Does Mishra's Workshop Suck? My 2010 Vintage Championship Report [FREE Articl

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/19986_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Does_Mishras_Workshop_Suck_The_2010_Vintage_Championship.html

At 30 pages single-spaced, this is the longest and most comprehensive treatise I've ever written on Workshops.  I address tons and tons of issues in this article.  And that's after cutting literally hundreds of words from this article.

In this article, I:

* Explain why Patrick Chapin is wrong about Workshops
* Explain the REAL disadvantage that Workshops have relative to other decks, and why it's not a net loss.
* Present a MUD Synergy Map
* Explain why Workshop Aggro is not Strictly Inferior to Workshop Control
* Identify the 4 key skills that all Workshop players must master, and the two skills that separate the Workshop Adept from the Workshop Master
* Explain how Workshops are the modern form of the O'Brien School, and the implications of this fact
* Explain my new MUD list, with M11 technology
* Present my tournament report, with round by round, play by play detail
* Revisit and Analyze the Workshop feature matches that were videoed by GGLive

And More!!

[Juggernaut GO]

this almost convinced me to buy premium again.  I'll be interesting to see if you show up to Waterbury with shops or not.

[matt_sperling]

Enjoyed the article.  Except for the chart (being simple and concise is a virtue, not a flaw, when it comes to graphs/charts and articles), for the most part the article was well thought out. 

The real reason that Mishra’s Workshop decks are bad is this: Mishra’s Workshop decks can comfortably play a much smaller portion of the overall Magic card pool compared to non-Mishra’s Workshop decks.

5 color control (The Deck, for example) has access to much more of the cardpool than UB or UBg tezz, yet that doesn't help you answer the question of which deck is better.  The Deck certainly is more "flexible" in terms of what bullets or cards in general it can add, yet it isn't stronger than Tezz at the moment.  It isn't just Tezz and The Deck of course.  If you posit two new decklists, "access to cards" isn't going to be tremendously helpful in evaluating the decks.  "Number of cards you have access to" reeks of post-hoc explanation rather than useful metric.  You can't apply it prospectively in a novel context, you can only look at two decks, decide which one is better (independently of how many cards it has "access to"), and then observe that the better deck had access to more cards (which won't always be true, but you might just not be looking at the false cases, like Tezz vs The Deck, and thus think the metric is valuable). 

What portion of the cardpool a deck has access to doesn't strike me as a useful metric.

[CorwinB]

Hi Stephen,

As I said on the SCG forums, this was an incredible article, with a minor mistake in the second round of the tournament (Null Rod sideboarding). The historical references (O'Brien school, evolution of lock decks...) are both entertaining and educative.

The video analysis was extremely intriguing as well.

[Neonico]

Few things I noticed and will think of when i will build workshop again :

Your match #1 showed exactly why lotus isn't better than mana vault, and why trinisphere can be considered by some workshop players bad and why they usually side it out on the draw, whatever the matchup is.
Your opponent making a critical mistake in vountering it with 3 manas open IMHO.

In match #2, it's for me a mistake to go Workshop instead of city of traitors to play trinisphere if you did it (which i think you did with your Wasteland comment), especially against fish.

In match #3 and 4, you have a glimpse of why some workshop players don't like black lotus in the deck. I also consider the Match #3 game #1 hand unkeepable on the draw against an unknown deck.

Also, i think you didn't really answered the title question in the article. Why worshop decks are bad, and are they even bad ?

I also really don't like your sideboard at all. Playing 4 leyline of sanctity for combo matchups when they are your best matchups and having allmost no mirror match sideboard when it's one of the most played deck actually is clearly wrong to me... You should have at least 3 crucible post sideboard, and even 4 IMO.

Also, I'm not sold on the "I will play 4 serum powder to get null rod because null rod would have been great all day for me" simply because you're not even sure that you'll have blind mulligan into null rod in those matches.

[Troy_Costisick]

Holy crap!  Wow! What an article.  This is going to take me all day to get through at work.  At least that will make the day enjoyable...

Thanks Stephen!


Peace,

-Troy

[Tha Gunslinga]

Leyline of Sanctity also shuts down Oath.

[Smmenen]

Enjoyed the article.  Except for the chart (being simple and concise is a virtue, not a flaw, when it comes to graphs/charts and articles), for the most part the article was well thought out.  

The real reason that Mishra’s Workshop decks are bad is this: Mishra’s Workshop decks can comfortably play a much smaller portion of the overall Magic card pool compared to non-Mishra’s Workshop decks.

5 color control (The Deck, for example) has access to much more of the cardpool than UB or UBg tezz, yet that doesn't help you answer the question of which deck is better.  

Of course not -- but I don't think that's what I was saying.  I think I was saying that the fact that Workshops can use a much smaller part of the card pool is a structural disadvantage.   "Suck/bad" is not a technical term.  

EDIT: let me explain a little more.

A deck could literally be able to play just 75 cards in the entire magic card pool and still be amazing if the internal synergies were strong enough, and the metagame was ripe for it.   The point here isn't that Workshops 'suck' because they can't 'comfortably' play as much of the card pool as non-workshop decks, but that this is a structural disadvantage, and particularly because of this: decks that have more access to the card pool are more resourceful in *adapting over time*. If you take the "over time" element out, and view decks at a snapshot at a particular moment in time, rather than from the perspective of understanding how they change, then, yes, this metric is much less important for the reasons you mentioned.  

I think we talk about decks from the 'snapshot' perspective, but think about them from the 'over time' perspective.  The over time is really what's important unless we are talking about a particular tournament.  

@ Neonico: I think you could benefit from another reading, as I think I answered or addressed most of those points within.  Also, if you don't want to play with Black Lotus, then don't, but I think that you are crazy if you don't.  

[Leooooh]

Hi Stephen!

As a Shop addicted, that was an amazing article. Regarding the article, I wanna highlight some parts.

1 - Null Rod is almost an auto-include in any powered or proxy allowed metagame. Most of the times, it shuts more mana resources than spheres, and in a deck designed like yours, that almost every mana source produces more than one mana, it is the nuts. Also it has bonuses of stopping vault/key, worker/staff, sensei and other artifact combos! So playing 3 + Null rods in a powered meta is the right call.
I play vintage here in Brazil, and we have a monthly vintage champ at the local store. Those champs are santioned (sucks, I know) wich reduces the number of players drastically. We usually have an average of 12+ players, with 8~9 pleople playing full powered decks. Sometimes, the number of players in the champ are higher, with a lot of hate decks. Whenever I play shops on those tournaments (almost all the times), I play NULL ROD. Why??? Because I know that even if I don't face powered decks in the swiss, I will face them in the last rounds or in the top 8, and whenever it hits the board they rock. That's the main reason why I keep them maindeck always.
I know that Null Rod sucks against fishe/hate decks, and aren't a good call in a meta that doesn't accept proxies, but to smooth those things, I try to build a strong SB to face those fish/hate decks, and keep the maindeck Null Rod for the powered matches because they are the cards that win those matches. This line of thought has proven useful, and awarded me with some great results.

2- So Workshops sucks???? If they really suck why those "blue mages" dedicate so many sb or maindeck slots to those "horrible" decks. They should win this match without any additional cards, since this kind of deck is basically a bye to them.
I still continue to believe, and agree with Stephen, that workshops didn't have a better success in GenCon because of faults after faults. Execution as you stated. There's no excuse. We can see in the videos. And their oponents made the right thing... WIN relying on their faults.

3- Stephen, you really need to improve this sb, mainly against the Workshop Mirror/ Fish. A card that is not so expensive and is a house against the aggro mirror is Razormane Masticore. This match is resumed to having a crucible to keep your mana base protected and a fattie to kill the oponent and Razormane kills Juggs, Golens and Workers without having to attack.Their only out is to Dupe you Razormane.
The maindeck is solid as hell. It acomplishes the control role and the aggro role with no problems.

Amazing article!!!!


Leonardo

[Prospero]

If you're going to quote me in an article, please spell my name correctly.

Detwiler, not Detwiller.

Pronounced Debt-while-er.  Unless you're in Germany.

[madmanmike25]

Explain my new MUD list, with M11 technology

This is the part that has me curious.  What from M11 makes the cut?  Is it Brittle Effigy, Crystal Ball, or Mystifying Maze?  I really don't know what else it could be....

I totally agree on Razormane and Crucibles being in the sb.  You cannot overlook the power of those cards in any Shop mirrors.

Other than that, I'm wondering if you finally got wise and added Smokestack maindeck.  It would be about time...

[Odd mutation]

I totally agree on Razormane and Crucibles being in the sb.  You cannot overlook the power of those cards in any Shop mirrors.

Other than that, I'm wondering if you finally got wise and added Smokestack maindeck.  It would be about time...

Stephen lost his MUD matchups... I agree on Razormane Masticore and two Crucibles between side and main. Stephen's sideboard is full of Leylines now, so there isn't much space.

I didn't use to play Smokestacks either but must confess, I've added them and was impressed by their power in the deck. They seem to be a little counterintuitive to the general strategy but they seem to work.

MUD is a strange beast to me... I don't have too much experience (a 3rd place the one time I actually played it in a tournement, 35+ people) but it's an intriguing deck to figure out. There are so many possibilities!

