How does Sui zoo or Infect match up against Abzan or Jund?????? Discard coupled with AD is probably a fair place to start....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Fair decks don't need the slots for Sui Zoo or Infect. A fair deck will usually win out over these linear decks based purely on deck design. That doesn't mean the occasional blow out doesn't happen. Sometimes you just have bad luck. Why decks could use the extra slots is matchups like dredge, affinity and their ilk. And also for dredge, affinity and their ilk. While those decks have great game one percentages they fall off into oblivion after boarding because they just die to so many cards. A larger sideboard would also help them prep and become more resilient games 2 and 3. I'm no fan of combo and I think this idea would help non linear, interactive decks more, but it will also help the linear/combo decks as well, giving them more answers to those silver bullets. But it again illustrates why they are bad decks because they can only adapt so much before their combo/game plan start to become ineffective. People are so worried about the whole transformative sideboard when the simple truth is the only thing 15 cards is gonna transform your deck into is a turd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Why?The problem exists so it is clear "something" is necessary. What problem does it exacerbate? Logistical hurdles can always be overcome. Education takes a little time but people would pick it up. ANd if you think new players couldn't "get it" you horribly underestimate people.
it exacerbates the problem because everybody seems to forget that the decks you prepare for with your extra sb space are also afforded extra sb space. It's just a dragon eating its own tail and nothing is solved.
I agree there's a problem but this isn't a solution. Better consistency tools and additional main deck-able generic answers are solutions. This idea just expands sideboard lottery issues.
it exacerbates the problem because everybody seems to forget that the decks you prepare for with your extra sb space are also afforded extra sb space. It's just a dragon eating its own tail and nothing is solved.
Firstly, it doesn't exacerbate any problem. Sideboarding in general is not a problem, its a solution. With your stance I would say you should rail for NO sideboards as by your logic it would clear up the perceived problem of sideboards. What it would do and you have mentioned it is increase the level of complication by a bit. That's it. Trying to guess what is in a meta and prepping your 15 gets trickier and more complicated as the meta grows more diverse. If the meta would become less diverse and less interactive, a switch back to 15 over 20 could be implemented. Pretty soon people are going to start running the same generic answers in the MB and we will see a switch to certain cards that get played in every deck. (We are actually already there.) Personally I find that boring. I like the diversity of Magic and would like to see it expanded, not shrunk. Just my opinion, and like yours of equal validity. Good luck to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I'm going to back up before all the criticisms and ask a more basic question: why 20 cards? Why not 16? 17? It seems like there's a very delicate balance between a value that would definitely break things (60 would obviously be a problem) and one that might have no effect at all (16 may be no different than 15). So how did you come to that value and why would it solve things?
Capping the number of cards that can be SBed in is out of the question for logistical reasons. Each player now has to take turns SBing, with his opponent watching to make sure he abides by the maximum (and hence also gaining information on the number of cards boarded in). It's a waste of time compared to both players SBing simultaneously.
If I board something in, thumb over a few cards, think for a while, then decide that I don't actually want that card, what's the fix? Am I stuck with that card in my deck? If you let me swap the cards, how do you know it's actually the card that I boarded in? Does this mean players can no longer add cards from their SBs individually to their decks? Or that they can't shuffle their SBs into their decks, then remove cards individually?
One player can stall by claiming that his opponent SBed cards over the limit. "Judge, I blinked/lost count and missed the number of cards that my opponent SBed in. I think he might be over the limit. Of course, I can't look at his cards, so could you please do so instead, go fetch his decklist and make sure that it's fine, I'll be waiting here."
As for just increasing the size of the SB, I don't think they'll do it, simply because the rules for 1v1 deck construction have not changed basically since they started taking competitive play seriously. I don't think it'll work as advertised either. The expectation is that fair decks can now play more SB cards so they can board for a wider variety of matchups, but the reality is that you'll end up with things like Affinity playing 4 Ensoul Artifact for opposing Stony Silences.
