[FREE article] Why MUD is bad: Angles of Attack

[matt_sperling]

Here is an article I just posted to my Blog.  It was enough of a departure from the existing discussion of Chapin's article (and lengthy enough) to deserve a separate post and thread.  Let me know what you think.  Thanks.

http://sperlinggrove.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-mud-is-bad-angles-of-attack.html

[voltron00x]

"Say what you want about Shop decks in the abstract. The fact remains, a good player who wants to beat you will beat you, regardless of who you are. The same can’t be said of Tezz or TPS. "

You can absolutely beat TPS or Tezz if you want, you just do it more by deck choice than card choice.  You metagame against blue by choosing powerful linear strategies for which they are unprepared.  Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared, as they are prepared for Dredge, so you just change the battlefield if you want to beat them.  I agree with what you're saying in that you don't beat Tezz by changing 5 cards like you can do with MUD, but that doesn't make the quoted statement correct.

There are times when abstract power trumps versatility because you cannot be prepared for everything Vintage can throw at you.  As Brassman noted elsewhere, player skill also throws a wrench in deck choice when looking at EV for a given tournament.

EDIT:  In case that came off as negative, I enjoyed reading that and thanks for posting it.  My article next week is an alternative / opposing view of this issue in many respects.

[DubDub]

An enjoyable read, I would encourage you to post links to future articles here as well.  More importantly, nice comic!

[matt_sperling]

"Say what you want about Shop decks in the abstract. The fact remains, a good player who wants to beat you will beat you, regardless of who you are. The same can’t be said of Tezz or TPS. "

You can absolutely beat TPS or Tezz if you want, you just do it more by deck choice than card choice.  You metagame against blue by choosing powerful linear strategies for which they are unprepared.  Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared, as they are prepared for Dredge, so you just change the battlefield if you want to beat them.  I agree with what you're saying in that you don't beat Tezz by changing 5 cards like you can do with MUD, but that doesn't make the quoted statement correct.

There are times when abstract power trumps versatility because you cannot be prepared for everything Vintage can throw at you.  As Brassman noted elsewhere, player skill also throws a wrench in deck choice when looking at EV for a given tournament.

EDIT:  In case that came off as negative, I enjoyed reading that and thanks for posting it.  My article next week is an alternative / opposing view of this issue in many respects.

Having to switch decks is a stong DISincentive to come prepared for deckX, meaning people don't like to switch decks, while the fact that adding 3-7 cards can swing a matchup vs MUD is a strong INCENTIVE to add those cards.  Its a matter of degree, I'm obviously not taking the position that TPS is an unbeatable strategy.  Sometimes by virtue of a format's diversity, you don't have those 3-7 slots or whatever it takes to devote to MUD, that's fine, that's an example of people being underprepared.  There is something different about MUD and Dredge (linear, one attack angle decks) than the blue decks.  I'm trying to explain that difference to people.

[voltron00x]

"Say what you want about Shop decks in the abstract. The fact remains, a good player who wants to beat you will beat you, regardless of who you are. The same can’t be said of Tezz or TPS. "

You can absolutely beat TPS or Tezz if you want, you just do it more by deck choice than card choice.  You metagame against blue by choosing powerful linear strategies for which they are unprepared.  Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared, as they are prepared for Dredge, so you just change the battlefield if you want to beat them.  I agree with what you're saying in that you don't beat Tezz by changing 5 cards like you can do with MUD, but that doesn't make the quoted statement correct.

There are times when abstract power trumps versatility because you cannot be prepared for everything Vintage can throw at you.  As Brassman noted elsewhere, player skill also throws a wrench in deck choice when looking at EV for a given tournament.

EDIT:  In case that came off as negative, I enjoyed reading that and thanks for posting it.  My article next week is an alternative / opposing view of this issue in many respects.