Robrecht

[Smmenen]

Explain my new MUD list, with M11 technology

This is the part that has me curious.  What from M11 makes the cut?  Is it Brittle Effigy, Crystal Ball, or Mystifying Maze?  I really don't know what else it could be....

I totally agree on Razormane and Crucibles being in the sb.  You cannot overlook the power of those cards in any Shop mirrors.

Other than that, I'm wondering if you finally got wise and added Smokestack maindeck.  It would be about time...

If you look at my previous MUD articles (which are all free now), here , you'll see that I have Crucible and Razormanes in the sideboard.  That list was played in a tournament in several months ago.   

Also, I actually suggested both Golem and Stack in the thread where you posted a list shortly after I said that this was a possibility.  I've obviously had this MUD list built for almost a month before the Vintage champs, but didn't publish it for obvious reasons.   

I totally agree on Razormane and Crucibles being in the sb.  You cannot overlook the power of those cards in any Shop mirrors.

Other than that, I'm wondering if you finally got wise and added Smokestack maindeck.  It would be about time...

Stephen lost his MUD matchups... I agree on Razormane Masticore and two Crucibles between side and main. Stephen's sideboard is full of Leylines now, so there isn't much space.

I didn't use to play Smokestacks either but must confess, I've added them and was impressed by their power in the deck. They seem to be a little counterintuitive to the general strategy but they seem to work.

MUD is a strange beast to me... I don't have too much experience (a 3rd place the one time I actually played it in a tournement, 35+ people) but it's an intriguing deck to figure out. There are so many possibilities!

Robrecht

. 

I would move more Powders main, and make more room for Crucibles/Razormanes in the sb.   

[madmanmike25]

Also, I actually suggested both Golem and Stack in the thread where you posted a list shortly after I said that this was a possibility.  I've obviously had this MUD list built for almost a month before the Vintage champs, but didn't publish it for obvious reasons.

Wait a second, YOU suggested Golem and Stack???  Check out the opening post in the MUD thread.  I put those 2 cards together as soon as I saw Lodestone.  Read more of that thread and you can see that I actually got criticized by some who disagreed with Smokestack and Lodestone Golem in the same deck... 

Also you can notice that I was running BOTH Smokestacks and Juggernauts prior to Golem.  Check out the last MUD deck I posted that has Lodestones, Juggernauts, Null Rod, and Smokestacks.

I'm sure I'll have more to say once this is non-premium, so to be continued...

[Smmenen]

This article is now free!

Remember:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/19986_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Does_Mishras_Workshop_Suck_The_2010_Vintage_Championship.html

At 30 pages single-spaced, this is the longest and most comprehensive treatise I've ever written on Workshops.  I address tons and tons of issues in this article.  And that's after cutting literally hundreds of words from this article.

In this article, I:

* Explain why Patrick Chapin is wrong about Workshops
* Explain the REAL disadvantage that Workshops have relative to other decks, and why it's not a net loss.
* Present a MUD Synergy Map
* Explain why Workshop Aggro is not Strictly Inferior to Workshop Control
* Identify the 4 key skills that all Workshop players must master, and the two skills that separate the Workshop Adept from the Workshop Master
* Explain how Workshops are the modern form of the O'Brien School, and the implications of this fact
* Explain my new MUD list, with M11 technology
* Present my tournament report, with round by round, play by play detail
* Revisit and Analyze the Workshop feature matches that were videoed by GGLive

And More!!

Discuss!

[Prospero]

Steve,

I have re-read your article and think it prudent to illustrate the areas in which your logic fails in this article, and the various ways in which I think you are wrong.
 
In the past you have stated, to paraphrase, that you believed that Vintage was now one unified metagame.  You have said that you believed that Europe and the United States were similar now, to a degree that they have never been before.   
 
The issue of proxies has been addressed with you in the past.  Proxies abound in the United States, with the minimum standard set at 10, most tournaments offering 15, and several offering more, including a rare few that offer unlimited proxies.  Colorado’s Black Gold tournament series recently had five players show for a sanctioned Vintage tournament.  I could tell you that at any given N.Y.S.E. event, no more than six people are usually fully powered with no proxies.  On September 12th Eurovino had 233 players show for sanctioned Vintage.  Many things can be said in terms of reasons why one event had such a great turnout, and another had an abysmal showing. 

Proxies, I believe, were partially the issue with this.  When American players are afforded the choice of playing what they deem an underpowered deck, or not playing at all, they choose not to play.  We are spoiled by proxies, and our addiction to them results in future proxy tournaments.  This also means that when American players do play, they play proxy based decks that only someone who had spent thousands of dollars (or Euros as it were) could afford to play if the tournament were sanctioned.  You, in particular, have bemoaned the flight of power from America to Europe.  It has left because proxies allowed it to leave.
 
Europe is home to larger tournaments with no proxies, while the United States is home to smaller tournaments with proxies.  This is a fact that cannot be debated, as even Waterbury, America’s largest Vintage tournament of the year, was bested by more than 100 players at the Eurovino event. 
 
Your arguments have led an individual to believe that the metagames are terribly similar.  In fact, in the thread entitled ‘Mud Should Play Neither Null Rod Nor Juggernaut’ you said:

Now the non-anecdotal: the largest annual Vintage tournament in North America is non-proxy.   That makes it identical to the conditions under which European tournaments are played.   As for the European tournaments, we know exactly what proportion of the European touranments are budget or underpowered.  Go read the Bazaar of Moxen metagame breakdown.   You may be surprised.
Surprised to see that nearly 12% of the field was unpowered?  To see that another 16% was ‘budget’?  That nearly 1/3rd of the field was unpowered or budget already makes it wildly divergent from the American metagame.  Vintage Champs was half the size of Eurovino, and I have seen no breakdown of the event.  How can you argue this point without knowing what Vintage Champs looked like?  How can you argue this point knowing what the average American Vintage tournament looks like?

Your contention was that the United States and Europe were exceptionally similar in terms of metagames. Let’s analyze that contention.

N.Y.S.E. XI had 46 participants.  Six of these participants played Dredge and did not run power.  Every other player at the event ran at least two pieces of power.  Perhaps, you say, N.Y.S.E. XI was an aberration?  N.Y.S.E. X would show you that 92% of the players participating in the event ran at least three pieces of power.  N.Y.S.E. IX would show you that, once again, 92% of the players ran at least two pieces of power, with the only decks that didn’t being, once again, Dredge.  This is not a point within a vacuum, there is hard data and if you require more, I can provide it.
 
Proxies have made the United States a completely different environment than Europe.  Proxies have afforded anyone with a Sharpie and some spare Revised Plains the opportunity to play with cards that they could not afford.  Most European tournaments do not offer players this chance.  In turn BoM IV had a field with 30% unpowered or ‘budget’ decks.

This establishes that Europe and the United States are distinct in their metagames, not similar, and certainly not identical.  While power blue decks, combo decks and Shop decks may succeed in Europe, they are forced to prepare for matches that would not be seen in the United States. 

Their preparation for these matches means that cards that would not be good in the United States (because you will not see fields that feature 30% unpowered/budget decks) are good in Europe.  If you knew that you were preparing for a field that featured, potentially, as much as 30% of aggressive, creature based decks, would you build your deck the same way as if you walked into a field where you knew that creature based strategies would be 15% lower?

This brings us to my second major point of contention with you.  In addressing my comments, you disregarded my statement that Europe and the United States were separate metagames.  This completely alters the context of my comment.  Why?  Because my comment was based on an evaluation of cards in a given metagame, one that I see in the Mid Atlantic Corridor on a weekly/monthly basis.  As I have mentioned already, proxies have made the metagames completely different.  Cards that are good in one field are awful in another because of this.  My statement was not a blanket statement.

You have noted my feelings for Juggernaut.  They are clear, and well known.  You note that

“Both the Workshop Control players and the anti-Workshop players are making the same mistake. It’s a conceptual stumbling block that is keeping Workshops from reaching their full potential on this continent. It’s this belief: that there is one optimal way to build a Workshop deck. The application of this belief that Workshop Aggro is strictly (or largely) inferior to Workshop Control.”

You have, however, failed to address why this is a mistake.  Your analysis fails in that you use results that are irrelevant in the United States.  Europe is a separate, distinct, monster and cannot have its results ported over.  To reiterate why, it is because cards that have seen play in Europe are a response to the greater number of aggressive, unpowered, budget decks that proliferate in a primarily no proxy metagame. 

I believe, as I have said to you in the past, that Meandeck MUD is a bad deck.  You have shown me a win at a 13 man tournament and a 27 man tournament.  You have yet to prove that Juggernaut, or the aggressive style of Shops that you advocate here are playable in the United States in a large event.

You have not been able to give evidence of this for two reasons.  First off, Meandeck MUD really is a bad deck – because it is unable to respond to certain board states that another MUD variant is be able to.  Meandeck MUD loses on the draw to many decks, loses to an opponent able to bounce you, loses to Shop decks that run a prison style of play, and loses to decks like Noble Fish which can ruin your weak mana base and disenchant your threats. 

Secondly, you have not been able to give evidence of this because it isn’t true. 

