Workshop Aggro
-
@dice_box I very much want Tiny Robots to be decent again, after having played it for a while pre-LSG restriction (and a bit of time much less successfully, post-restriction).
I fired up an old list for the last daily last night and went 1-3, but it wasn't really very representative as 1) it was my first tournament in the MTGO interface, 2) I didn't have time to get newer cards, and 3) I got Vintage'd pretty hard two of my matches, irrespective of deck choice. However, the list still felt pretty okay. It was fun making people question their life choices when they chose not to [[Force of Will]] a [[Memnite]] and lose the game because of it. I believe that [[Walking Ballista]] and [[Foundry Inspector]] are necessary auto-includes though.
Looking forward to picking up new cards and playing around with them.
-
The plan I was building around was combing Smuggler's Copter and Throne. Copter let's me tap everything and Throne adds a ton of damage that way. Also the copter let's you ditch shit you don't need. But I would like to see if I can find space for other cards. Right now it's a first pass on just that idea alone. It might not work, but if it does its a very strong combo. Adding Foundry or Ballista would give more reach, I just don't know what I would cut other than Throne and Thopter.
-
@dice_box The main thing I worry about with that plan is that, historically, if you have a bunch of little dudes then you're probably winning already. I don't mean this as an attack, but as a curiosity: what makes [[Throne of the God-Pharaoh]] better than an effect that pumps your dudes for attacks, e.g. [[Chief of the Foundry]] or [[Steel Overseer]]?
I'm thinking that I'll be testing it regardless, but I'm looking for some groundwork for my assumptions.
-
I don't actually have a answer, just an idea. It may not work at all. Foundry is a good option, as are cards that buff the table. I don't really see a disadvantage with that plan.
The bonus on Throne to me would be the option to give a pseudo +2 power go everything on 2 mana. I guess that's not nothing. With a Copter you can just kill sometimes.
-
Don't we still have to max spheres? I think the 4 SoR and 1 Thorn is probably the baseline now along with Tanglewires, the list that are just trying to race popcorn look like Hurkylls blow outs to me without beaing fast enough to really race Outcome decks. I don't think there is anything wrong with going small, but I think we still have to max out disruption.
-
What does a Stax or Null Rod build look like right now? Ravager, PO and Oath all feel like something that gets shut out by Rod or Bridge.
-
I'd start here with Kory's 2nd place list: http://www.cardtitan.com/coverage
-
With Thorn restricted, it seems like Energy Flux is in the range of being a castable card again. Playing shops against that card feels like a sideways-up-a-cliff uphill battle; aside from keeping them from casting it, is there a preferred way of dealing with it? Spine of Ish Sah is expensive but does the trick and synergizes with Ravager. Other options are Boompile (random), Ratchet Bomb, Nevinyrral's Disk, Eye of Doom, (these can be too slow, also weak to null rod effects), Culling Scales maybe? Hurts with moxen out, but we won't have the moxen for long anyway... Anyone have thoughts about this, maybe I'm overthinking hate for a specific sideboard card?
-
@vintage_rage I'm running two spines for now. I dont know how much we'll see of it, the Delver decks are big on Ancient Grudges, maybe landstill or Bomberman. the vault key decks prob dont want to run it. That being said its a fucking cock punch if it resolves. I don't know that Spine is great here, but its what I'm currently on. If this card ticks up we may need ot address this as a significant issue.
-
The first significant data point of the new meta: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-challenge-2017-09-03. Shops looks pretty OK there, but much to think about:) More tomorrow I'm out for tonight:)
-
So beat it or join it: http://eemagic.com/allDecks.php. I guess the only big thing I see here is that I miss my Tangle Wires:) Why the meta hasn't generated easy/obvious answers to Precursor golem has me confused, other than that the creature suites look pretty strong.
-
@wintage There was a decent number of people who were playing Smash to Smithereens, which makes Precursor Golem potentially lethal for its caster if they have taken enough Ancient Tomb damage. It was enough reason to dissuade me from playing it.
-
This post is deleted! -
@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.htmlStep 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.
-
@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.
-
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:
-
Understand why you won and why you lost. If you're consistently losing to the same thing or things, you need to adapt.
-
Don't get complacent. Even if you think your deck is 75/75 perfect try to anticipate the next change and go from there.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Practice with people who are better than you.
-
Understand exactly how to sideboard for every matchup and tweak your plan based on the games you play.
-