As I see it, the main complaint lodged against Modern as a format right now is that there's too much linear aggro. Removal is not hard to come by (unless you're Blue), so how is increasing the number of SB slots going to fix this perceived problem?
Also, izzetmage is completely correct that Wizards will not make such a large change to a competitive constructed format, which is why the OP has gotten so many negative responses. It just isn't going to happen unless someone first does some extensive testing and their results show that such a sweeping change would be largely positive for the format. Even then I sincerely doubt it will be implemented.
Also, izzetmage is completely correct that Wizards will not make such a large change to a competitive constructed format, which is why the OP has gotten so many negative responses. It just isn't going to happen unless someone first does some extensive testing and their results show that such a sweeping change would be largely positive for the format. Even then I sincerely doubt it will be implemented.
I would still like to hear some points about why 20 cards instead of 16, 17, 25, etc. On the one hand, 15 is a kind of arbitrary number itself. I know it's 1/4 of he deck, but it doesn't really have any intrinsic value beyond that and likely wasn't tested. On the other hand, Wizards can easily say "15 cards is working now and has worked for X years." What's the rebuttal to that and, more importantly, what number of SB cards improves the problem?
I'm going to back up before all the criticisms and ask a more basic question: why 20 cards? Why not 16? 17? It seems like there's a very delicate balance between a value that would definitely break things (60 would obviously be a problem) and one that might have no effect at all (16 may be no different than 15). So how did you come to that value and why would it solve things?
Opening up 5 more slots in your SB is going to let you plan for possibly one or two more deck archetypes in the meta. There are a lot of decks out there that there is NO way 15 cards can handle the entire Modern Meta. Even at 20 it is still going to be short BUT it gives you a little side game versus MORE of the meta. I'm not sure what makes this so hard to understand for some. There does need to be a cap on the SB, I think it needs to be 20 at the current state, 15 isn't enough in a lot of the decks I play. Giving lower tier decks more support through side boarding could increase deck diversity as well. If not we are going to continue to see the same old catch all cards in sideboards until the end of the format.
As for implementing it that could be accomplished simply by placing the 20 card SB upside down, picking out and displaying upside down the cards boarded in, then picking out those boarded out and displaying the 2 piles for the opponent to quickly count. Sure its a bit more complex but its not rocket science.
I agree it would have to be tested at some level to see the results and get feedback. Do I see Wizards doing it? Doubtful, but we have the Vancouver mulligan rule in place now and that hasn't ended the world so change CAN occur. I think a change is needed but I understand some many not want it. I think it would benefit the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I have no idea whether Wizards has done any testing with different SB sizes in competitive formats, or even with the initial 15. It may well have been arbitrary.
I do doubt that the OP or anyone else in this thread has done significant testing with SBs ranging from 16-25 cards. It did seem more of a spitballing thread than anything else though, but it's hard to argue against an established standard if you have no data to back up your argument.
I have no idea whether Wizards has done any testing with different SB sizes in competitive formats, or even with the initial 15. It may well have been arbitrary.
I do doubt that the OP or anyone else in this thread has done significant testing with SBs ranging from 16-25 cards. It did seem more of a spitballing thread than anything else though, but it's hard to argue against an established standard if you have no data to back up your argument.
It doesn't take data to know that if you increase the amount of cards in a sideboard, you will increase the ability to interact with more decks in the meta. That is simple statistics.
And speaking of data, you mention it yourself. Why exactly was 15 chosen as the SB count? Did Wizards run data with larger or smaller sizes of other SB's and then come to some mathematical conclusion? No they set it at 15, 1/4 of a 60 card deck and left it at that. Absolutely arbitrary. It may be the standard but it is based on no more "significant testing" than picking a number out of a hat. "Because that's the way we've always done it." doesn't make it a correct decision.
I think the boat needs to be rocked. The meta seems to be growing more diverse right now. Time to start thinking about proactivity over reactivity.
