Along with the new legends/planeswalker rule, a new rule about sideboarding will be implemented.
Now if you start with a 60 card deck, after sideboarding your deck does not need to be 60 cards. It needs to be at least 60 cards, so you can add cards without taking out as many as you added if you like.
Also, your sideboard just needs to have up to 15 cards. So it could have less, although I would never advise it.
---------------
Personally I don't know how much I'll like this, because I feel it'll give people a "free pass" on strategy. You almost get the easy way out, instead of having to really think about what to take out of your main deck.
The problem with bumping your deck past 60 is you start to lose consistency. I'm not sure it's worth it. I mean if you wanted more than 60 cards in your deck why didn't you just start with that many to begin with?
That's why I mention Mindbreak Trap. If every card in your deck is either land or a relevant card for the matchup, why cut something if the "additional" cards only slightly mess with your curve?
Here's why. Let's say you're playing black and run into Dredge. So you board in your 4 Leylines and mull until you get one in your opening hand. With 4 extra cards in your deck, the chances of pulling that Leyline are greatly diminished.
I don't see very many, if any, instances where your deck is better with more than 60 cards in it if you want it to be consistent enough for competitive Legacy play which is tough enough.
That's why I mention Mindbreak Trap. If every card in your deck is either land or a relevant card for the matchup, why cut something if the "additional" cards only slightly mess with your curve?
Here's the best explanation I can give you:
You want your deck to be the best 60 cards you can assemble, so that you have the highest consistency. If you have 61 cards, for instance, one of them isn't as good as the other 60, so you should take it out. That way, you never draw it when there's better cards to draw.
Adding any cards to your deck beyond 60, whether it adjusts your curve or not, decreases consistency. You never want that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I guess just siding in a specific "utility" land for certain matchups to aid in the land drop wars is a viable option now.
Interesting that they would add this additional amount of depth and variance. It's more likely to cause some of the newer players to make more mistakes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
The problem is, by adding more cards to your deck, you have diminished the chances of drawing those tutors.
I don't see anything good about being able to side in cards without having to take any out. And my gut tells me that the players who do this are going to be the ones who lose more often than they win.
In other words, let's see how many of the pros start playing with 63 card decks games 2 and 3.
I think this is more about reducing "feel bads" due to accidental game losses.
The only really excusable times to have more than 60 cards is if that somehow directly contributes to winning (think battle of wits or some kind of mutual lock) OR if you need a delicate ratio of certain classes of cards but also need to have some number of tutor targets.
(note: this happens in precious few decks, seriously just play 60 cards)
The problem is, by adding more cards to your deck, you have diminished the chances of drawing those tutors.
I don't see anything good about being able to side in cards without having to take any out. And my gut tells me that the players who do this are going to be the ones who lose more often than they win.
In other words, let's see how many of the pros start playing with 63 card decks games 2 and 3.
I'm not sure adding 1, 2, 3 cards makes a big difference. For starters your not cutting core cards from your deck but you do have the ability to add a stopper for a deck your playing against. Sure it will depend on the deck and/or the player.
I do like the logic behind the idea to make the change. I mean there are times when I'm playing a werewolf deck and I bump into a werewolf that I didnt flip so I could guess there are players that forget to remove their sideboard card and ends up loosing from failing to count the card.
I see it as more of a removal of a common mistake as a revolution in deck building. Sometimes you add 2 cards and think you removed 2, but instead removed 1. As it is now, youd get a game loss. With this change, you still play. I like it in that regard that you arent punished for making a mistake like that. Focusing more on playing and less on "oops, game loss."
I see it as more of a removal of a common mistake as a revolution in deck building. Sometimes you add 2 cards and think you removed 2, but instead removed 1. As it is now, youd get a game loss. With this change, you still play. I like it in that regard that you arent punished for making a mistake like that. Focusing more on playing and less on "oops, game loss."
I concur.
I don't think this changes much honestly, other than the "whoops" game loses which I'm A-OK with them doing away with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Heterological" is heterological if and only if "heterological" is autological
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
Time to play with a 200 card deck, then G2 have a 60 card deck with a 140 card sideboard as wish targets. Yes.
That would still be illegal. No matter how many cards your deck has your sideboard can't get over 15 cards. The new change will set up 15 or less...but no more
Time to play with a 200 card deck, then G2 have a 60 card deck with a 140 card sideboard as wish targets. Yes.