Having to switch decks is a stong DISincentive to come prepared for deckX, meaning people don't like to switch decks, while the fact that adding 3-7 cards can swing a matchup vs MUD is a strong INCENTIVE to add those cards.  Its a matter of degree, I'm obviously not taking the position that TPS is an unbeatable strategy.  Sometimes by virtue of a format's diversity, you don't have those 3-7 slots or whatever it takes to devote to MUD, that's fine, that's an example of people being underprepared.  There is something different about MUD and Dredge (linear, one attack angle decks) than the blue decks.  I'm trying to explain that difference to people.

Is the question, "Do people understand the difference?", or is the question, "Is it better to play a control strategy and metagame a small # of cards than it is to metagame by playing the correct anti-control strategy?" Clearly the former is easier, but is it necessarily correct, or better?

I guess I see it as two different ways to exploit Vintage players.  One is to play the abstractly "best" deck in terms of overall match-ups, like Tezz, and slightly tweak it over time.  Thus you have a thread on TMD called Optimizing Tezzeret.  The other is to watch what Tezz players are trying to beat and play the most powerful deck they're not prepared for;  I have tried to do both this year, playing Oath as my control deck and a number of less versatile, more linear decks when I've felt those gave me a better chance to win easily.

[matt_sperling]

"Say what you want about Shop decks in the abstract. The fact remains, a good player who wants to beat you will beat you, regardless of who you are. The same can’t be said of Tezz or TPS. "

You can absolutely beat TPS or Tezz if you want, you just do it more by deck choice than card choice.  You metagame against blue by choosing powerful linear strategies for which they are unprepared.  Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared, as they are prepared for Dredge, so you just change the battlefield if you want to beat them.  I agree with what you're saying in that you don't beat Tezz by changing 5 cards like you can do with MUD, but that doesn't make the quoted statement correct.

There are times when abstract power trumps versatility because you cannot be prepared for everything Vintage can throw at you.  As Brassman noted elsewhere, player skill also throws a wrench in deck choice when looking at EV for a given tournament.

EDIT:  In case that came off as negative, I enjoyed reading that and thanks for posting it.  My article next week is an alternative / opposing view of this issue in many respects.

Having to switch decks is a stong DISincentive to come prepared for deckX, meaning people don't like to switch decks, while the fact that adding 3-7 cards can swing a matchup vs MUD is a strong INCENTIVE to add those cards.  Its a matter of degree, I'm obviously not taking the position that TPS is an unbeatable strategy.  Sometimes by virtue of a format's diversity, you don't have those 3-7 slots or whatever it takes to devote to MUD, that's fine, that's an example of people being underprepared.  There is something different about MUD and Dredge (linear, one attack angle decks) than the blue decks.  I'm trying to explain that difference to people.

Is the question, "Do people understand the difference?", or is the question, "Is it better to play a control strategy and metagame a small # of cards than it is to metagame by playing the correct anti-control strategy?" Clearly the former is easier, but is it necessarily correct, or better?

I guess I see it as two different ways to exploit Vintage players.  One is to play the abstractly "best" deck in terms of overall match-ups, like Tezz, and slightly tweak it over time.  Thus you have a thread on TMD called Optimizing Tezzeret.  The other is to watch what Tezz players are trying to beat and play the most powerful deck they're not prepared for;  I have tried to do both this year, playing Oath as my control deck and a number of less versatile, more linear decks when I've felt those gave me a better chance to win easily.

It isnt "better" to play control.   Here is what I'm saying: you don't have to play a non-linear strategy, but if you do play a linear strategy, make sure one of these conditions is satisfied, 1) people are unprepared to defend themselves against that attack and/or
2) your deck is so strong along that angle of attack that even prepared opponents will not fare that well against you.

There will be tournaments where Shops is the right deck to play, GenCon wasn't one of them, and its because people expected Shops and the tools to be prepared are available.