And you don't have to keep calling me "OP" original poster. Anyone can see that. Just address me by name please or use WMP if you want to save keystrokes. We can have a civil discussion without resorting to "beating around the bush". I don't mind discussing these things and I don't mind defending my position. I might even want to start a poll just to get some raw data. (And it could very well support the 15 card position to my disappointment.) Its all good my fellow players, this isn't a life and death matter its a game. Lets enjoy and discuss.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
There are a lot of people with a downer on Modern who would probably disagree that Modern is all fine and the board system works.
I am not one of them, I quite like Modern, although most of the time you could just show each other your decks, see who goes first and fill in the slips. But it is still fun and is well-defined in terms of its identity.
You could argue that there is nothing wrong with the current pool of cards in Modern so we should not let any new ones join- obviously that would be absurd. Just because nothing is wrong with Modern does not mean it could not be improved, or that changes should be barred or discounted. I don't for one minute think it would happen.
I personally think Modern needs more non critter based tutoring, tutors put answers in hand. Modern needs slightly better answers, but a 18-20 card sideboard would reduce the number of hopeless one sided matches somewhat, and allow more transformational sideboards.
The number 15 is not arbitrary. Any assertion that it is arbitrary is simply based in ignorance.
For those of us who grew up in the game reading the Dojo, Scrye, Duelist, and talking to players at tournaments who knew Richard, we remember that there's a push and a pull to the game theory behind the number 15. The push is that when you choose a deck you're inherently choosing all the positive and negative things that come with that deck, and a sideboard should not be too large or else it would fundamentally change the nature of the deck. Sure, you can debate whether or not this is a valid consideration but it was certainly intentional by the game's creator to put a hard cap so as to limit the ability to alter too much of your deck.
The pull is that there are a couple sets of 3 things that the sideboard is intended to address. The first set is (i) matchup against specific decks, (ii) matchup against broader archetypes, and (iii) mirror match. Another set of 3 things is that the sideboard is meant to address the ability of a deck to take advantage of (i) card advantage, (ii) time, and (iii) strategy suppression. We've come to think a certain way about "card advantage" but back then it was basically "if I run Shatter, can I kill a mana source or Zuran Orb?" or Armageddon at 4 taking out multiple lands type of questions.
So you're a master at game theory, you have some of the best Magic players of the time at your disposal, you want an absolute maximum and you have a few sets of 3 things that you want to address with the concept of sideboarding. Numbers aren't accidents. It's not an accident that exactly 1/4 of the minimum allowable MD size is the sweet spot for sideboard size. It's no accident that 15 is divisible by 3, the number of questions each set is attempting to answer. And it's no accident that with testing it turned out to be perfect.
I agree that "it's worked all this time" is not in itself a reason to maintain the status quo. But it's equally true that there's absolutely no virtue in change "for change's sake." If you're making a change of this magnitude you need an articulable problem you're attempting to solve and clear evidence that the solution solves it. The exact problems that Modern has, and which this idea is attempting to solve, are solved in other formats with more consistency tools and more generic, main-deck-able answer cards. Those formats do not need an increase in SB space, and neither does Modern. This idea seems to be a clear example of "round hole, square peg."
More specific to this moment in the Modern format, this idea is far too knee-jerk of a reaction. We've seen over the course of the game's history and especially over the course of Modern's history that meta games ebb and flow. What seems like a problem right now could be completely reined in with a couple new printings, a natural meta game shift, a banning, an unbanning, or other factors. Making such a drastic change when tiny influences could better accomplish the goal is one of the most short-sighted approaches possible.
I agree that "it's worked all this time" is not in itself a reason to maintain the status quo. But it's equally true that there's absolutely no virtue in change "for change's sake." If you're making a change of this magnitude you need an articulable problem you're attempting to solve and clear evidence that the solution solves it. The exact problems that Modern has, and which this idea is attempting to solve, are solved in other formats with more consistency tools and more generic, main-deck-able answer cards. Those formats do not need an increase in SB space, and neither does Modern. This idea seems to be a clear example of "round hole, square peg."
