WarMachinePrime, I think you are being way to rude to people who take the time to respond to this thread.
I only return the rudeness that was directed at me first. An eye for an eye. Rudeness is one thing a rebuttal is not rudeness. Yes I am responding quite a bit to the detractors. And yes I admit the majority wants to keep the status quo, but I am saying the majority isn't always in the right or correct. I'm calling that into question and some don't like it. I am going to refrain from rudeness directed to you although this last statement " we get it, but dude, relax." could be construed as rudeness towards me. "I" choose to relax, not you.
We need to follow to what most people think although this isn't always correct but minority could be correct sometimes.
Aha, thank you. This is exactly what I'm saying. Majority rule isn't always the "right thing". I could list a litany of human injustices forced upon "the minority" through time. None of them were the right thing. Not trying to equate this with those, but the analogy holds true. I hope you keep an open mind. I will keep mine open to 15 but I truly feel it is the wrong number, I can't change that, sorry.
Lastly, I'd love to hear from the one vote for ZERO. I'd like to hear the justification, I'm curious.
What I am explaining (in my previous post and now as well) is that since you come up with the accusation or the will for change you have to bring proof or data.
The "an eye for an eye" logic definitely doesn't promote constructive discussion.
Additionally when you want to prove the majority wrong (which might be the case, I will never claim that the majority is always right), again, you have to come with data and proof. The fact that the majority isn't always right is not an argument in itself in the same way that claiming the belief that they chose 15 arbitrary is not an argument in itself. You can always say those things, but when you bring them into discussion you need the data to back it up.
Sorry that you thought my last statement was rude, I didn't mean it in a rude way.
Sorry that you thought my last statement was rude, I didn't mean it in a rude way.
Its okay. Words can be construed in many ways on the interwebz without the context of a face to face discussion. I don't really want to continue with the bickering, that's for sure. Too many more critical and vital things in life. With that said, this poll is the beginning of my data. I would love for some entity to pick up a Modern XP format where these hypothesis could be tested. This is the beginning of the process. One that I think will take too long with the roadblocks the always15 contingent will throw in the way to slow it down. Again with data, its simple stats that say more cards in SB means more interactions game 2 and 3. That is simple stats and doesn't need further data collection. I hope some group will take up the query and test a Modern XP format in the near future.
Until then I'd love to see more votes in the poll. And I very well may include a second poll to see why players who want to stick with 15 prioritize their reasons why.
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."
30 plus percent is very significant. Imagine what would happen if a GMO made 30 percent of the people who ate it sick. Or if a deck made up 30 percent of the meta... Does that mean change is necessary. No. But it does mean that there is a significant portion of the playing public (assuming MTGS can be representative of the public...might be reaching a bit here...lol.), that is at least open to the idea of discussing this. Remember how people took the creation of modern? WotC would have been lucky if 60 percent thought it would work. However some thought it would. I don't precisely know why 15 cards was initially chosen Remember early deck sizes were only 40 cards. Does the original sb rule go back that far? The game changes. That's what is great about it. Is this an unnecessary change? IDK. I like the idea though. I think it could bring some fun variance to the game. I don't see that as harmful.
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.
Looks like the poll may be about to run its course. 130 votes so far and thank you to all. Feel free to vote if you haven't yet.
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 read arguments from players and even pros themselves to increase the sideboard count from 15 to 20 to help police the increasingly linear metagame.
I personally think this is an extremely bad idea
1) Leylines (especially Leyline of Sanctity and Leyline of the Void) are in my opinion the worst designed cards in magic. They create these horrible games where matchups between decks like Boggles vs Jund become "Does Boggles have Leyline? Okay, then Boggles just steamrolls the jund deck and they can just sit there and do absolutely nothing. Or No Leyline? kk. Here comes thoughtseize and Liliana. In short, increasing the sideboard count to 20 will push decks to play more leylines and will make too many matchups coin flips.
2) My second problem with this is I find alot of combo decks, i.e. Jeskai Ascendancy keeps the gifts package in their sideboard so they can board into a separate deck post sideboard to fight through hate. if the sideboard count increases to 20, linear decks will be more incentived for these transformational sideboarding where they board into a separate combo.
