I think Null Rod is pretty much must run.   Twuans BR Stax from the ICBM open last year is a great example.   Perfect home for Rod.  But 5c stax?  I disagree.   It's not just that your moxen are better than your opponents (and they are), but its also that your mana base is so much worse.   Not only do you rely on Workshops for some spells, but the rest of your mana base is crap like Cities and Gemstones or worse  (if you run nintendo bridge singleton or -- and no one has run this in years -- Glmmervoid).

2) While Null Rods seems busted in Workshop Aggro (MUD or Mono Red), for some reason that I can only speculate about, they don't always appear in the most succesful lists.   And it's not simply because of Metalworker (which I think you underrate -- slightly), but perhaps becuase of things like Trike, Karn, and SOFI (whichi s truly busted).   The MUD list that won the largest vintage tournament this year didn't run Rod.   That doesn't mean that rod is wrong, but there are many successful lists that don't run it, and they may be telling us something counterintuitive.

On the dredge issue, and I almost posted about this last week, the issue for me is really simple: I ran the math, and so far as my teammates are able to calculate, the chances of running into a Dredge deck if one makes top 8 and you make top 8, assuming each person in the top 8 has a 50% chance of winning, are 43% (25% if we don't assume we going to make the finals).   True, that's true of every deck.  But the difference is that your chances of beating dredge without dedicated hate is virtually nil.     That's why I always run 6-8 dredge hate in my vintage sbs.   My goal is not simply to make top 8, but to win the tournament.  And I would argue, based upon the Q1 data, that Dredge clusters in the top half of the top 8, making those odds even greater.  

[LotusHead]

5c Stax DOES have a bit of maindeck dredge hate, namely Wastelands and Sphere's (to shut off Cabal Therapy and/or Dread Return).

If the build runs actual Ichorids then that tips game 1 even further in Dredges favor.

Stax might not need the full 6-8 hate SB slots but it is definately an uphill battle.

[Evenpence]

without question null rod is far scarier than almost any other lock part in Vintage except Trinisphere.   I think your point, matt, about Null Rod being like 2 spheres is pretty much right.   Traditional Drain decks have 10 artifact accelerants and 15 lands, so Null Rod hits 40% of their mana base.   With the onset of Painter and then Time Vault era, Null Rod is not just  tactical disruption or strategic lock part, but actually strategic nullifier, living up to its name.  

I agree - in principle -- that Workshop decks should run Null Rod.   However:

1) Null Rod has always been miserable in 5c Stax.   There are a number of reasons for this.  First and most importantly, your moxen are actually better than your opponents -- substantially so.   Every off color mox is pure gold in 5c Stax, since you can use it.  White mox?  Balance and Seals etc.   Green mox?  Crap Rotation, etc.   Blue mox?  Tinker, In the Eye, etc.   Red Mox? Welders, Shamans, etc.   Black mox?  Vamp tutor, Imperial Seal, Dt, etc.   Null Rod is almost always worse for you than your opponent.  

Vromans Uba STax (4 Bazaar, 4 Null Rod, 4 Welder, 4 Stack, 4 Uba Mask rest similar lock parts) was the first STax deck to successfuly abuse Null Rod, but it was totally different than its predecssors.  If you are playing Mono Red Stax or 2c Stax, I think Null Rod is pretty much must run.   Twuans BR Stax from the ICBM open last year is a great example.   Perfect home for Rod.  But 5c stax?  I disagree.   It's not just that your moxen are better than your opponents (and they are), but its also that your mana base is so much worse.   Not only do you rely on Workshops for some spells, but the rest of your mana base is crap like Cities and Gemstones or worse  (if you run nintendo bridge singleton or -- and no one has run this in years -- Glmmervoid).

2) While Null Rods seems busted in Workshop Aggro (MUD or Mono Red), for some reason that I can only speculate about, they don't always appear in the most succesful lists.   And it's not simply because of Metalworker (which I think you underrate -- slightly), but perhaps becuase of things like Trike, Karn, and SOFI (whichi s truly busted).   The MUD list that won the largest vintage tournament this year didn't run Rod.   That doesn't mean that rod is wrong, but there are many successful lists that don't run it, and they may be telling us something counterintuitive.