More specific to this moment in the Modern format, this idea is far too knee-jerk of a reaction. We've seen over the course of the game's history and especially over the course of Modern's history that meta games ebb and flow. What seems like a problem right now could be completely reined in with a couple new printings, a natural meta game shift, a banning, an unbanning, or other factors. Making such a drastic change when tiny influences could better accomplish the goal is one of the most short-sighted approaches possible.
I think it's likely arbitrary. Like you said 16 or 17 is too close to 15. 20 adds another playset of something. Adding one or two cards doesn't feel like your increasing your odds much, a full playset is more of a statistical dent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I'm not saying change for change's sake. And its been a long time since I read the fundamentals of the SB how you presented them. Thank you. I still feel the same about the board though. I think when it was originally devised, it was beyond brilliant. But hasn't the game changed enough that perhaps we should consider expanding the the sideboard concept? There are card types and abilities that were never imagined when the original concept was devised. People won on the back of Serra Angel and Sengir Vampire. There was n 15/15 flying spaghetti monster, or armies of self-loving gobots or dredge or planeswalkers for that matter. I do agree with the idea that a deck should maintain its weaknesses, that the SB should not be transformative and that's why I'd advocate for a cap on the number of cards swapped out. Hell, I'd advocate for it now if it were necessary.
What I believe is A) the game has become more diverse than anyone ever thought possible B) it's fun to play magic C) Some decks have a strategy that in part warps the basic concept of the game D) that if one player warps the game, that should not stop another player from playing. If a deck wins by twisting and distorting the rules, there should be adequate answers available for the opponent to bend and twist it back. Of course this is a give and take and chance will often still decide the day but offering decks the ability to fight through a warped world, which ever way it is warped, should be a priority. To me the SB is about interaction. Certain decks don't like to interact. A properly constructed SB can force the issue. A bit more variation couldn't hurt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I'm not saying change for change's sake. And its been a long time since I read the fundamentals of the SB how you presented them. Thank you. I still feel the same about the board though. I think when it was originally devised, it was beyond brilliant. But hasn't the game changed enough that perhaps we should consider expanding the the sideboard concept? There are card types and abilities that were never imagined when the original concept was devised. People won on the back of Serra Angel and Sengir Vampire. There was n 15/15 flying spaghetti monster, or armies of self-loving gobots or dredge or planeswalkers for that matter. I do agree with the idea that a deck should maintain its weaknesses, that the SB should not be transformative and that's why I'd advocate for a cap on the number of cards swapped out. Hell, I'd advocate for it now if it were necessary.
What I believe is A) the game has become more diverse than anyone ever thought possible B) it's fun to play magic C) Some decks have a strategy that in part warps the basic concept of the game D) that if one player warps the game, that should not stop another player from playing. If a deck wins by twisting and distorting the rules, there should be adequate answers available for the opponent to bend and twist it back. Of course this is a give and take and chance will often still decide the day but offering decks the ability to fight through a warped world, which ever way it is warped, should be a priority. To me the SB is about interaction. Certain decks don't like to interact. A properly constructed SB can force the issue. A bit more variation couldn't hurt.
Well, to be clear there's nothing wrong with transformative sideboards the way they exist today. The issue with the transformative stuff in particular is when you're allowed access to enough cards in your board to change your deck to a large enough extent that it's operating on a fundamentally different axis. This is a lot more than just siding in Geists and stuff like that.
Regarding the "twisting and distorting the rules" thing, that's been part of Magic since the 90s. Yes, that's back before PWers and when people were winning with Serra Angels. That's also when people were winning with donating you things that blow up in your face and making armies of squirrels. There's a very popular MTG site named after one of the original combos - casting Channel for enough mana for a lethal Fireball, doing much more than 10 damage in a single turn with 2 non creature spells and very little mana. Or Animate Artifact, Instill Energy and Time Vault to take infinite turns. Heck, Memory Jar was printed in what, 1999?
Sure, the game has changed over the years. But not in the way you're describing and certainly not in a way that would lead to the need to change rules which give Magic its very structure.
If there's a deck in the meta game that distorts the rules and you're worried about it, 75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent.