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
This is actually a pretty interesting discussion. The number 15 was always a pretty arbitrary number. Honestly, though this something hard to figure out without some testing. However, if 20 turns out to be a good number I still would test it in legacy, vintage, and standard as well. If it's not a problem in those formats either. I would then implement it across all formats for consistency.
How much of a difference does 1/4 vs 1/3 of the deck size make for the side board? I am not 100% sure, but I do not see it really hurting anything. I would definitely say its worthwhile to test out.
--- EDIT SIDE NOTE ---
I don't think it would work well for large events, but I always thought the best out of 5 instead of the best out of 3 would interesting for match structure.
I like having 16 or 12 better in some ways, due to it allowing exact playsets. Since the sideboard of 15 seems small sometimes, I think 16 is probably better than 12. It also isn't so much bigger that it heavily encourages transformational sideboards, while still giving a one slot more room for flexible sets of answers to a diverse metagame.
The number 15 was always a pretty arbitrary number.
Please, people, stop saying it's arbitrary. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was arbitrary and all reasonable assumptions given the context of when SBs came about, why they came about, and who created them point to it NOT being arbitrary.
The number 15 was always a pretty arbitrary number.
Please, people, stop saying it's arbitrary. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was arbitrary and all reasonable assumptions given the context of when SBs came about, why they came about, and who created them point to it NOT being arbitrary.
Second.
Absolutely zero evidence has been presented as to the 'arbitrariness' of the number 15. Purklefluff said something referencing articles from back in the day indicating that it was 'crudely tested', however (assuming that this was the case), crude testing is better than NO testing (which is what we've seen from proponents of a sideboard number change).
While it is true that Garfield & Co really couldn't have know how the game would grow or the large number of decks that would be viable, this doesn't mean that we should change the sideboard size (especially ONLY for Modern) 'because Modern is hard to meta for guise'. If you really think that the sideboard size should be changed, please do some testing and let the community (and Wizards) look at your results.
I like having 16 or 12 better in some ways, due to it allowing exact playsets. Since the sideboard of 15 seems small sometimes, I think 16 is probably better than 12. It also isn't so much bigger that it heavily encourages transformational sideboards, while still giving a one slot more room for flexible sets of answers to a diverse metagame.
I'm to the point where I think 16 could be more viable than 20. I think 20 rocks the boat for too many people. Even that one extra slot would be appreciated at this point and 4 sets of 4 makes more sense than just 1/4 of a 60 card deck in my book.
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."
The number 15 was always a pretty arbitrary number.
Please, people, stop saying it's arbitrary. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was arbitrary and all reasonable assumptions given the context of when SBs came about, why they came about, and who created them point to it NOT being arbitrary.
Second.
Absolutely zero evidence has been presented as to the 'arbitrariness' of the number 15. Purklefluff said something referencing articles from back in the day indicating that it was 'crudely tested', however (assuming that this was the case), crude testing is better than NO testing (which is what we've seen from proponents of a sideboard number change).
While it is true that Garfield & Co really couldn't have know how the game would grow or the large number of decks that would be viable, this doesn't mean that we should change the sideboard size (especially ONLY for Modern) 'because Modern is hard to meta for guise'. If you really think that the sideboard size should be changed, please do some testing and let the community (and Wizards) look at your results.
I didn't address it at the time because I didn't want to get into an argument and more importantly I didn't want to keep bumping this ridiculous thread, but there were many things wrong with Purklefluff's post that you reference. The biggest one being that SBs were not part of the original game. There were championship level tournaments without SBs before they came about, so Garfield & Co. both already had made millions on a popular game (proving false his claim that they were under the stress of a start-up) and there was a fair amount of tournament play and tournament player input to go into the decision.
I like having 16 or 12 better in some ways, due to it allowing exact playsets. Since the sideboard of 15 seems small sometimes, I think 16 is probably better than 12. It also isn't so much bigger that it heavily encourages transformational sideboards, while still giving a one slot more room for flexible sets of answers to a diverse metagame.
