@Leoj Most people will scoop to Rich Shay streaming on the combo. They will not scoop to lesser known players...And there is still the issue of nondeterministic kills even with Salvagers + Lotus.
Yeah, sadly most people don't scoop to me
Still playable IMO. Then again I also played Eggs w/ KCI in Modern so I have some experience.
@Leoj That's not strictly true, though. If you replace the Tangle Wires with the less desirable version and cut Lotus and Ravager (another common approach), you actually have a much more affordable build.
Yes, if you want to cut core cards out of the most commonly-played shops build, you will in fact have a budget shops build!
I think using MODO data is a bad idea for B/R decisions in paper.
Maybe I am wrong here, but isn't workshops one of the cheaper decks to build on modo? I mean, modo is the place where card availability has turned friggin Misdirection into a $93 card. That's insanity!
But going back to point one: there is no denying workshops is a strong deck, but if you have a strong deck that is also one of the cheapest decks to make, doesn't that seem like a recipe for such high representation? Given the huge disparity between card availability on modo vs paper, is it really reasonable to draw conclusions about paper based on data from a different environment? Doesn't modo kind of cut out some decks like bomberman just because you can't shortcut?
Modo to paper seems like apples to oranges on some level. Adding VSL to the mix results in a bastardized version of the format that should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on ANYTHING to do with paper vintage.
Shops definitely isn't "one of the cheapest" decks on MTGO. Tangle Wire and Wasteland are both pricy.
The most common shops build is more expensive than Delver, Blue Moon, Dredge, Doomsday, DPS, Oath and most Mentor builds
So it's probably the most expensive deck people typically play, and it's about equal with BUG Fish in terms of price.
To @garbageaggro 's point I think everyone just linking to MTGGoldfish is missing a big part of the picture here. His point was "the overall online metagame" aka every person playing in every daily event. Goldfish (and the mothership where it scrapes the data from) only publish one daily for each day, so we are stuck with 3-1 and better decks from (assuming they all fire) 5/8 of all daily events each week. This obviously doesn't include things like paid 1v1 queues.
But what I think he was saying is that it's possible Wizards has ways of aggregating all of the data from every event, not unlike what @diophan and @ChubbyRain do for p9 challenges. So they're getting 8/8 of daily events each week with EVERY deck played by all 12+ people. That would certainly paint a clearer picture for them than it can for us, where we are only seeing a fraction of what's going on.