On the dredge issue, and I almost posted about this last week, the issue for me is really simple: I ran the math, and so far as my teammates are able to calculate, the chances of running into a Dredge deck if one makes top 8 and you make top 8, assuming each person in the top 8 has a 50% chance of winning, are 43% (25% if we don't assume we going to make the finals).   True, that's true of every deck.  But the difference is that your chances of beating dredge without dedicated hate is virtually nil.     That's why I always run 6-8 dredge hate in my vintage sbs.   My goal is not simply to make top 8, but to win the tournament.  And I would argue, based upon the Q1 data, that Dredge clusters in the top half of the top 8, making those odds even greater.  

This is a post that illustrates a fundamental understanding of workshops.  Bravo.

[matt_sperling]

First and most importantly, your moxen are actually better than your opponents -- substantially so.   Every off color mox is pure gold in 5c Stax, since you can use it.  White mox?  Balance and Seals etc.   Green mox?  Crap Rotation, etc.   Blue mox?  Tinker, In the Eye, etc.   Red Mox? Welders, Shamans, etc.   Black mox?  Vamp tutor, Imperial Seal, Dt, etc.   Null Rod is almost always worse for you than your opponent.  

strongly disagree with this premise.  Whether this was true before Lodestone I can't comment on, but now that one of your best lock-pieces, the guranteed 4-of Lodestone, affects only "non-artifact" spells, and makes those spells cost 1 more, moxen become EXTREMELY valuable to any opponent.  If they print Mox Charcoal that taps for 1 colorless, this will be a powerful card against Stax w/o Null Rods.  

I've also had to have the Rod several times against Tezzeret fetch Vault go and Vault go with either key or tinker in opponent's hand.  

The fact that you can cast your one Crop Rotation with your one Mox Emerald has almost nothing to do with the discussion.  You can still do so on turn 1 (or any turn before you play the Rod) and this is a fine time to be able to cast your 1 mana Welder, Crop R, or Vamp.  The opponent's Mox Emerald doesn't cast their 1 copy of Crop Rotation, it casts their 1 copy of Rebuild or one of their copies of Repeal, or their copy of Oath of Druids.  Trying to Mox Monkey or Karn the Mox after its cast the [Oath/Rebuild, etc.] is better than nothing, but much worse than Rod.  

The logic of "you need one White mana more than your opponent does" is contrary to the rest of the deck, much of which is grounded in the theory that taking mana away from both players benefits the Stax player.  Sphere of Resistance and Wasteland don't make a whole lot of sense in a world where your 1 mana is more useful than their 1 mana.  

quick edit: you also get to control the timing of Casting and/or Welding-out the Null Rod, the opponent doesn't (unless they have Welders).  You also don't in any way "rely" on the moxen to cast your 1 mana colored spells.  You have 7-8 5c lands to accomplish this, and again, playing Null Rod in your deck doesn't even take away the option of using your moxen to cast colored spells.

[matt_sperling]

I guess the "Diamonds" cycle from Mirage set a precedent contrary to Charcoal tapping for a colorless.  I should have used the hypotherical "Mox Stone"

[TheShop]

The premise behind steve's theory is that a sphere effect will be in play and you can't drop any colored spell off a workshop.  Lodestone actually makes this worse, but the colored spell count has also dipped from past heights.  A mox crystal(250!!!) would be fantastic in 5 color stax(old builds) because it fills the colorless cost of sphere when dropping tinker, etc...

Take your moxes out of the deck and see how long it takes you to play any colored spell under sphere.  That single colorless mana hurts because 5 of your lands should be eating theirs, 4 can only play artifacts, and 1 is usually a bazaar!  Without artifact mana you need at least 2 of those 7-8 rainbow lands to drop Anything under sphere.

Final note: my biggest question is how flexible the deck can be about getting null rod out of play during your turn and back in for theirs(or how risky this becomes when decks are maindeck mass bounce).  if you can turn it off on your turn, and back on reliably, then I would do it...if you are relying on lodestone + chalice/rod to just win the game, where is the motivation to play 5 color?