I find it particularly amusing that in your celebration of European Shop builds that respond to an environment that doesn’t exist in the United States you fail to note the lack of Smokestacks in Europe.  When, Steve, do you think that European Shop players will reach their true potential and play the prison style builds that they could play?  Who will be the savior to unite the Shop variants and save the Shop pillar for us?

The simple explanation here is that successful European Shop decks are a response to European metagames as successful American Shop decks are a response to American metagames.  If you consider the metagame as a market, then each market will root out the inefficiencies (bad decks), punish them (drive them to extinction) and drive our attention to the fittest (those decks that were able to flourish in their respective metagame.)

Your explanation of your point illustrates your misunderstanding further:

The Vintage metagame has, at times, been so hostile that any card that doesn’t in some way prevent the opponent from ‘going off’ or disrupt them was viewed as suboptimal. Although Juggernauts saw play during the Trinisphere era, without the benefit of quad-laser Trinisphere, it was felt that every single card must play a role in the lock. Hence, the popularity of Workshop Control after the restriction of Trinisphere.

What is ‘going off’ to a creature based deck?  Is ‘going off’ something other than attacking with their creatures, while either countering opposing spells, or ensuring that they are unable to cast them?  What defines control?  How is a Sphere effect locking out an American Vintage players spells any different from a European Juggernaut attacking, and killing, an opposing European players creatures?  You have said that Magic is not a game of cards, but a game of interactions.  Should we ignore the interactions here, along with Flores’s points from his Who’s the Beatdown article?  White Weenie can be a control deck when it’s playing against Sligh, just as Noble Fish can be a control deck when playing against MUD.  The definition is different every time, and to use a broad stroke is to paint over the important difference that bear noticing.

It’s time to get a bit deeper though, so let’s see how far we can delve into all of this.

In your writings you have mentioned Kevin Cron suggested cards like Maze of Ith to you.  I am glad that he suggested them, as Robert Vroman and Raffaele Forino are responsible for this bit of technology – Vroman for introducing it, Forino for reviving it.  After all, Espresso Stax had been running Maze of Ith for months when Cron relayed the point to you. 

I would ask you why you went to Kevin Cron.  Cron is a fine player, but Cron is not a modern Shop pilot.  Most of Cron’s success was during the Trinisphere era.  Cron’s method of thinking about Shops was rooted in metagames that do not exist anymore.  At Waterbury, Cron didn’t even run Shops.  Cron has only recently returned to Vintage.

No matter, because I think a more important point is being illustrated here.  In feeling the need to go to Cron to solve Shop problems that you had you evidenced your own inability to do so. 

In our discussion last August you noted that it was important for a modern Vintage pilot to diversify, move beyond one pillar, and be open to playing the ‘best deck’ for a given event.  You claimed that you did this.  This evidences confidence in your own ability with all pillars.  There is nothing wrong with asking a greater mind in a given field for advice.  We all do this to a certain degree.

If, however, we ask greater minds for their advice, we do it with the understanding that our opinions on matters within that field are not what they could be.  We do it with the understanding that we have yet to learn all that we could, and that our opinions should remain fluid.  We asked because there was a void, something that we needed to learn.  We ask and our asking is an acknowledgement that we do not feel comfortable in our own knowledge and our own opinions.  If we ask, we should know that to consider our opinions in this matter as ironclad is to fail to learn, and to waste time in asking.

Asking demands the humility to acknowledge our weakness and the willingness to learn lessons.  We ask when we know that there are others who can teach us.  When we feel sufficient in our own ability to test new ideas, or old ones, and derive lessons from them that aid us in winning events, we know that we don’t have to ask others for advice so much as we must test ideas with others, as equals.

Yet you wrote an article deriding American Stax pilots for their limited vision.  It’s a lofty position to take given your lack of success with Workshops.  I find it even more ironic that in conversation with the Forino’s at GenCon you admitted that you should have known better than to run Shops at GenCon, and that you are not a Shop pilot.  What changed in such a short period of time that you went from being a student to one in a position to exclaim truths from the mountaintop?

You noted that you believed that there was no one proper way to build a Workshop deck – that both Shop Aggro and Shop Prison were viable candidates for play.

If I play in a field where one build has a higher percentage chance of beating an opponent than another, am I wrong to play my deck?  You have said that there is no objectively ‘best’ way to build a Shop deck, but myriad different approaches.  I take issue with this. 

Why did you play Snake City Vault at Waterbury?  Did you not play it because you believed that you were going to see a given field? Did you not believe that you were going to face certain matches?  Did you not prepare for them?  Did you not run cards in your deck that gave you a better chance against matches that you felt needed the extra card space?  Did you not build a deck that was a good deck in a field that didn’t exist, until that day, outside of your head?

How was Snake City Vault the proper deck for the tournament?  One could argue that there are myriad ways in which one could build a Jace deck successfully.  Owen Turtenwald just won Vintage Champs with one that is wildly different from yours.  Your choice of this deck reflected your judgment that this was the proper deck for the metagame you expected. 

You built, and played, the deck because you believed that the deck had the best percentage chance to win.  You built, and played, the deck because you believed that your overall percentage to win was favorable compared to the other Jace decks in the room.  You built, and played, the deck because you believed that it was the best version of a Jace deck for that event.

Why should a MUD pilot be any different?  I expect a metagame, and I respond to it.  I do not run the same 75 religiously, from one tournament to the next.  I change, adapt, and adjust, as I must.  Does this not mean that on any given day there was a proper way to build a Shop deck?  Does this not in turn mean that on any given day there was a best Shop deck for a tournament?

It does.

You can whittle away at the truth here, but the truth is this: on any given day, in any given tournament, there is a right deck to play and a wrong deck to play.  You may not make the right choice, but upon further reflection of the metagame, you may realize your mistakes, adjust your build, and catch the metagame unprepared.  To write off the most successful Shop deck, Espresso Stax, (as you did with N.Y.S.E. 5CStax last year) because you believe that there is no objective ‘best’ deck is to ignore this truth.  Ignoring it doesn’t make it any less true.

You and I have discussed many things, but one of the things that we have discussed is our sentiment regarding who we are as pilots.  I know who and what I am.  I am a Shop pilot who is competent with Mana Drains and Null Rods.  I am nothing more, and I pretend to be nothing more.  If I am elite with any pillar, it is most certainly with Shops.  I operate under no delusions, and I claim nothing more than this: results matter.  My results, both in building and playing N.Y.S.E. 5CStax (with Raf Forino) and building and playing Espresso Stax (with Vin and Raf Forino) have backed up my words. 

I believe in results.  I believe that, over time, they tell you who is worthy of respect.  You have results, and you certainly deserve respect.  You do not have the results with Shops to write this article, to have the views that you do, or to be so emphatic about them.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a combo, GAT and control pilot.  You are not a Shop pilot, and this article was not yours to write.

[Odd mutation]

You are not a Shop pilot, and this article was not yours to write.

Does this mean that we'll get an article from you on this? I would be very interested! Especially now, since there are many new additions to be considered... i appreciate your view on Shop decks a lot.

I think you're coming off a little bit too harsh towards Stephen, even though I can appreciate the deep discussion!
BTW, how well do YOU know the European metagame? There is more then BOM or Eurovino. There are regular 30+, 40+ to 50+ person tournaments and -that's just in my area (Breda, Mol, eindhoven, germany, ...)- that you don't hear of. I could go to at least one tournament a month (at least 35+ participants) without driving more then 2 hours. If you want to start a deep discussion on the European metagame, you should definitely take those 'small' (still 40+ , 50+ person) tournaments into account as well... and not all of those end up on Morphling.de, most of them don't I'd say.

Robrecht

[Lemnear]

What a respond! Thanks for sharing and you are right ... not only in terms of shop.

On this board, in nearly ever single primer, these parts of metagame are always left out. For me, as an european player, these primer and moreover most articles offer near nothing. Every time I suggest some thoughts or changes due to that specific critical parts of the field, they are stifled in a narrow-sighted way and called "unnecessary" (this could may be true for proxy-metagames). I still can't remember Steve writing articles/comments in such a way, but I understand your disappointment that he missed an important fact here and kinda snowballed with a wrong starting point. It need more to judge european Vintage than a T8 list...

[Marske]

Does this mean that we'll get an article from you on this? Smile I would be very interested! Especially now, since there are many new additions to be considered... i appreciate your view on Shop decks a lot.

Maybe we can make this happen.

I think you're coming off a little bit too harsh towards Stephen, even though I can appreciate the deep discussion!

I disagree. Steve, as much respect as he deserves for his accomplishments also has this one "flaw" so to say in the fact that he immediately declares himself an "expert" on every deck he writes about. Now, this is very logical seeing as that's what it takes to make articles interesting. Nobody likes ready: I have no clue wth this deck is supposed to do so I just wing this shit type articles (not saying this was one just trying to make a point)

BTW, how well do YOU know the European metagame? There is more then BOM or Eurovino. There are regular 30+, 40+ to 50+ person tournaments and -that's just in my area (Breda, Mol, eindhoven, germany, ...)- that you don't hear of. I could go to at least one tournament a month (at least 35+ participants) without driving more then 2 hours. If you want to start a deep discussion on the European metagame, you should definitely take those 'small' (still 40+ , 50+ person) tournaments into account as well... and not all of those end up on Morphling.de, most of them don't I'd say.

