@garbageaggro said in Workshop Aggro:

I am starting to be interested in the workshops archetype, I have been playing various blue, hatebears, and eldrazi decks in vintage for years, but I haven't worked much in the Mishra's personal playroom. I am grateful for this over-arching primer (thanks @Brass-Man !), but I don't understand why this archetype hasn't gotten more love. As far as I know, there are many different approaches to Shops from different folks in the community, but there are basically know focused primers on different versions of the deck. Any chance I could call upon those folks to write up some specifics about what makes THEIR shops different and better/worse than other versions?

PM me and I'd be happy to discuss my ideas and experiences

@hierarchnoble said in Workshop Aggro:

@garbageaggro said in Workshop Aggro:

I am starting to be interested in the workshops archetype, I have been playing various blue, hatebears, and eldrazi decks in vintage for years, but I haven't worked much in the Mishra's personal playroom. I am grateful for this over-arching primer (thanks @Brass-Man !), but I don't understand why this archetype hasn't gotten more love. As far as I know, there are many different approaches to Shops from different folks in the community, but there are basically know focused primers on different versions of the deck. Any chance I could call upon those folks to write up some specifics about what makes THEIR shops different and better/worse than other versions?

You'd be better off actually calling them. The high-profile Workshop players in my area (Ryan Glackin, Nicholas Dijohn, etc.) don't use TMD.

Ryan G. did say a while back he was going to write an NYSE report for TMD, but I haven't seen it thus far.

But the issue is more general than that. If you are a top Shop pilot, there isn't much to gain by presenting your arguments for one configuration over another. Shop pilots iterate their decks from event to event, and that can happen quite frequently now that there are weekly Vintage challenges. So, not only would any presentation of pros and cons likely be quickly obsoleted, but it's often going to be self-defeating.

@garbageaggro If you are really curious about Shop variants, then I recommend doing a data analysis yourself.

Step 1: pull all of the top performing Shop decks, say, every Shop deck since the restriction in events of 33 or more players.

Step 2: tally the card choices (there aren't that many).
Here's an example of how you can do it: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/10983_Stax_Dissected.html

Step 3: try to analyze which card choices are better in specific matchups, and to identify particular synergies. that is, look for patterns to see which cards tend to be paired together, and what they are being played against.

There are probably no more than 50 artifacts & eldrazi that see more than marginal play in Workshop decks (and probably no more than 100 that see play at all), and around 10 or so unrestricted cards that are most frequently played (Revoker, Sphere, Ravager, Ballista, Wire, etc.).

I aggregated a list of every artifact/colorless spell played in MUD a while back, so you can see this list for reference: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15408_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Building_a_Better_Beatdown_MUD.html

But unless you specifically ask someone like Montolio about a specific card, I don't really think a general call for MUD experts to present and justify their choices is likely to bear fruit. You are better off analyzing a player's list to try to understand their thinking.

Although I haven't put much effort into Workshops this year, my observation is that Foundry Inspector variants tend to predominate at the top tables. Although underestimated when printed, Foundry Inspector appears to be the combination of offense, utility, and tempo enabler that makes it pretty common T1 threat. For example, with a Workshop, a Mox, and a Sphere effect (Thorn, Sphere or Chalice), Foundry Inspector does a passable Lodestone impression, generating a tempo threat that is difficult to race. At the same time, he makes Ballistas larger and faster and helps in the mirror match.

Similarly, the brutal combo of Ravager and Ballista is ubiquitous, largely rendering Hangarback and Trike to secondary roles, if they are present at all.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen Ryan Glackin says that he's not really a writer, but he's talking with James Hangley to ghost write it for him. It'll probably be a double header at this point since he won EE7 as well.

@smmenen said in Workshop Aggro:

nd that can happen quite frequently now that there are weekly Vintage challenges. So, not only would any presentation of pros and cons likely be quickly obsoleted, but it's often going to be self-defeating.
@garbageaggro If you are really curious about Shop variants, then I recommend doing a data analysis yourself.
Step 1: pull all of the top performing Shop decks, say, every Shop deck since the restriction in events of 33 or more players.
Step 2: tally the card choices (there aren't that many).
Here's an example of how you can do it: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/10983_Stax_Dissected.html
Step 3: try to analyze which card choices are better in specific matchups, and to identify particular synergies. that is, look for patterns to see which cards tend to be paired together, and what they are being played against.
There are probably no more than 50 artifacts & eldrazi that see more than marginal play in Workshop decks (and probably no more than 100 that see play at all), and around 10 or so unrestricted cards that are most frequently played (Revoker, Sphere, Ravager, Ballista, Wire, etc.).
I aggregated a list of every artifact/colorless spell played in MUD a while back, so you can see this list for reference: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15408_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Building_a_Better_Beatdown_MUD.html
But unless you specifically ask someone like Montolio about a specific card, I don't really think a general call for MUD experts to present and justify their choices is likely to bear fruit. You are better off analyzing a player's list to try to understand their thinking.
Although I haven't put much effort into Workshops this year, my observation is that Foundry Inspector variants tend to predominate at the top tables. Although underestimated when printed, Foundry Inspector appears to be the combination of offense, utility, and tempo enabler that makes it pretty common T1 threat. For example, with a Workshop, a Mox, and a Sphere effect (Thorn, Sphere or Chalice), Foundry Inspector does a passable Lodestone impression, generating a tempo threat that is difficult to race. At the same time, he makes Ballistas larger and faster and helps in the mirror match.
Similarly, the brutal combo of Ravager and Ballista is ubiquitous, largely rendering Hangarback and Trike to secondary roles, if they are present at all.

So, honestly, I have been playing vintage for a number of years, and can figure it out, but part of the thing I am trying to do, is help to make the threads on TMD useful for people new to archetypes. I do have questions for shops players, but I also know a lot of them in Ohio, that being said, my learning of the archetype (not all the subtle nuances), in my mind, might be helpful to new players to vintage that happen upon TMD. However, if the established players say, "I recommend doing a data analysis yourself" then that is a pretty substantial barrier to someone new to the format. I appreciate the welcoming nature of many of the people I interact with at vintage tournaments, but once again I am reminded of how unwelcoming the online community can be. This only hurts vintage.

I would LOVE if someone wrote a tournament report for their 4-1 league run with a Workshop deck. What was your 75? How did you sideboard? What went wrong in that loss? Will this drive you to iterate a change for your next league?

@the_gremlin_lord said in Workshop Aggro:

I would LOVE if someone wrote a tournament report for their 4-1 league run with a Workshop deck. What was your 75? How did you sideboard? What went wrong in that loss? Will this drive you to iterate a change for your next league?

I agree. Especially the SB tech. I've been very curious about how people have been bringing in/out cards in the various matchups.

@garbageaggro

I've been grappling with the dichotomy between wanting to help newer players and not wanting to hurt myself as well as my brother's in arms. The past 8 years have seen me learn, grow and evolve as a Workshop pilot. I could not have gotten to the place where I am now without the help of others and so I feel an urge to spread the good word of Mishra, but I don't think posting on TMD is the best medium.

I have spent countless hours thinking about Workshops, tried some really awful ideas out and obsessively focused on my sequencing, mulligan decisions and sideboarding. The problem is that by sharing my insights I may dull the edge that I have sharpened because anyone can read what I or anyone else posts, Workshop pilot or not.

While I don't want to give up my advantage, the bigger thing to me is to not give up the competitive advantage that my friends have created, especially when I am still borrowing some of their technology. A lot of the secrets I have found are not mine to give away.

My general advice to someone getting into Workshops is:

  1. Understand why you won and why you lost. If you're consistently losing to the same thing or things, you need to adapt.

  2. Don't get complacent. Even if you think your deck is 75/75 perfect try to anticipate the next change and go from there.

  3. Workshops are a hate deck. If you don't know what you're going to be fighting it's hard to make sure you have the right tools.

  4. Pay attention to as many of the details as you can. Understand what hands are winners and what are losers, analyze the sequencing of your plays and look at how you physically respond to your opponent and try to mask your emotions. Goldfishing is great for getting down the sequencing and mulligan decisions.

  5. Practice with people who are better than you.

  6. Understand exactly how to sideboard for every matchup and tweak your plan based on the games you play.

@Will , no offense but I think all 6 of those points apply to all decks and all formats of Magic. They are very general and have been repeated in countless places in various forms.

If you have super secret tech that you're saving for Champs then I understand that, but no need to lord it over us peasants. Don't even bring it up.

last edited by mediumsteve

@will Do you have any interest in posting a specific example or anecdote or two per your points? That seems like it would be particularly valuable for newer shops pilots, whereas now the advice is fairly generic.