You need to reread the rules. That is not how it works you can still only have 15 cards in your side and your deck can not go below 60 cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GBRJund GBW Junk GBWMelira Pod GB Rock GRTron URStorm UR Delver URTwin RUG Twin UWR Twin UWRKiki Control UWR Control UWR Midrange URWBAffinity GRW Zoo RBurn
I think the accidental losses are pretty rare and easy to avoid, and you can still lose presenting 59 (/16). I actually do like this for boarding to 61+. In the short time between games, when different boarding strategies are available, it's nice to have more time to think about specific approaches and evaluate certain cards without worrying about where to trim reasonable options. Rarely will you lose for playing 61-62 cards, but a rushed last-second cut (of, say, threats against a combo deck) could be crappy.
Here's why. Let's say you're playing black and run into Dredge. So you board in your 4 Leylines and mull until you get one in your opening hand. With 4 extra cards in your deck, the chances of pulling that Leyline are greatly diminished.
I don't see very many, if any, instances where your deck is better with more than 60 cards in it if you want it to be consistent enough for competitive Legacy play which is tough enough.
diminished, yes, greatly? hardly...
in a 60 card deck you have 39.9% chance of drawing a particular card that is a 4 of.
In a 64 card deck, you have 37.8% chance of getting that card in your starting hand....
You lose about 5% chance of drawing that card in your starting hand....
19 out of 20 times you'd draw the card in a 60 card deck, you'd still draw it in a 64 card deck....
So, yes, diminished, but it's not as problematic as most people here make it seem.
Still.... I'd probably always start the game with exactly 60 cards... even though dumping all your 15 sideboard cards into your deck for game 2 against mill seems like a legit strategy, LOL
The best option in some decks is to increase their main deck size from 60 to somewhere between 61-75.
Some decks have searching ability and for a control deck that can search the answer needed this makes game one a much higher % of a chance to win.
Game two you refine your deck and increase your win% even more, maybe even cut your search.
The 60+X Main Deck // 15-X Sideboard will become the new norm for a good number of decks.
I guess this is not what people will do....
as said a lot of times already, you don't want to hurt your consistency.... specially with cards that are matchup specific....
I guess in the vast majority of time, people will still play exactly the same way as today.
I guess this is not what people will do....
as said a lot of times already, you don't want to hurt your consistency.... specially with cards that are matchup specific....
I guess in the vast majority of time, people will still play exactly the same way as today.
True, but sometimes you don't want to take out 4 cards. Side out two dead cards bring in 4 active cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy:
combo elves
Modern:
White Rock (41-24-4 in matches. Beginning 10/14/14. Last updated 1/2/15)
List:
True, but sometimes you don't want to take out 4 cards. Side out two dead cards bring in 4 active cards.
And ultimately change your mana curve, reduce your consistency, and probably lose the match because of it.
How many times can I say this? You want the best 60 cards in your deck. If four cards from your sideboard are "active" against this opponent, then they are better than four cards in your main deck. To leave any of those four cards in the deck is sub-optimal. You want the highest chance you can to draw one of those four sideboard cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I guess this is not what people will do....
as said a lot of times already, you don't want to hurt your consistency.... specially with cards that are matchup specific....
I guess in the vast majority of time, people will still play exactly the same way as today.
This argument is right along the lines of playing a 60 card deck or playing a 60+ card deck that people have been discussing for years. Some individuals feel that there are always cards to cut, but there are other ways of thinking. I am not stating ALL decks will go to 60+X//15-X, but that SOME will. Remember that this is a game that can be boiled down to statistics crossed with skill.
Statistically, you will play more games after you sideboard than before. (In other words more combined games of game 2 & 3, than game 1.) Thus you want games 2 and 3 to be your strong games. This is nothing new. Game 1 use to be a meta decision on what you ran in the main deck, now it doesn't have to be limited as much.
Additionally, Pros already agree that if you have a means of searching for a 1 of in a deck and that card is something a certain deck can not answer, then running 61 is fine. You have to determine if the decreased consistency of your win% of a deck at 60+ cards is less than the gain of win% of what your deck would have with the extra card. Statistics are not limited to just a single game, they impact everything from a single card draw all the way to Tourney results and future meta decisions.
Again it comes back to statistics and the type of deck you are running, but the numbers have already been run many times and prove that SOME (not all) deck archetypes CAN be more optimal with additional cards. For instance, toolbox decks with Enlightened Tutor or Transmute Artifact, decks with means of using dead cards for pitching to something like Faithless Looting, as well as reuse and filter effects like Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top.
Those are just a few, but personally, I have found that for different reasons that a 61 card deck made for a better mana base in some of my decks. However, that said, I like to stick with 60 cards for the majority of decks, so I agree that a 60>60+ deck size is usually most optimal, but I disagree that it is always more optimal, and this has already been proven statistically as stated.