Nick is a member of R&D, as such, he see's all the reports us European people (Including Arjan and myself the TO's of the Breda events) put up on our team boards that don't make it onto TMD. He's also has a great source in us being who we are and doing what we do. I think currently we're the most up to speed with the European Meta, at least as far as Benelux,France, Germany goes. So I'd not doubt Nick's knowledge regarding the "small" tournaments.

[voltron00x]

There is value in that article, and Steve has written several articles about MUD this year that have probably helped win some converts to Workshop decks, as well as helped counter the dismissive opinion of Workshops held by some other writers. In his defense, he has clearly invested significant time into the archetype this year.  I don’t want to dismiss the fact that Steve has gone out of his way to cover Shops and to defend them as a viable deck in the face of criticism, and has done so despite traditionally being known as more of a blue deck / combo player.  Regardless of one’s thoughts on the end result, I think the intent was a good one.

Most of what Steve writes is persuasive writing.  He is trying to win you over to his opinion, to see the way he sees the game as the correct one.  This isn’t surprising if you’ve read his non-MTG work or are aware of his profession and scholastic history.  Part of this style of writing involves writing from the position of an expert, and sometimes involves establishing the validity of that position, the reason why we should take this person’s voice as that of an expert opinion.  Another part is the breaking down of opposing viewpoints, sometimes very aggressively.  At times, this style of writing may offend, especially when that voice is also used in a public forum where the opinion of those with significantly more experience in a field are dismissed out of hand.  This is what happened in this case; Steve, in presenting himself as a Workshop expert, argued that he had a better understanding of Workshops than those who have lived and breathed them for years, and in fact argued that their experience was in some ways actually holding them back despite evidence to the contrary.

To frame this differently, it would be as if Nick presented himself as an expert on Gro and picked apart Steve’s Gro list, and then presented a “superior” version based on his theoretical understanding of the deck.  A person with knowledge of all of the players would know that Nick would be out of his element in arguing Steve on Gro, but an outsider may not pick up these nuances.

Consider this section:
“Matt Sperling, Patrick Chapin, and others all said that Shops were a bad choice. Having played Shops, I happen to agree, but not because Shops are bad. There is a very good chance that Michael Gouthro should have played Owen in the finals. He should have won game 1, and could have won game 2. And, if Jerome mulliganed unplayable hands, he may have kept Owen out of the Top 8. I completely understand the point that Owen and Bob are great Magic players, and outplayed their opponents, but the point I’m trying to drive home is that the mistake was not in playing Shops, it was in execution. There is a reason that there were three Workshop decks in the top 8, more than any other archetype.

This is a clarion call to Workshop players to step up, take responsibility, and tighten their game. Workshops, as an archetype, are far behind their competitors when it comes to design ability, mulliganing, and execution/technical skill. It’s time for the Workshop masters out there to take note of these videos, take their game to the next level, and teach other Workshop players how to do the same. Until then, people like Patrick will say things that we know aren’t true, but with which can’t really argue.”

I see no evidence that Workshop players in the US are “behind” those from other areas, as Workshops have won and continue to win here; it was not Meandeck MUD that won Hadley and Waterbury, but a modified version of MUD from the west coast adapted for the east coast metagame.  I also happen to believe, as Nick does, that Meandeck MUD is not a particularly good Workshop deck, and that in fact that deck is rather behind the curve itself, which is somewhat ironic.  The actual frame of the deck was reasonable back in March, when Ashok used it, but subsequently other, better Workshop decks have supplanted it (and the use of Serum Powder and Maze of Ith was clearly in use for months in Espresso Stax, so Steve is borrowing tech from the same players who are supposedly “behind their competitors when it comes to design ability”).  To use Vintage Champs as an example of why Workshop players need to “take their game to the next level” when most of the best Shop players didn’t even attend is sort of bold and unfair, and further, I think some Workshop “masters” might argue that in presenting Meandeck MUD as a “good” Shop deck, Steve is actually hurting Workshop experts by contradicting the information they are presenting as accurate, as he is supplanting their expert opinion with his own.

Pat and Owen are going to say what they’re going to say.  I have the utmost respect for both, even if I disagree on this specific point, but Workshop players don’t have some type of burden to change these men’s opinions.  Workshops are already winning and out-performing blue decks on a regular basis; it is up to other writers to challenge those two by providing evidence to refute their statements, not by going after the people who are already playing Shops and having success.  In suggesting that American Workshop players are an incompetent and stagnant lot who can neither design nor play their decks correctly, Steve is, to me, more reinforcing Pat and Owen than he is refuting them.

FWIW, Sperling’s comments on Shops were not the same as Pat’s and Owen’s.

[Marske]

@voltron00x,
The part about Steve's writing style, that's exactly what I wanted but couldn't (damn this non-native english thing) try and explain when I said:

I disagree. Steve, as much respect as he deserves for his accomplishments also has this one "flaw" so to say in the fact that he immediately declares himself an "expert" on every deck he writes about. Now, this is very logical seeing as that's what it takes to make articles interesting. Nobody likes ready: I have no clue wth this deck is supposed to do so I just wing this shit type articles (not saying this was one just trying to make a point)

Not that I think his style is bad or anything. Wonderfull stuf guys.

[Smmenen]

There is value in that article, and Steve has written several articles about MUD this year that have probably helped win some converts to Workshop decks, as well as helped counter the dismissive opinion of Workshops held by some other writers. In his defense, he has clearly invested significant time into the archetype this year.  I don’t want to dismiss the fact that Steve has gone out of his way to cover Shops and to defend them as a viable deck in the face of criticism, and has done so despite traditionally being known as more of a blue deck / combo player.  .

Thanks Matt.  

Most of what Steve writes is persuasive writing.  He is trying to win you over to his opinion, to see the way he sees the game as the correct one.  This isn’t surprising if you’ve read his non-MTG work or are aware of his profession and scholastic history.  Part of this style of writing involves writing from the position of an expert, and sometimes involves establishing the validity of that position, the reason why we should take this person’s voice as that of an expert opinion.  Another part is the breaking down of opposing viewpoints, sometimes very aggressively.  At times, this style of writing may offend, especially when that voice is also used in a public forum where the opinion of those with significantly more experience in a field are dismissed out of hand.

[/quote]

I definitely think that's part of what's going on here.   Most of the time's I've engaged in forum conversation with Nick -- this time included -- there are alot of appeals to authority.  Nick strikes me as someone who sees the world very differently than I do.  He cares alot about things like "respect," and, it is my sense, that he thinks there is an 'order to things,' and that certain people have a 'place.'   Of course, that's just my impression.   Every time i talk with him he usually talks about how someone is only qualified if they have put up the results that he regards with a particular archetype.  

Then, I usually say something like: I've won many pieces of power with Shops, and even helped innovate/develop the first Stax lists in the US, and point to my work from 2003 here where I practically invented modern stax.  

EDIT: I also don't think it's fair to say that I've dismissed his opinion out of hand.  I think I've done anything but - I've fully credited it, and then carefully reasoned against it, in one of the most careful articles I've ever written.

I'm going to try to parse out Nick's post, but from a first read, it reads mostly just like appeals to authority, which is not to say that I'm trying to dismiss his post, but I think it's part of his worldview.   I also don't find his arguments to be genuine on the basis (and, let's be honest, appeals to authority are all fallacies), because he credits Meadberts opinion that Null Rod is bad in Workshops, not because Meadbert has proven 'results,' but because he agreed with that viewpoint. 

 This is what happened in this case; Steve, in presenting himself as a Workshop expert, argued that he had a better understanding of Workshops than those who have lived and breathed them for years, and in fact argued that their experience was in some ways actually holding them back despite evidence to the contrary.

Minor quibble -- only partly true -- I'm trying to explain why certain players dismiss Workshop Aggro (and I'm not just talking about Juggernaut, but Workshop Aggro decks in general) on a sociological basis (see the footnotes), where I said:

**** There is a reason for this. The Vintage metagame has, at times, been so hostile that any card that doesn’t in some way prevent the opponent from ‘going off’ or disrupt them was viewed as suboptimal. Although Juggernauts saw play during the Trinisphere era, without the benefit of quad-laser Trinisphere, it was felt that every single card must play a role in the lock. Hence, the popularity of Workshop Control after the restriction of Trinisphere.

The irony is that every major printing in the last few years has pushed Workshops toward Aggro end of the spectrum. Thorn and Lodestone Golem both support and synergy more with an Aggro strategy over a more controlling strategy. Yet, the American Workshop masters have resisted the Aggro mode, preferring the Control mode.

Sociologically, I understand why this belief would exist. Aside from the incredible success that Workshop Aggro experienced in the Trinisphere era – with many SCG P9 crowns to its name – the pedigree of Workshop masters that emerged in the post-Trinisphere environment were, by and large, Smokestack pilots.

Thus, the crop of Workshop players that emerged in the last few years has been educated and tested by fire of a period in which "Stax" was the defining Workshop deck. Once Trinisphere was restricted, we saw an explosion in the creativity – and success – of Workshop pilots culminating in the 2005 Vintage Championship. But these lists were all Workshop Control lists, aka "Stax." This is the legacy of North American Vintage, a legacy that overshadows the Workshop school today.