@mediumsteve While these points may have been made in the past by others, Will is addressing the specific request for information for GarbageAggro, who seems to be new to the forum. A newer member of the forum, in all likelihood, may not have seen these points be made, or may not have arrived at them yet for himself.

I didn't read Will's comments as being about having specific 'tech' for Champs so much as commenting that the work that goes into developing said 'tech' is something that has a real cost to generate, a real value to those who spent the time developing it, and should have a benefit for them for a little while before its secret nature is lost.

Netdecking is so taken for granted at this point that there's really not much point in discussing how widespread it is. The product of that netdecking, however, is worth discussing, as it seems to be the crux of what's at issue here.

I remember Brian DeMars' Steel City Vault list being withheld from the public after a top eight (top four?) appearance at the Steel City Open back in 2009. I know that I've asked for my own lists to be held back in the past. It's the product of players looking to get some value out of the time that it took them to develop a deck that, later, did well. There was a point in time, earlier this decade, when no Shop list from the Forinos or I could last more than an event or two before other players were running our exact 75, all without really knowing why certain cards were in there, or not there (like Crucible of Worlds in Terra Nova).

I remember being on the original TMD when teams arose, and being frustrated in not having access to the thoughts and lists of the pilots who had developed them. It definitely would have helped me tremendously to have had someone willing to share all that information with me. I would have gotten better faster, certainly. I wasn't on a team for the first eight years that I played Vintage, from 2000-2008. In 2008, I was, loosely, part of a 'team' with the Forino brothers. This meant, mostly, that Raf and I would just talk on the phone a few times a week, playtest a couple of times a month, and get ready for whatever the next big event was. I'm proud to say that I also teamed with DemonicAttorney, TheAtogLord, Voltron00x, Will, and a few others in the past. I consider them all friends.

To get back to the point, you can imagine how frustrating it is/was to play against someone who copied your 75, and just so happened to draw one more critical card than you did over the course of a match. The power level of the format is such that we're all living on a razor's edge in every game of every match in every tournament. Dumb luck and average play in a true mirror is enough to tag you with a loss here and there, and when that player would otherwise not have had a list that was as well-tuned as yours, you can imagine how the match would have potentially played out otherwise. Imagine flying to an event, paying for everything that involves, and then having something like that happen.

MODO only hastens the speed at which lists can be copied, and proliferate.

I don't think that Will's words were born from a place of arrogance, but rather from a place of decency, where he was trying to help a new member while not giving away the edge he will need to compete, and do well, at Champs next month.

last edited by Prospero

@prospero

...GarbageAggro, who seems to be new to the forum.

I chuckled at this.

He's been around for quite awhile.

@emopizza Fair enough. Maybe I just didn't recognize the handle.

If the site's former top administrator calls you a newbie then it's less about your seniority and more about your contributions.

last edited by Guest

I deleted my last post, it wasn't constructive. Sorry.

I'd rather get back on track to talking about workshop decks.

@mediumsteve I've deleted mine as well. All good, no worries. May you ever have Shop in your opener.

I would like to preface this post with the clarification that I believe that no one is entitled to information gathered, created, or otherwise earned by another party.

That being said, I think there is a utilitarian argument to be made about the openness of ideas in our archetype. If I take the time to explain to a newer player how to play around Vintage prison effects, that undeniably hurts my EV at some level for some number of games, matches, and tournaments. However, that good will is almost necessary for our format to grow (or even maintain itself, at this point) and is the spirit of this thread.

I can understand the frustration @Prospero must feel at facing down a lucky player with an identical 75 he developed, just as I can understand how @Will is reluctant to share specific info that he may not have sole responsibility for developing. Especially now that we're about a month away from Champs, I can see the perspective of avoiding offering ANY kind of help to any player that could threaten your title run. However, at some point, collectively, we should throw people a bone.

"How does Ratchet Bomb work for people against Paradoxical Outcome?"
"Should I play Foundry Inspector over bigger robots?"
"How do I beat Tinker?"
"What the hell is Mortarpod doing in this sideboard?"

At some point, these have to be safe questions to answer. Should we work to refine this thread? Are the questions being posed too broad?

Way to lead by example with this post sir. It's refreshing to read legit strategy instead of hypothetical card printings, restricted list, and bad spoiler threads.

I'm sorry that I haven't made a post like this for a long time (ever?).

  • 87
    Posts
  • 36271
    Views