I'm to the point where I think 16 could be more viable than 20. I think 20 rocks the boat for too many people. Even that one extra slot would be appreciated at this point and 4 sets of 4 makes more sense than just 1/4 of a 60 card deck in my book.
I think 12 probably makes as much sense as anything else. 3 sets of 4 are just as even and lessening the number would have a better impact on the format than increasing it.
My own opinion is 20, but this does nothing to fix a broken and unmanaged eternal format that has zero direct support from the parent company and only exists at the behest of a secondary market built on singles purchases. The top decks will still be the top decks and the demand on a small subset of extremely good and under-printed cards will remain one way or another. Competitive modern is basically like walking into a room and rolling a dice as to whether you're playing super mega spiky player who kills you in 4 turns with affinity or dredge, a guy who plays solitaire a lot and does Tron or some ramp deck, or that guy everyone hates because he happens to play infect or ad nauseum.
For magic to be fun there has to be at least some length to the game being played and the decks have to interact with one another. Wizards bred a nightmare format that pushes people to find ways to do the complete opposite due to competition.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
My own opinion is 20, but this does nothing to fix a broken and unmanaged eternal format that has zero direct support from the parent company and only exists at the behest of a secondary market built on singles purchases. The top decks will still be the top decks and the demand on a small subset of extremely good and under-printed cards will remain one way or another. Competitive modern is basically like walking into a room and rolling a dice as to whether you're playing super mega spiky player who kills you in 4 turns with affinity or dredge, a guy who plays solitaire a lot and does Tron or some ramp deck, or that guy everyone hates because he happens to play infect or ad nauseum.
For magic to be fun there has to be at least some length to the game being played and the decks have to interact with one another. Wizards bred a nightmare format that pushes people to find ways to do the complete opposite due to competition.
"Here's a number I like. By the way, the format I'm talking about is terrible, only exists because people spend money on it (WHAT), and is akin to playing craps but also I hate the different angles from which people throw their dice at me, which means it's not random like I said but I don't like it so I'll continue to ramble about why I hate it (especially since I can play against so many viable decks) without indicating why I chose the number I cited at the beginning of my post which you've probably forgotten by now."
I think 12 probably makes as much sense as anything else. 3 sets of 4 are just as even and lessening the number would have a better impact on the format than increasing it.
I disagree (and the board does as well at ZERO votes for 12) but I don't want to start another argument so I'll leave it at that.
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."
My own opinion is 20, but this does nothing to fix a broken and unmanaged eternal format that has zero direct support from the parent company and only exists at the behest of a secondary market built on singles purchases. The top decks will still be the top decks and the demand on a small subset of extremely good and under-printed cards will remain one way or another. Competitive modern is basically like walking into a room and rolling a dice as to whether you're playing super mega spiky player who kills you in 4 turns with affinity or dredge, a guy who plays solitaire a lot and does Tron or some ramp deck, or that guy everyone hates because he happens to play infect or ad nauseum.
For magic to be fun there has to be at least some length to the game being played and the decks have to interact with one another. Wizards bred a nightmare format that pushes people to find ways to do the complete opposite due to competition.
"Here's a number I like. By the way, the format I'm talking about is terrible, only exists because people spend money on it (WHAT), and is akin to playing craps but also I hate the different angles from which people throw their dice at me, which means it's not random like I said but I don't like it so I'll continue to ramble about why I hate it (especially since I can play against so many viable decks) without indicating why I chose the number I cited at the beginning of my post which you've probably forgotten by now."
... have a cookie?
Don't read into it so deeply. The reality is that people are going to have opinions on modern based on the meta they are exposed to and to be frank competitive modern on most channels looks like a complete joke of a format. Modern pretty much proves that unmanaged long running formats are just not suitable for competitive play because there's no way to control the power creep that occurs. Decks just get more powerful with time and that power requires stronger and stronger answers to get printed, which makes the games get even more swingy.
So the reason I'm voting for 20 cards sideboard is because without the right hate cards the games can be incredibly one sided and will just end on the spot. That might be great for someone on the pro-tour trying to make the most of their time, but it's just awful for anyone who wants to play the actual game and get some kind of joy out of it.