Do not limit your thinking that a norm is all encompassing.
I would say, "Think outside the box," but really it is better said as, "Challenge the concept of what defines the box."
So back to your statement of, "...you don't want to hurt your consistency..." you can design decks that this will not hurt, but rather improve consistency against the field.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
This is about the only one of the M14 rules changes I like. So lets say that you play a deck of the best 60 cards you can play in that deck. Let us also say that this deck has a really bad match-up against a certain deck, but good versus everything else. Now lets say that by adding a couple cards to the maindeck you can greatly increase your match-up against that deck. What this means is that you are more likely to win game one against your weak match-up, and thus more likely to win the match being ahead in game count. In match-ups that you are favored you have slightly reduced your consistency in game one, games two and three you can sideboard these cards out leaving you the best 60 card deck to win the match.
Bottom line- starting with 60+ cards mainboard can improve the your chances of winning unfavorable match-ups by winning more game ones; against your favored match-ups you are alright if you have to go to three games.
This argument is right along the lines of playing a 60 card deck or playing a 60+ card deck that people have been discussing for years. Some individuals feel that there are always cards to cut, but there are other ways of thinking. I am not stating ALL decks will go to 60+X//15-X, but that SOME will. Remember that this is a game that can be boiled down to statistics crossed with skill.
Statistically, you will play more games after you sideboard than before. (In other words more combined games of game 2 & 3, than game 1.) Thus you want games 2 and 3 to be your strong games. This is nothing new. Game 1 use to be a meta decision on what you ran in the main deck, now it doesn't have to be limited as much.
Additionally, Pros already agree that if you have a means of searching for a 1 of in a deck and that card is something a certain deck can not answer, then running 61 is fine. You have to determine if the decreased consistency of your win% of a deck at 60+ cards is less than the gain of win% of what your deck would have with the extra card. Statistics are not limited to just a single game, they impact everything from a single card draw all the way to Tourney results and future meta decisions.
Again it comes back to statistics and the type of deck you are running, but the numbers have already been run many times and prove that SOME (not all) deck archetypes CAN be more optimal with additional cards. For instance, toolbox decks with Enlightened Tutor or Transmute Artifact, decks with means of using dead cards for pitching to something like Faithless Looting, as well as reuse and filter effects like Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top.
Those are just a few, but personally, I have found that for different reasons that a 61 card deck made for a better mana base in some of my decks. However, that said, I like to stick with 60 cards for the majority of decks, so I agree that a 60>60+ deck size is usually most optimal, but I disagree that it is always more optimal, and this has already been proven statistically as stated.
Do not limit your thinking that a norm is all encompassing.
I would say, "Think outside the box," but really it is better said as, "Challenge the concept of what defines the box."
So back to your statement of, "...you don't want to hurt your consistency..." you can design decks that this will not hurt, but rather improve consistency against the field.
Well said, my friend.
Dunno how much of your reasoning will actually see the daylight, but I cannot say it doesn't have merit.
Specially now that we have the extra option of simply taking stuff out of our decks between games....
I also haven't said that no one will do that... I just think most people will not... lol
but I can see your reasoning and I think it makes a lot of sense.
Dunno how much of your reasoning will actually see the daylight, but I cannot say it doesn't have merit.
Specially now that we have the extra option of simply taking stuff out of our decks between games....
I also haven't said that no one will do that... I just think most people will not... lol
but I can see your reasoning and I think it makes a lot of sense.
Thank you.
I doubt much of it will see the light of day, and definitely not by my doing. However, it can be done by those that read this and spread it to others.
Additionally, there are those that follow my posts and listen to what I say even though they would deny it if you asked them. I have a record for being extremely on target with my analysis.
That said, sometimes people's pride gets between them and admitting someone they treated unfairly may have known more about magic then they did.
Ultimately, you will see some 60+X // 15-X decks forging the way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
The problem is, by adding more cards to your deck, you have diminished the chances of drawing those tutors.
I don't see anything good about being able to side in cards without having to take any out. And my gut tells me that the players who do this are going to be the ones who lose more often than they win.
In other words, let's see how many of the pros start playing with 63 card decks games 2 and 3.
Agreed.
My honest opinion is that everyone who's good at magic will continue to play 60+15 and sideboard like they always did. There may be a strategy or two that could benefit from going up a few cards due to tutor targets or whatever, but not many. If those decks become real contenders, that's awesome, as it adds to the variety of the game.
I think the real reason this was implemented was to prevent auto-losses when somebody unintentionally counts wrong. It's a stupid reason to lose (or win), and this rule fixes it without any bad side effects.