Matt: emailed

[Smmenen]

.  You also don't in any way "rely" on the moxen to cast your 1 mana colored spells. 

disagree.  if you only have 7 lands + moxen/lotus to cast basically every colored spell in your deck, and just about every land your opponent has can be used to cast amost every spell in their deck, you necessarily rely on your moxen more than your opponent.
 it's not uncommon for Stax hands to not be able to cast colored spells immediately either bc you don't have colored mana sources or enough to cast them through your spheres.   null rod aggravates both problems.  

The logic of "you need one White mana more than your opponent does" is contrary to the rest of the deck, much of which is grounded in the theory that taking mana away from both players benefits the Stax player.  Sphere of Resistance and Wasteland don't make a whole lot of sense in a world where your 1 mana is more useful than their 1 mana.  

there is an asymmetry between colored and colorless mana sources.   you don't need colorless sources more than your opponent, but you need colored sources more, since you have much fewer of them to cast a much wider variety of spells.   Moreover, there is the other point that, much like The Deck, you run the best colored spells in the game: Balance, Tinker, A Call, DT, etc.   your colored spells are more powerful than your opponents, so your colored sources are more valuable than your opponents.   when you put both facts together: that you have fewer colored mana sources to play more potent spells, then i would say that my mox ruby, etc is far more important to me than my opponents, and you therefore rely on them more than your opponent.  

but if you run mono colored lists or two colored lists, your colored card pool is greatly diluted, and the improtance of moxen drops substantially.   Null rod is just better than.  

[TheShop]

     
but if you run mono colored lists or two colored lists, your colored card pool is greatly diluted, and the improtance of moxen drops substantially.   Null rod is just better than.  

Vroman's B/R list ran 12 colored spells, Twaun runs 9, mono red is the exception at 4 welders but the other 2 need would have equal issues playing under rod and sphere.  The issue here is not the # of colored spells or their relative power...it is the effect of Sphere in conjunction with Rod.  Either Sphere or Rod alone are not problematic, it is both that make colored spells unplayable.  If you can filter out the cards(ie bazaar) it becomes less of an issue.

[Smmenen]

     
but if you run mono colored lists or two colored lists, your colored card pool is greatly diluted, and the improtance of moxen drops substantially.   Null rod is just better than.  

Vroman's B/R list ran 12 colored spells, Twaun runs 9, mono red is the exception at 4 welders but the other 2 need would have equal issues playing under rod and sphere.  The issue here is not the # of colored spells or their relative power...it is the effect of Sphere in conjunction with Rod.  Either Sphere or Rod alone are not problematic, it is both that make colored spells unplayable.  If you can filter out the cards(ie bazaar) it becomes less of an issue.

i meant 'diluted' in terms of power, not just numbers.   also, importantly, Vroman's list had 4 Bazaars, so that you functionally had more access to colored mana sources.  Twuans I think also had a bunch of bazaars. 

If i were playing 5c shops with Golem, i'd play 2 shamans instead of null rods.  

[matt_sperling]

.  You also don't in any way "rely" on the moxen to cast your 1 mana colored spells. 

disagree.  if you only have 7 lands + moxen/lotus to cast basically every colored spell in your deck, and just about every land your opponent has can be used to cast amost every spell in their deck, you necessarily rely on your moxen more than your opponent.
 it's not uncommon for Stax hands to not be able to cast colored spells immediately either bc you don't have colored mana sources or enough to cast them through your spheres.   null rod aggravates both problems.  

The logic of "you need one White mana more than your opponent does" is contrary to the rest of the deck, much of which is grounded in the theory that taking mana away from both players benefits the Stax player.  Sphere of Resistance and Wasteland don't make a whole lot of sense in a world where your 1 mana is more useful than their 1 mana.  

there is an asymmetry between colored and colorless mana sources.   you don't need colorless sources more than your opponent, but you need colored sources more, since you have much fewer of them to cast a much wider variety of spells.   Moreover, there is the other point that, much like The Deck, you run the best colored spells in the game: Balance, Tinker, A Call, DT, etc.   your colored spells are more powerful than your opponents, so your colored sources are more valuable than your opponents.   when you put both facts together: that you have fewer colored mana sources to play more potent spells, then i would say that my mox ruby, etc is far more important to me than my opponents, and you therefore rely on them more than your opponent.  

but if you run mono colored lists or two colored lists, your colored card pool is greatly diluted, and the improtance of moxen drops substantially.   Null rod is just better than.  