While Workshop Aggro has proven incredibly successful in this period, that success has largely been restricted to Europe. In the second Gush era, Workshop pilots in Europe used Workshop Aggro variants, emboldened by the newly minted Thorn of Amethyst, to smash Gush pilots. Italians like David BeDuzzi made a name for themselves. Since the printing of Lodestone Golem, Europeans have taken to Workshop Aggro with even greater enthusiasm. Americans have not.

On the other hand, I am trying to explain that I think that my understanding of Shops is deep, particularly as I situate Workshops in the O'Brien School, and use that framing to explain my points.  That was one of the most important moves made in this article. Not to mention, as I just pointed out, I've been playing Workshops, frankly, for longer than Nick.   That doesn't mean I have more experience than he does, just that I have a longer view.

To frame this differently, it would be as if Nick presented himself as an expert on Gro and picked apart Steve’s Gro list, and then presented a “superior” version based on his theoretical understanding of the deck.  A person with knowledge of all of the players would know that Nick would be out of his element in arguing Steve on Gro, but an outsider may not pick up these nuances.

Consider this section:
“Matt Sperling, Patrick Chapin, and others all said that Shops were a bad choice. Having played Shops, I happen to agree, but not because Shops are bad. There is a very good chance that Michael Gouthro should have played Owen in the finals. He should have won game 1, and could have won game 2. And, if Jerome mulliganed unplayable hands, he may have kept Owen out of the Top 8. I completely understand the point that Owen and Bob are great Magic players, and outplayed their opponents, but the point I’m trying to drive home is that the mistake was not in playing Shops, it was in execution. There is a reason that there were three Workshop decks in the top 8, more than any other archetype.

This is a clarion call to Workshop players to step up, take responsibility, and tighten their game. Workshops, as an archetype, are far behind their competitors when it comes to design ability, mulliganing, and execution/technical skill. It’s time for the Workshop masters out there to take note of these videos, take their game to the next level, and teach other Workshop players how to do the same. Until then, people like Patrick will say things that we know aren’t true, but with which can’t really argue.”

I see no evidence that Workshop players in the US are “behind” those from other areas, as Workshops have won and continue to win here;

Keep in mind that I wrote this article before the Waterbury.   I couldn't have been happier to see Workshops win the Waterbury (except of course, had one of my teammates won it -- like Ashok or Brian).   The fact is that after Gencon, alot of people were bashing Shops.    I wrote this article as a defense, as you noted.

pquote]

it was not Meandeck MUD that won Hadley and Waterbury, but a modified version of MUD from the west coast adapted for the east coast metagame.
[/quote]

I agree, but it wasn't far off from the list that I ran at Gencon.   The main difference was - 4 Juggernaut + 4 other dudes, and -4 city, + 4 other lands.  It ran 8 men, with more in the board, and 2 Factories as well.   It was a hybrid, not a pure control deck.  And that's part of the point I was making in this article, no?   Just like my Gencon deck was.  

The point I want to make here, aside from simply showing the ancestry of this strategy, is to highlight a tension: is the O’Brien school an aggro or a control strategy? It’s both. The answer, it seems, has always been hybrid. Look the language used to describe this school once more:

My criticism of Nick and of the Workshop critics is that they are making the same mistake: they are essentializing what's good and what's not.   In the case of hte Workshop critics, they are saying that Workshops are bad, period.  In the case of Nick, he's saying that the only good workshop lists are Workshop Control, when I'm saying that he's fundamentally missing the point: it's not an either/or.   That's why I created the synergy map, and all of the text associated with that.

I spent this entire article arguing against both viewpoints on that basis.  

Workshops are already winning and out-performing blue decks on a regular basis;

But again, remember when this was written.   Yes, they won Hadley, and the Waterbury, and the blue bell since, but the broader Magic world simply saw the Vintage champs results.  Who, of the best Workshop pilots, wasn't at the Vintage Champs?

One last thing: i think it's a little bit funny that Nick argues that the American and European metagames are so distinct, and the basis for this distinction is the lack of proxies in Europe.   But, he doesn't account for the Vintage champs is proxy free, so that metagame would actually more resemble Europe, no?, by his logic.  

[voltron00x]

There's a lot of value to your writing on Workshops Steve, there really is.  I've expressed this to you privately as well.  Some of the stuff you've compiled has really impressed me from the viewpoint of a historian of the game, and I am really interested in that stuff.  To some extent I share what I perceive to be your desire to document these items in a lasting matter, so that this game – which I think we both believe is going to be around for a long time – has a sense of history and context that might otherwise be lost.  As I said, I don't want to take away from that work that you've done.  However, you really did take some shots at Shop players and the response shouldn’t be surprising, especially given that a lot of your statements are presented authoritatively (whether in the article or in the forums), but are unquestionably debatable items that are tied to the metagames in which the deck or card in question is being applied.  

I'm not sure I'd agree with Nick that the article wasn't yours to write, as that's a rather bold statement, but instead, I might say the appeal you made, as you made it, was probably not correct to make and probably not yours to make (to whatever degree that makes sense).  And, it is likely that is what provoked such a strong response.  

Intentionally or unintentionally (or, I suspect, both), you have a knack for pushing people's buttons and a strange ability to seem shocked at what is the obvious reaction from the parties whose buttons you have pushed.  Sadly, at times that may take away from some of the really impressive work that you’ve produced, especially your Vintage content this year.  It becomes, at times, very hard to divorce Stephen Menendian, author and player, from Stephen Menendian, forum agitator.  Thus, a debate on the work of the former becomes tied, emotionally, to the work of the latter.  I will readily admit that I have often struggled with this myself.

[Prospero]

I. Appeals to Authority:

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because  the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

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

Steve, if we are wrong to ask players who have had success with modern Shop builds, whom should we seek for advice in modern Shop builds?  Should we seek out those who have had no success then?  That would certainly not be an appeal to authority.

I have not introduced a non-entity and declared him the master of Workshops.  I have not called you wrong because you disagree with this non-entity.  I have referenced individuals who have consistently won with their decks.  I have called you wrong because results bear it out, and the individuals who have had success have done it with builds that are wildly different from Meandeck MUD.

II. Modern Shops:

This is rather interesting, as this seems related to the previous point.  You are introducing players who had success five, six, seven years ago as though they remain experts.  While they may have once been experts, they do not retain their status forever, but must prove themselves continually.  

Brian Weissman was a responsible for much of the modern theory of control.  Does this mean that I can plant him in the modern Standard metagame and expect him to do well because he has had past success?

I'm going to leave your comment about 'practically inventing Stax' alone, as I don't think it needs commentary from me.

III. Workshop Aggro:

You are continuing your argument under the same precepts, and I still believe them to be wrong.  

I am stating that the general failure of Shop Aggro builds in the United States is due to a different metagame than that of Europe, where they are successful.   You are asking for players to do something that is incorrect in the American metagame - pilot a deck that does not have the necessary tools to succeed on the biggest of stages in a wildly different metagame than that of Europe.

IV.  Length of Play:

I picked up Workshops in early 2003 and have played the pillar almost exclusively since then.  You haven't played Shops longer, but you wouldn't know that.  

Starting in 2003, and running through 2005, I ran local power tournaments on Long Island.  Of the 17 events that were run, I played in, and subsequently won, nine of them.  I won many of these tournaments running Workshops.

I 2005 I moved to Albany and played Workshops while there casually, as there was no tournament scene.

In 2007 I moved back to Long Island.  I returned to Vintage, and began working with Raffaele Forino on the early versions of N.Y.S.E. 5CStax in August of 2008.  I began playing in tournaments again in August of 2008.  

The tournaments I organized were not announced on TMD.  I posted on TMD, but did not speak of the events that I ran.  I won a fair amount of power running Keeper and B.B.S. from 2000-2003.  I don't reference my experience with Mana Drains from seven to 10 years ago as indicative of my fundamental understanding of how modern Drain decks are piloted/successful.

When I took down Mastriano at the Dan Herd Tournament, I did it with 100 matches of 5CStax vs. Remora Tezz under my belt.  It is impossible to know who has done the most Shop testing in the last few years, but I would imagine that I am towards the top of that list.

I don't talk about the Keeper vs. Suicide Black match, and I don't think that Duct Tape vs. Keeper is what anyone should be resting their laurels on, myself included.  The nine pieces of power that I won from 2003 through January 1st of 2005 are irrelevant now, because they're gone, and because they were won playing decks (and in metagames) that do not exist anymore.  

V. Joe Brown Stax:

We could quibble on the definition of an aggressive style deck, but I sincerely doubt that a deck that runs 8 creatures in the maindeck can be called Shop Aggro.  Fabian Moyschewitz runs 15 creatures in his European MUD Aggro deck.  

Additionally, Brown ran two Duplicants in the main, which are not a traditional Shop Aggro card, as they are responsive and not free standing threats of their own - but only threats when the opposing player has dropped creatures of their own.

VI.  Control vs. Aggro:

You state that I misunderstand the nature of Stax vs. Aggro.  I disagree with this.  Here's why you're wrong:

1.  Europe is a distinct metagame which demands its own response.
2.  America comprises a distinct metagame, which demands its own response.