I've always built 61-card decks because I can, but I realize from a strictly statistical point of view, 60 is better. If I were truly focused on competition, I'd be at 60.
Along with the new legends/planeswalker rule, a new rule about sideboarding will be implemented.
Now if you start with a 60 card deck, after sideboarding your deck does not need to be 60 cards. It needs to be at least 60 cards, so you can add cards without taking out as many as you added if you like.
Also, your sideboard just needs to have up to 15 cards. So it could have less, although I would never advise it.
---------------
Personally I don't know how much I'll like this, because I feel it'll give people a "free pass" on strategy. You almost get the easy way out, instead of having to really think about what to take out of your main deck.
Here's why. Let's say you're playing black and run into Dredge. So you board in your 4 Leylines and mull until you get one in your opening hand. With 4 extra cards in your deck, the chances of pulling that Leyline are greatly diminished.
I don't see very many, if any, instances where your deck is better with more than 60 cards in it if you want it to be consistent enough for competitive Legacy play which is tough enough.
Here's the best explanation I can give you:
You want your deck to be the best 60 cards you can assemble, so that you have the highest consistency. If you have 61 cards, for instance, one of them isn't as good as the other 60, so you should take it out. That way, you never draw it when there's better cards to draw.
Adding any cards to your deck beyond 60, whether it adjusts your curve or not, decreases consistency. You never want that.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Interesting that they would add this additional amount of depth and variance. It's more likely to cause some of the newer players to make more mistakes.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
The problem is, by adding more cards to your deck, you have diminished the chances of drawing those tutors.
I don't see anything good about being able to side in cards without having to take any out. And my gut tells me that the players who do this are going to be the ones who lose more often than they win.
In other words, let's see how many of the pros start playing with 63 card decks games 2 and 3.
The only really excusable times to have more than 60 cards is if that somehow directly contributes to winning (think battle of wits or some kind of mutual lock) OR if you need a delicate ratio of certain classes of cards but also need to have some number of tutor targets.
(note: this happens in precious few decks, seriously just play 60 cards)
I'm not sure adding 1, 2, 3 cards makes a big difference. For starters your not cutting core cards from your deck but you do have the ability to add a stopper for a deck your playing against. Sure it will depend on the deck and/or the player.
I do like the logic behind the idea to make the change. I mean there are times when I'm playing a werewolf deck and I bump into a werewolf that I didnt flip so I could guess there are players that forget to remove their sideboard card and ends up loosing from failing to count the card.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyI concur.
I don't think this changes much honestly, other than the "whoops" game loses which I'm A-OK with them doing away with.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
WGURBLands!WGURB
WGUInfectWGU
Legacy Lands Primer
Top 8 SCG Oakland 2014
Helpdesk
My Cube on CubeTutor
That would still be illegal. No matter how many cards your deck has your sideboard can't get over 15 cards. The new change will set up 15 or less...but no more
You need to reread the rules. That is not how it works you can still only have 15 cards in your side and your deck can not go below 60 cards.
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
GBW Melira Pod
GB Rock
GR Tron
UR Storm
UR Delver
UR Twin
RUG Twin
UWR Twin
UWR Kiki Control
UWR Control
UWR Midrange
URWB Affinity
GRW Zoo
R Burn
diminished, yes, greatly? hardly...
in a 60 card deck you have 39.9% chance of drawing a particular card that is a 4 of.
In a 64 card deck, you have 37.8% chance of getting that card in your starting hand....
You lose about 5% chance of drawing that card in your starting hand....
19 out of 20 times you'd draw the card in a 60 card deck, you'd still draw it in a 64 card deck....
So, yes, diminished, but it's not as problematic as most people here make it seem.
Still.... I'd probably always start the game with exactly 60 cards... even though dumping all your 15 sideboard cards into your deck for game 2 against mill seems like a legit strategy, LOL
The best option in some decks is to increase their main deck size from 60 to somewhere between 61-75.
Some decks have searching ability and for a control deck that can search the answer needed this makes game one a much higher % of a chance to win.
Game two you refine your deck and increase your win% even more, maybe even cut your search.
The 60+X Main Deck // 15-X Sideboard will become the new norm for a good number of decks.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
I guess this is not what people will do....
as said a lot of times already, you don't want to hurt your consistency.... specially with cards that are matchup specific....
I guess in the vast majority of time, people will still play exactly the same way as today.
True, but sometimes you don't want to take out 4 cards. Side out two dead cards bring in 4 active cards.
