I have tens of thousands of dollars into cards that I can't play, because the pillar I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on can't compete like it could a year ago.
Workshops aren't fine, and they're not going to be fine until something is done, but the majority of Vintage players play blue, so it's only ever going to be an unpopular position among a few people while we watch the rest of the format play their blue spells.
I am not trying to provoke here, but am genuinely curious if you still hold this view. After all, Workshops just won another major event (the Waterbury). It's now won the two largest and most prestigious USA Vintage tournaments held this year, after the restriction of Golem. And, it didn't just win the event, but by at least some accounts (like those @Montolio gave), it was at the top tables all day, and placed multiple players in the top 8 and 9th place).
As I said just 14 days ago:
Personally, I don't feel that it was a flash in the pan. I think Montolio has to be a near odds-on favorite piloting Workshops at any event in the near future... Workshops aren't dead; and they certainly aren't unplayable. If Montolio could win back to back major tournaments just 50 days ago, I think he's more than capable of doing it again.
The only thing I got wrong was that Montolio ended up in 9th (losing a win-and-in), and Will won the tournament instead
If Workshops "can't compete" or isn't viable (or "fine"), then what would it actually take to prove to you that it is? I mean, it's difficult to imagine how it could have done much better. If Workshops win the Vintage championship will you be convinced? What would it take?
Having all of the decklists from this available is a cool way to see exactly how 157 Vintage players approached one of the biggest and most prestigious events of the year, by seeing exactly how they each built their decks. Thanks again to Matt and Ryan for all of their hard work on this. Enjoy!
@Aaron-Patten something i would like to say about the classification of decks is that while what cards are in it are important, i think how the deck plays is the best way to classify them, the best example i can think of is if a sylvan mentor deck were playing a single mana drain dosnt make it a mana drain deck. i think thats what you meant as one of the more involved ways but i still wanted to put that out there.
I feel like my deck was unfavored in the finals. @diophan had a better "card advantage" gameplan. Its hard to win the control game vs 4 cabal therapy + 1 fluster/1pyroblast even though I also had alot of counters. My mentor build is/was not that fast.
I really like @diophan 's deck and I think he played well in our games. He deserved to win this thing imo.
@Macdeath I'm pretty sure playing the Mindbreak Traps is unneeded atm. While there are decks that will kill you turn one, they rarely do so and you have lots of discard for them. I still believe we should have at least 3 hurkyl's recall type effects avaliable, you just need to at least draw or see one against shops or eldrazi. But I think I'd change 1 of them into another Chain of Vapor or a Echoing Truth. It is possible that 4 Ancient Tomb are a bit too many, and you could shave one to get another SB slot. I doubt you want to skimp on having dredge hate, so I still think the Ravenous Traps are fine because you don't really want to play Leylines or any other one shot effect in my opinion. Anything that removes our graveyard is annoying, and we're likely not siding in any in a mirror match anyway. Grafdiggers' would be good in the mirror and vs oath, but we'd be neutering ourselves a lot.
This leaves me with -1 Tomb, -1 Hurkyl/Rebuild, -2 Mindbreak Trap. So what would I add? I'd probably add 1 Toxic Deluge, 2 Dread of Night and 1 Chain of Vapor/Echoing Truth.
Our weak matchup is probably any shop / thalia deck. We should be able to compete with dredge in speed and especially with traps. Blue control should be okay, so having more catch all answers is decent. 1 Toxic Deluge is probably okay because it can deal with an onslaught of merfolk lords, multiple hate bears and eldrazi's. It should buy a bit of time. I could also see it being another Dread of Night. The reason I want Dread of Night over say, Massacre is because eldrazi often don't need to play a plains to deploy they hatebears.
The way we have our spreadsheets written is that they deal exclusively in wins - The number of match wins Shops has against Gush is the number of match losses Gush has against Shops and so counting losses is somewhat redundant. Doing this, I guess Draws would count as losses for both parties, but the net result is that the match isn't counted as no winner was determined.
If you were to count wins and losses separately and include draws as losses you would depress the overall win percentage of the field (using our method, the number of wins is always equal to the number of losses so the overall win % will be 50% - counting draws as losses means there will be more losses than wins and the overall win percentage will be less as a result). This will also disproportionately affect certain archetypes as Ryan mentioned. There isn't one correct way to do statistical analysis, though. Just whatever you do, I would mention it.