You can say that the reason why Shop Aggro pilots have failed in the United States is that the Shop pilots that have taught them are Shop Prison pilots.  This ignores the results.  The results show that Shop Prison decks have been successful, consistently, whereas Shop Aggro decks, in turn, have been unable to maintain any degree of success (and have had none at major events recently) because they are incapable of doing it in the American metagame.  You are advocating something that has not happened, over the course of the last year, because it is not capable of happening.  Arguing against this merely evidences the fundamental understanding of the current American Shop metagame that you lack.

I have no interest in your maps, graphs, or charts, but in the results from tournaments, both American and European which show that you are incorrect here.  I would kindly refer you to a link that Vincent Forino linked you to a while ago:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286298065&sr=8-1

Results matter because they are a reflection of the metagame.  Your charts do not do this.

VII.  Workshop Pilots:

Of the best Workshop pilots that I know to have been missing at GenCon, Roland Chang is an obvious omission.  Robert Vroman, a Shop master, ran Iona Oath on that day, and thus, was 'missing', to a degree.  Oh, and I wasn't there either.  Given what I've done with the pillar in the last two years, I would love to discuss my competency as opposed to yours with Workshops.

VIII.  Gencon Results:

Where would one find the proper metagame breakdown for Vintage Champs Steve?  Where would I be able to determine how the metagames between Europe and America are so similar?  

The breakdown was never done, and Lord knows what has happened with the decklists since then.  How would you suggest we compare metagames with tournaments in which one breakdown is non-existant?

IX.  My points:

If you wish to continue this discussion, I would ask you to address the points that I made in my 2,804 word response to your article.

[Troy_Costisick]

I. Appeals to Authority:

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because  the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

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

The irony of defining the Appeal to Authority fallacy by citing Wikipedia of all things is not lost on me, Prospero.  Nice.

[madmanmike25]

A Workshop deck is not the same as a MUD deck.  Just like Fish with 4 FoW is not the same as Tezz with 4 Fow, or Oath with 4 FoW. 

MUD does run 4 Workshops, but isn't the same as 5c Stax or mono red Stax.  Period.  Mono Red Shop Aggro isn't the same as MUD Aggro.

My point?  Some of you haven't been playing MUD as long as you think you have....and who cares?  MUD was viable before the printing of Lodestone Golem when I was playing it, and it is even more viable now.

Saying you have played Workshops for years isn't exactly the same as playing MUD for all those years.  Sure it helps, but why should either of you claim 'Shop Superiority'????  Funny, I have been playing MUD(in addition to other decks, mostly Shops) for years and feel like there is so much to learn and so many directions you can take.  Yet I don't claim any greater skill with MUD and I'm willing to wager I've played more MUD than either of you, probably combined.  I just don't have the badass vintage scene to quote tournament results.  Doesn't mean I don't win the majority of the times I test against some of the same decklists as you guys though.

Personally I am happy to do well with MUD at my small, local events.  I really couldn't care less about the European meta as I do not play in Europe.  I have only played in America (Fuck Yeah!) so talking about oversees decks/results doesn't really help me fine tune my MUD list.

[Prospero]

I. Appeals to Authority:

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because  the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

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

The irony of defining the Appeal to Authority fallacy by citing Wikipedia of all things is not lost on me, Prospero.  Nice.

I have textbooks from college that say pretty much the same thing, but I wasn't about to type it all out. 

[erictehfatz0r]

Full Warning for spam. -DA

[Smmenen]

Nick,

It's amazing to me how you have transformed my view:

1) Workshop Aggro is not strictly inferior to Workshop Control, and in fact, it's a false binary

into:

2) Workshop Aggro and Meandeck MUD are the best Workshop decks

You have literally transformed my position into a position that does not even resemble mine.   It's the same thing in the thread that Meadbert started here .

My position is the contextual, flexible one, not the extreme one.   

My position is not, has never been, and was not that Null Rod and Juggernaut are optimal.   Rather, it's my disagreement with the position that they are always suboptimal.  

Saying: 1) Nul Rod and Juggernaut are not always wrong

Is not the same thing as:

2) Null Rod and Juggernaut are always correct.

My position is (1), and it's on that basis that I criticized Meadberts thread, but with which you expressed agreement.

In fact, you said, regarding the title of the thread :"Mud should play neither Null Rod nor Juggernaut"

The title of this thread is a bold, and correct, statement.  

That, despite the fact that Null Rod Workshop decks have since performed quite well.  In fact, the Waterbury winning list ran Null Rod.  So much for the idea that Null Rod shouldn't EVER be run in Mud, huh?  

So much for all of the evidence supporting your position, huh?   You consistently cite American tournament results in support of your views, and in an attempt to say that my views are wrong, but if we actually look at those results, the results support my position, not yours, despite your attempt to distort my position.

For example, Workshop Aggro decks are bad?   You say they are.   And you further say:

 This ignores the results.  The results show that Shop Prison decks have been successful, consistently, whereas Shop Aggro decks, in turn, have been unable to maintain any degree of success (and have had none at major events recently) because they are incapable of doing it in the American metagame.  You are advocating something that has not happened, over the course of the last year, because it is not capable of happening.  Arguing against this merely evidences the fundamental understanding of the current American Shop metagame that you lack.

But this is clearly wrong.

Obvious counter examples:

1) Rich Myests performance at the Waterbury, finishing first in the swiss, with Mono Red Workshop Aggro.  His list is here .  

2) Evan with a 9 creature Workshop Aggro hybrid (he had 9 creatures + 4 Factories maindeck) here

3) The HIGHEST placing Workshop deck at Vintage Worlds was not a Workshop Control deck, but a Workshop Aggro/Combo hybrid, decklist here .  He had 11 creatures maindeck with Sword of Fire and Ice!  

So much for all of the evidence showing that Workshop Aggro sucks?

You state that I misunderstand the nature of Stax vs. Aggro.

You do.  And I'll try to explain why again in a moment.

I disagree with this.  Here's why you're wrong:

1.  Europe is a distinct metagame which demands its own response.
2.  America comprises a distinct metagame, which demands its own response.

Whaterver metagame differences that may or may not exist have nothing to do with your misunderstanding.

Your position is that Workshop Control is strictly better than Workshop Aggro.

My position is twofold: 1) this is too essentializing and 2) is a false binary.   It's my view you are view wrong for both reasons.

It's too essentializing because it's acontextual.  Sometimes Workshop Aggro is not strictly inferior.  Sometimes, it's superior.   It's a false binary because you give too much credit to Workshop Control, when really, the archetype is, at its nature, a hybird.

I addressed both points in turn, carefully presented:

Both the Workshop Control players and the anti-Workshop players are making the same mistake. It’s a conceptual stumbling block that is keeping Workshops from reaching their full potential on this continent. It’s this belief: that there is one optimal way to build a Workshop deck. The application of this belief that Workshop Aggro is strictly (or largely) inferior to Workshop Control.****

Workshop players approach building an optimal Workshop deck like it’s an abstract problem. So many Magic players make this mistake! Optimality is a deeply contextual question, built upon the interrelationship of two elements: 1) internal synergies and 2) the external metagame.

Workshop components/lock parts sit in a complex web of interactions and synergies, and there are many synergies to choose from in building a Workshop deck. Let me try and make this point visually. We can diagram the synergy relationships between lock parts. Here is a synergy map that diagrams the synergies and relationships between the 10 most common Workshop-powered lock parts/spells:



On the left side of the map are the cards you are more likely to find in Workshop Aggro. On the right side of the map are cards you are more likely to find in Workshop Control. Lodestone Golem appears in both modes, and since it’s the most recent printing, I put it in the center of the map.

Each connecting line represents a synergy. The thicker the line, the stronger the synergy. For example, Smokestack and Crucible are strongly synergistic. Crucible allows a Smokestack to stay in play indefinitely. Thorn of Amethyst and Lodestone Golem/Juggernaut are strongly synergistic, for obvious reasons. Not every MUD component or synergy is mapped here; rather, I only included enough to illustrate my point.

The point is simple: there is no such thing as an objectively optimal Workshop list. We need to get beyond the misconception that we are moving towards an ‘optimal list.’ The MUD pilot may select from a mixture of optional synergies, and these options can be configured in many different ways, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses. The synergies that are optimal is a metagame question.

Null Rod may be powerful in the one metagame and weaker in another. Consequently, the strength of Juggernaut waxes and wanes along similar lines, since it is synergistically paired with Null Rod. Similarly, the stronger Crucible is in your metagame (say, for example, you are in a heavy Fish or Workshop metagame), the better Smokestack will be in your deck, and your metagame on account of its relationship to Crucible. Thus, the relationship between internal synergies and the external metagame is the critical dynamic, and a complicated one.

Another example: Sculpting Steel is amazing with Lodestone Golem. But the shift to Nature’s Claim that I anticipated at the Vintage Champs makes Sculpting Steel worse (Ironically, Sculpting Steel is better against Trygon Predator).

One lesson from this is that you can’t simply look at cards in isolation, as is the common tendency. You can’t take out one card and replace it with another, like tires on a car, without affecting all of those interactions. For example, try to compare Juggernaut to Smokestack, a comparison that is all too often (sadly) made.