[voltron00x]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

If your blog was meant to be taken, in whole, as a reference to Gen Con and Champs specifically, then you are correct and I agree.  It seemed like you were talking about Champs at some points, but making more general comments other times, so it wasn't clear to me whether we were to take away that Shops were a poor choice for Champs, are often a poor choice for the reasons you described that happen to have occurred at Champs, or are always a poor choice. 

I think Pat and Owen's comments were meant to apply broadly as opposed to being applied to Champs, specifically, unless I've misunderstood, or their comments were poorly worded.

[Juggernaut GO]

"All I need to know to determine whether I want to avoid playing Shops is this: “Are people expecting a lot of Shop decks to show up?” If yes, I’m not playing Shops. If no, we turn to a host of other questions."

This is false, because a player like myself will just run the gauntlet regardless and still use a shop deck and outplay every opponent I face.  Basically what you are saying is that you have no faith in your play skill, and opt for a simpler deck to pilot.

Nice article.

[matt_sperling]

"All I need to know to determine whether I want to avoid playing Shops is this: “Are people expecting a lot of Shop decks to show up?” If yes, I’m not playing Shops. If no, we turn to a host of other questions."

This is false, because a player like myself will just run the gauntlet regardless and still use a shop deck and outplay every opponent I face.  Basically what you are saying is that you have no faith in your play skill, and opt for a simpler deck to pilot.

Nice article.

Classic "I'll just play better to compensate for a poor deck choice" rationalization.  You can't just play tighter and beat a turn 1 Bob turn 2 Trygon, sometimes it just gets you.  No matter what deck I'm playing I intend to play it well, but that doesn't mean the deck selection decision is meaningless or somehow takes a back seat to my play skill.  Where do you gather that I'm afraid I can't play whichever Shop deck I choose correctly? 

[Troy_Costisick]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon. 

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Classic "I'll just play better to compensate for a poor deck choice" rationalization.  You can't just play tighter and beat a turn 1 Bob turn 2 Trygon, sometimes it just gets you.

So your shop opponents just don't do anything on their turn 1 like play a wire, sphere, lodestone, wasteland?

 No matter what deck I'm playing I intend to play it well, but that doesn't mean the deck selection decision is meaningless or somehow takes a back seat to my play skill.  Where do you gather that I'm afraid I can't play whichever Shop deck I choose correctly?  

It may have to do with the fact that the only shop deck that you designed was awful.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.

Not to mention the Forino's were t8 and t16 playing the only two espresso stax decks in the tournament(that I know of)

[zeus-online]

I don't like this argument much.

It sounds too much like saying "Deck X is bad because hate exists". I can apply that to every deck in every format (Maybe aside from block)

[voltron00x]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

[Prospero]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

Matt, I have to disagree with you here.  I think that a well tuned Shop deck was capable of taking it down, and I think that, as Egan noted, the two Forino's in the top 16 proved this.  Maher had all his maindeck Trygons and other nonsense and was still down 1-0 after the first game.  That Vinnie drew dead in game two and made a minor error in game three should not be held against him, or the deck.

If you wanted to say that most Shop pilots at GenCon were bad, I wasn't there, I don't know, and I won't quibble over that.  If you wanted to say that many of the Shop decks that showed up had design flaws, that's possible too.  

We knew about Trygon Predator before GenCon and Espresso Stax had 2 maindeck answers to their Trygons and 4 sideboard answers.  I'm not counting the traditional 'answers' either - of Wire/Stack, or a quick beating with Karn and Lodestone.  

I second Travis's opinion.  Shops aren't Dredge - you have to do more than run hate.  I think you need to have the element of surprise, and you need to be technically sound in your build.  Show me a mana base that I can exploit and I don't care what your hate is.  The responsibility will fall to the person playing the reactive strategy in the end.  If my proactive strategy of cluttering the board and hating your spells, curve and mana base works, it won't matter what hate you draw.  I played against the Jace Control list that Owen ran.  It's a fine deck, but I don' think it's any more than a deck that ran well, ran under good pilots, and had some breaks.  If Vinnie Forino takes one of his last two games against Maher, we're talking about two Shop players in the semi's.  No matter what happens then, we're talking about a Shop deck in the finals of Champs.  Would Shops have been a 'bad choice' then?  How much extra credit is Jace Control getting for being a 75 card mirror in the finals?  I think too much...