Casual modern is great for the game, though, especially if one isn't following a ban list and is just sticking with modern as any card with a modern border. Then again it ends up playing more like legacy lite that way, but still.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
12 seems too little for me as well. I say it's fine as it is, no more no less than 15 cards. What we need in order for interactive decks have better shot at fighting linear decks is Wizards to reprint better tools, wider cards. If card we can play in the sb will be generic enough to beat multiple linear deck at once then 15 cards in sb is perfectly fine otherwise I don't think even upping the number of them helps much.
Oh I agree that there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to change it from 15.
But if there was a gun to my head and someone said "choose a number other than 15 for Modern SBs" I'd go lower than 15 and not higher. The people who want it higher think that somehow that'll magically let them cover themselves against more matchups. That's an incredibly shortsighted and incorrect thought because it doesn't take into consideration that every other deck also gets extra SB slots. This means that it just evens out and is worse than pointless.
Going lower, though, makes you sacrifice certain matchups in order to be covered in others. While at first glance this seems like a negative, it's actually a positive thing. For ever in Magic every archetype and every deck is both a natural predator and a natural prey. Adding more slots is an attempt to disrupt that natural order, but going lower would force the point and the outcome would be that some decks simply won't be able to hang around. Fewer viable decks results in a much more predictable and stable metagame (which, btw, is not what WOTC seems to want for Modern).
All that said, 15 always has been and always will be the correct number.
By that logic a Sideboard of ZERO cards would be even better than 12. I find that faulty logic and only 6 of 178 respondents think less than 15 is the right amount. I get that some people don't want to rock the boat. I also see that about 40% of respondents to the poll think it shouldn't be 15 either.
I just wanted to touch on this quote, its not an attack.
That said 15 seems the optimal
It "seems optimal" because that is the way it has always been done. Just like 55 mph seems optimal on most rural 2 lane highways in America because its been that way for generations when in fact 60 to 65 mph would be far MORE optimal. Just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't necessarily make it right.
Again, I don't want to draw this out with a long argument, so I'll try to leave it at that again.
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."
By that logic a Sideboard of ZERO cards would be even better than 12. I find that faulty logic and only 6 of 178 respondents think less than 15 is the right amount. I get that some people don't want to rock the boat. I also see that about 40% of respondents to the poll think it shouldn't be 15 either.
I just wanted to touch on this quote, its not an attack.
No, that's not correct. Saying that fewer would be better than more does not extend to the absolute of zero. That's the equivalent of me saying that because you want 16 or 20 and think that more than 15 is better, it must mean that 120 SB slots, so you can play 3 distinct decks in games 1, 2, and 3, is the extension of your logic. It simply doesn't follow.
By that logic a Sideboard of ZERO cards would be even better than 12. I find that faulty logic and only 6 of 178 respondents think less than 15 is the right amount. I get that some people don't want to rock the boat. I also see that about 40% of respondents to the poll think it shouldn't be 15 either.
I just wanted to touch on this quote, its not an attack.
No, that's not correct. Saying that fewer would be better than more does not extend to the absolute of zero. That's the equivalent of me saying that because you want 16 or 20 and think that more than 15 is better, it must mean that 120 SB slots, so you can play 3 distinct decks in games 1, 2, and 3, is the extension of your logic. It simply doesn't follow.
Well we agree with the illogic of saying taking it to 0 or infinity would make it better. Hey common ground. So here we are back at some range between 12 and 20. At this point its just going to come down as to preference. For now it looks like a majority would agree with you and I'm okay with that. BUT… There is a significant percentage of the sample that says 15 is not the correct number in their estimation. You may not like it, but that is how it stands. I personally hope Wizards addresses this at some point.
And I'd still like to see at least 200 votes so keep them coming if you haven't.
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."
Here's a couple of quotes and replies from the article.