I think it's likely arbitrary. Like you said 16 or 17 is too close to 15. 20 adds another playset of something. Adding one or two cards doesn't feel like your increasing your odds much, a full playset is more of a statistical dent.
It is indeed entirely arbitrary and anyone who thinks it was devised by Magic's greatest minds testing and retesting is deluding themselves. I've played this game off and on since '94 and never saw any evidence supporting a concerted effort was put in to perfect sideboard size. 15 is 1/4 of 60, plain and simple.
@rcwaspy
75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent.
That is your OPINION, not a fact. I disagree entirely. Just because you feel one way doesn't make that reality. I feel 75 isn't enough. Reality is what ALL players think/feel. A poll would start to get us some hard data. I will be starting one this weekend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I think it's likely arbitrary. Like you said 16 or 17 is too close to 15. 20 adds another playset of something. Adding one or two cards doesn't feel like your increasing your odds much, a full playset is more of a statistical dent.
It is indeed entirely arbitrary and anyone who thinks it was devised by Magic's greatest minds testing and retesting is deluding themselves. I've played this game off and on since '94 and never saw any evidence supporting a concerted effort was put in to perfect sideboard size. 15 is 1/4 of 60, plain and simple.
it's not what I "think." It's what I was told by people with the access to know and of whom there's no reason to doubt, and what was supported by articles and dojo posts in the 90s. That's much more factual than your whining because you don't know how to pick the right deck or metagsme.
Now, before you blast me for it, I know you're not going to believe me. That's fine. I don't need you to. Just remember that the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. Just because you aren't informed about how they came to the number 15 doesn't mean it's correct to assume it was arbitrary. I find it incredibly hard to fathom that game designers would take a popular game and add an additional 25% to your deck based simply on whim. They theorize and test constantly and always have. There's simply no reason to think they didn't here.
75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent.
That is your OPINION, not a fact. I disagree entirely. Just because you feel one way doesn't make that reality. I feel 75 isn't enough. Reality is what ALL players think/feel. A poll would start to get us some hard data. I will be starting one this weekend.
This is also demonstrably false. You're going up against the weight of history. A history where 75 has been perfect and incredibly successful. The FACT is that it has always worked. The FACT is that you're trying to solve a problem that, as I said before, is perfectly solvable in other, less drastic ways. That means that the assumption that 75 is enough is as close to a fact as we have about this issue until proven otherwise. Go prove it, I'll happily read your results.
"If there's a deck in the meta game that distorts the rules and you're worried about it, 75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent."
This is what I'm talking about. Now though, what if its not just a deck? What if one deck say uses incredibly fast artifacts to level you before turn 4, and one deck turns the rules on their head to utilize their graveyard like an extension of their hand and one other uses spells or abilities to draw their library in a single turn and still another deck just has to deal 10 damage because of an effect.... There isn't a deck twisting the rules, it has virtually become the norm. Multiple times a tournament you can expect to see decks like this and you have 15 slots to prep for it. No way. And do not try and tell me the 90's were anything like what it is now. They weren't. For goodness sakes there are entire formats that exist now that didn't in the '90s. Forget cards and abilities, FORMATS! To give a deck a broader pool of cards to chose from, even if the total swap number is capped, doesn't seem like some grand deviation. Especially in a game where deviation is king.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Not with a swap cap. Have a cap of 15 cards and nothing changes in a a single game from right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I like the poll idea but could/would you make it clear about a swap cap please. I'm not sure if you're totally on board with the idea but the issue/concern of transformative boards seems pretty universal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I like the poll idea but could/would you make it clear about a swap cap please. I'm not sure if you're totally on board with the idea but the issue/concern of transformative boards seems pretty universal.
Verbal warning to stop double and triple posting. I believe you are posting from mobile and we know the multiquote doesn't work there, but you still need to respect the multiposting rules.
I like the poll idea but could/would you make it clear about a swap cap please. I'm not sure if you're totally on board with the idea but the issue/concern of transformative boards seems pretty universal.