Legacy:
combo elves
Modern:
White Rock (41-24-4 in matches. Beginning 10/14/14. Last updated 1/2/15)
List:
4 Dark Confidant
3 Siege Rhino
1 Thrun, The Last Troll
Spells - 20
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Thoughtseize
4 abrupt decay
2 maelstrom pulse
1 slaughter pact
1 path to exile
1 Disfigure
1 damnation
3 lingering souls
NCP - 4
3 Liliana of the Veil
1 Bow of Nylea
4 verdant Catacombs
2 marsh flats
2 windswept heath
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Plains
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3 overgrown tomb
1 godless shrine
1 temple garden
1 Treetop Village
2 stirring wildwood
2 Tectonic Edge
4 Leyline of Sanctity
1 Thrun, the last troll
2 Duress
1 Creeping Corrosion
2 Stony Silence
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Back to nature
1 Utter End
1 Golgari Charm
And ultimately change your mana curve, reduce your consistency, and probably lose the match because of it.
How many times can I say this? You want the best 60 cards in your deck. If four cards from your sideboard are "active" against this opponent, then they are better than four cards in your main deck. To leave any of those four cards in the deck is sub-optimal. You want the highest chance you can to draw one of those four sideboard cards.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
This argument is right along the lines of playing a 60 card deck or playing a 60+ card deck that people have been discussing for years. Some individuals feel that there are always cards to cut, but there are other ways of thinking. I am not stating ALL decks will go to 60+X//15-X, but that SOME will. Remember that this is a game that can be boiled down to statistics crossed with skill.
Statistically, you will play more games after you sideboard than before. (In other words more combined games of game 2 & 3, than game 1.) Thus you want games 2 and 3 to be your strong games. This is nothing new. Game 1 use to be a meta decision on what you ran in the main deck, now it doesn't have to be limited as much.
Additionally, Pros already agree that if you have a means of searching for a 1 of in a deck and that card is something a certain deck can not answer, then running 61 is fine. You have to determine if the decreased consistency of your win% of a deck at 60+ cards is less than the gain of win% of what your deck would have with the extra card. Statistics are not limited to just a single game, they impact everything from a single card draw all the way to Tourney results and future meta decisions.
Again it comes back to statistics and the type of deck you are running, but the numbers have already been run many times and prove that SOME (not all) deck archetypes CAN be more optimal with additional cards. For instance, toolbox decks with Enlightened Tutor or Transmute Artifact, decks with means of using dead cards for pitching to something like Faithless Looting, as well as reuse and filter effects like Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top.
Those are just a few, but personally, I have found that for different reasons that a 61 card deck made for a better mana base in some of my decks. However, that said, I like to stick with 60 cards for the majority of decks, so I agree that a 60>60+ deck size is usually most optimal, but I disagree that it is always more optimal, and this has already been proven statistically as stated.
Do not limit your thinking that a norm is all encompassing.
I would say, "Think outside the box," but really it is better said as, "Challenge the concept of what defines the box."
So back to your statement of, "...you don't want to hurt your consistency..." you can design decks that this will not hurt, but rather improve consistency against the field.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
Bottom line- starting with 60+ cards mainboard can improve the your chances of winning unfavorable match-ups by winning more game ones; against your favored match-ups you are alright if you have to go to three games.
In search of a foil french Dromar, the Banisher, pm me if you have one you want to part with, also foil Stratadon's.
Well said, my friend.
Dunno how much of your reasoning will actually see the daylight, but I cannot say it doesn't have merit.
Specially now that we have the extra option of simply taking stuff out of our decks between games....
I also haven't said that no one will do that... I just think most people will not... lol
but I can see your reasoning and I think it makes a lot of sense.
Thank you.
I doubt much of it will see the light of day, and definitely not by my doing. However, it can be done by those that read this and spread it to others.
Additionally, there are those that follow my posts and listen to what I say even though they would deny it if you asked them. I have a record for being extremely on target with my analysis.
That said, sometimes people's pride gets between them and admitting someone they treated unfairly may have known more about magic then they did.
Ultimately, you will see some 60+X // 15-X decks forging the way.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
Agreed.
My honest opinion is that everyone who's good at magic will continue to play 60+15 and sideboard like they always did. There may be a strategy or two that could benefit from going up a few cards due to tutor targets or whatever, but not many. If those decks become real contenders, that's awesome, as it adds to the variety of the game.
I think the real reason this was implemented was to prevent auto-losses when somebody unintentionally counts wrong. It's a stupid reason to lose (or win), and this rule fixes it without any bad side effects.
I've always built 61-card decks because I can, but I realize from a strictly statistical point of view, 60 is better. If I were truly focused on competition, I'd be at 60.