Does Sphere+Null Rod sometimes cut off your ability to play a colored spell?  Absolutely.  Does this mean I don't want Sphere and Rod in my 5c Stax deck?  No.

Think about how hard it is for the opponent (nearly any opponent) to operate under Sphere+Rod.  They have the land drop, and the land drop alone, to creep their way back into the game.  I've found that this usually gives you enough time to find that Shop or 2nd colored land or whatever you need to get your spells back online, ASSUMING, and this is an all-caps assumption, that you don't just already have a shop and a land with which to cast more artifacts and hard lock your opponent AND that you don't have a Lodestone out crushing them for 5 while locking both players. 

In sum, there exists a subset of Null rod+Sphere board positions where you are locked out of casting spells.  This subset isn't as common as you might think.  Even in this subset, the opponent is usually similarly locked, and your deck usually plays a comparable number or greater number of lands than the opponent, some of which make 3[artifact], and your colored spells cost 1-2 mana.  You also have Crucible, which is not an insignificant factor in why you are a favorite when any game degenerates into both players being locked. 

The existence of this subset does not convince me to not play Null Rod.  I'll take both players locked instead of my opponent with an Oath of Druids out and me with all my Mox mana. 

If I had more time I would construct an argument borrowing from Smmenen's that urges 5c Stax players to cut Trinisphere since it often means you can't cast your Moxen and colored spells.

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

[Smmenen]

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

Spheres are asymmetrical in your favor because you have Workshop in your deck.  Trinisphere doesn't hurt you because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out your spells.   Null Rod, in 5c stax, is asymmetrical in your opponents favor not just because you are cutting yourself off from more (or just more powerful ) spells than they do/have, but because you have fewer resources to play those spells to begin with.  

[matt_sperling]

.  You also don't in any way "rely" on the moxen to cast your 1 mana colored spells. 

disagree.  if you only have 7 lands + moxen/lotus to cast basically every colored spell in your deck, and just about every land your opponent has can be used to cast amost every spell in their deck, you necessarily rely on your moxen more than your opponent.

We're arguing about whether I rely more on my moxen than my opponent given my deck, and yet you state it as a rule.  (Namely: "If my deck, then I rely more than my opponent")

Quick proof that this rule is wrong:  Assume my deck is 7 5c lands, 4 Shop, 5 Moxen, 1 Lotus, 1 Ancestral Recall, and 42 Zero or 1 mana artifacts.  This fits the parameters you give for defining my deck.  According to your statement, it "necessarily" follows that I rely on my moxen more than my opponent.  

What does this absurd example prove?  It proves there is more going on that you are accounting for.  It must make a difference how many colored spells I have, what I am using my Moxen for, etc.  

There are conditions that might exist which make your rule valid.  We are presently debating whether these conditions exist.  Stating the rule as proof that the conditions exist is called begging the question.  

[Smmenen]

.  You also don't in any way "rely" on the moxen to cast your 1 mana colored spells. 

disagree.  if you only have 7 lands + moxen/lotus to cast basically every colored spell in your deck, and just about every land your opponent has can be used to cast amost every spell in their deck, you necessarily rely on your moxen more than your opponent.

We're arguing about whether I rely more on my moxen than my opponent given my deck, and yet you state it as a rule.  (Namely: "If my deck, then I rely more than my opponent")

Quick proof that this rule is wrong:  Assume my deck is 7 5c lands, 4 Shop, 5 Moxen, 1 Lotus, 1 Ancestral Recall, and 42 Zero or 1 mana artifacts.  This fits the parameters you give for defining my deck.  According to your statement, it "necessarily" follows that I rely on my moxen more than my opponent.  