I am also thinking about the wording of the poll itself. I can do a simple keep 15 vs. more than 15 vote or I can offer numbers 0,5,10,15,16,20 or something like that. I am not adverse to transformative sideboards but a cap of 20 would be the max I would think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I agree there's a problem but this isn't a solution. Better consistency tools and additional main deck-able generic answers are solutions. This idea just expands sideboard lottery issues.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Firstly, it doesn't exacerbate any problem. Sideboarding in general is not a problem, its a solution. With your stance I would say you should rail for NO sideboards as by your logic it would clear up the perceived problem of sideboards. What it would do and you have mentioned it is increase the level of complication by a bit. That's it. Trying to guess what is in a meta and prepping your 15 gets trickier and more complicated as the meta grows more diverse. If the meta would become less diverse and less interactive, a switch back to 15 over 20 could be implemented. Pretty soon people are going to start running the same generic answers in the MB and we will see a switch to certain cards that get played in every deck. (We are actually already there.) Personally I find that boring. I like the diversity of Magic and would like to see it expanded, not shrunk. Just my opinion, and like yours of equal validity. Good luck to you.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
If I board something in, thumb over a few cards, think for a while, then decide that I don't actually want that card, what's the fix? Am I stuck with that card in my deck? If you let me swap the cards, how do you know it's actually the card that I boarded in? Does this mean players can no longer add cards from their SBs individually to their decks? Or that they can't shuffle their SBs into their decks, then remove cards individually?
One player can stall by claiming that his opponent SBed cards over the limit. "Judge, I blinked/lost count and missed the number of cards that my opponent SBed in. I think he might be over the limit. Of course, I can't look at his cards, so could you please do so instead, go fetch his decklist and make sure that it's fine, I'll be waiting here."
As for just increasing the size of the SB, I don't think they'll do it, simply because the rules for 1v1 deck construction have not changed basically since they started taking competitive play seriously. I don't think it'll work as advertised either. The expectation is that fair decks can now play more SB cards so they can board for a wider variety of matchups, but the reality is that you'll end up with things like Affinity playing 4 Ensoul Artifact for opposing Stony Silences.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Also, izzetmage is completely correct that Wizards will not make such a large change to a competitive constructed format, which is why the OP has gotten so many negative responses. It just isn't going to happen unless someone first does some extensive testing and their results show that such a sweeping change would be largely positive for the format. Even then I sincerely doubt it will be implemented.
I would still like to hear some points about why 20 cards instead of 16, 17, 25, etc. On the one hand, 15 is a kind of arbitrary number itself. I know it's 1/4 of he deck, but it doesn't really have any intrinsic value beyond that and likely wasn't tested. On the other hand, Wizards can easily say "15 cards is working now and has worked for X years." What's the rebuttal to that and, more importantly, what number of SB cards improves the problem?
Opening up 5 more slots in your SB is going to let you plan for possibly one or two more deck archetypes in the meta. There are a lot of decks out there that there is NO way 15 cards can handle the entire Modern Meta. Even at 20 it is still going to be short BUT it gives you a little side game versus MORE of the meta. I'm not sure what makes this so hard to understand for some. There does need to be a cap on the SB, I think it needs to be 20 at the current state, 15 isn't enough in a lot of the decks I play. Giving lower tier decks more support through side boarding could increase deck diversity as well. If not we are going to continue to see the same old catch all cards in sideboards until the end of the format.
As for implementing it that could be accomplished simply by placing the 20 card SB upside down, picking out and displaying upside down the cards boarded in, then picking out those boarded out and displaying the 2 piles for the opponent to quickly count. Sure its a bit more complex but its not rocket science.
I agree it would have to be tested at some level to see the results and get feedback. Do I see Wizards doing it? Doubtful, but we have the Vancouver mulligan rule in place now and that hasn't ended the world so change CAN occur. I think a change is needed but I understand some many not want it. I think it would benefit the format.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I do doubt that the OP or anyone else in this thread has done significant testing with SBs ranging from 16-25 cards. It did seem more of a spitballing thread than anything else though, but it's hard to argue against an established standard if you have no data to back up your argument.