From Saffron Olive:
One of the big problems with interactive midrange and control decks in Modern is that it's next to impossible to pack enough cards in your deck to compete with all of the goldfish decks, because while all of these decks can kill on Turn 3, they do so in very different ways. Dredge is beatable if you pack at least four graveyard-disruption cards in your sideboard, just like Affinity is beatable if you have a bunch of artifact hate, Tron if you have Fulminator Mage, Infect if you have Sudden Shock and Gut Shot, and Death's Shadow Zoo / Burn if you have Chalice of the Void. The problem is there simply are not enough slots to go around, so by building your deck to beat Dredge, you lose to another Turn 3 goldfish deck.
I still think that Dredge is very beatable if you are willing to pack enough sideboard hate, the challenge in Modern is packing enough hate and still having game in other matchups.
From Taylor Goodland
What about another option? Could Wizards consider instituting a 20-card sideboard rule in modern?
And some replies to that, including one from Saffron Olive:
Larger sideboards in non rotating formats would be good, but i am not sure about going up to 20.
That's another possibility. Whether it's a good option or not, I'm not sure.
Just some more thoughts from the interwebz. I see this trend continuing, not sure as we've seen in the thread that it will warrant any changes though. Time will tell I guess.
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.
The "an eye for an eye" logic definitely doesn't promote constructive discussion.
Additionally when you want to prove the majority wrong (which might be the case, I will never claim that the majority is always right), again, you have to come with data and proof. The fact that the majority isn't always right is not an argument in itself in the same way that claiming the belief that they chose 15 arbitrary is not an argument in itself. You can always say those things, but when you bring them into discussion you need the data to back it up.
Sorry that you thought my last statement was rude, I didn't mean it in a rude way.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Its okay. Words can be construed in many ways on the interwebz without the context of a face to face discussion. I don't really want to continue with the bickering, that's for sure. Too many more critical and vital things in life. With that said, this poll is the beginning of my data. I would love for some entity to pick up a Modern XP format where these hypothesis could be tested. This is the beginning of the process. One that I think will take too long with the roadblocks the always15 contingent will throw in the way to slow it down. Again with data, its simple stats that say more cards in SB means more interactions game 2 and 3. That is simple stats and doesn't need further data collection. I hope some group will take up the query and test a Modern XP format in the near future.
Until then I'd love to see more votes in the poll. And I very well may include a second poll to see why players who want to stick with 15 prioritize their reasons why.
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."
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.
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."
but until that happens i believe we will need sideboards.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
I personally think this is an extremely bad idea
1) Leylines (especially Leyline of Sanctity and Leyline of the Void) are in my opinion the worst designed cards in magic. They create these horrible games where matchups between decks like Boggles vs Jund become "Does Boggles have Leyline? Okay, then Boggles just steamrolls the jund deck and they can just sit there and do absolutely nothing. Or No Leyline? kk. Here comes thoughtseize and Liliana. In short, increasing the sideboard count to 20 will push decks to play more leylines and will make too many matchups coin flips.
2) My second problem with this is I find alot of combo decks, i.e. Jeskai Ascendancy keeps the gifts package in their sideboard so they can board into a separate deck post sideboard to fight through hate. if the sideboard count increases to 20, linear decks will be more incentived for these transformational sideboarding where they board into a separate combo.
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
How much of a difference does 1/4 vs 1/3 of the deck size make for the side board? I am not 100% sure, but I do not see it really hurting anything. I would definitely say its worthwhile to test out.
--- EDIT SIDE NOTE ---
I don't think it would work well for large events, but I always thought the best out of 5 instead of the best out of 3 would interesting for match structure.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
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
Second.
Absolutely zero evidence has been presented as to the 'arbitrariness' of the number 15. Purklefluff said something referencing articles from back in the day indicating that it was 'crudely tested', however (assuming that this was the case), crude testing is better than NO testing (which is what we've seen from proponents of a sideboard number change).
While it is true that Garfield & Co really couldn't have know how the game would grow or the large number of decks that would be viable, this doesn't mean that we should change the sideboard size (especially ONLY for Modern) 'because Modern is hard to meta for guise'. If you really think that the sideboard size should be changed, please do some testing and let the community (and Wizards) look at your results.
if there is a problem with modern then changing the SB size is the worst possible way to address this problem anyway.