[voltron00x]

If your evidence is two of the best Shop players with two of the best-designed Shop decks for the tournament, with one top 8 and one top 16, and my counter-evidence is two of the best players on the best-designed Tezz deck for the tournament, and both made the finals, what does that suggest?  Just because two Espresso Stax players were prepared doesn't say the same for "Shop" players, in general.  The right Stax deck was not a bad choice for that event.  MUD Aggro was a bad choice and Worker/Staff was a bad choice.  Stax was a much better choice.  This gets back to our point of what we mean when we say "Workshops".

Anyway, I'm somehow being pushed into a position I never really suggested in the first place.  As I said above:  

Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared

.  I agree with this statement - "There will be tournaments where Shops is the right deck to play, GenCon wasn't one of them, and its because people expected Shops and the tools to be prepared are available." - to a certain extent, that's all.  Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

My article next week will articulate my position much more clearly.  I am not in the same camp as Owen / Pat and further from them than Sperling.

[Prospero]

If your evidence is two of the best Shop players with two of the best-designed Shop decks for the tournament, with one top 8 and one top 16, and my counter-evidence is two of the best players on the best-designed Tezz deck for the tournament, and both made the finals, what does that suggest?  Just because two Espresso Stax players were prepared doesn't say the same for "Shop" players, in general.  The right Stax deck was not a bad choice for that event.  MUD Aggro was a bad choice and Worker/Staff was a bad choice.  Stax was a much better choice.  This gets back to our point of what we mean when we say "Workshops".

Anyway, I'm somehow being pushed into a position I never really suggested in the first place.  As I said above: 

Workshops are not good right now (to the extent that this is true) because opponents are prepared

.  I agree with this statement - "There will be tournaments where Shops is the right deck to play, GenCon wasn't one of them, and its because people expected Shops and the tools to be prepared are available." - to a certain extent, that's all.  Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all. 

My article next week will articulate my position much more clearly.  I am not in the same camp as Owen / Pat and further from them than Sperling.

Fair enough.  As always, I look forward to reading your article.

[matt_sperling]

I don't like this argument much.

It sounds too much like saying "Deck X is bad because hate exists". I can apply that to every deck in every format (Maybe aside from block)

Its not that hate exists.  As described in detail in the blog post, its the combination of hate existing and the fact that people know about your deck's popularity and WANT to beat it.  Its about having a field of players that are both willing and able to hate you out.  Willing means motivated to play those hate cards, like maindeck trygons, and able meaning those cards exist.  It isn't JUST one or the other, its both that makes Shops a bad choice.

Shop decks making the top8 or top4 doesn't mean the archetype was well positioned.  The matchup vs Owen/Bob is a bad matchup, and you were going to have to get through one or both of them to win the Sapphire trophy. 

[hitman]

Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

This is too relative.  Some strategies are actually harder to hate out than others, period.  Mana Drain and Force of Will decks are by nature harder to hate out because their normal gameplan is to use these same cards that keep them resistant to disruption in the first place.  They do not have the gaping holes that Dredge or all-artifact decks have.  While there can be a right time to play Dredge or Shops, they are not usually the best option.  They prey on deficiencies in linear metagames.  That's why I don't get why Wizards thinks it's doing anyone a favor by restricting cards when it's the blue deck's dependence on those cards that give decks like Workshops and Dredge a reliable angle to attack.  