What does this absurd example prove?  It proves there is more going on that you are accounting for.  It must make a difference how many colored spells I have, what I am using my Moxen for, etc.  

There are conditions that might exist which make your rule valid.  We are presently debating whether these conditions exist.  Stating the rule as proof that the conditions exist is called begging the question.  

Yes, I am making a further assumption about the design inclusions of 5c Stax, which I made explicit above in listing cards that I commonly see used in 5c lists:

Every off color mox is pure gold in 5c Stax, since you can use it.  White mox?  Balance and Seals etc.   Green mox?  Crap Rotation, etc.   Blue mox?  Tinker, In the Eye, etc.   Red Mox? Welders, Shamans, etc.   Black mox?  Vamp tutor, Imperial Seal, Dt, etc. 

Maybe I'm old school, but I'd probably run more colored sources than you.   I would definitely run Balance and I. Seal maindeck.  and I'd probably run a pair of Shamans and a pair of Seal of Cleansings as well.   

[matt_sperling]

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

Trinisphere doesn't hurt you because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out your spells.  

If we can just tap Shop and ignore Trinishphere's symmetry, why can't we do the same when Null Rod is in play?  Wasn't your argument primarily in regards to colored spells, and how hard it is to cast them under Rod.  Why doesn't this hold for Trinisphere?

[Smmenen]

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

Trinisphere doesn't hurt you because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out your spells.  

If we can just tap Shop and ignore Trinishphere's symmetry, why can't we do the same when Null Rod is in play?  Wasn't your argument primarily in regards to colored spells, and how hard it is to cast them under Rod.  Why doesn't this hold for Trinisphere?

Allow me to rephrase, slightly:

Trinisphere is asymmetrical in your favor because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out more spells than your opponent can play under the same board conditions.

The reason for this is that, in just about any matchup, you'll have more artifacts in your deck than your opponent.   

[matt_sperling]

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

Trinisphere doesn't hurt you because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out your spells.  

If we can just tap Shop and ignore Trinishphere's symmetry, why can't we do the same when Null Rod is in play?  Wasn't your argument primarily in regards to colored spells, and how hard it is to cast them under Rod.  Why doesn't this hold for Trinisphere?

Allow me to rephrase, slightly:

Trinisphere is asymmetrical in your favor because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out more spells than your opponent can play under the same board conditions.

The reason for this is that, in just about any matchup, you'll have more artifacts in your deck than your opponent.   

Right.  I agree.  Now explain why this is false (all i've done is replaced Trinisphere with Null Rod):

Null Rod is asymmetrical in your favor because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out more spells than your opponent can play under the same board conditions.

The reason for this is that, in just about any matchup, you'll have more artifacts in your deck than your opponent.   

[TheShop]

I cut balance and imperial seal(heavily discussed elsewhere), and I would run consultation over imperial seal at the same cost.  Seal is exceptionally slow.

Consider this: you have a 1 colored mana spell in hand

with shop + sphere out, you need 2 of 15ish mana sources off the top to play it(isn't this a 7% chance?)
same scenario with rod you need 1 of 7-8( isntthis about a 15% chance?) sry if I jacked this up, I am hurryig

with both your likelihood becomes absolutely abismal compared to the opponent, but this ony matters if you need to play one of his 9 colored spells to win...it is more likely you will just drop another artifact.
 

[Smmenen]

The best lock pieces are symmetrical, embrace them.

Trinisphere doesn't hurt you because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out your spells.  

If we can just tap Shop and ignore Trinishphere's symmetry, why can't we do the same when Null Rod is in play?  Wasn't your argument primarily in regards to colored spells, and how hard it is to cast them under Rod.  Why doesn't this hold for Trinisphere?

Allow me to rephrase, slightly:

Trinisphere is asymmetrical in your favor because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out more spells than your opponent can play under the same board conditions.

The reason for this is that, in just about any matchup, you'll have more artifacts in your deck than your opponent.  

Right.  I agree.  Now explain why this is false (all i've done is replaced Trinisphere with Null Rod):

Null Rod is asymmetrical in your favor because you just tap Workshop (now or eventually when drawn) to power out more spells than your opponent can play under the same board conditions.