Youtube Channel
I'm to the point where I think 16 could be more viable than 20. I think 20 rocks the boat for too many people. Even that one extra slot would be appreciated at this point and 4 sets of 4 makes more sense than just 1/4 of a 60 card deck in my book.
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 12 probably makes as much sense as anything else. 3 sets of 4 are just as even and lessening the number would have a better impact on the format than increasing it.
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
For magic to be fun there has to be at least some length to the game being played and the decks have to interact with one another. Wizards bred a nightmare format that pushes people to find ways to do the complete opposite due to competition.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
"Here's a number I like. By the way, the format I'm talking about is terrible, only exists because people spend money on it (WHAT), and is akin to playing craps but also I hate the different angles from which people throw their dice at me, which means it's not random like I said but I don't like it so I'll continue to ramble about why I hate it (especially since I can play against so many viable decks) without indicating why I chose the number I cited at the beginning of my post which you've probably forgotten by now."
I disagree (and the board does as well at ZERO votes for 12) but I don't want to start another argument so I'll leave it at that.
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."
... have a cookie?
Don't read into it so deeply. The reality is that people are going to have opinions on modern based on the meta they are exposed to and to be frank competitive modern on most channels looks like a complete joke of a format. Modern pretty much proves that unmanaged long running formats are just not suitable for competitive play because there's no way to control the power creep that occurs. Decks just get more powerful with time and that power requires stronger and stronger answers to get printed, which makes the games get even more swingy.
So the reason I'm voting for 20 cards sideboard is because without the right hate cards the games can be incredibly one sided and will just end on the spot. That might be great for someone on the pro-tour trying to make the most of their time, but it's just awful for anyone who wants to play the actual game and get some kind of joy out of it.
Casual modern is great for the game, though, especially if one isn't following a ban list and is just sticking with modern as any card with a modern border. Then again it ends up playing more like legacy lite that way, but still.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
But if there was a gun to my head and someone said "choose a number other than 15 for Modern SBs" I'd go lower than 15 and not higher. The people who want it higher think that somehow that'll magically let them cover themselves against more matchups. That's an incredibly shortsighted and incorrect thought because it doesn't take into consideration that every other deck also gets extra SB slots. This means that it just evens out and is worse than pointless.
Going lower, though, makes you sacrifice certain matchups in order to be covered in others. While at first glance this seems like a negative, it's actually a positive thing. For ever in Magic every archetype and every deck is both a natural predator and a natural prey. Adding more slots is an attempt to disrupt that natural order, but going lower would force the point and the outcome would be that some decks simply won't be able to hang around. Fewer viable decks results in a much more predictable and stable metagame (which, btw, is not what WOTC seems to want for Modern).
All that said, 15 always has been and always will be the correct number.
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
By that logic a Sideboard of ZERO cards would be even better than 12. I find that faulty logic and only 6 of 178 respondents think less than 15 is the right amount. I get that some people don't want to rock the boat. I also see that about 40% of respondents to the poll think it shouldn't be 15 either.
I just wanted to touch on this quote, its not an attack.
It "seems optimal" because that is the way it has always been done. Just like 55 mph seems optimal on most rural 2 lane highways in America because its been that way for generations when in fact 60 to 65 mph would be far MORE optimal. Just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't necessarily make it right.
Again, I don't want to draw this out with a long argument, so I'll try to leave it at that again.
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."
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
Well we agree with the illogic of saying taking it to 0 or infinity would make it better. Hey common ground. So here we are back at some range between 12 and 20. At this point its just going to come down as to preference. For now it looks like a majority would agree with you and I'm okay with that. BUT… There is a significant percentage of the sample that says 15 is not the correct number in their estimation. You may not like it, but that is how it stands. I personally hope Wizards addresses this at some point.
And I'd still like to see at least 200 votes so keep them coming if you haven't.
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."
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/deck-evolutions-modern-dredge
Here's a couple of quotes and replies from the article.
From Saffron Olive:
From Taylor Goodland
And some replies to that, including one from Saffron Olive:
Just some more thoughts from the interwebz. I see this trend continuing, not sure as we've seen in the thread that it will warrant any changes though. Time will tell I guess.
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."