[voltron00x]

Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

This is too relative.  Some strategies are actually harder to hate out than others, period.  Mana Drain and Force of Will decks are by nature harder to hate out because their normal gameplan is to use these same cards that keep them resistant to disruption in the first place.  They do not have the gaping holes that Dredge or all-artifact decks have.  While there can be a right time to play Dredge or Shops, they are not usually the best option.  They prey on deficiencies in linear metagames.  That's why I don't get why Wizards thinks it's doing anyone a favor by restricting cards when it's the blue deck's dependence on those cards that give decks like Workshops and Dredge a reliable angle to attack.  

You just more or less repeated what Sperling said, and what I agreed with, with the same clarification I gave, so... I'm confused.

As I said:  when you want to beat linears, you use the hate cards Wizards is kind enough to make (thus changing a few small cards in the same base-blue shell).  When you want to beat strategies like control, you are fundamentally changing your deck choice from one to another (ie Shops, to Dredge, to Storm, to Fish) to approach them from an angle for which they aren't prepared b/c they can't effectively beat them all.

[Smmenen]

Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

This is too relative.  Some strategies are actually harder to hate out than others, period.  Mana Drain and Force of Will decks are by nature harder to hate out because their normal gameplan is to use these same cards that keep them resistant to disruption in the first place.  They do not have the gaping holes that Dredge or all-artifact decks have.  While there can be a right time to play Dredge or Shops, they are not usually the best option.  They prey on deficiencies in linear metagames.  That's why I don't get why Wizards thinks it's doing anyone a favor by restricting cards when it's the blue deck's dependence on those cards that give decks like Workshops and Dredge a reliable angle to attack.  

That's not why Drain decks are harder to hate out.  There is another reason for that. 

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon. 

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz. 

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

Matt, I have to disagree with you here.  I think that a well tuned Shop deck was capable of taking it down, and I think that, as Egan noted, the two Forino's in the top 16 proved this.  Maher had all his maindeck Trygons and other nonsense and was still down 1-0 after the first game.  That Vinnie drew dead in game two and made a minor error in game three should not be held against him, or the deck.

If you wanted to say that most Shop pilots at GenCon were bad, I wasn't there, I don't know, and I won't quibble over that.  If you wanted to say that many of the Shop decks that showed up had design flaws, that's possible too. 

So you watched the videos -- how well did you think the Shop players played?   

[hitman]

As I said:  when you want to beat linears, you use the hate cards Wizards is kind enough to make (thus changing a few small cards in the same base-blue shell).  When you want to beat strategies like control, you are fundamentally changing your deck choice from one to another (ie Shops, to Dredge, to Storm, to Fish) to approach them from an angle for which they aren't prepared b/c they can't effectively beat them all.

I see what you're saying.  I think I misunderstood what you were saying before.

That's not why Drain decks are harder to hate out.  There is another reason for that.

Okay, I'll bite.  Why do you think they're harder to hate out?

[Troy_Costisick]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

If you're to make such broad-based statements like choosing Shops at GenCon was a bad choice, then you can't retreat to "well it depends on what the player wanted to do..."  In the top 8 of a high level tournament like that so much can happen.  The littlest things like how your opponent cuts your deck, how the dice rolls go, human error, or what deck gets matched up against what sideboard can make a huge differences in wins and losses.  A heck of a lot more goes into it than just deck choice.

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

When you say crap like that you really minimize the accomplishments of those who made the top 8 and are basically saying that if a deck shows up in enough numbers, they'll win enough matches no matter what because of the coinflip to make the top 8 regardless of skill level.  The best players on that day playing the best decks on that day make the top 8.  Three Shop decks made the top 8, one made the top 4.  They didn't win that day.  So what?  In a rematch they might.  Every time you sit down for a match the outcome is uncertain- especially in the top 8 of Vintage Champs.

[voltron00x]

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

If you're to make such broad-based statements like choosing Shops at GenCon was a bad choice, then you can't retreat to "well it depends on what the player wanted to do..."  In the top 8 of a high level tournament like that so much can happen.  The littlest things like how your opponent cuts your deck, how the dice rolls go, human error, or what deck gets matched up against what sideboard can make a huge differences in wins and losses.  A heck of a lot more goes into it than just deck choice.