The reason for this is that, in just about any matchup, you'll have more artifacts in your deck than your opponent.  

With Null Rod, there are two realistic possibilities: it's asymmetrical in your favor or its asymmetrical in your opponents favor.   It's not likely to be perfectly symmetrical.  

The argument that it's asymmetrical in your favor is essentially the idea that if everything else is equal/symmetric, you win because Workshop will allow you to power out artifacts.   This is the argument I've made with Trinisphere, which you've borrowed.

There is also the possibility that its asymmetrical in your opponents favor.   This argument goes: your moxen are more valuable to you than your opponent because

1) you have so much fewer (and less reliable) colored mana sources to play your colored spells relative to your opponent.
 
The crux of this argument is that you are have so few colored mana sources that cutting Null Rod literally cuts off at least 43% of them (if you run 7 rainbow lands, lotus and moxen, and Academy).  

2) your colored spells are more likely to contribute to game wins than denying your opponent their moxen since you utilitze the best colored spells in the game.

The crux of this argument is that being 5c, you have access to a better card pool than your opponent, and you in fact run a better colored card pool.  

3) the interaction of (1) and (2).  

***

In my experience, I find the second possibility to be more true.   That is, even if there are aspects in which Null Rod is assymmetric in your favor, the asymmetries in your opponents favor either outweighs the advantages or *so neutralizes* them that Null Rod becomes less useful than a substitute that performs a similar function, such as Shaman.  

There is also a qualitative difference: Trinisphere and Sphere do make it harder for you to play colored spells, but they do so by slowing them down, not by cutting out large swaths of your mana base, as Null Rod does.  

Less important, but also significant, by cutting off Moxen, you actually increase the pressure on rest of your unusual mana base, making your mana base even weaker.  So while the direct effect on moxen is evident, there is a secondary effect: namely, you are more reliant on City of Brass (which deals damage) and Gemstone Mine (which dissappears) and Wasteland (which you want to use your opponent, but will have to second guess more frequently to play spells).  

[Cyberpunker]

If cutting off colored mana so devastates 5c Stax but running Null Rod is so powerful in the metagame, doesn't this mean that running MUD/Workshop aggro would be the best way to go for Workshop.dec?

Btw off topic @matt_sperling

The more I play mtg recently and think about it, the more I think you are right. Null Rod is very much preferable to Metalworker/Staff in today's metagame.

Against Oath, Metalworker can race but has inconsistent effectiveness. Sometimes it is good sometimes it is horrible. Null Rod is always consistently strong. So yes, MUD should run Null Rod, but you are going to be very slow versus Dredge. And losing explosiveness versus Selkie is going to give you some challenges to overcome I THINK.

[Smmenen]

If cutting off colored mana so devastates 5c Stax but running Null Rod is so powerful in the metagame, doesn't this mean that running MUD/Workshop aggro would be the best way to go for Workshop.dec?

bingo,

of the four major workshop options: mono-brown, mono red, 2c, or 5c, I think 5c is clearly the worst option.   (Sorry NYSE). 

[TheShop]

I am not ure NYSE currently rolls a 5c list...

[pierce]

for someone hesitant to consider the value of large discussion boards, you certainly have embraced TMD sperling . . .

please keep me updated on the team challenge as the event approaches. i really like the idea, and one way or another, we'll be playing for $

[matt_sperling]

If cutting off colored mana so devastates 5c Stax but running Null Rod is so powerful in the metagame, doesn't this mean that running MUD/Workshop aggro would be the best way to go for Workshop.dec?

bingo,

of the four major workshop options: mono-brown, mono red, 2c, or 5c, I think 5c is clearly the worst option.   (Sorry NYSE).  

Cutting off colored mana doesn't devastate 5c Stax...so I'll have to disagree.  I play 8 colored spells, 6 of which cost 1 mana.  At least 6, Welderx4, Ancestral, Crop Rotation, are first turn plays; so they easily slip in under the Rods.  It doesn't even affect me if the colored spell and that color mox are in my opening hand together.  I just fire the Welder or Ancestral or Crop rotation and then drop the Rod.