It doesn't take data to know that if you increase the amount of cards in a sideboard, you will increase the ability to interact with more decks in the meta. That is simple statistics.
And speaking of data, you mention it yourself. Why exactly was 15 chosen as the SB count? Did Wizards run data with larger or smaller sizes of other SB's and then come to some mathematical conclusion? No they set it at 15, 1/4 of a 60 card deck and left it at that. Absolutely arbitrary. It may be the standard but it is based on no more "significant testing" than picking a number out of a hat. "Because that's the way we've always done it." doesn't make it a correct decision.
I think the boat needs to be rocked. The meta seems to be growing more diverse right now. Time to start thinking about proactivity over reactivity.
And you don't have to keep calling me "OP" original poster. Anyone can see that. Just address me by name please or use WMP if you want to save keystrokes. We can have a civil discussion without resorting to "beating around the bush". I don't mind discussing these things and I don't mind defending my position. I might even want to start a poll just to get some raw data. (And it could very well support the 15 card position to my disappointment.) Its all good my fellow players, this isn't a life and death matter its a game. Lets enjoy and discuss.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I am not one of them, I quite like Modern, although most of the time you could just show each other your decks, see who goes first and fill in the slips. But it is still fun and is well-defined in terms of its identity.
You could argue that there is nothing wrong with the current pool of cards in Modern so we should not let any new ones join- obviously that would be absurd. Just because nothing is wrong with Modern does not mean it could not be improved, or that changes should be barred or discounted. I don't for one minute think it would happen.
I personally think Modern needs more non critter based tutoring, tutors put answers in hand. Modern needs slightly better answers, but a 18-20 card sideboard would reduce the number of hopeless one sided matches somewhat, and allow more transformational sideboards.
For those of us who grew up in the game reading the Dojo, Scrye, Duelist, and talking to players at tournaments who knew Richard, we remember that there's a push and a pull to the game theory behind the number 15. The push is that when you choose a deck you're inherently choosing all the positive and negative things that come with that deck, and a sideboard should not be too large or else it would fundamentally change the nature of the deck. Sure, you can debate whether or not this is a valid consideration but it was certainly intentional by the game's creator to put a hard cap so as to limit the ability to alter too much of your deck.
The pull is that there are a couple sets of 3 things that the sideboard is intended to address. The first set is (i) matchup against specific decks, (ii) matchup against broader archetypes, and (iii) mirror match. Another set of 3 things is that the sideboard is meant to address the ability of a deck to take advantage of (i) card advantage, (ii) time, and (iii) strategy suppression. We've come to think a certain way about "card advantage" but back then it was basically "if I run Shatter, can I kill a mana source or Zuran Orb?" or Armageddon at 4 taking out multiple lands type of questions.
So you're a master at game theory, you have some of the best Magic players of the time at your disposal, you want an absolute maximum and you have a few sets of 3 things that you want to address with the concept of sideboarding. Numbers aren't accidents. It's not an accident that exactly 1/4 of the minimum allowable MD size is the sweet spot for sideboard size. It's no accident that 15 is divisible by 3, the number of questions each set is attempting to answer. And it's no accident that with testing it turned out to be perfect.
I agree that "it's worked all this time" is not in itself a reason to maintain the status quo. But it's equally true that there's absolutely no virtue in change "for change's sake." If you're making a change of this magnitude you need an articulable problem you're attempting to solve and clear evidence that the solution solves it. The exact problems that Modern has, and which this idea is attempting to solve, are solved in other formats with more consistency tools and more generic, main-deck-able answer cards. Those formats do not need an increase in SB space, and neither does Modern. This idea seems to be a clear example of "round hole, square peg."