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

When you say crap like that you really minimize the accomplishments of those who made the top 8 and are basically saying that if a deck shows up in enough numbers, they'll win enough matches no matter what because of the coinflip to make the top 8 regardless of skill level.  The best players on that day playing the best decks on that day make the top 8.  Three Shop decks made the top 8, one made the top 4.  They didn't win that day.  So what?  In a rematch they might.  Every time you sit down for a match the outcome is uncertain- especially in the top 8 of Vintage Champs.

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile here.  Saying a deck made up X% of the top 8 as a statement of a deck's supposed strength or performance quality without knowing the make-up of the field is widely acknowledged to be flawed reasoning.  Similarly, you absolutely can flood an event with a deck to push it into the top 8.  I predicted there would be Workshop decks in the top 8 on the strength of numbers in the field, and Menendian disagreed, here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=40886.0

me:  This seems like an accurate prediction, but you never know... if MUD shows up with strong enough numbers, it could flood the top 8 as it has some other events.  I know I was surprised at the number of Workshop decks at Champs last year.

Menendian:  I doubt there will be enough good players on Workshops for that to happen, especially when the 'paragons' are all playing blue.

This was in response to your article where you predicted MUD was best positioned and didn't believe Tez could win the tournament, btw.

I also don't think I am the only one who believes that if you ran that top 8 repeatedly, more often than not, one of those Tezz decks would win based on the quality of the players behind the decks *and* the fact that that deck *does* have a pretty positive match-up against Workshops.

Saying that if there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made it (thus 10% top 8 penetration) vs 5 Trygon Tezz with 2 in top 8 (thus 40% top 8 penetration) in no way  belittles the accomplishments of the actual PLAYERS that made top 8, it is just a more complete analysis of whether a deck was or was not a good choice for a tournament.  Again, I'm not sure why you're reacting so harshly to my statements.  Note that my numbers are made up and just an example of why your statement about 37.5% of top 8 etc may not be as relevant to my statements as you think it is.  Also, as uncomfortable as it may be, there's something to be said for the fact that, hey, the guys on Trygon Tezz had all the chips at the end.  Sure, if you ran it again, it might be different, but that's not going to happen.  Its in the books and Trygon Tezz has all the chips from Champs.  I wouldn't want to play most MUD decks against that deck.  Would you?  Knowing the fact that you're going to have to push through those people to win that painting, you still believe that most people's MUD decks were a good choice?

I strongly suggest you read my article next week so you can better understand my position re: Workshops in general, btw.

[Smmenen]

Are you talking to me?  I'm confused. 

[Prospero]

Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

This is too relative.  Some strategies are actually harder to hate out than others, period.  Mana Drain and Force of Will decks are by nature harder to hate out because their normal gameplan is to use these same cards that keep them resistant to disruption in the first place.  They do not have the gaping holes that Dredge or all-artifact decks have.  While there can be a right time to play Dredge or Shops, they are not usually the best option.  They prey on deficiencies in linear metagames.  That's why I don't get why Wizards thinks it's doing anyone a favor by restricting cards when it's the blue deck's dependence on those cards that give decks like Workshops and Dredge a reliable angle to attack.  

That's not why Drain decks are harder to hate out.  There is another reason for that.  

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

Matt, I have to disagree with you here.  I think that a well tuned Shop deck was capable of taking it down, and I think that, as Egan noted, the two Forino's in the top 16 proved this.  Maher had all his maindeck Trygons and other nonsense and was still down 1-0 after the first game.  That Vinnie drew dead in game two and made a minor error in game three should not be held against him, or the deck.

If you wanted to say that most Shop pilots at GenCon were bad, I wasn't there, I don't know, and I won't quibble over that.  If you wanted to say that many of the Shop decks that showed up had design flaws, that's possible too.  