Assisting my 25 lock piece artifact spells in holding a lock is much more important than the drawback of hindering my 8 colored spells, even when I haven't cast them already.  

Steve's argument that the Null Rod hurts me more than my opponents is seriously flawed.  

1) you have so much fewer (and less reliable) colored mana sources to play your colored spells relative to your opponent.
 
The crux of this argument is that you are have so few colored mana sources that cutting Null Rod literally cuts off at least 43% of them (if you run 7 rainbow lands, lotus and moxen, and Academy).  

This is pure nonsense.  For any spell X you are trying to cast, you have 7 (8 if blue) lands that cast that spell, 1 mox that casts it, and 1 lotus that casts it.  2/9 and 2/10 are not 43%.  You never need to draw "any colored mox" to cast the spell in your hand, and indeed, drawing 4 out of the 5 moxen won't help you.  Thus Steve has overestimated the RISK half of the risk-reward that Null Rod presents.

Additionally, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that since you have less sources, cutting them off hurts you more.  It means you are MORE LIKELY TO BE CUT OFF.   Steve attempts to correct this error by stating:

2) your colored spells are more likely to contribute to game wins than denying your opponent their moxen since you utilitze the best colored spells in the game.

The crux of this argument is that being 5c, you have access to a better card pool than your opponent, and you in fact run a better colored card pool.  
 

Even if I am playing better spells than the opponent, I'm playing less of them (8), and I have alternatives (artifacts), while my opponent may NEED to cast his colored spells. How many colored spells am I playing?  8.  Does my opponent have more than 8 spells in his deck he'd like to cast?  Probably.  Thus the argument "less sources + better spells on average quality = greater need for moxes to work" does NOT work.  EDIT: it does not work because it does not account in any way for the number of colored spells I am playing.  I can just play Ancestral and for sure I will have a higher average power level of colored spells, but I'd still LOVE to cut both players off ever casting a colored spell.

Additionally, Stax won't always have the best colored spells in the matchup.  In any particular gamestate, are any of your colored spells better than Hurkyl's Recall is?  Why is your Crop Rotation LIKELY to be better than whatever spell your Lodestone Golem is preventing the opponent from casting?  It isn't.  Context is important.  The spells in your deck being "the best in the game" and thus more valuable that whatever your opponent is doing is often just a false statement.  The best, simplest, and a very likely example is the card Oath of Druids.  According to Steve, me being able to cast my spells is more important than an opponent's ability to cast Oath, perhaps because I get to "play the most powerful colored spells in the game."  The most important colored card in the Oath matchup is the card Oath of Druids.  The "best" colored card in many matchups is my opponent's Rebuild or Hurkyls!  In a particular gamestate, the opponent's Tezzeret might very well the most powerful POSSIBLE card for the opponent to have, as it will win the game as soon as he draws it.  The statement that your deck "plays the most powerful spells" so ignores the context of a magic deck or game that it should be rejected entirely as meaningless.

[matt_sperling]

A fundamental error Steve makes is treating the 5 moxen as if they produce every color mana.  When you draw one of your colored spells, 4/5 moxes functionally produce colorless mana.  If you draw 2 different colored spells, 3/5 of the moxes produce colorless to you.

Put another way, assume the following: your opening draw contains a Goblin Welder, a Mox, a Null Rod, and 4 artifacts/workshops.  What are the chances casting the Null Rod first turn cuts off my chances of casting the Welder?  Well, if its the Ruby in my hand, I can just play the Welder first turn, so 0%.  If its another mox, it wasn't helping anyway, so I can ignore it.  So the odds of being cut off by the Null Rod are 2/53 multiplied by the number of draw steps within which i need to draw the red source.  2/53 is the fraction of artifacts that make red mana in deck over the number of cards left in my deck.  43% is WAY off as an estimate of how much the null rod affects my ability to cast my colored spells.

EDIT: I assume 2/53 each draw step for simplicity even though its 2/53 then 2/52...  Also, the odds of the Null Rod impacting me as the problem is originally stated are even worse, for we need to factor in the 25% chance (I only play 4 moxes) that the mox in my hand is the Ruby.