If you are running Crucible of Worlds and Goblin Welders, Juggernaut sucks. Those cards are much better with Smokestack. This is one reason why a lot of American Shop Control players think Juggernaut is so bad: they run Welders and Crucible. Juggernaut synergizes poorly with cards they like to play.

More importantly, this is also why they think Null Rod is so weak. Null Rod is a very powerful lock part, but if you don’t run Juggernaut, then it’s much harder to understand why Null Rod is good. Null Rod is completely asymmetrical when you have a Juggernaut in play, and painfully too symmetrical when you don’t.

The synergy map shows how cards are synergistically bonded or paired. Juggernaut and Null Rod are strongly synergistic; they are paired. Stack and Crucible are synergistically paired. If you run Metalworker, then you probably have enough creatures to support Sword of Fire and Ice. Metalworker and SOFI are synergistically paired. And so on.

All of that text, which was NOT statistical in nature, but logical in nature (meaning that it was reasoning, not mathmatical), was aimed at the first issue: that you are being too essentializing.  I bolded the most important parts for emphasis here.  

But then I shifted gears, and argued that the Aggro/Control binary is a false one (again, bold parts highlighted for importance):

Schools of Magic: The O’Brien School

I think we could all benefit if we collectively recognized what Workshop decks really are: they are the modern application of the O’Brien School, from Robert Hahn’s famous "Schools of Magic."

The description of this school is very short, but according to Robert Hahn, the key card is Nether Void. Nether Void is the first "Sphere" ever printed – it’s the first card that makes every spell ‘cost more’ to play.***** Here’s what Robert Hahn had to say about this ‘School’:

Quite simply, as the Weissman and Handelman decks operate under the principle that "If you don't have any cards, you can't play," the O'Brien deck operates under the principle that "If you don't have any mana, you can't play."

The O'Brien deck is a simple, straightforward land destruction deck in Type I. It lays down an early threat -- a Juzam, a Juggernaut, Black Vise, or Mishra’s Factory -- then tries to put down a Nether Void as quickly as possible. The result is that defense against the threats becomes virtually impossible, as a Swords to Plowshares will cost W3. Since the O'Brien deck keeps on destroying land and artifact mana, it becomes rather difficult to climb out of the hole.

Type 1: Mono-Black with a touch of Blue

4 Juzam Djinn
4 Black Vise
2 Juggernauts
4 Mishra’s Factories

4 Sinkholes
2 Icequakes
4 Strip Mines

3 Nether Voids
1 Xenic Poltergeist (kills Moxen, primarily)
3 Mana Vaults
2 Arenas

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Timetwister
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Zuran Orb
1 Underworld Dreams

1 Sol Ring
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
10 Swamps
2 Underground Rivers
4 Underground Seas

Sideboard:
4 Glooms
1 Arena
2 Xenic Poltergeists
2 Sengir Vampires
2 Dry Spells
4 Evil Presence

The O'Brien deck is a very proactive deck. It has no defense save land destruction and mana deprivation.

The basic operation is simple. Strip Mines, Sinkhole, Icequake, etc. take out opponent's mana sources. Nether Void increases the mana gap, which the continuous land destruction maintains. In the meantime, the Mana Vaults provide the O'Brien deck with the ability to cast its spells (every other turn, at least) and the Mishra's Factories can pound away without fear. The Black Vise adds huge early round damage potential.

Nether Void is the first "sphere" effect ever printed, unless you also count Winter Orb. (Winter Orb is more like Tangle Wire or Smokestack, in that it’s an artifact that helps with mana denial, but it doesn’t make spells cost more directly, just indirectly by requiring more resources.)

The description of the school is a near perfect description of what modern Workshop decks do, although the card names are different. Instead of land destruction spells, we now use Spheres. Instead of Strip Mine, Sinkhole, Icequake, and Nether Void, we play Wasteland/Crucible, Sphere of Resistance, Thorn of Amethyst, Chalice of the Void, Tangle Wire, and Smokestack.

The reason that the O’Brien school was largely mono black was because 1) Mishra’s Workshop was restricted during the formative time in which this school emerged, and 2) Sphere of Resistance wasn’t printed until 1997. If Workshops had been unrestricted, the O’Brien school may have looked quite different.

The point I want to make here, aside from simply showing the ancestry of this strategy, is to highlight a tension: is the O’Brien school an aggro or a control strategy? It’s both. The answer, it seems, has always been hybrid. Look the language used to describe this school once more:

Quite simply, as the Weissman and Handelman decks operate under the principle that "If you don't have any cards, you can't play," the O'Brien deck operates under the principle that "If you don't have any mana, you can't play."

The O'Brien deck is a simple, straightforward land destruction deck in Type I. It lays down an early threat -- a Juzam, a Juggernaut, Black Vise, or Mishra -- then tries to put down a Nether Void as quickly as possible. The result is that defense against the threats becomes virtually impossible, as a Swords to Plowshares will cost W3. Since the O'Brien deck keeps on destroying land and artifact mana, it becomes rather difficult to climb out of the hole.

The first paragraph describes a control (prison) strategy. The second paragraph describes a tempo strategy. This duality exists in Workshops today.

Take a look at the MUD list at the beginning of this article. It applies the principles described in the first paragraph. It uses Smokestacks, Null Rods, Spheres, and Wastelands to lock the opponent out of the game. Because every spell in the deck is a permanent, a Smokestack set at 1 will eventually wipe out your opponents board, but you can keep it around indefinitely.

But, the same list applies the principles described in the second paragraph, of "laying down an early threat, and then putting down a ‘Nether Void,’ as soon as possible. In fact, just like O’Brien’s deck, my MUD list uses some of the same creatures, like Juggernauts! Instead of Nether Void, Sinkhole and Icequake, though, we use other lock parts, but the principle is the same! The idea with Juggernaut is to play a threat, and then rewind the game each turn with spells that are, in effect, Time Walks. Both Nether Void and MUD’s lock parts create a tempo advantage, such that they can’t "climb out of the hole" in time – meaning that they can’t answer the threat before losing.

Consider this sequence:

Turn 1:
Mox, Workshop, Juggernaut, Chalice of the Void
Opponent: Land, go

Turn 2:
Sphere of Resistance
Opponent: Land, go

Turn 3:
Wasteland the opponent
Opponent: Land, go

Turn 4:
Tangle Wire

Turn 5: Win.

Each play rewound the game one turn. Turn 1 Chalice prevents the opponent from accelerating out beyond one land a turn.

On turn 2, Sphere virtually rewound the game one turn by setting both players back one mana, which is all the opponent had available so far. In a sense, it rewound the game back to the first turn, except you shaved off a quarter of their life.

On turn 3, you Wasteland the opponent, rewinding the game, once again, back to turn one!

Finally, on turn 4, Tangle Wire rewinds the game back to turn one, and will do enough to win the game the next turn.

It’s not a coincidence that two of the main victory conditions in the O’Brien school, Juggernaut and Mishra’s Factory, are common in modern MUD. Factory is a great example of playing both roles: it’s a mana source that helps you play lock parts, but then it can win the game once your opponent is "in the Void," so to speak. It’s a card that serves both roles.

If we simply came to grips with the fact that contemporary Workshop decks are the modern incarnation of the O’Brien School, it would give us a clearer sense of what these decks are really about. We’d understand that the Aggro/Control dichotomy is not a sharp one, and in the process, I think it would help resolve a lot of the disagreements we have about them, both among Workshop players and within the broader Vintage community. It would help us move beyond the arguments over whether Workshop Aggro is an inferior approach, and have a better appreciation (and respect) for what Workshops are trying to accomplish.

[/b]

It's really just this simple:

You believe that Workshop Aggro is strictly inferior to Workshop Control.

 I disagree for two reasons.  First, I think that the pairs of synergies and the external metagame define that question.    Secondly, I think it's a false way of looking at Shops, since the dichtomy is not as sharp as you suggest.   And it's overly essentializing on both counts.   it's a mirror of the same error that non-Workshop players who criticize Workshop carry.  

The bulk of your responses are basically misleading, by suggesting that my position is different from what it clearly is.   I laid out my position very clearly in this article, such that no one can misunderstand it, but you have done a good job at misrepresenting it.   Furthermore, the bulk of your counter arguments are either 1) factual wrong, 2) attacks on meandeck mud, which is irrelevant to the issue, 3) appeals to authority (i.e. saying that I'm not an authority and therefore my opinion is invalid, 4) arguing that Workshop aggro is bad because of the European v. American metagame, which, you claim, is different because of proxies, yet fail to acknowledge that the Vintage champs doesn't use proxies.   Nor, on this count, have you explained why Workshop Aggro decks like Rich Myests have succeeded, or Gouthro's, or many others like them, despite your claims to the contrary.  

I'm not sure I'd agree with Nick that the article wasn't yours to write, as that's a rather bold statement, but instead, I might say the appeal you made, as you made it, was probably not correct to make and probably not yours to make (to whatever degree that makes sense).

My statement is that Workshop Aggro is not always inferior to Workshop Control, and that, really, the dichotomy is not as sharp as Nick suggested.     I never once said: I am correct because I am a Workshop expert.  I implied that I was correct because my reasoning was strong, not on some appeal to authority, which I believe is a fallacy in such a context.  So, to that extent, I'm not sure where Markse or you are coming from.  I never once said that my argument was correct because I'm an authority.  The validity of my argument hinges upon the logic I advance, not my authority.  This is true regardless of what I'm talking about in Magic.