So you watched the videos -- how well did you think the Shop players played?  

I did not watch the videos.  

I have been emotionally divesting myself of Vintage for about a month now.  I'm burned out, and will be taking a break.  Events will be run with my efficiency, but I will not be the one running them for a while.  

I need a to get away and take care of things that I have let slip.

[zeus-online]

I don't like this argument much.

It sounds too much like saying "Deck X is bad because hate exists". I can apply that to every deck in every format (Maybe aside from block)

Its not that hate exists.  As described in detail in the blog post, its the combination of hate existing and the fact that people know about your deck's popularity and WANT to beat it.  Its about having a field of players that are both willing and able to hate you out.  Willing means motivated to play those hate cards, like maindeck trygons, and able meaning those cards exist.  It isn't JUST one or the other, its both that makes Shops a bad choice.

Shop decks making the top8 or top4 doesn't mean the archetype was well positioned.  The matchup vs Owen/Bob is a bad matchup, and you were going to have to get through one or both of them to win the Sapphire trophy. 

People are usually prepared for shop decks, atleast to some extent. It's not like people get caught ofguard not noticing that there's a card named "Mishra's workshop" out there.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

The whole "willing and able to hate out shops" argument is what this all boils down to in my opinion. You can soundly thrash any deck with enough hate and shops seem to be under the gun at the moment. Part because of how good shops are right now and part because shop hate so easily doubles as oath hate. Basically the metagame adapted to kill artifacts so play something else.

[Smmenen]

Workshops are better when opponents aren't prepared.  This is true of all decks, the way in which a meta reacts is different as Sperling noted and I noted, that's all.  

This is too relative.  Some strategies are actually harder to hate out than others, period.  Mana Drain and Force of Will decks are by nature harder to hate out because their normal gameplan is to use these same cards that keep them resistant to disruption in the first place.  They do not have the gaping holes that Dredge or all-artifact decks have.  While there can be a right time to play Dredge or Shops, they are not usually the best option.  They prey on deficiencies in linear metagames.  That's why I don't get why Wizards thinks it's doing anyone a favor by restricting cards when it's the blue deck's dependence on those cards that give decks like Workshops and Dredge a reliable angle to attack.  

That's not why Drain decks are harder to hate out.  There is another reason for that.  

I agree that Workshops were a bad choice for Gen Con, given the option to play other decks at a reasonable skill level.

They made up 37.5% of the top 8 and 25% of the top 4.  They weren't a bad choice for GenCon.  

This depends on whether your goal was to win the event, or to top 8 the event.  The deck was a bad choice to win the event in hindsight, knowing that such good players were running Trygon Tezz.  

Additionally looking at only top 8 percentage without knowing field percentage doesn’t really prove anything.  If there were 30 Workshop players and 3 made top 8, and 5 Trygon Tezz players and 2 made the finals, the math becomes quite different.

Matt, I have to disagree with you here.  I think that a well tuned Shop deck was capable of taking it down, and I think that, as Egan noted, the two Forino's in the top 16 proved this.  Maher had all his maindeck Trygons and other nonsense and was still down 1-0 after the first game.  That Vinnie drew dead in game two and made a minor error in game three should not be held against him, or the deck.

If you wanted to say that most Shop pilots at GenCon were bad, I wasn't there, I don't know, and I won't quibble over that.  If you wanted to say that many of the Shop decks that showed up had design flaws, that's possible too.  

So you watched the videos -- how well did you think the Shop players played?  

I did not watch the videos.  

You should.  Watch round 5, for example. 

http://www.ggslive.com/videos.html

[Juggernaut GO]

Matt after running a gauntlet of mud decks today, I'm definitely convinced that you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Travis, don't start us down this road again.  -DA

[voltron00x]

Matt after running a gauntlet of mud decks today, I'm definitely convinced that you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Yea! 

Wait, which Matt?