More specific to this moment in the Modern format, this idea is far too knee-jerk of a reaction. We've seen over the course of the game's history and especially over the course of Modern's history that meta games ebb and flow. What seems like a problem right now could be completely reined in with a couple new printings, a natural meta game shift, a banning, an unbanning, or other factors. Making such a drastic change when tiny influences could better accomplish the goal is one of the most short-sighted approaches possible.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Bingo.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
What I believe is A) the game has become more diverse than anyone ever thought possible B) it's fun to play magic C) Some decks have a strategy that in part warps the basic concept of the game D) that if one player warps the game, that should not stop another player from playing. If a deck wins by twisting and distorting the rules, there should be adequate answers available for the opponent to bend and twist it back. Of course this is a give and take and chance will often still decide the day but offering decks the ability to fight through a warped world, which ever way it is warped, should be a priority. To me the SB is about interaction. Certain decks don't like to interact. A properly constructed SB can force the issue. A bit more variation couldn't hurt.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Regarding the "twisting and distorting the rules" thing, that's been part of Magic since the 90s. Yes, that's back before PWers and when people were winning with Serra Angels. That's also when people were winning with donating you things that blow up in your face and making armies of squirrels. There's a very popular MTG site named after one of the original combos - casting Channel for enough mana for a lethal Fireball, doing much more than 10 damage in a single turn with 2 non creature spells and very little mana. Or Animate Artifact, Instill Energy and Time Vault to take infinite turns. Heck, Memory Jar was printed in what, 1999?
Sure, the game has changed over the years. But not in the way you're describing and certainly not in a way that would lead to the need to change rules which give Magic its very structure.
If there's a deck in the meta game that distorts the rules and you're worried about it, 75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
It is indeed entirely arbitrary and anyone who thinks it was devised by Magic's greatest minds testing and retesting is deluding themselves. I've played this game off and on since '94 and never saw any evidence supporting a concerted effort was put in to perfect sideboard size. 15 is 1/4 of 60, plain and simple.
@rcwaspy
That is your OPINION, not a fact. I disagree entirely. Just because you feel one way doesn't make that reality. I feel 75 isn't enough. Reality is what ALL players think/feel. A poll would start to get us some hard data. I will be starting one this weekend.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Now, before you blast me for it, I know you're not going to believe me. That's fine. I don't need you to. Just remember that the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. Just because you aren't informed about how they came to the number 15 doesn't mean it's correct to assume it was arbitrary. I find it incredibly hard to fathom that game designers would take a popular game and add an additional 25% to your deck based simply on whim. They theorize and test constantly and always have. There's simply no reason to think they didn't here.
This is also demonstrably false. You're going up against the weight of history. A history where 75 has been perfect and incredibly successful. The FACT is that it has always worked. The FACT is that you're trying to solve a problem that, as I said before, is perfectly solvable in other, less drastic ways. That means that the assumption that 75 is enough is as close to a fact as we have about this issue until proven otherwise. Go prove it, I'll happily read your results.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
This is what I'm talking about. Now though, what if its not just a deck? What if one deck say uses incredibly fast artifacts to level you before turn 4, and one deck turns the rules on their head to utilize their graveyard like an extension of their hand and one other uses spells or abilities to draw their library in a single turn and still another deck just has to deal 10 damage because of an effect.... There isn't a deck twisting the rules, it has virtually become the norm. Multiple times a tournament you can expect to see decks like this and you have 15 slots to prep for it. No way. And do not try and tell me the 90's were anything like what it is now. They weren't. For goodness sakes there are entire formats that exist now that didn't in the '90s. Forget cards and abilities, FORMATS! To give a deck a broader pool of cards to chose from, even if the total swap number is capped, doesn't seem like some grand deviation. Especially in a game where deviation is king.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Great idea to start gathering some datapoints. PM me and the other mods when it's done and we'll merge the threads.
Verbal warning to stop double and triple posting. I believe you are posting from mobile and we know the multiquote doesn't work there, but you still need to respect the multiposting rules.
I am also thinking about the wording of the poll itself. I can do a simple keep 15 vs. more than 15 vote or I can offer numbers 0,5,10,15,16,20 or something like that. I am not adverse to transformative sideboards but a cap of 20 would be the max I would think.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."