Intentionally or unintentionally (or, I suspect, both), you have a knack for pushing people's buttons and a strange ability to seem shocked at what is the obvious reaction from the parties whose buttons you have pushed.  Sadly, at times that may take away from some of the really impressive work that you’ve produced, especially your Vintage content this year.  It becomes, at times, very hard to divorce Stephen Menendian, author and player, from Stephen Menendian, forum agitator.  Thus, a debate on the work of the former becomes tied, emotionally, to the work of the latter.  I will readily admit that I have often struggled with this myself.

And, I'm definitely willing to admit this as a personal failing.   I remember one time sending you a PM specifically about emotionality.  As a student of human behavior, I definitely know that the Brain is not a rationale organ, but an emotional one.  (See Marvin Minksy's book, the Emotion machine).   Our politics demonstrates this -- it is less about rationale discourse than emotional attachment, identity, etc.  And I realize that every single argument is always filtered through an emotional lens: how someone feels about the person making the argument, or how those arguments make people feel.  

I've always hoped -- naively -- that people can disconnect their feelings about me or the way in which I advance my arguments from the content of my arguments.   It's this that's caused me to rub many people the wrong way.   When I was in college, I was an RA, and as part of my RA training, we were told: Respond to content, not emotions.   Yet, I know that I definitely have provoked Nick in the past.  It wasn't intentional.   But I know, after getting to know him somewhat from his online persona, that he sees the world VERY differently then I do.   He cares alot about respect, and perception, etc, especially within the Vintage community.  I don't trot out my team's accomplishments, like the fact that Roland Chang, Kevin Cron, etc are on my team, or the fact that the creator of MUD was on my team, Arthur Tindemans.  But he puts alot of stock in things like that.  

I told him via PM before that alot of miscommunication between NIck and myself occurs because of the very different way we look at the world.  ALot of the times things I say as matter of fact or in the midst of a debate he sees as very personal.   They are not intended or to be taken as such.   That's why, as I understand it, he's tried to mend those bridges by 'getting a drink,' i.e. showing a sign of respect.   I already respect Nick as a player and a leader in the Vintage community.  I'm sorry that my posts sometimes come accross as aggressive/harsh.   They are not intended to be disrespectful.   I separate, perhaps wrongly, in my mind, my arguments from my views of people, and things that I view as in one domain bleed into the other.   This is my perhaps, tragic, character flaw.   Sometimes I simply do not realize the effect I have, nor the position/place I have, and how the things I say affect people at that level.    Although, I think people who actually meet me and interact with me in person know who I really am, and that I'm not that way.  

[Prospero]

@Steve

I.  Null Rod/Juggernaut and Divergent Metagames

At the beginning of my true response to this thread, I discussed proxies vs. no proxies in the European and American metagames.  I, furthermore, discussed how the advent of a proxy metagame in the United States has fundamentally made it impossible for the European and American metagames to be as similar as you have declared them to be.

Why would I start on this note?

Because, as I said several times in my post, proxies mean that decks that players could not normally afford are now theirs, just as, in Europe, if you can’t afford the cards, you can’t run what you want, no matter how much you pine for it.

This, in turn, has made the European environment more aggressive than the American environment in certain regards.  

You still have yet to answer the following: if you were preparing for a tournament in which as much as 30% of the field was expected to be running an aggressive, creature based, strategy, would you build the same deck as you would for a metagame that featured 15% less of the aforementioned strategies?  Or, would you, accepting that the decks that you expected to run into were fundamentally different, run something that was better prepared to fight this budget/unpowered metagame?  We have all made fun of decks like Goblins in the United States, but I am sure that our European friends prepare for such a match, as it is one that they can expect.

Why do I keep bringing this up?  Because, to reiterate, I believe this is the crux of this whole debate.  Playing in Europe does not necessitate creating a hard lock.  In Europe you are able to create a soft lock, drop some beaters, and swing in for the win.  The presence of proxies in the United States, and American players willingness to play decks that are anything but the underpowered/budget decks that the Null Rod/Juggernaut decks have positive matches for means that cards like Null Rod and Juggernaut are not as good in the U.S. as they are in Europe.  

You have ignored my comment that Europe and the United States are diverse, separate metagames.  They are independent enough that a deck like MUD Aggro, which is a top player in Europe, is not a top player in the United States.  People have been playing Juggernaut, Metalworker, and other aggressive cards.  People have also been playing Stax based cards.  The Stax based cards have won in the United States.  The Aggro cards have won in Europe.  Null Rod and Juggernaut are not optimal in the United States because some of their best matches are missing from the metagame.  

N.Y.S.E. XI featured 87% of decks with power, N.Y.S.E. X featured 92%, N.Y.S.E. IX featured 92% as well.  BoM featured 28% decks that were underpowered/budget.  This drastic difference gives us a clear understanding that the metagames are not the same.  If the metagames are not the same, then cards that would be good in one metagame may not be good in another.  If we have some cards that are better in one metagame, a response meant to counter popular strategies in one metagame may be a poor idea in another.  

II. Defining Stax vs. Aggro

I do not know Rich Meyst, but I did see that he made top 16 of the event.  He was, however, also eliminated in his first round of elimination.  I don’t see how this evidences that Shop Aggro is a good strategy for a large event.  That’s a fair enough result at a 125 man tournament, but I would caution you that the two MUD decks that top 8’d were both either straight prison builds, or their spiritual heir.

Evan Hundertmark’s deck also runs a full playset of Smokestacks.  To call it Shop Aggro is disingenuous.  Evan ran neither Null Rod nor Juggernaut.

I see neither Null Rods nor Juggernauts in Michael Gouthro’s deck.  Metalworker does give it a European feel, but you also saw Vincent Forino in top 8  

Shop Aggro does suck in the United States nearly all the time, because proxies have created a metagame that would not exist otherwise, and the decks that Null Rod and Juggernaut are good in have a difficult time beating things like Trygon Predator, or TPS, or Oath over the course of a full day (let alone something like Dredge) and cannot prey on decks that don’t exist in the American metagame.  

III.  Shop Superiority

I never claimed that Stax was the best strategy across the board, just that Stax is generally the right strategy when playing in the United States.  This is because of the decks that a Shop pilot must fight over the course of a full event.  Shop Aggro is a fine choice in Europe, where you will play against players running things that would not survive in the U.S.

Consider this metagame breakdown:

Workshops:

8 Stax
3 MUD

Combo:

4 Drain Tendrils
3 TPS
1 ANT
1 Belcher
1 Elves
1 Dragon

Mana Drains:

7 Tezzeret
1 Mono-U Control

Oath:

6 Oath

Bazaars:

5 Dredge

Null Rods:

2 Goblins
1 Noble Fish
1 Dark Times
1 Euro Madness
1 Cats!

Consider this scenario: you have been given this full metagame breakdown, and you are going to play in this tournament.  You have two choices: Shop Aggro or Stax.  You will be able to metagame the deck however you choose.

I had a rough idea what the field was going to be like for this tournament, as this was N.Y.S.E. VIII, and I had a rough idea of both who was showing and what they were going to be playing.  I took my Espresso Stax deck and I changed a few, small things.  Like the presence of the fourth Crucible of Worlds in the maindeck and the presence of Powder Kegs in the maindeck.  

Then I lent my deck out to the guy who won the tournament.

Espresso Stax, slightly metagamed for the Shop match proved to be a very good call that day.  I believe that a Shop Aggro deck that crutched on Null Rods and Juggernauts would not have been.  Furthermore, while there were more players at this event than my standard tournament, we still had a representative day in terms of the metagame in New York (and I believe the U.S.).  

What would you have built to play in that field, that featured Null Rods and Juggernauts, to beat what you knew to be out there?

IV.  My Beliefs

I believe that Stax, as it is currently constructed, is a much better choice for the American metagame than Shop Aggro is.  Results would back me up on this, as more controlling MUD decks have been the true powerhouse of American Workshops in the recent past.

I have a friend by the name of Corey Mann.  He’s a genuinely good guy, and a very solid player.  He played in Pro Tour Austin, has done well at Waterbury in the past (I believe he top 4’d) and has top 8’d several of my events (both from 2003-2005 and, now, 2009 through present).  Corey is an aficiondo of Goblins, and when he has done well in Vintage, it has been running this deck.  He catches players unprepared, and he generally does well.  Do you believe that Goblins is a better choice in the United States than it is in Europe?  Do you believe that Corey is not forced to respond to a metagame that would not exist in Europe because of proxies?  Do you believe that his performances would be the same on either continent?

The metagames are different, the cards that one metagame features another may lack, and the deck choices in turn are different – all because of proxies.

V.  In Conclusion

I am a man with faults, and I will readily admit that.  In our first discussions on TMD I was more emotional with you than I am now because I did take what you wrote as effrontery.  I don’t know that you and I are ever going to agree on this, but I felt it important to put my opinions on the matters out there, as I don’t believe that you’re leading neophyte Shop pilots in the right direction.

Still, there is no vitriol in what I’ve written, and I can now appreciate that there is none in what you’ve written as well.